Reasons for Manuscript Rejection After Peer Review From the Journal Headache

Why do manuscripts submitted to the Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation get rejected?

Objectives

The study aimed to examine the reasons for the rejection of manuscripts, considering the increased rejection rates of our journal of up to 73% in 2022, and help authors realize what the editors and referees are paying attention to while assessing the manuscript.

Materials and methods

In this retrospective study, original articles, case reports, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses submitted and rejected to the Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation were searched between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2022. After reviewing the referee's evaluations and editorial opinions for all rejected articles, the reasons for rejection were classified under three main headings: journal, manuscript, and ethical issues. The manuscript issues were detailed under 11 subheadings.

Results

A total of 1,293 rejected submissions were reviewed. Of these, 35% were rejected at the editorial stage, while 65% were rejected after peer review. Thirty-three submissions were rejected for ethical reasons, 168 were out of the journal's field of interest, and 1,092 (84%) submissions were rejected for reasons related to the manuscript. The three most common reasons for rejection were protocol/methodology errors (44%), lack of contribution to the literature (41%), and lack of adequate discussion (40%).

Conclusion

Before starting the studies, supporting the hypotheses with the current literature review, planning with the right protocol, and interpreting the findings in the discussion will facilitate the acceptance of the manuscripts to our journal.

Tips and guidelines for being a good peer reviewer

Publication is the key means by which science spreads. The purpose of scientific journals is to publish novel and quality articles. The editors of the journals evaluate the content of the manuscripts by submitting them to a process called «peer review», considered today the gold standard to guarantee the adequate publication of scientific articles. A well-crafted and critical peer-review report is a treasure for both authors and editors. In the present manuscript we will examine the key aspects of the peer review process. We will begin by explaining what exactly this process consists of and since when it has existed, and then clarifying why it is so important. Then we will argue why we should want to be reviewers of scientific papers. We will then review what are the fundamental rules to carry out a good review of a manuscript and what aspects of it we should focus on. Later we will see what format a peer review report should have and how to write its different sections, as well as the options for its final resolution. We will pay special attention to commenting on the ethical aspects and the most frequent errors that are made in the evaluation of manuscripts. Finally, we will recognize what the fundamental limitations of peer review are, and we will end by proposing some suggestions for their improvement. Our ultimate goal is to stimulate researchers -and authors- to go one step further and undertake the challenge of being peer reviewers of scientific manuscripts.

Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals

Improving the methodological rigour and the quality of data analysis in manuscripts submitted to journals is key to ensure the validity of scientific claims. However, there is scant knowledge of how manuscripts change throughout the review process in academic journals. Here, we examined 27 467 manuscripts submitted to four journals from the Royal Society (2006-2017) and analysed the effect of peer review on the amount of statistical content of manuscripts, i.e. one of the most important aspects to assess the methodological rigour of manuscripts. We found that manuscripts with both initial low or high levels of statistical content increased their statistical content during peer review. The availability of guidelines on statistics in the review forms of journals was associated with an initial similarity of statistical content of manuscripts but did not have any relevant implications on manuscript change during peer review. We found that when reports were more concentrated on statistical content, there was a higher probability that these manuscripts were eventually rejected by editors.

Reasons for unsuccessful research submissions to JAAPA

OBJECTIVE

PA authors face many barriers to publication and may benefit from additional transparency in the editorial decision-making process. This study examined the most common reasons for rejection of original research submissions to JAAPA.

METHODS

Senior JAAPA editors conducted a thematic analysis of reviewer and editor comments and used these broad themes to classify the reasons for rejection of original research manuscripts submitted to JAAPA.

RESULTS

From October 2015 through December 2018, 77 research manuscripts were submitted to JAAPA. Fifty-six manuscripts were rejected, resulting in an overall rejection rate of 73.7%. Common reasons for rejection included: methodologic issues (55.4%), content outside the journal's scope (42.9%), poor writing quality (17.9%), guideline nonadherence (3.6%), lack of novelty (3.6%), and author(s) declining to revise the manuscript (1.8%).

CONCLUSION

The most common reasons for manuscript rejection can be overcome through research planning and manuscript preparation.

Addressing the Gap, Advancing the Knowledge: Guidance for the Abstract Reviewer

Conferences often offer a wide variety of informative podium, expert panel, and poster presentations. Conference planners use an abstract review process to select abstracts for the presentations. Although guidance exists for writing abstracts, much less information is available on reviewing abstracts and what constitutes an appropriate review. This article provides an overview of the role of an abstract reviewer and information that potential reviewers can use to improve the quality of their reviews. A competent reviewer should possess current knowledge of the profession and working knowledge of research methodology, data collection strategies, and analyses to assess an abstract. Abstract reviewers should consider the abstract in the context of the planned conference attendees, remain objective throughout the review process, and complete the review in a timely manner. Conference planners rely on objective reviews to ensure the selection of quality abstracts, which can lead to a successful conference that advances professional knowledge.

No study is ever flawless: A scoping review of common errors in biomedical manuscripts

We conducted this scoping review of common errors identified by editors and reviewers of biomedical manuscripts. Errors includes items that a reviewer or editor might identify as needing correction. The errors were categorized by section of the manuscript: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and References. After screening 87 published studies, 16 papers were selected for data extraction. Of these 16 studies, the most frequently represented disciplines were Medicine (n = 5), Radiology (n = 2), and Psychiatry (n = 2). The most reported common errors included inappropriate study design, inadequate sample size, poor statistical analysis, and unclear and inadequate description of methods. Abstracts not reflecting the content of the paper were the most frequent general common error in biomedical manuscripts. The findings of this study offer one perspective on common errors in biomedical manuscripts and might be a useful guide for novice authors.

