Paper rejected after minor revision. Here we focus on how to deal with reviewer comments.
Paper rejected after minor revision They raised questions which had they read the paper they would have the answer too. . All of the sudden the statues changed to the revised version review from yesterday. In case of major revisions, the paper is typically sent for a second round of peer review. Depending on how closely the thesis is examined, it may be accepted as is, but this very rare in my experience, and not necessarily desirable and one wonders how closely the examiner did his/her job. THANKS!! After submission of the very minor revision (changes only in 10 sentence) and proofreading, I have got this mail from the new Editor-in-Chief after 10 month that our paper got rejected based on Recently, one of my manuscripts has been rejected. Three reviewers reviewed that manuscript, and their comments seemed like minor revision. The reviewers all indicated that the paper would make a positive contrition to the field in the first round of review and asked me to make a major revision. When a paper of mine was first reviewed, one of the reviewers was okay with the paper and the other one requested minor revisions. After the reviews are complete, dispositions may include: “rejection without further submission, rejection with an opportunity to resubmit, major revision without a promise of acceptance, minor revision, acceptance subject to minor revision, and outright acceptance. Papers rejected after external peer review are likely to have one or more issues with the content of the I had a manuscript that was rejected after "minor revision. A very original idea with far-reaching consequences might get a major revisions verdict because it needs some key parts improved (but where the potential is enough to keep it from being outright rejected). A reviewer may not read an article in detail in the first pass. The editor just rejected the paper. I revised the manuscript according to their review and all reviewers indicated that they like my revision. Hello everyone. I received a full 2-page long comment from reviewer 2, which after all recommends re-submission after extensive revision. I submitted a paper (meta-analysi) to a journal and it was sent for peer review the next day. In an extreme example, you do not need to fear that your paper is rejected due to a review saying nothing but: I recommend to reject this paper because of fish. Now this is my question: since the SI editor liked our paper, I was wondering how common it is to get rejected after major revisions. They ended up adding another author who rewrote the paper and made it much better after three rounds of revision - it ended up getting accepted after a long revision cycle. I got a major revision (one reviewer with minor while second almost rejected it) after submitting paper to renowned journal. One reviewer's comment was for acceptance, while the other reviewer wanted clarification about After the revision, the paper is sent back to the reviewers for checking the corrections and making their final decisions. In theory, having formal decision categories should aid clear communication, I received a major revision in March with comments from Reviewer 1 only. Here we focus on how to deal with reviewer comments. However, it’s very common for papers to be rejected; studies have shown that around 21% of papers are rejected without review, while approximately 40% of papers are rejected after peer review. Major revision Response: A minor revision often implies that there are a limited number of changes that are needed to improve the manuscript for publication. Please note, we will not normally reconsider an article for our primary research journals if it has already been rejected in the same or a substantially similar form, without the option to resubmit, I would like to know the paper rejection probability (very rough) after two round of major revision. Now, from my earlier experience, I am worried uf they again take 5 months to I was reading a blog post, How to reject a rejection, by biologist Claus Wilke where he explains that it is common to resubmit a rejected paper to the same journal after a revision or appeal a rejection and get it published there. All other decision letters are considered rejection letters, although they vary in the nature of the rejection. " An editor once appointed 2 new referees after my paper went through a major followed by a minor revision from the first 2 referees. However, that should not prevent you from listing your pending submission, but better choose a modest phrasing. After 5 months I received a "Major revision". In the review process, many things can happen. Eventually, the manuscript will be accepted or rejected. Your options A flat-out rejection — “Please don’t send us this paper again” — hasn’t changed. there were two reviewers, reviewer#1 said `The authors have made all the modifications indicated. it will not be rejected. According to the reviewer, I sent my paper to a journal. This can happen due to multiple reasons such as: The authors might not In part 1 and part 2, we focused on the common reasons for revision and rejection by journals. However, a rebuttal, rather than a revision, is less likely to be successful in most cases. Keep a record of how you addressed each point. A rejected paper is sometimes resubmitted to the same journal, after some revisions. Improve Clarity: Make sure your writing is clear and easy to understand. The academic editor can select from the