This lecture covers rewriting and resubmitting a rejected paper

1. What to do with a rejected
manuscript?
Dr KSVK Subbarao, MCh
Dr Amit Agrawal, MCh
Narayana Medical College and Hospital, Nellore

2.  This lecture covers rewriting and resubmitting a rejected
paper
 To understand the Editorial process
 Learn how to modify your paper based on reviewers
comments.
 Where should you submit next?
Objectives

3.  An author who has published a lot many
articles has a better to chance to get his
work published
 There are number of reasons for the
rejection of the manuscripts and many of
them are potentially avoidable
Introduction

4. Author
Submission
Editorial
Processing
Blind Peer
Review
Editorial
Decision
Revise,
Reject, or
Publish
Editorial Process

5. Evaluation of the manuscript
Science
 Relevant topic
 Clearly stated objectives
 Appropriate
methodology
 Good data analysis
 Reasonable conclusions
Manuscript
 High readability
 Good structure
 Logical flow
 Appropriate & current
references

6. Decision of the Editor
Accept as it is
Accept with minor revisions
Revise & re-review
Revise & do not re-review
Reject

7. Common reasons
for rejection
 Unoriginal work
 Unsound work
 Unready work
 Incorrect journal
 Incorrect format
 Incorrect type allocation
 Insufficient data
 Inappropriate method
 Previous rejection
 Slicing & Duplication
 Plagiarism (= copying)
 English so bad it’s
ambiguous
 Old database
 Over-interpretation of
results
 References old

8.  How to write a good manuscript?
 What is a good manuscript?
 What should we remember while submitting a manuscript?
What to do with a rejected
manuscript?

9.  Was a clear question asked (Clear objectives)?
 Is it worth saying?
 Methods reasonable?
 Data analyses & results?
 Conclusions/Implications important?
 Any major problems?
 What is the audience?
 What is the right format?
 Is the paper suitable to journal?
While submitting a Manuscript:
Remember

10.  Prepare your responses carefully
 Reviewer can be wrong!
 Be tactful and enthusiastic – thank the reviewers
 Do not respond to reviewers while upset
 Answer/respond to each item with clear points
Responding to reviewers/revising the
manuscript

11.  Attention to details
 Check and double check your work
 Consider the reviewers’ comments
 English must be as good as possible
 Presentation is important
 Take your time with revision
 Acknowledge those who have helped you
 New, original and previously unpublished
 Critically evaluate your own manuscript
 Ethical rules must be obeyed
– Nigel John Cook
Editor-in-Chief, Ore Geology Reviews
What leads to acceptance ?

12.  Title – informative, concise, attractive;
 Abstract – accurate, clear, brief, no comparisons;
 Keywords – label of the manuscript;
 Introduction – define briefly the problem;
 Methods – detailed information, organized;
 Results
 Tables = experimental results;
 Graphs = comparison experimental data/ other data;
 Illustrations shouldn’t duplicate information;
 Discussion – corresponding to the results; compare published results/ yours;
 Conclusions – simple, scientific results; uses; future directions
 References – main publications; check correspondence;
 Cover letter – what makes is special;
Remember !!!

13.  Everyone has papers rejected
– do not take rejection personally
 Note that you have received the benefit of the editors and
reviewers
 Their comments are meant to help you improve your article
 Re-evaluate your work and decide whether it is appropriate
to submit the paper elsewhere
 Revise your manuscript carefully, convert comments into a
series of clear points and questions and answer/respond
to each item
 Read carefully the Instructions for authors
Key points

14.  In summary rather than “What to do with a rejected
manuscript?” we should learn “How to get our well
conducted work published?”
 Manuscript should have a valid and a relevant message
 The question is more important than the result
 Select an appropriate journal
Conclusions

15.  If the English is so poor that the meaning is ambiguous, it is
impossible to review or indeed publish
 Never treat publication as a lottery by resubmitting a
rejected manuscript directly to another journal without any
significant revision!!!
 Last but not the least that one should not get disheartened
if their paper is rejected by a journal because it may be may
be published in a better journal.
Conclusions

16. No one gets it right at the first time!
Write, write, and re-write