Is the Full Manuscript Thank You Again

'Eight reasons I rejected your article'

A periodical editor reveals the top reasons then many manuscripts don't make it to the peer review process

Past Peter Thrower, PhD     Posted on 12 September 2012

The Author

When a manuscript is submitted to a high-quality scholarly journal, it goes through intense scrutiny  — even earlier it'southward seen by the editor-in-chief and selected for peer review. At Elsevier, betwixt 30 percent to 50 percent of articles don't even make it to the peer review process.

Every bit Editor-in-Master of Carbon , the international journal of the American Carbon Society, Dr. Peter Thrower experiences this state of affairs start-mitt. His advice to authors: "By fugitive these pitfalls, you will save reviewers, editors and staff time and frustration, and ensure that your piece of work is judged by its scientific merit, non mistakes."

[divider]

ane. It fails the technical screening

Before they even get to the editor-in-master, manufactures are checked for technical elements. The main reasons they are rejected are:

Peter Thrower, PhD, is Editor-in-Primary of Carbon, the international journal of the American Carbon Society, and Professor Emeritus of Material Sciences and Applied science at Penn Land Academy.

• The article contains elements that are suspected to exist plagiarized, or it is currently nether review at another journal. (Republishing articles or parts of articles, submitting to one or more journals at the same time or using text or images without permission is not allowed. See our ethical guidelines.)
• The manuscript is non complete; it may be defective key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references and all tables and figures).
• The English is non sufficient for the peer review process,
• The figures are not complete or are not articulate enough to read.
• The article does not conform to the Guide for Authors for the journal it is submitted to.
• References are incomplete or very old.

2.  Information technology does not fall inside the Aims and Scope

• For the journal Carbon, the material studied may contain carbon, but is not carbon.
• The study uses a carbon textile only the focus is on something different.
• There is no new carbon scientific discipline.

three.  Information technology'south incomplete

• The article contains observations but is not a full written report.
• It discusses findings in relation to some of the piece of work in the field but ignores other important piece of work.

4.  The procedures and/or analysis of the information is seen to be defective

• The study lacked clear control groups or other comparison metrics.
• The study did not conform to recognized procedures or methodology that can be repeated.
• The analysis is non statistically valid or does non follow the norms of the field.

5.  The conclusions cannot be justified on the basis of the remainder of the newspaper

• The arguments are illogical, unstructured or invalid.
• The data does not back up the conclusions.
• The conclusions ignore big portions of the literature.

6.  It's simply a small-scale extension of a different paper, oft from the same authors

• Findings are incremental and practise not advance the field.
• The work is conspicuously function of a larger study, chopped upwardly to make as many articles as possible.

7.  Information technology's incomprehensible

• The language, structure, or figures are and so poor that the merit can't be assessed. Have a native English speaker read the paper. Even if yous ARE a native English language speaker. Need help? We offering linguistic communication services.

viii.  It'due south boring

• It is not archival, is incremental or of marginal interest to the field (see point six).
• The question behind the piece of work is non of interest in the field.
• The piece of work is not of interest to the readers of the specific journals.

For more than advice, check out the step-by-footstep guide How to Publish in an Elsevier Journal or Publishing Campus.

Top 10 stories of 2015

By | Posted on 04 January 2016

With tips for PhD students, tools for data sharing — and a patient's inspiring view on Parkinson'due south

What can yous exist with a PhD?

By | Posted on 02 Dec 2015

A publisher relates his transition from bookish inquiry to scientific publishing

five secrets to surviving (and thriving in) a PhD programme

By | Posted on 25 Jun 2015

A PhD candidate shares the lessons he's learned preparing his dissertation and publishing research along the way

'8 reasons I accepted your article'

By | Posted on 15 Jan 2013

Journal editors reveal the pinnacle reasons a manuscript gets published

thompsonsemnince1944.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-rejected-your-article

Share this post