My paper was rejected or the reviews were harsh
Work out what kind of decision you have, respond to reviewers well, and get the paper back out.
In short
Start here, today. Read the decision letter and reviews once, then close them for a day. Before you do, write down which type of decision you received and any deadline the editor gave. This takes about 15 minutes.
After that, work through these steps. Choose one to jump to it.
Step by step
Tick each step as you finish it. Open a step for the how.
0 of 6 steps done
Work out what kind of decision it is
Read the editor's letter closely. For a revise and resubmit, note the deadline and whether the editor has signalled which comments matter most. For a rejection after review, note whether the editor suggested another journal, or offered a transfer to a related journal, which some publishers do.
Log the reviews as feedback
Put each reviewer comment into the Feedback Tracker, numbered by reviewer (R1.1, R1.2, R2.1 and so on). Sort them by type and mark which you'll address fully, which partly, and which you'll respectfully decline. Do this together with your co-authors, including your supervisor if they are one.
Write the response to reviewers
For a revise and resubmit, the response letter matters almost as much as the revision. Quote each comment, then say what you changed and where, with page and line numbers, or explain politely why you didn't. Stay specific and calm even when a reviewer is plainly wrong, because the editor reads this letter to judge whether you engaged seriously.
Choose the next journal
After a rejection, decide within a week or two where the paper goes next, so it doesn't stall. Use the reviews to improve it first, especially anything about framing or fit. Check the new journal's scope, recent issues and author guidelines, and use the Think. Check. Submit. checklist if you're unsure whether a journal is trustworthy. Be wary of unsolicited emails offering fast publication for a fee.
Appeal only in rare cases
Many journals have an appeals process, but appeals take time and goodwill, and editors rarely reverse a decision unless something clearly went wrong. Consider one only if a review contains a factual error that drove the decision, or there's evidence of a conflict of interest or an unfair process. Read the journal's appeals policy and talk it through with your co-authors first.
Keep the paper moving
Set a resubmission date and add it to your Milestone Map. A paper that sits for six months after a rejection often never goes out again. Record the submission in Wins and Accomplishments as well, since annual progress reports and applications often ask about papers under review.
Words you can use
Is this you? Signs to look for
- The decision email arrived and you haven't been able to read the reviews properly.
- One reviewer seems to have read a different paper from the one you wrote.
- You can't tell whether “major revisions” is good news or bad news.
- You're tempted to put the paper in a drawer and move on.
Why this happens
Rejection is an ordinary part of publishing, including for very experienced researchers. Plenty of well-cited papers were turned down by at least one journal before they found the right home. Your first rejection feels personal partly because it's your first. Your supervisor has almost certainly had many.
It helps to know exactly which kind of decision you have. A desk rejection means the editor declined the paper without sending it to reviewers, usually because of scope or fit, sometimes because of framing or format. A rejection after review means reviewers read it and raised problems the editor judged too large for this journal. A revise and resubmit, major or minor, is an invitation: the editor wants to see the paper again. Students often read “major revisions” as a rejection. It isn't one.
Harsh reviews are a separate matter from the decision. Reviewers are usually anonymous, often busy and sometimes careless with tone, but their comments are often the most detailed reading your paper will ever get.
Worth a look (6)
- Writing for Peer Reviewed Journals, by Pat Thomson and Barbara KamlerA practical book on writing journal articles and getting them through review.
- Think. Check. Submit.A checklist for deciding whether a journal is trustworthy before you submit.
- COPE, Committee on Publication EthicsGuidance on publication ethics, including complaints and appeals.
- Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL)Free guides on every part of academic writing, from structuring a paragraph to citing sources. A good first stop when you're unsure how something should look.
- Writing Center Tips & ToolsShort, friendly handouts answer almost any writing question, from literature reviews and abstracts to passive voice and conclusions. Reach for them when one particular thing is tripping you up.
- Writing AdviceShort, practical pages walk you through planning, drafting and revising, with advice on literature reviews, lab reports and using sources. They're easy to dip into when you have one question.
When to bring someone in
Your supervisor or a co-author who has published in the field is the best person to help you read a decision letter and choose the next journal. If reviewers commented on your English, your writing centre may be able to help, and some universities offer editing support for graduate researchers. If you believe a review was abusive or the process was unfair, COPE's guidance can help you understand what is reasonable to raise with the editor.
Find the right person, or talk to Ify