As an editor, it’s your job to select the best possible manuscripts for publication. These manuscripts must demonstrate potential in impact and originality while aligning with your journal’s scope. The flipside of selecting the best manuscripts, however, is that you must also become comfortable with rejecting others.
Rejection can be based on many factors, and there are many rejection scenarios which can be difficult for editors. In this blog post, we’ll go over communication guidance for delivering difficult decisions professionally, as well as how best to utilize criteria and peer support when making your decisions.
Why is rejection necessary?
Rejecting a manuscript as an editor is a difficult task. Yet it’s necessary because, ultimately, you need to ensure the reputation of your journal isn’t harmed by any editorial decisions.
The reputation of your journal can be harmed in various ways. Here are some examples:
- By publishing papers with bad English grammar
- By publishing papers with theoretically unsound or false information
- By publishing papers that contain ethical issues
- By publishing papers that fail plagiarism checks
- By publishing papers that don’t align with the journal’s scope
If in doubt about the quality or soundness of a manuscript, ask yourself if you’d be happy publishing the paper under your journal’s name (after making all possible amendments to the paper, of course). If the answer is still no, use rejection to safeguard the reputation of your journal. Trust your best judgement, and don’t forget that what you publish should reflect the ethos of your journal.
Common rejection scenarios that challenge editors
Some of the rejection scenarios we’ve discussed are relatively straightforward for editors. However, this isn’t always the case. When it comes to rejecting a manuscript, there are some common scenarios that consistently cause problems for editors. But what are they?
Rejecting well-connected authors
When they come to you, authors aren’t just blank slates. They often have a publishing record attached to them. If their publishing or academic careers have been successful, they may have gained lots of connections over time.
Yet this prospective audience isn’t always a guarantee of submission quality. Authors, even generally skilled and successful ones, can sometimes miss the mark or fail to meet your criteria. And that’s okay. Don’t force a collaboration that works against your journal’s principles.
Handling appeals after rejections
After rejecting a manuscript, you will find that most authors simply move on. Either they return to their manuscript to try and make improvements, or they seek another publisher. It may be the case that authors don’t even respond to the initial rejection decision.
However, sometimes authors directly appeal the rejection decision. Revisit the manuscript and review the appeal; was there an error or bias made in your original decision? If so, remain objective and decide whether it’s suitable for publication without further amendments or requires another round of review. If the appeal lacks evidence, politely reject the author and suggest they submit elsewhere.
Borderline manuscripts
A borderline manuscript is one that receives marginally positive reviews, or a mix of good and bad comments.
This type of manuscript can cause problems for editors because, with a little improvement, the paper may be brought to a publishable standard. However, these improvements may require time and effort on the authors behalf. And this is before the several rounds of review that may be necessary to assess the impact of the author’s subsequent changes.
Generally, if you feel passionate about the potential of a paper as an editor, then do all you can to help make its publication a reality. If you feel the job is too much for yourself or the author, then politely reject and move on.
Take a look at the different services that JAMS can offer to help you manage your journal.
Communication templates and scripts for rejecting a manuscript
So, now you feel more comfortable identifying a rejection scenario. But how do you actually handle the hard bit—writing the rejection?
There are certain templates you can follow for writing a rejection. Let’s look at an example:
“Dear [Dr. -],
Thank you for submitting the following manuscript to [journal name]:
[Manuscript ID]
[Type of manuscript]
[Title]
[Authors]We regret to inform you that we will not be processing your submission further. Submissions sent for peer review are selected based on discipline, novelty and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in scholarly journals. Therefore, our decision does not necessarily reflect the quality of your work.
We wish you every success if you choose to pursue publication elsewhere.”
As well as following a rejection template, it would be beneficial to recognize and employ suitable scripts when rejecting a manuscript. Think carefully about the language you’re using.
For example, you might think highly of one particular submission. Still, you’ve decided that it doesn’t quite align with your journal’s scope. Instead of simply rejecting them, try saying something like, “We regret to inform you that we’ve decided we aren’t the right journal for your submission.” In that way, you don’t directly say no, but you do firmly move the author on in another direction. But by saying this, you still give the author some belief that their work may be a better fit somewhere else (and this is likely to be true).
Utilizing consistent criteria and peer support
When it comes to rejecting a manuscript, don’t forget to utilize consistent criteria and peer support. This will ensure that editorial decisions are based on the shared principles and standards behind your journal.
To do so, create clear, uniform guidelines for authors to follow when submitting to your journal. Define the journal’s specific requirements concerning formatting, ethical considerations, copyright, authorship, and data and references. Make sure any information about these requirements is easy to find on your submission pages.
Don’t forget to consult your peers if unsure about how to proceed. Meet with editorial board members or other editors to reach a consensus on certain manuscripts. Other expert opinions can help you see weaknesses or blind spots in your own judgement and help your journal deliver a fair and unbiased decision to the author. Ultimately, the decision of one editor should reflect the shared opinions and values of all journal members.