Finally going to finish this series
of the top reasons for rejection. The main reason we reject papers outright is extremely easy to
avoid – the paper simply does not belong in the journal. You’ve chosen the
wrong journal. It’s that simple.
 | |
| theAdmin's face when we receive papers that don't belong | reactiongifs.com |
Usually, the situation is one of the
two scenarios below, though there are of course lots of exceptions:
The journal is a general research
journal, and your paper deals with a topic that is far too specific for the
journal’s audience.
This generally means that, for
example, you are writing about the minutiae of a specific methodology that a
handful of people use in a small area of
literature research, but you’ve submitted to the Interdisciplinary Journal of
Eighteenth Century Studies. Unless you are able to make a very strong and
concrete argument that would appeal to the wider audience, you’d be better off
looking for the Journal of Literature Minutiae.
One of my favourite real life
examples of this was when “my” journal received a submission with beautiful
pictures and artwork of a regional variety of architecture. Don’t get me wrong,
the pictures were very pretty, but the journal is not an architecture journal,
nor does it specialise in the particular region. We’re also not an art journal
and do not publish coloured photographs. Another was about the specifics of
training for Turkish traffic enforcement – no relevancy whatsoever for what we
actually publish.
The journal is a specialist
journal and your paper deals with a topic that is far too general for the
journal’s audience.
This would be the opposite of the
above scenario – you submit something about the broad implications of
Eighteenth Century literature to the Journal of Literature Minutiae without
making the argument for relevancy at the micro level.
So, in other words, you most likely
haven’t researched the journal’s audience and you haven’t gone through the Aims
& Scope of the journal to find out what they are and- equally as important
– are not looking to publish. This also applies to the internationalism
versus regionalism of the journal.
How do you select an
appropriate journal and what should you be considering?
1) Have a look at the articles that
you use in your research – in which journals do they appear?
How long ago were they published and is that journal still following the same
aims & scope? Journal practices change over time, especially with an editor
or publisher change. {“my” journal, for example, has changed drastically due to
a change in editor}
2) Really think about your audience.
Who is your target? Theorists, practitioners, researchers, policy makers..? Who reads this journal and why?
3) Who is the editor? Also take a look through the editorial
board – are they relevant and active?
4) Ask your supervisors, mentors, and
peers for their opinions and advice. Supervisors are especially helpful in this
area, as are academic mentors for those past the PhD stage.
5) Look for calls for papers – this
will often be around special issues and special topics, so it’s worth keeping
an eye out and signing up for announcement emails from publishers.
6) Is the journal international or
just regional? Is this important?
7) Is it peer-reviewed? How long
will this take?
8) Who publishes the journal?
9) What are the Open Access and
repository policies? This is why it's important to know who actually publishes the journal. How does this affect your options (grant requirements, etc.) ?
10) Is the journal ranked? Is this important to you? How does your discipline rank journals?
11) Is it available online and/or
print? How important is each of these? Some publishing markets still heavily rely on print journals.
12) Impact Factor – does this make a
difference?
What if you find out you’ve been
rejected for this reason?
Sometimes, if the editor is
worthwhile, s/he will suggest another, more suitable journal for you to
consider. It was theEditor’s practice to be as supportive as possible (again, all editors, journal policies, and publishers are different) in suggesting other avenues as it also works in the journal’s best
interest and creates academic goodwill. The editors of those other journals tend to be appreciative of having good papers pointed in their direction.
 |
| Editors often comment on good papers sent their way - this is how I like to imagine it. gifphy.com |
But if this is the reason you are
rejected, then you need to do more research about where to submit. You might
think your paper is very general, but if you’ve had tunnel-vision (often
developed during PhD writing), then you might not realise how very specific
your paper actually is. Take it as a positive to have a quick rejection due to
this reason. It means you were trying the wrong places and can now target
better.
Realistically, how long does it take
an editor to determine if it’s a good fit or not?
Usually, a single read through. If
that. I’ve seen it happen from the abstract or the first page. You need to
start and demonstrate relevance rather quickly in articles. Waxing lyrical for
a few pages is a massive disadvantage, especially if your paper is borderline
of interest. Never underestimate the power of a good and concise abstract.
Sometimes, an editor will give you a chance to rewrite a paper to fit their journal's audience a bit better. If they offer you this option, then by all means take it - it means there is merit in your work and are willing to spend a bit of time in helping you avoid rejection.
**
And there ends my series of the top reasons for rejection. (Click here for Parts I, II, and III). I'm going to be working on a series of smaller questions/FAQs for some future posts, as well as having a few guest posts on specific topics. If you have any questions, comments, or thoughts you'd like to contribute, please do get in touch.
-theAdmin
Tweet
(go on...tell your friends!)