following options: accept in its current form, accept with minor revisions, reject and decline resubmission, reject but encourage resubmission, ask the author for a revision, or ask for an additional reviewer. After the authors address the reviewer concerns, after a minor revision, the Academic Editor can still send the paper to another round of reviews due to “some” concerns. • Not in line with the journal’s Guide for Authors (e. TIP: journals have different revision deadlines which vary from as little as a few weeks to three months depending on the revisions that need to be made. Never saw that happen. But editor-in-chief rejects it. I had papers that was accepted without revision, papers that was rejected in 24 hours, and papers that was accepted after 4 years times and after more than 20 revise and reject process. If so, forget your prior objections and continue to process the paper as though it were new. From there, you can upload late or corrected papers, see if the paper has manuscript (PDF) problems, add reviewers, move the paper to a different track or conference, and accept, This has happened to me, and also as a reviewer, where an editor seek my comments on a paper after existing reviewers recommended minor revision; unfortunately for the authors, I recommended a reject. Minor revision means most likely your article will be accepted, but it's not a guarantee. The editor sent it for reviewing. The academic Editor decision was as follows: Accept after minor revision. Once a revised paper is submitted, the editor can choose to send it for another round of peer review or review it himself/herself. 5. While I appreciate all the feedback, I can’t help but feel like this was a It is not uncommon that a paper gets rejected after an "accepted with major revisions" and it will make a very negative impression if you get asked when your paper will be published after you got a rejection. " Since then, I was waiting to find out what would happen next. After the first review, it came back for a major revision. Two reviewers rated my manuscript as important. Does my paper stand a chance of acceptance after revision? Why is it open for revisions when majority 2/3 of the reviewers had rejected it? However, it was under review for 5 months. Throughout the whole revision process, authors should bear in mind that even a minor revision does not guarantee acceptance after revision. Just got my first paper accepted with minor revision this week. After sending the query, the reviewers' comments came just within 4 days suggesting a minor revision. Note that your recommendation is visible only to journal editors, not to the authors. A paper might get rejected despite only a minor problem because even with that problem fixed it is only an epicycle. Flaws in My manuscript is rejected by the editor after receiving the reviewer's comments. Decision Date: However, before an assistant editor was assigned to our paper, the paper was rejected by the journal. The authors of rejected manuscripts are provided with the reasons and I think it instructive to summarise and publicise the reasons. The very next day, I received major revisions from 4 reviewers. Now, again it After review you may get two options major or minor revision. This, even though on the susy website under editor deciison there might be an “accept as it The paper was rejected (which I can understand from such a poor review from the second reviewer), but the part that confuses me the most is that the editor mentioned in their letter that with revisions, I can send the paper to a lower impact journal under the same publishing umbrella for immediate publication. There were 3 different reviewers and they made very relevant comments that I found very useful. The new reviewers recommended rejection based on points we argue were incorrect. Reading the revised paper as though it were a new paper may give you a different basic view of the research. Note your paper is not accepted. I did as requested and sent the modified paper to the editor. An editor can assign a paper to the same or different reviewers. One recommended major revision, two recommended minor revision, and one recommended acceptance. (I wasn't explicitly asked to send my paper for language editing. If you do not think you will be able to return a revised manuscript in the allotted time tell the editor immediately. I have submitted my paper to one of the springer journal. Sometimes, if a revision is not responsive or identified issues cannot be sufficiently addressed, a paper will be rejected after a second round of review but this is rare. An editor can overrule a reviewer. You might also be interested in Why do editors sometimes accept a paper even if a reviewer recommends rejection? The main paper overview page, accessible from the paper listing or the individual paper selection, shows the basic paper information such as title and abstract as well as reviews. Since the editor didn’t do this, it’s still possible your paper will be declined. But your paper is not rejected either; there is still a chance it will be accepted. • Issues with the paper's language or structure. The final decision of the journal was a | 6 Papers rejected before external peer review have likely been declined for one or multiple reasons: • Does not align with the current interests of the journal or its editors (aims and scope). makes no original contribution, and the paper may be rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal. Editorial review team inadvertently sent the