Back to all Advice

Five reasons journals reject papers (and how to avoid them)

Posted 7/18/2024

The journal where I work most, Earthquake Spectra, rejects more than half of incoming manuscripts. In my time as editor-in-chief, I have rejected hundreds of manuscripts. Rejections are unpleasant but important because I serve the journal’s readership by only publishing interesting and valuable papers. In the following, I’ll explain common reasons for rejection decisions and share thoughts on how you can avoid them.

Unclear contribution

I first scan a new manuscript to identify what problem the authors are working on, what research methods they are using, and what contribution they have made. This information should all be available in the Abstract. Sometimes I have to really search, and sometimes the information is never stated at all. If the contribution is not clearly described, there is no reason for a reader to spend time with it.

Advice: State your intended contribution during the earliest stages of drafting your paper. Describe the contributions clearly in your Abstract and Conclusions, and check that the scope of your paper addresses those contributions.

Poor topical fit

Journals usually reject manuscripts on topics far from their core topical areas before evaluating the contribution of the work. I do this because I worry whether our journal’s readers will be interested in the work and whether our editorial board has the expertise to evaluate it.

Advice: Every journal provides an Aims and Scope page that describes its topics of interest, so read that carefully and choose where to submit based on topical fit as well as the journal’s reputation. To take this idea further, imagine the readers of that journal while you are writing. How much background will they need on the ideas and methods you are discussing? Will they find your claims to be obvious or controversial? The more your manuscript speaks to the journal’s readership, the more likely it is to eventually be accepted.

Noncompliance with author guidelines

Papers that are over-length or have noncompliant formatting face an uphill battle in the review process. We often require fixes before even starting a review, causing delays and extra work. Also, manuscripts formatted inconsistently with our author guidelines are often being shopped from one journal to the next without bothering to reformat, until they get accepted somewhere. If I suspect this, I may reject the paper because it’s a sign that the authors are not being respectful of the volunteer editorial board and reviewers.

Advice: Every journal provides an Author Guidelines document that explains requirements regarding manuscript types, allowable lengths, formatting requirements, and citation styles. Read that document carefully, and make sure your manuscript complies with the guidelines.

Incremental advancement

Many problematic papers only incrementally advance prior work, sometimes because the initial study aims are narrow, and sometimes because authors have split one study into several “paperlets.” Editors often reject papers if they cannot identify a significant advance from prior work. Dishonest authors sometimes try to hide that they have a closely related paper published or in review elsewhere, so that the submitted manuscript looks more novel. But most journals run manuscripts through a plagiarism check to identify text and figures that have been re-used from prior work, so be cautious to avoid duplicating materials and assume that journals will find your closely related publications.

Advice: Your paper’s Introduction should explain what gap in prior work is being addressed, and why this advancement is important. It is not sufficient to say “other studies of this topic consider factors a and b, while we have added factor c.” Why is factor c important? Have prior studies pointed to the importance of factor c? In the results and conclusions, explain how your new model performs relative to those prior models, and what is different or better. Unlike the above items, the threshold for a substantial advancement requires judgment and will vary by journal. But one fatal item that does not require judgment is a lack of discussion of related prior papers. Make sure to note similar studies (your own or from others) and explain how your manuscript is an advancement.

A misunderstanding

Sometimes a publishable manuscript is misunderstood and mistakenly rejected. Perhaps the editor or reviewers weren’t sufficiently familiar with the topic, or an important contribution was missed. A sign that this may have happened is that the concerns raised in the review are clearly counter to information in the manuscript (e.g., concerns about missing prior work that was actually cited, or inaccurate descriptions of methodological problems). The word “clearly” is important: if the relevant information was unstated or unclear, the journal doesn’t bear the responsibility for uncovering it.

Advice: First, think hard and get a third-party perspective about whether your rejection falls into this category or one of the prior cases. It is natural to want to blame editors’ ignorance rather than admitting to flaws in your manuscript. But if there are true flaws, the next journal you submit to may make the same rejection decision. If you believe there is a true misunderstanding, consider whether to try to resolve it with the initial journal or a new one. Most journals offer a formal process to appeal a decision, or they may allow for resubmission of a new manuscript with documentation of how the revised manuscript addresses prior review concerns. But it may be easiest to start with a clean slate at another journal, if there is another viable home for your work.