A manuscript is written by scientist with an aim to spread the specific findings at large scale for researchers and scientific community. Generally, a research article illustrates the results of a well planned scientific study. Each journal provides a specific protocol in terms of layout that must be followed to submit the manuscript. Even after following the journal protocols, manuscripts are still rejected. If you ever meet a scientist who told you that his research get published in first instance after submitting in any journal then either he is lying or he need to google the “Predatory Journals”. Sorry, but that’s the just way of publishing a scientific work. There could be many reasons for manuscript rejection, but the key reasons that directly led to desk rejections are illustrated below.

Lack of novelty and originality are the primary criteria of a journal upon which the editor stresses most than any other protocol. For example, an article presenting tablet preparation with conventional technology is showing no novelty in the existing state of field unless the scientist add something new to the existing knowledge. However, there is no scientific value of presenting the obsolete study, even the new technologies are available.

Improper rationale is also a prominent reason for manuscript rejection. The study findings must be supported with proper justifications, and sufficient data. The whole manuscript must revolve along the rationale, like failure to adhere the main theme of a manuscript significantly contributes to rejection. Probably, an attempt to have a large article wandering away from the main objective, unimportant subject matter and lack of remarkable scientific value may refers to rejection of article.

Some manuscript presents the improper methodology of work done in a study. For example, if the plants sample were taken for RNA analysis and the samples are not properly stored before the analysis then this is a flaw in methodology. If this is presented in the manuscript then unscientific impression will comes in reviewers mind, and may be discussed with editor in chief of a journal then the manuscript will be rejected. Or if the methodology is questionable or flawed then the results are also questionable, thus the peer reviewed journals will reject the study.

Insufficient interpretation of the results could also be the reason for denial to publication by reviewers. The scientist must have a know-how to explain the possible exact reasons of research outcomes. It’s not compulsory to mention only the positive outcomes, but an article can also provide the future framework if it interprets the root cause of negative findings.

If an article is refused to publication, is it the end of world for that article?

The answer to this question is obviously not. Remember that there could be lot of reasons for a rejection of manuscript. As stated before, editor in chief is always looking for something new and specific as per journal criteria. But the scientific maturity is “do not take it personally and do not be disappointed”. If an unknown person makes a comment on your article, then respect his views and assume that the comments are written genuinely.

“Read article as much as your Doctor ask you to drink water, invigorate yourself, ask yourself if your article could be improved by any way along with reviewer comments”.

Authors must be their own editor, strong supporter and best critic. If one journal rejects your article, then try other one, another one, yet another one. In summation, the key to success is give yourself and your manuscript the time, as they deserve and comes up with a yummy manuscript. Serve yourself with new ideas, phrases, texts thoughts by keep thinking with an aim to improve the manuscript and take it to the height of betterment.

Wishing a happy reading to all the researchers for their writing!