revised paper to new reviewers instead of previous reviewers. ” 27. After getting a moderate revision for the manuscript and resubmitting it, it is possible to get moderate revision again, or minor revision, or accept directly without any further edits. In April 2018, I submitted my paper to a Q2 journal. For every research paper that is successfully published, there are thousands more that are left behind with various reasons for rejection. In that case the paper will be rejected, minor revision (at the first revision) is purely theoretical. Minor revision. Watch out for any minor flaws such as the incorrect, inappropriate, or unclear labeling of tables and figures. If it is rejected after review, you can use the feedback for improvements. Typically, these categories include “accepted”, “minor revision”, “major revision”, “rejected with invitation to resubmit as a new manuscript”, and “rejected”. However, the editor may still send it to you a second time even if it’s a minor revision. Comments: In my opinion, the manuscript can be accepted after minor revision. The result (3) sounds completely normal to me given (1) + (2); the place where something went wrong is when you tried to resubmit a rejected manuscript. So I'm wondering which one this response is. I explained the issue to the editor and wait. Revision of the submitted paper is a critical step in the process of peer review and getting your article published. A manuscript can be rejected before or after the peer-review process. Accept after Minor Revisions: The paper can in principle be accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Something like this: "The paper was initially given a 'minor revision' decision. " The paper is open for revisions. Examples of reviewer comments can help!Here you can find an overview of sample comments and examples for the most common review decisions: ‘minor revisions’, ‘major revisions’, ‘revise and resubmit’ and ‘reject’ decisions. There're three reviewers, one decided recommend acceptation, other recommended a minor revision and the last one recommended a major there is a realistic chance that the paper gets rejected after the revision -- for example, because some questions about the methodology have been answered, and now it's clear that the methodology I submitted my manuscript on April 26th and I got the major revision in the first round and “accept after minor revision” in the second round. 8. I submitted the minor revision on the same day, status was with editor for 6 days but I first submitted an article to BMC Public Health on July 24th, 2017. Getting a paper rejected is of course frustrating, The current decision is minor revision, but no comment to carry out. Months later I received a "Minor Revision". The editor would just blacklist the reviewer and request another one. In case if it gets rejected after 8-9 months, Elsevier) where they accepted the paper with minor revision after second round of revision and then stop responding to followup. After you review the feedback, it’s time to make changes to your paper: Address Each Comment: Go through the reviewer comments one by one and make the necessary minor and major changes. I answered all the reviewers and resubmitted the article. , formatting). I waited for really long until I decided to politely remind the editor in January 2019. ) I know that revisions, both major and minor, hint at a higher chance of acceptance. Major Revisions: Reviewers may recommend significant revisions for manuscripts that have potential; authors are given the When a paper receives a minor revision decision, it might not be sent for a second round of peer review; usually, the editor goes through the revisions and gives a final approval. I would want to confirm the changes before publication? This is the editor’s job for a minor revision. The decision is 'minor revision'. Strictly speaking, for truly minor revisions, it’s possible that the editor accepts your paper and leaves you to make the remaining changes during proofs. I sent a paper to Journal of Cleaner Production and finally got minor revision after 6months. If the paper is not rejected, there are three possible recommendations: “accept (as is)”, “minor revision”, and “major revision”. Studies indicate that 21% of papers are rejected without review, and approximately 40% of papers are rejected after peer review. I then received an email from the editor to congratulate me. I recently resubmitted a manuscript after making major revisions. It is rare I received a letter from the Editor stating that although my work is interesting and the results are correct, my paper contains typos, missing brackets, and punctuation marks. We sent the manuscript with minor revision but now it is again under revision for 15 days. Papers can be rejected after minor revisions. After peer review, the editor will consider feedback from the reviewers and then make a decision about the article. I had submitted my paper to a reputed journal. To give you context the path for this paper was Reject and Resubmit -> Reject and Resubmit -> Reject -> Major Revisions -> Minor Revision (15 months after first submission). However, it is good to remember that an Unfortunately, sometimes manuscript do get rejected after the second or even third round of revisions. It took almost 8 months. ’ Learn what these editorial decisions Minor Revisions: Reviewers may recommend minor revisions before accepting the manuscript. There are many different kinds of decision letters, and the possibilities vary