Rejection, Correction and Resubmission

A Guide for Authors

Kamarul Imran
drki.musa@gmail.com

Introduction

Biography

The Outcomes Of a the First Submission

  • Rejection: Understanding reasons and planning next steps
  • Correction: Effective revision and response strategies
  • Resubmission: Making informed decisions

Unlikely your submission gets accepted at the first trial. If it does, did you send to a predatory journal?

PART 1: REJECTION

Reality Check: Rejection Statistics

High-Impact Medical Journals (2022-2025) 1

Journal Acceptance Rate
NEJM ~5%
JAMA 11% overall, 4% research
The Lancet ~5%
BMJ ~7% overall, 4% research
Nature Medicine <8%

Key Insight: Rejection is the norm, not the exception!

Acceptance Rates Across Journal Tiers

General Medical Journals 1

  • BMJ Open: 47% acceptance rate
  • Dove Medical Press: 76% rejection/withdrawal rate
  • Elsevier Analysis (2,371 journals): 32% average acceptance
  • Overall Reality: 62-90% rejection rates common

Common Rejection Reasons

Editorial Screening (20-30% of manuscripts)

1. Scope/Focus Misalignment

  • JAMA Internal Medicine: 78% rejected without review
  • Primary cause: outside journal scope

2. Lack of Novelty

  • Common fatal flaw
  • Work previously published with no novelty
  • Insufficient knowledge advancement (too superficial)

Editorial Screening (20-30% of manuscripts)

3. Poor Research Question

  • Among top rejection reasons
  • Unclear hypothesis
  • Data doesn’t answer question

Technical Rejection Reasons

Post-Peer-Review (45-70% of reviewed manuscripts)

  1. Methodological Flaws

    • Poor study design for example inadequate controls
    • Sample size inadequacy
    • Inappropriate statistical tests
    • Poor writing

Post-Peer-Review (45-70% of reviewed manuscripts)

  1. Statistical/Analytical Problems (40-60%)
    • Inappropriate analysis methods
    • Conclusions not supported by data
    • Poor writing
  2. Writing Quality/Language (15-25%)
    • Clarity issues
    • Bad grammar

Discipline-Specific Patterns

Medical Specialty Rejection Rates

Post-Rejection Action Plan

Immediate Response Strategy (Days 1-7)

  1. Emotional Management
    • Take 2-7 day cooling-off period
    • Avoid immediate emotional responses
  2. Systematic Review Analysis
    • Read rejection letter carefully
    • Categorize feedback systematically
    • Determine revision potential
  3. Success Statistics
    • 76% rejected manuscripts published elsewhere <2 years
    • 70-89% eventual publication rate

Post-Rejection Success Strategies

Decision Framework (Week 1-2)

Option 1: Same Journal

  • 50% acceptance rate for invited revisions
  • Only if editor shows genuine interest

Option 2: Alternative Journal

  • 75-83% eventual publication success
  • Target appropriate scope
  • Slightly lower impact factor

Decision Framework (Week 1-2)

Long-term Success Factors

  • Pre-submission preparation
    • take adequate time and do not rush
    • revise and revise and revise
  • Collaborative approach
    • get help from experts in the field
    • expert in the methods, in the analysis
  • Use journal selection tools
    • general journals or specific field journals
    • article processing fee

PART 2: CORRECTION

Understanding Revision Categories

Success Rates by Decision Type

Decision Type Acceptance Rate Timeline
Minor Revision 91.5-94.7% 5 days - 4 weeks
Major Revision 40.0-55.2% 10 days - 3 months
Provisional Accept 98% (“will”) / 90% (“may”) Variable
Reject & Resubmit ~50% No fixed deadline

Point-by-Point Response Strategy

Essential Structure Components

  1. Opening Summary: Brief overview of major changes
  2. Systematic Organization: Address each reviewer separately
  3. Comment-Response Format: Clear labeling
  4. Location References: Specific page, paragraph, line numbers

Response Template Structure

Template for Responses

Advanced Response Techniques

Addressing Methodology Concerns

Example Response

Comment R2.3: “Statistical analysis approach seems inappropriate.”

Response: We appreciate this observation. After biostatistician consultation, we agree and re-analyzed using linear mixed models per Smith et al. (2023). New analysis in revised Table 2 (page 8), discussed in Results (page 12, lines 15-28). This strengthened conclusions by accounting for repeated measures.

Handling Disagreements Professionally

Scope Limitations Example

Professional Disagreement

Comment R1.5: “Authors should include long-term outcomes.”

Response: We acknowledge the importance of long-term data. However, this extends beyond current study scope designed as a 6-month pilot study. We have added this as a limitation (page 16, lines 8-12) and suggested it as important future research direction.

