This has been my most challenging summer in 20 years as an academic.
While some papers have progressed, many have not been greeted with warm fuzzies by journals.
While I’ve written about how to cope with rejection (see here: ), I have not written, in detail, about the next steps.
I didn’t realize this advice was necessary, until several of my coauthors pushed for quickly resubmitting papers to new journals.
This is not a good idea.
When you receive a reject decision from a journal, take some time to process it.
It’ll help your paper at the next stop.
Why?
Bc your paper was rejected for a reason. It wasn’t ready or it did not tell a compelling story.
Usually, the review package will hint at the reasons - but the senior editor will not give you a candid explanation - of it was one (not ready), the other (not compelling), or both.
Letting that paper sit until your frustration has passed will help you tease out the core issue for rejection.
How can you tell? Which is it? And what to do about it?
First, ignore comments on motivation. The comments are helpful, but they are not why you were rejected.
Come back to them after you address other problems.
Second, pay attention to method errors. They are a sign the paper wasn’t ready.
These comments may challenge what you did, how you presented information, & so on.
These should be fixable. If not, gather new data or go to a less rigorous journal.
Third, pay attention to comments on logic. They can tell you either the paper wasn’t ready or your story wasn’t straightforward.
Even if you disagree, take the feedback & ask how you can smooth out the story to make it compelling to a skeptical reviewer.
Fourth, pay attention to comments on theory. Typically, these connect to storytelling.
If you disagree, use those comments to offer additional limitations.
If they are eye-opening, consider redrafting your narrative.
Fifth, take care not to HARK.
If the review package suggests a new theory, new hypotheses, and new tests, it’s a different paper that they really wanted.
Likely, they are asking you to HARK.
You need to take care not to compromise your integrity by writing to your results and not to your theory.
I see reviewers demand harking far too often.
Finally, considering the full package, ask how you can align the motivation with necessary changes.
While not a reason for rejection, it does affect your work’s chances at the next journal.
When you have considered these issues, you will likely find several hours, if not days, of work to do.
So please do it.
You may encounter the same reviewer at the next journal and they won’t be pleased if nothing has changed!
Making smart, ethical changes will improve the chance of your paper earning a revision!
Best of Luck! And happy writing!
Kommentare