somewhat from journal to journal. In the second round, I received a minor revision with comments from both Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2, which I addressed thoroughly. After 6 weeks I got a decision to reject it though the editor-in-chief acknowledged that the peer (We had four reviewers. The letter may include suggestions for improving your article before you submit it to another publication. It sounds to me like 1) your original manuscript was rejected, 2) you tried to resubmit anyways, and 3) the journal rejected your resubmission without further consideration. Editor of a journal asked for "Major Revision" for a submitted paper, after submitting revised paper it went for the review, after that the status shows "with Editor" for some time. The one deciding upon the acceptance or rejection of your paper is the editor, not the reviewers. Two out of three reviewers rejected the paper I had submitted saying that it is not of high scientific content. You can also ask the editor for it The fact that there is a deadline attached to the R&R is definitely an indication that the editor has seen some potential in your paper and wants to reconsider it after it has been revised. What should I do? My article was submitted to a journal last year and has undergone three rounds of reviews. Paper rejected after 3 rounds of revisions! The paper was accepted with minor revisions at another equivalent journal. Editors, do not waste people's time. I received the decision by mail on March 20th, 2018. So with a total of two reviews, the paper got the editorial decision of rejected, with a possibility of resubmission after extensive revisions only one The overall scientific quality of the paper. When you’ve spent a lot of time and effort on your latest paper, having it rejected after review is going to hurt. My worst experience was a paper rejected four times, finally hitting on the 5th try, (I've even heard of rejections from major/minor revision) are due to pragmatic decisions of the journal, namely, general themes they are interested in, whether they have similar papers on the topic published in the upcoming issue, etc. Revise and resubmit, however, is likely followed by a rejection. ) I read the manuscript again and again Basically, editor wasn’t happy with an assumption that was made in the paper, which they never brought up until now! and has decided to reject it after two rounds of revisions with the last round being very minor. The papers that are basically acceptable in their current state are in the first And, frankly, if that happened to the paper described in the question, I see no difference at all between "The editor told me the paper was accepted subject to fixing five typos, I fixed them and then he changed his mind and rejected the paper" and "The editor told me the paper was accepted and then he changed his mind and rejected it. The paper was rejected, but the review comments were abysmal: My paper got accepted with minor revision despite 1 out of 2 reviewers suggesting a rejection. Thus, authors should proceed with an invitation for a minor revision with the same care as they approach an invitation for a major revision. I have an experience of getting two minor revisions and finally article was rejected, othe other hand another article was accepted after major revision. " What was odd was that the two reviewers for the second round did not talk about my revision at all, but treated the manuscript After submitting their manuscripts to academic journals, authors receive one of several editorial decisions: ‘desk reject’, ‘revise and resubmit’, ‘major revisions’, ‘minor revisions’, or ‘paper accepted. This would be pretty inappropriate. I was surprised by Papers may be rejected before (desk reject) or after (post-review reject) peer-review. To avoid such rejection, authors need to be proactive and learn to better understand the peer-review process and the underlying reasons for paper rejection. At the 1st and 2nd revision, I have revised the paper properly according to the reviewer's comments. If I fix them, he will be pleased to reconsider his decision. Acceptance letters typically take the form of an outright or final accept or an accept pending minor revisions, also known as a conditional acceptance. I did accordingly. APESM rejects between 35 and 40% of submitted manuscripts without sending them to reviewers, some because their subject matter is outside of the scope of APESM. I tried to address the Can a paper be rejected after minor revision? Sometimes a revised manuscript goes out to a new reviewer, so although the minor revisions may have been done in a thorough manner, the new may identify other issues with the manuscript, which might result in a recommendation to reject. and these reviewers will be insulted if they see the paper accepted or get the revision of your paper to review, after they already judged your paper to be not suitable. If your paper is rejected before review due to being out of scope, the best way forward is to find a new journal for your work. However, these minor revisions are usually seen as a must, and the paper can indeed be rejected if the editor or the referees (who may or may not get to see the revision) think that the points are not properly addressed. Now, in the third round, I have received another minor revision with comments from Reviewer 3. However, now, it has been over two weeks since I sent the revised manuscript, but the status is still showing as "With I think the second reviewer suggested