Fate of rejected manuscripts in the journal Medicina Intensiva during 2015-2017 period

OBJECTIVE

To know the fate of the rejected manuscripts in Medicina Intensiva journal (MI) from 2015 to 2017 with surveillance until 2019.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

Biomedical journals publication.

PARTICIPANTS

Rejected manuscripts in MI journal.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST

Time of publication, impact factor (IF), generated citations and variables associated to publication.

RESULTS

The 69% (420) of analyzed articles (344 originals and 263 scientific letters) were rejected, and 205 (48.8%) were subsequently published, with 180 citations of 66 articles. Journal IF was lower in 173 (84.4%) articles. The number of FI-valid citations was higher than the FI of MI in 21 articles. Origin of manuscript OR 2,11 (IC 95% 1.29-3.46), female author OR 1.58 (IC 95% 1.03-2.44), english language OR 2,38 (IC 95% 1.41-4.0) and reviewed papers OR 1.71 (IC 95% 1.10-2.66) were associated to publication in PubMed database.

CONCLUSIONS

The rejected articles in MI have a mean publication rate in other journals. Most of these articles are published in journals with less IF and fewer citations than the IF of MI.

Fate of rejected manuscripts in the journal Medicina Intensiva during 2015-2017 period

OBJECTIVE

To know the fate of the rejected manuscripts in Medicina Intensiva journal (MI) from 2015 to 2017 with surveillance until 2019.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

Biomedical journals publication.

PARTICIPANTS

Rejected manuscripts in MI journal.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST

Time of publication, impact factor (IF), generated citations and variables associated to publication.

RESULTS

The 69% (420) of analyzed articles (344 originals and 263 scientific letters) were rejected, and 205 (48.8%) were subsequently published, with 180 citations of 66 articles. Journal IF was lower in 173 (84.4%) articles. The number of FI-valid citations was higher than the FI of MI in 21 articles. Origin of manuscript OR 2,11 (IC 95% 1.29 - 3.46), female author OR 1.58 (IC 95% 1.03-2.44), english language OR 2,38 (IC 95% 1.41-4.0) and reviewed papers OR 1.71 (IC 95% 1.10-2.66) were associated to publication in PubMed database.

CONCLUSIONS

The rejected articles in MI have a mean publication rate in other journals. Most of these articles are published in journals with less IF and fewer citations than the IF of MI.

Peer-Review and Rejection Causes in Submitting Original Medical Manuscripts

The purpose of specialized medical journals is to accurately disseminate the results of new research. The peer-review process is crucial for journals to be able to fulfill this purpose. Although the peer-review determines whether scientific papers are accepted or rejected for publication, for many authors is a not well known process in its entirety. Many journals have focused on educating their audience about how and what is assessed during peer-review, nevertheless, the rate of manuscripts rejected because of easily-avoidable causes related to this, remains high. In this paper, we describe the process that specialized journals use to assess original medical manuscripts and list the main causes of paper rejection. Practicing physicians and medical students who wish to report their research results stand to benefit if they can identify and early avoid on the issues that most often arise during the peer-review process.

Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey

BACKGROUND

Developing a comprehensive, reproducible literature search is the basis for a high-quality systematic review (SR). Librarians and information professionals, as expert searchers, can improve the quality of systematic review searches, methodology, and reporting. Likewise, journal editors and authors often seek to improve the quality of published SRs and other evidence syntheses through peer review. Health sciences librarians contribute to systematic review production but little is known about their involvement in peer reviewing SR manuscripts.

METHODS

This survey aimed to assess how frequently librarians are asked to peer review systematic review manuscripts and to determine characteristics associated with those invited to review. The survey was distributed to a purposive sample through three health sciences information professional listservs.

RESULTS

There were 291 complete survey responses. Results indicated that 22% (n = 63) of respondents had been asked by journal editors to peer review systematic review or meta-analysis manuscripts. Of the 78% (n = 228) of respondents who had not already been asked, 54% (n = 122) would peer review, and 41% (n = 93) might peer review. Only 4% (n = 9) would not review a manuscript. Respondents had peer reviewed manuscripts for 38 unique journals and believed they were asked because of their professional expertise. Of respondents who had declined to peer review (32%, n = 20), the most common explanation was "not enough time" (60%, n = 12) followed by "lack of expertise" (50%, n = 10).The vast majority of respondents (95%, n = 40) had "rejected or recommended a revision of a manuscript| after peer review. They based their decision on the "search methodology" (57%, n = 36), "search write-up" (46%, n = 29), or "entire article" (54%, n = 34). Those who selected "other" (37%, n = 23) listed a variety of reasons for rejection, including problems or errors in the PRISMA flow diagram; tables of included, excluded, and ongoing studies; data extraction; reporting; and pooling methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being experts in conducting literature searches and supporting SR teams through the review process, few librarians have been asked to review SR manuscripts, or even just search strategies; yet many are willing to provide this service. Editors should involve experienced librarians with peer review and we suggest some strategies to consider.