It Discuss: - What Makes a Good Research Publication? - Why Are Manuscripts Rejected? - What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected? - Quick Tips for Effective Research Writing

1. LOGO
www.uokufa.edu.iq
Reasons for
Manuscript Rejection
ITRDC Center- University of Kufa
Nabeel Salih Ali
MSc. In Computer Science
Lecturer at ECE, Faculty of Engineering

2. LOGO
www.uokufa.edu.iq
Contents
Introduction (Overview)
What Makes a Good Research Publication?
Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
1
2
3
4
Quick Tips for Effective Research Writing5

3. LOGO Introduction
 Manuscript rejection is a hurting and a disappointing
experience especially when it is repeated several times.
Colleges and universities always evaluate and promote
the academic staff based on their number of publications.
Manuscript rejection represents a major barrier for junior
staff to get promoted and develop their carrier especially
that the rates of manuscripts’ rejection in the high impact
journals reach as much as 90%.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

4. LOGO Introduction
 An author who target publication in high prestigious
journals may spend many years to publish just small
parts of his research findings..
This had lead many of the researchers and academic
staff particularly in developing countries to publish their
studies in local and low ranked journals.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

5. LOGO Article acceptance Criteria
Article
RelevanceReference to prior work
and publications
Significance
Technical Correctness
Clarity of presentation
Experimental or
Evidence Support
Novelty
www.uokufa.edu.iq

6. LOGO What Makes a Good Research Publication?
1. Research question: why the authors do this research
and what is its importance and application.
2. Novelty: a paper gives new ideas, derivations,
applications that has been not studied before or little- or
not in depth-studied.
3. Literature review: to identify the research gap with
recent references from 2010 onwards.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

7. LOGO What Makes a Good Research Publication?
4. Research methodology: analytical, numerical or
experimental or mixed. What is the contribution of the
authors, assumptions and/or approximations used,
description of apparatus and its limitations, steps of
experiments, etc.
5. Quality of results: and the depth and logic of the
discussion.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

8. LOGO What Makes a Good Research Publication?
6. Insight conveyed and recommendations that might be
used by others for future work.
7. English: used effectively to communicate the ideas and
easy to understand with least or no grammatical error or
typos.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

9. LOGO What Makes a Good Research Publication?
1. Interdisciplinary topics or applications-oriented articles
that do not fit within the scope of traditional journals.
2. Practical discussions of new experimental or
measurement techniques, including negative results.
3. Practical articles describing interesting solutions to
engineering, or information system design challenges.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

10. LOGO What Makes a Good Research Publication?
4. Development of new or improved fabrication or
manufacturing techniques.
5. Reviews of new or evolving fields aimed at increasing
others' understanding of these emerging topics.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

11. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
1. Poor experimental design and/or inadequate
investigation.
An inadequate sample size, a biased sample, a non-
unique concept, and scientific flaws in the study are
common faults
www.uokufa.edu.iq

12. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
2. Failure to conform to the targeted journal..
This is a common mistake. The focus of the manuscript is
not within the scope of the journal and/or the guidelines of
the targeted journal are not followed. This can easily be
avoided by reading the targeted journal and reviewing the
author guidelines.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

13. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
3. Poor English grammar, style, and syntax.
Though poor writing may not result in outright rejection of
a manuscript, it may well influence the reviewer’s and
editor’s overall impression of the manuscript. It has been
shown that a well written manuscript has a better chance
of being accepted.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

14. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
4. Insufficient problem statement.
It is important to clearly define and appropriately frame the
study’s question.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

15. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
5. Methods not described in detail.
Details are insufficient to repeat the results. The study
design, apparatus used, and procedures followed must be
made clear. In some cases it might be better to put too
much information into the methods section rather than to
put too little; information deemed unnecessary can always
be removed prior to publication.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

16. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
6. Over interpretation of results.
Some reviewers have indicated that a clear and ‘‘honest’’
approach to the interpretation of the results is likely to
increase the chances of a manuscript being accepted.
Identify possible biases and confounding variables, both
during the design phase of the study and the interpretation
of the results. Describe experimental results concisely.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

17. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
7. Inappropriate or incomplete statistics.
Using inappropriate statistical methods and overstating
the implications of the results is a common error. Use an
appropriate test and do not make the statistics too
complicated. Quantify and present findings with
appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty
(such as confidence intervals).
www.uokufa.edu.iq

18. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
8. Unsatisfactory or confusing presentation of data in
tables or figures.
The tables or figures do not conform in style and quantity
to the journal’s guidelines and are cluttered with numbers.
Make tables and graphs easy to read. Some editors may
start by looking quickly at the tables, graphs, and figures
to determine if the manuscript is worth considering.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

19. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
9. Conclusions not supported by data.
Make sure your conclusions are not overstated, are
supported, and answer the study’s questions. Be sure to
provide alternative explanations, and do not simply restate
the results.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

20. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
10.Incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated review of the
literature.
Be sure to conduct a complete literature search and only
list references relevant to the study. The reviewers of your
manuscript will be experts in the field and will be aware of
all the pertinent research conducted.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

21. LOGO Why Are Manuscripts Rejected?
The principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected:
11.Author unwilling to revise the manuscript to address
reviewer’s suggestions.
This can easily be resolved. Taking the reviewers’
suggestions into account when revising your manuscript
will nearly always result in a better manuscript. If the
editor indicates willingness to evaluate a revision, it means
the manuscript may be publishable if the reviewers’
concerns could be addressed satisfactorily.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

22. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
Mismatch with the
journal's scope
Flaws in study design,
poorly formulated
research question
Lack of originality,
novelty, or
significance
Find a suitable target
journal for your manuscript!
Ensure your results are
generalizable and/or have
practical, clinical, or
theoretical implications
Do a thorough literature
review to choose the best
research methodology

23. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
Poor writing and
organization
Language and
spelling issues
Poorly presented
visual elements
Follow the IMRAD format
to prepare a well-
structured manuscript
Avoid jargon, write simply
and clearly, run a spell
check
Ensure the figures, tables,
images, and graphs are
accurate and clearly labelled

24. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
Unintentional ethical
issues, e.g., plagiarism
Lack of adherence to
journal submission
guidelines
Avoid plagiarism - follow all
ethical publishing
guidelines
Read, understand, and
follow ALL manuscript
submission guidelines

25. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
• Ensure you use the
correct statistical analysis
method.
• Describe the analytical
method in detail.
• Report p values and R
values at appropriate
places.
Inappropriate
or incomplete
statistics

26. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
• Avoid drawing conclusions
that are disproportionate
to the actual findings.
• Do not include irrelevant
or redundant information
to support your data.
• Acknowledge the
limitations of your study.
Over-
interpretation
of results

27. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
Inappropriate
or suboptimal
instrumentation
• Describe the methods in sufficient
detail, such that a reader could
repeat the study if desired.
• In case of standard methodology
or instrumentation, cite relevant
previous studies in which these
methods were used.
• If the description is very lengthy
(e.g., survey sheets,
questionnaires), include it as
supplementary information.

28. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
Sample
too small
or biased
• Check published literature to find
acceptable sample sizes for
studies similar to yours.
• Mention inclusion and exclusion
criteria clearly.

29. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
Insufficient
problem
statement
• State the objective of the study
clearly in the abstract and early in
the manuscript.
• Check whether the conclusions of
your study tie up with your
hypothesis/problem/objective

30. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
Inaccurate or
inconsistent
data reported
• Ensure consistency between
similar data reported in different
parts of the manuscript
• (e.g., abstract and text, results
and figures).
• Instead of including inconclusive
data, sort through your data and
include only data that
• are relevant to your
hypothesis/objective.

31. LOGO What Do if Manuscript Get Rejected?
www.uokufa.edu.iq
WHAT GOES WRONG WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
Incomplete,
inaccurate, or
outdated
review of the
literature
• Cite relevant recently published
literature. Citing outdated
references reflected poorly on
your knowledge of the subject.
• Do not deliberately exclude
studies that do not support your
conclusions. Instead,
• discuss them and try to give
possible explanations about why
your findings different from what
is already known.

32. LOGO Quick Tips for Effective research Writing
 Read each section individually to check if it contains all
the necessary information and conveys it in concise
manner.
 Ensure that the results and discussion section are clear,
concise and conclusive.
 Ask peers to read the manuscript and provide
constructive feedback on the presentation of study
design and logical flow of ideas.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

33. LOGO Quick Tips for Effective research Writing
 Once the content and flow have been perfected, focus
on the language and .
 When using the services of a copy editor, it is helpful to
communicate specific areas of attention if necessary.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

