Hey all!
Not the best start to the week: submitted two papers months ago and got responses today.

One paper submitted to the top journal in my field got rejected- the editor's letter was personalised and said that the analysis was well-exectued and it was interesting but not significant enough for a general-interest journal. I don't even know what that means to be honest! I introduce a new model for heaven's sake so it can't get more original than that! If the analysis was poor (i.e. the model was flawed) then fair enough but this is strange- is it common to get rejections from journals (I don't know what the stats for rejection/acceptance are generally) any clues?

The second paper got a revise and resubmit, and I have to add more sections (though I don't need to do more research) even though it's based on my PhD which passed and was praised by my supervisor. Is it just me or is it very difficult to get published anywhere these days (this journal doesn't have the same impact factor ranking).

Starting to feel a bit discouraged by the publishing side of academia but I don't have much experience so any views would be appreciated.

It's quite common to get rejections. My PhD supervisor, a top notch professor in my subject area and globally well known, once told me that even professors sometimes get their manuscripts rejected. You need to factor in the rejection rate for that particular journal--which means that quite often, very good (bordering on excellent) manuscripts get rejected. Rejection stats vary from one journal to the other. What I would do is to take cognizance of the reviewers' comments in redrafting the paper before sending it to another journal with similar (or slightly lower) Quartile ranking. You may find this link ( http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php ) useful concerning journal ranking in most fields.

It may not even mean the analysis was "well"-executed. But the greater problem may be there is no significant impact or the results are only incremental.

Just try another journal with slightly lower impact factor. Or appeal for another review if you are very confident that your paper has significant impact.

Hiya, I read the comment about your article not being significant enough for a general interest journal as meaning that you should try a more specialised publication that caters for a relevant niche. That was my immediate understanding.
Hope that helps a bit.

Sorry to hear your news, but you need to take it on the chin and move on. And you should be really grateful that they rejected you quickly. Sometimes journals can take up to 2 years, in some fields, before rejecting outright. Thank you not!

Concentrate for now on the revise and resubmit. You've got a foot in the door. I've had quite a few revise and resubmits, and although they can initially be a bit tough to take I now view them very positively. Make the changes they say, resubmit. You stand a very high chance of being published.

With the other paper, possibly rewrite it a bit, but certainly find another journal. It's likely the one you aimed at has a very low acceptance rate for papers, and will only accept the very very best. It isn't enough that your work has passed a PhD - journals have higher more discriminating standards than that! They can pick what they like. So look for other journals, perhaps one slightly more closely suited to your research, and submit there.

But don't be disheartened. As others have said this happens to the very best academics. And remember as I said getting a revise and resubmit is very good and positive.

Hi Eska, that's what I thought as well and my supervisor is under that impression as well. He suggested that I send it to a more specific journal. I'm not sure what to do now though as my confidence in the paper is a bit shaken. Seems that the acceptance rate to this journal is only 8% (according to Google search). Is that low by journal standards?

Thanks Bilbo. Yes I suppose turnout has been fast- mind you they have to speed things up given the demand.

I'm working on the revise and resubmit although I must say I find the reviewer's comments in some cases outrageous- do you still think I should just "follow" his/her instructions?

I will try submitting the other paper to another journal and see what happens. If it gets rejected there as well then I'll possibly rewrite it. It was a top journal and have an 8% acceptance rate (which I'm assuming is quite low?). I'm just wondering if this has happened to you and others here so I can learn something from your experiences.

When i rejected some papers, i also used words like 'well-exectued' and 'interesting' such that the comments do not appear very discouraging. i may not really mean it...

However, the reviewers can be biased... Yes. 8% is quite low.

Your comments are not helpful whatsoever: the editor could've meant it or not- it's 50/50 and it doesn't change the outcome. If your mission is to put people needing advice down then maybe you shouldn't post messages.

Anyway, most of us here are still struggling to publish papers in average journals.

You are probably the best in this forum to submit paper in the top journal! Good luck!

MeaninginLife is being honest - sometimes reviewers' comments are meaningful, sometimes they are generic. The point is that unless they give specific feedback on actual details of your work then the comments in the editor's letter are probably not worth spending too much energy on.

Overall the initial scenario you describe sounds quite positive. You've got one journal quite interested in your work. The other one, well you took a punt on a top-flight, high impact, generalist journal that rejects 92% of the stuff sent to it. That you got rejected is in no way a reflection of the quality of work, so don't let it knock your confidence. Take the advice and identify a decent more specialist journal to try.

One other thing - the process around submitting and being rejected seems to have taken you a bit by surprise. Talk to other people in your department about their publishing experiences and also google around to find advice (see especially, perceptions of "Reviewer 3"). In my field people compete over how quickly they get rejected by the British Medical Journal (fastest time I've heard: 15 mins!). So accept that this is all a normal experience which you will come across again throughout your career.

8% is an extremely low acceptance rate. You would be extremely fortunate to be accepted for publication in that journal. And you weren't, so move on to another (probably lower impact) one. Don't mourn for the lost one. It's not worth it, and a waste of time/energy.

How far you bend towards the reviewer's comments is a matter for yourself, but you need to make some concessions, otherwise the editor is likely to just reject your revised version. If you still have a big issue with some of the reviewer's comments you can say why you are not following all of them. But generally I would recommend that you make the changes suggested, or be seen to make the changes, even if it it can be a bit exasperating. And try not to be too emotive in your response / after reading them. It helps to put the paper and the reviewer's comments to one side for a few weeks, to give yourself a bit more emotional distance from it, and to help you to be more brutal in your revisions.

Good luck!

Yes I quite agree with this.

Oh and to put that 8% in context, the majority of people submitting to that journal will have PhDs, and many will be long-term seasoned academics. But even that aside just a tiny proportion of papers submitted to that journal are accepted. So the editors can be very very choosy. It's not a bad reflection on you that yours wasn't accepted, just simple numbers and reality. But there should be plenty of other journals you can turn to, and it's likely that you will see the piece in print eventually. So keep going with it!

Is the impact rating that important anymore? When most of us look for papers we use the internet to search for papers relevant to our topics of research, then download and read them with a cursory nod at most as to which journal they were printed in.

I personally think in the days of the internet, too much attachment is made to impact ratings. I'm more interested in the quality of the document and there's some decent documents with good research even in lower impact journals.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)