If your article is accepted for review, at some point, usually when you have forgotten your article and when it is most inconvenient, you may receive one of three letters from an editor. The first letter, and one which everyone dreads receiving, is the rejection letter. The rejection may be based upon the editor’s decision alone, or a consensus of the reviewers’ and editor. In this letter the editor summarises the reviewers’ comments and outlines the reasons for the non-acceptance of the manuscript. Usually the letter indicates that, even with revision, it is unlikely that the article will be publishable in their journal.
In general, the rejection letter is accompanied by the review- ers’ comments so that you can ascertain the reasons for the rejection. Mind you, even with the reviewers’ and editor’s com- ments included it will sometimes be difficult for you to appreciate the reasons for the rejection. On other occasions, however, it will be crystal clear why your article failed to pass muster. The following represents a rejection letter I received from another journal. You will see from this letter how tough it is to get published in some journals, particularly when there is a clear disagreement between the reviewers over the publishable merit of the paper. In this latter instance of reviewer disagreement, editors often go with the rejection recommendation. I think this is because they think it is an easier way to deal with the problematic manuscripts, and in the back of their mind, always, is concern about the pressure on space in their journal.
Dear Dr McInerney:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript, ‘Religious diversity and health education’ to the Teaching, Learning, and Human Development section of the XXX Journal. Both editors and two expert reviewers have had an oppor- tunity to read your manuscript and all agree that your manuscript addresses an issue of interest to our reader- ship. However, the editors and reviewers are not in total agreement about the nature and extent of concerns the manuscript raises. Reviewer B was more supportive of the manuscript and suggests that a few minor revisions would make it publishable. Specifically, Reviewer B asks that you clarify the numbers in the sample. Reviewer B also
There is little one can do at this point except accept the editor’s decision. Some journals provide the opportunity for you to appeal the decision, although I personally think, unless an obvious error has been made, time is better spent revising the article for another journal. If an obvious error has been made it might be worthwhile to contact the editor by phone, email or letter to discuss this and to ask for a reconsideration. Don’t treat the editors of journals as unapproachable, most are human and will appreciate your frank communication with them.
As I have suggested above, in most cases the rejection letter is accompanied by reviews that may be helpful in any further revision you might care to make of the article for submission elsewhere. You need to look carefully at the reasons for the rejection and decide whether, with revision, the article is worth pursuing in another outlet. It is my experience that every good article will get published, if not the first time round, at least on
suggests a title change that would be more consistent with the substance of the manuscript. Reviewer B also suggests you clarify your use of the term ‘cross-cultural analysis’. The reviewer argues that rather than a cross-cultural analysis, you have an intra-group analysis of two religions. Reviewer C felt that the manuscript lacked a clear purpose and did little to establish its theoretical or prac- tical significance. This reviewer also felt that the manuscript had a number of open-ended statements that were unsupported by evidence. Reviewer C, like Reviewer B, commented on the confusion in sample numbers.
Based on these concerns and others detailed in the reviewers’ comments (enclosed) we have decided not to accept your manuscript for publication in XXX. However, a rejection from this journal does not imply that your manuscript is unpublishable. XXX publishes a very small percentage of the manuscripts it receives. The reviews have provided you with excellent feedback that we hope you will find useful should you decide to revise the manuscript and submit it to another publication.
Thank you for considering XXX, and we wish you success in finding an outlet for your work.
Sincerely,
a second or third attempt. Do not take a rejection too much to heart. Many journals have very high rejection rates and you may need to try a different outlet. It might also be the case that the article was not really ready for publication and you can learn from the exercise. The important point here is not to be put off, but to use the experience positively. With regard to the above rejected article I had submitted, it was clear that there was a theoretical difference between myself and the reviewers, who apparently came from a sociological/anthropological background (surmised from comments and sources they indicated I should have consulted). In any event, the reviewers’ comments were useful, at least to encourage me to be more clear in spelling out my theoretical perspectives. I submitted the article to another high level journal, and it was published (also with some revisions).