34. LOGO Bibliography
1. Coronel R (1999). The role of the reviewer in editorial decision-making. Cardiovascular
Research, 43(2): 261-264. doi: 10.1016/S0008-6363(99)00177-7.
2. Ehara S & Takahashi K (2007). Reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to
3. AJR by international authors. American Journal of Roentgenology, 188(2): W113-6. doi:
10.2214/AJR.06.0448.
4. Byrne DW (2000). Common reasons for rejecting manuscripts at medical journals: A survey
of editors and peer reviewers. Science Editor, 23(2): 39-44.
5. Bordage G (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manucripts: The strengths and
weaknesses in medical education reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9): 889-96.
6. Wyness T, McGhee CN, Patel DV (2009). Manuscript rejection in ophthalmology and visual
science journals: Identifying and avoiding the common pitfalls. Clinical & Experimental
Ophthalmology, 37(9): 864-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2009.02190.x.
7. McKercher B, Law R, Weber K, Song H, Hsu C (2007). Why referees reject manuscripts.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31(4): 455-470. doi:
10.1177/1096348007302355.
8. Pierson DJ (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication.
Respiratory Care, 49(10): 1246-52.
9. Mcafee RP (2010). Edifying Editing. The American Economist, 55(1): 1-8.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

35. LOGO Bibliography
10. Smith MU, Wandersee JH, Cummins CL (1993). What's wrong with this manuscript?: An
analysis of the reasons for rejection given by Journal of Research in Science Teaching
reviewers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2): 209-211. doi:
10.1002/tea.3660300207.
11. Ajao OG (2005). Some reasons for manuscript rejection by peer-reviewed journals.
Annals of Ibadan Postgraduate Medicine, 3(2): 9-12.
12. Ali J (2010). Manuscript rejection: Causes and remedies. Journal of Young Pharmacists,
2(1): 3-6. doi: 10.4103/0975-1483.62205.
13. Turcotte C, Drolet P, Girard M (2004). Study design, originality and overall consistency
influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal. Canadian
Journal of Anesthesia, 51(6): 549-56. doi: 10.1007/BF03018396.
14. Carpenter WT, Thaker GK, Shepard : 10.1175/2009BAMS2908.1. PD (2010). Manuscript
rejection for the Schizophrenia Bulletin: Some reasons. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 36(4): 649-
650. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbq056.
15. Zimmer C. It’s science, but not necessarily right. The New York Times. June 25, 2011.
16. Kumar M (2009). A review of the review process: manuscript peer-review in biomedical
research. Biology and Medicine, 1(4): 1-16.
17. Schultz DM (2010). Rejection rates for journals publishing in the atmospheric sciences.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91(2), 231-243. doi
www.uokufa.edu.iq

36. LOGO Bibliography
18. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2011). Peer review in scientific
publications Vol 1. House of Commons: London, UK.
19. Buriak JM (2010). Rejecting without Review: The Whys, the Hows. ACS Nano 4 (9):
4963–4964. DOI: 10.1021/nn1022318
20. Johnston SC et al (2007). Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer
review: A randomized trial. Annals of Neurology 61: A10–A12. DOI: 10.1002/ana.21150
21. Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H.-D. Angew. Chem. Int. Edn Engl 47, 7173–7178 (2008).
22. Calcagno, V. et al. Science http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1227833 (2012).
23. Woolley KL, Barron JP (2009) Handling manuscript rejection: insights from evidence and
experience. Chest 135: 573-577.
24. Turcotte C, Drolet P, Girard M (2004) Study design, originality and overall consistency
influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal. Can J Anaesth
51: 549-556.
25. Ajao OG (2005) Some Reasons for Manuscript Rejection by PeerReviewed Journals.
Annals of Ibadan Postgraduate Medicine 3 : 9-12.
doi:10.4172/2155-9627.1000204J Clinic Res Bioeth ISSN:2155-9627 JCRB, an open access
journal
26. Ehara S, Takahashi K (2007) Reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to AJR by
international authors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188: W113-116.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

37. LOGO Bibliography
27. Calcagno V, Demoinet E, Gollner K, Guidi L, Ruths D, et al. (2012) Flows of research
manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns. Science.
28. Murray DM, Pals SL, Blitstein JL, Alfano CM, Lehman J (2008) Design and analysis of
group-randomized trials in cancer: a review of current practices. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:
483-491.
29. Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, Slater L, Rowe BH (2001) Evaluating the quality of
systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med 38: 518-526.
30. Norman G (2010) Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics. Adv
Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 15: 625-632. 9.
31. Dutta MJ (2006) The ten commandments of reviewing: the promise of a kinder, gentler
discipline! Health Commun 20: 197-200.
32. Smith R (2006) Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R
Soc Med 99: 178-182.
33. Lee KP, Boyd EA, Holroyd-Leduc JM, Bacchetti P, Bero LA (2006) Predictors of
publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major
biomedical journals. The Medical Journal of Australia 184: 621–626.
www.uokufa.edu.iq

38. LOGO
www.uokufa.edu.iq
ITRDC Center- University of Kufa