Should I reply to an editor after a paper has been rejected?

Communicating with journal Editor

It is crucial to develop and maintain a professional understanding with the editor. Although, it’s true that the author generally is hesitant to communicate in the context of the manuscript status. Clear professional discussion on the other hand can be the best way to restrict overthinking by the author and also gives a clear view regarding the fate of the manuscript.

Accepting the unexpected “Manuscript Rejection”

Although, manuscript rejection sets in a sense of failure, and for some time the author goes through a period of “trans” where the acceptance of manuscript rejection is deliberately denied or in some cases is not completely accepted. This is very much normal if its continues for a small period of time. However, a mind full reply to the editor is a must.

Steps to assimilate rejection and “Move on” by replying to the editor

  • Although how depressing or heart-wrenching it may seem, making oneself prepared or the mere thought of writing back to editor post rejection is the 1st step to recovery.
  • The author by deciding to write back to the editor makes up his mind to also read and re-read the loopholes of his work. The latter is the deciding act which in due course of time makes the researcher scholar an “Author”.
  • Once the pitfall or gaps of the paper is ascertained, next crucial aspect is to frame right, affirmative, context-appropriate answers or viewpoint in a polite and elaborate manner to the editor.
  • The author must gracefully accept the rejection and take the comments or query as the “stepping stone to success”.

 

Why replying to the editor is important to post rejection:

  • It’s an important step to become a successful author as it evolves collecting and introspecting the critics.
  • Rejection always does not mean “END OF THE WORLD”, generally the editor recommends the work to other related journals wherein the focus and aims gels better most appropriately with the content.
  • A rejection email by the editor also clarifies the line of undertaking the researcher should take in the future. A free and frank discussion can go long way not only to accomplish your desire to publish but also reboots the positive spirit.

 

Conclusion: It’s always better to reciprocate than to regret. A frank, free, detailed discussion with the editor regarding manuscript rejection can shatter the clouds of disappointment and manifest new zeal and confidence warranted to become a successful author of a peer-reviewed article.

How to Bounce Back From Manuscript Rejection

Manuscript rejection comes as a setback for aspirants research scholars and marks as a hurdle to accomplish higher education or promotion in their respective fields. This is a more heart-wrenching situation in the case of young researchers who have attached high expectations from their work or heading towards the “1st published work” of their academic career.

However, one should take manuscript rejection as a stepping stone towards success and with an optimistic attitude should bounce back with the clarity of vision in terms of the steps to be accomplished for successful publication.

  • Let’s have a look at few tips to overcome rejection:

Understanding the type of rejection: Have a thorough look at the communication to assimilate the logic behind the rejection. It implies ascertaining whether it was 1st stage rejection from the editor’s table itself or was done in later stages. Rejection at the early stage implicates poor English language usage, lack of clarity with respect to content, failure to implement author guidelines, and reference formatting errors. All these aspects of rejection can be easily solved with some assistance and the manuscript can be resubmitted.

  • Non-alignment with the journal: The article is rejected as they don’t match the aims and focus of the journal. In such a case opting for other journals should be useful. Some journals mention as “insignificant advancement to current knowledge” means that the article is not adding extra information to the existing database. This needs the author’s clear retrospection and improvisation to get the content published.

 

  • Reviewer comment: It is a piece of advice in order to address the pitfalls or gaps in the understanding of the manuscript. You can write a detailed response or execute the needed experiments ( if any)to supplement the manuscript with the needed insight.

The technicality of the Manuscript: Error in data collection and method writing, copying with other’s work( text or data), improper heading which affects the flow of paper, ambiguity in hypothesis formation or its implementation in text. Revision in gross scale is needed to address the above mentioned and still, the chances of successful acceptance are low.

  • New journal submission: Rejection often brings emotional turmoil. New submission involves the entire set of preparation all again and seems to be very hectic. Therefore, such a situation should be taken in a practical mindset and in the light of the present situation.

 

  • Language and content editing services: Once the author is clear about the reason for rejection then he should bounce back with full force and try taking the help of service providers to speed up the submission process all over again. It not only helps the author to address the pitfall of the manuscript but also gives a feel-good factor of not being alone in the journey to publish his hard accomplished work. Clear planning at the end of the author combined with the assistance of editing services certainly promises for in-time article publication.

 

Conclusion: Clarity of vision, the thriving force to publish and the selection of write assistance can go long way to realize the dream of getting his hard accomplished work published.