Reasons for Manuscript Rejection

In brief

Every researcher wants to see their theory published in a high-impact journal. On the other hand, publishing a paper is difficult, and manuscript rejection is a frequent phenomenon in scholarly literature. At some stage in their career, any researcher would have a manuscript rejected. Researchers will learn from their errors and guarantee that their next novel has a smooth path to print. A list of the utmost common mistakes that could lead to your manuscript being rejected ⁽¹⁾.

Introduction

Challenges to translate research studies conducted in the field of pharmaceutical sciences into published manuscripts are common. A research manuscript published in a reputable national or international journal is known as substantiation of accurate and dependable studies conducted by a research group. Journal papers, reviews, brief letters, commentaries, proceedings, expert statements, and editorials are examples of manuscripts written in scholarly journals ⁽²⁾. ‘Research’ and ‘Review’ articles are the most important and influential styles among them, and they are widely published, read, and popularised.

Reasons for manuscript rejection

There are a variability of explanations for this; the most common (non-limiting) ones are discussed below:

1. Lack of Novelty, originality, and presentation of an obsolete study

The key criteria that a science journal editor emphasizes the most are novelty and non-obviousness. Unless the researcher shows something different, adding to the existing experience, a mouth dissolving tablet formulation of drug-using traditional techniques, technologies, and proven excipients adds little innovation to the existing state of the sector. Furthermore, introducing an out-of-date analysis when newer approaches are now available has little to no experimental merit.

2. Improper rationale

The purpose of the analysis is to make a point with proper justifications and adequate evidence. A controlled release formulation of a nearly water insoluble medication may be refused right away on these grounds. The rationale, which should be the article’s core subject, should focus on the whole manuscript. The last sentence in the introduction section should usually include the goal and objective. Rejection is caused by a lack of emphasis and an inability to stick to the manuscript’s theme.

3. Unimportant and irrelevant subject matter

Peer-reviewed journal publications disseminate information. As a result, a manuscript must have considerable empirical merit to be published in a well-recognized, international journal. Again, the publisher is on the lookout for anything novel that still meets the standards of his journal’s reach.

4. Flaws in methodology

Any manuscripts show that the work performed in the research sample was done incorrectly. It is due to the researcher’s lack of expertise, as shown by the preliminary literature survey conducted before beginning the project. A 300 mg tablet prepared with an 8 mm circular punch would have an increased thickness and is thus unsuitable for preparation. If this is seen in the manuscript, it will give the reviewers an unscientific interpretation ⁽³⁾. If a study’s approach is flawed or doubtful, the results are almost certain to be flawed or questions as well, and even widely regarded peer-reviewed publications will not consider such a study.

5. Lack of interpretations

The researcher must have adequate knowledge to interpret the precise explanations for the study’s findings. Even if the findings aren’t quite what the author anticipated, the author should objectively understand the reason in the discussion section. It is not enough to demonstrate good results. If the root cause of the negative effects is correctly interpreted, manuscripts will support future study.

6. Inappropriate or incomplete statistics

The use of statistics in the methodology and findings pages of a manuscript gives it an advantage over the competition since statistics are already in demand. The risk of the manuscript being accepted would be increased if the data are presented precisely, and mathematical rules are applied.

7. Reviewers field of knowledge and discretion

Occasionally, a manuscript may be submitted to a reader who is not an authority in the area of the matter under consideration. He may send the manuscript a glance before determining its fate. In such circumstances, it is expected that the manuscript has a better probability of being accepted; however, the reverse may also happen.

8. Inappropriateness for the journal

Before determining whether to submit a research report for review, the Editor-in-Chief considers its content about that of the journal. If the manuscript is unusual, some journals will research lead molecules rather than known and proven drug molecules. The date of publication and the importance of the subject matter published in a journal are also important considerations.

9. Lack of In vivo studies

With the introduction of advanced in vivo drug measurement technology and methods for estimating drug concentrations in minute amounts in a specific subject, a manuscript is handicapped if the in vitro data is not supported by applicable in vivo observations and correlations. Acceptance of manuscripts based solely on data produced by in vitro assessments is difficult in the current environment ⁽⁴⁾.

10. Inappropriate packaging of the manuscript

A less-than-borderline paper may be accepted in certain situations if it is well-packaged. It may be difficult for an assessor to tell the difference between “introduction” and “discussion” in some situations. The introduction aims to present the research topic and to state the article’s objective(s) or goal(s). The aim of the ‘discussion’ is to analyze the study, make comparisons to previous experiments, and analyzing the findings. The ‘materials and procedures’ section should be comprehensive enough for every student to replicate the analysis. In reality, this is useful for confirming the study’s authenticity. The ‘Discussion’ must be relevant to the research.

11. Journals popularity and the priority is given to the manuscript by the editor

Some manuscripts have potential, but due to the status of the journal and the vast number of hits to the journal, prospective manuscripts must be rejected because they face stiff competition from the Editor-in-higher-graded Chief’s research manuscripts. If a thesis is rejected on these points, it will eventually find a home in another well-regarded publication ⁽⁵⁾.

Table: 1 common reason for manuscript rejection

Conclusion

Recognize that there are a variety of causes for exclusion. As previously mentioned, publishers are frequently searching for something very unique. Don’t be upset or offended; please don’t take it personally. An anonymous party reads the manuscript and takes a decision based on a set of pre-determined parameters. Respect his opinions; one should be mature enough to discern whether the opinions expressed are sincere or merely written for the sake of writing. Re-energize yourself by reading the post again and seeing whether it might be changed in any way, as well as any of the reviewers’ remarks ⁽⁶⁾.

References

1. Pastrana, Indira Rocío Mendiola, et al. “Peer-Review and Rejection Causes in Submitting Original Medical Manuscripts.” Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 40.3 (2020): 182-186.
2. Jackson, Debra, and Caroline Bradbury‐Jones. “Top ten reasons papers are rejected during initial screening and some tips to avoid early rejection.” (2020): 3899-3900.
3. Asif, Fariha, Azza Jauhar Ahmad Tajuddin, and Intakhab A. Khan. “REJECTION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE MANUSCRIPTS ANALYSIS OF REASONS FROM THE EDITORS’PERSPECTIVE.” PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology 17.4 (2020): 1553-1575.
4. Shah, Jay N. “Desk-rejection of manuscript: How to avoid it.” Journal of Patan Academy of Health Sciences 7.2 (2020): 1-3.
5. Guillaume, Rene, Jesús Cisneros, and Edna Martinez. “Manuscript Rejection and Shame Resilience in Early Career Faculty of Color: Vignettes on Coping and Overcoming.” Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education 19.5 (2020): 3.
6. Krausman, Paul R. “The necessity of manuscript rejection.” (2020): 839-840.