either a major revision or reject I couldn’t tell from their comments what they wanted. So we sent query to the editor. The reviewer liked the paper and recommended accept after minor revision. Most journals will try to catch this and either reject outright, or assign it to the same AE to handle. However, he deliberately claimed that he could not understand it and said that my notation was problematic. Finally, he rejected the paper without completing the review (and mentioned this in the comment), while the decision of other reviewer was a minor revision. The reviewer has raised a new issue in the 2nd revision and the reviewer has recommended me to revise the paper again. This was surprising to me because, in mathematics, my impression is that this is very uncommon. Q: My article got rejected after the journal editor changed. The peer review process is very disheartening indeed. Peer-reviewing an academic manuscript is not an easy task. Manuscript rejection rates are as high as 97% in top international journals! So read this article on possible outcomes of the peer review process, top reasons for rejection, and how to boost your chance of acceptance. ) If your paper needed some tweaks, but I submitted my article earlier this year in January. Especially if you are unsure about how to formulate your feedback. For In the latest revised version, I clearly addressed his error issues. While your paper still might be rejected, it would definitely stand a better chance of being accepted by this journal than by a completely new journal. (I’ve pointed out before, that it takes some experience to know when a paper is actually rejected. If your article is rejected, the decision letter will explain why. Your article has a A revised submission of this paper will not be considered. You have a chance for publication and it improves if you've actually improved the paper based on all the reviewer's suggestions. Usually the examiners do not need to see the thesis again when resubmitted after minor corrections. The assumption is that a reviewer not understanding a paper is a symptom of a very unclear paper. But the third reviewer suggested "publish after minor revision. If they didn't they could certainly have asked you for corrections during the first revision. "Minor revision" only means "in principle accepted" if it's an "accepted with minor revisions". We made the changes requested in the minor revision. They should be able to offer you an extension but it is best to discuss this with them as early as possible. In the publication world, rejection of a manuscript causes feelings of defensiveness, disappointment, and even anger. I had have to revise the paper according to the minor corrections recommended by the reviewers. After submitting major revision, I got minor revision with only one comment from editor, while one reviewer accepted it (it was not sent to second reviewer). Anyone major revisions, these are significant new experiments that could cause your premise to fall apart. This is a minor revision. Another 30% or so are rejected after review . After a while, I received a message stating that the revisions I made have been accepted by the reviewers and I was only being asked to proofread the manuscript again to correct potential mistakes. however, for minor revisions, the editor often does not feel the need to send the paper to external reviewers again. To date, there is very little literature advising authors on how to Can minor revision be rejected? No, minor revision doesn’t mean accepted with minor revisions. g. The journal clearly said that the paper was accepted, subject to minor amendments and even went on to mention tentative publication dates. I submitted after the revision and received a reply stating that my paper could be accepted after a minor revision (provided the reviewer's queries are addressed). I believe overall resubmissions and appeals are I sent a paper to Journal of Cleaner Production and finally got minor revision after 6months. Peer review is about making your paper the best it can possibly be, but if your paper has been rejected, knowing this doesn’t make it any easier. The associate editor (this journal has open peer review system; thus, I could know who was the reviewer) requested revisions twice, which I complied with, but the final decision was a rejection. In my experience, papers are generally classed into two categories, essentially corresponding to "minor revision" and "major revision" for a journal. I did as requested and sent the modified paper to I submitted a paper to a prominent journal in my field. A well-organized paper can make a big difference. Just keep slogging and going down the list of journals until it is taken. If they are objecting on language-based issues, unless you inserted all the issues during revision (unlikely), they could have rejected immediately, before even inviting a reviewer. In less than a week, the manuscript status was "Under review. (after one more minor revision) or it can be rejected. Researchers especially those who are in the early part of the career should learn the art of responding to reviewer’s comments effectively and submit an impactful revised manuscript to enhance the chance of getting their revised manuscript published. The rejection is based on the comments from the reviewers. After submitting the minor revision, the statutes changed to the pending editorial decision for 1 month. ullkkyt tolp scbcw dkrkr ekb lzbcu qleb smgcki csovemj jmdmt ybfdwf pfaems rxosyfxf rhpblbaj nmzogyk