Quality Control Checklist

✅ Do:

  • Have co-authors review
  • Cross-reference all changes
  • Verify page/line accuracy
  • Address every comment
  • Maintain professional tone

❌ Avoid:

  • Defensive tone
  • Incomplete responses
  • Inaccurate references
  • Unrequested changes
  • Ignoring editor comments

Optimal Revision Timeline

gantt
    title Revision Process Timeline
    dateFormat  YYYY-MM-DD
    section Initial Review
    Review & Planning           :2024-01-01, 7d
    section Major Changes
    Detailed Planning          :2024-01-08, 14d
    Implementation             :2024-01-22, 21d
    section Finalization
    Response Letter            :2024-02-12, 14d
    Peer Review                :2024-02-26, 7d
    Final Submission           :2024-03-05, 1d

PART 3: RESUBMISSION

Resubmission Decision Framework

Primary Decision Factors

  1. Type of Editorial Decision
    • Fixed deadline = effectively major revision ✅
    • No fixed deadline = true rejection with invitation ⚠️
    • Outright rejection = do NOT resubmit ❌
  2. Scope of Required Changes
    • Minor: Technical corrections ✅
    • Major: Additional analyses ⚠️
    • Fundamental: Complete overhaul ❌

Primary Decision Factors

  1. Reviewer Feedback Quality
    • Constructive, specific = favorable ✅
    • Fundamental concerns = alternative journal ⚠️

Risk Assessment Matrix

Success Probability Tiers

Probability Indicators Action
High (>70%) Minor revision, constructive feedback Resubmit same journal
Moderate (40-70%) Major revision with guidance Consider carefully
Low (<40%) Outright rejection, fundamental issues Try different journal

Same Journal vs. Different Journal

Same journal

1. Advantages

  • Editorial continuity
  • Established investment
  • Same reviewers understand
  • No restart needed

2. Success Rates

  • 80% eventual publication
  • 25.3% original research acceptance
  • 71% per submission (assoc. professors)

Same Journal vs. Different Journal

Different Journal

1. Indicated when

  • Scope mismatch indicated
  • Fundamental disagreement
  • Resources insufficient
  • Better IF match elsewhere

2. Strategic Considerations:

  • Disclosure requirements
  • Ethical transparency
  • Transfer services available

Publisher Resubmission Policies

Major Publishers

  • Allows resubmissions with disclosure
  • Cite previous submission in cover letter
  • Justification required
  • Accept from other journals
  • Disclose submission history
  • Manuscript transfer services
  • Format-free submission (350+ journals)
  • Transfer desk services
  • Clear preprint policies

Success Factors Analysis

Factors Correlated with Higher Success

  • Academic rank: Associate professors highest
  • Systematic response: Address all comments
  • Prompt resubmission: Maintain enthusiasm
  • Clear improvement: Show enhancement
  • Professional communication: Collaborative tone

Common Failure Factors

What NOT to Do

Process Errors:

  • Ignoring reviewer suggestions
  • Unchanged manuscripts
  • Excessive delays
  • Poor communication

Content Errors:

  • Inadequate methodology fixes
  • Overstated conclusions
  • Missing limitations
  • Inconsistent terminology

Manuscript Transfer Services

Publisher Tools

  • Taylor & Francis: Article Transfer Service
    • Seamless transfer with review history and no resubmission fees
  • Springer Nature: Transfer desk
    • Review report portability and editorial board overlap
  • Journal Selection Tools:

Professional Editing Services

Suggested Services

Enago

Website: https://www.enago.com/

Editage

Website: https://www.editage.com/

Trinka AI (AI-powered)

Website: https://www.trinka.ai/

Free Resources

Essential Tools

  1. ORCID ID: Required by all major publishers
    • Unique researcher identifier
    • Streamlined submissions
  2. Reporting Standards:
    • CONSORT (clinical trials)
    • STROBE (observational)
    • PRISMA (systematic reviews)
    • CARE (case reports)

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Methodological:

  • Inadequate sample size, Inappropriate statistics
  • Missing controls, Poor randomization

Presentation:

  • Overstated conclusions, Inadequate limitations
  • Poor figure design, Inconsistent terminology

Process:

  • Wrong journal scope, Ignoring formatting
  • Inadequate responses, Poor resubmission timing

SUMMARIES

Essential Success Principles

  1. Normalize Rejection
    • 62-90% rejection rates are common
    • Even quality research gets rejected
  2. Persistence Pays
    • 70-90% manuscripts eventually publish
    • Strategic approach crucial

Essential Success Principles

  1. Systematic Approach
    • Evidence-based revision strategies
    • Significantly improve success
  2. Professional Communication
    • Respectful, collaborative tone
    • Throughout entire process

Action Plan

Essential Tasks

  1. Develop Pre-Submission Checklist
    • Content, technical, ethical review
  2. Practice Response Writing
    • Point-by-point format, Professional tone
  3. Build Support Network
    • Peer reviewers, Mentors, Statistical consultants
  4. Plan Data Management
    • Repository selection, Sharing strategy

Remember

Final Thoughts

Most successful researchers have faced multiple rejections.

The key is:

  1. Learning from each experience
  2. Applying evidence-based strategies
  3. Improving submission success over time
  4. Never giving up on quality research

References & Further Reading

Key Publications

  1. Wong, GLH. (2019). Tips for Responding to Reviewers’ Comments. Gut and Liver, 13(1), 7-10. DOI: 10.5009/gnl18361

  2. Noble, WS. (2017). Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers. PLOS Computational Biology, 13(10). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730

  3. Provenzale, JM. (2010). Revising a manuscript: ten principles to guide success. AJR, 195(6), W382-W387. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5553

  4. Springer Nature Common Rejection Reasons: https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors/campaigns/common-rejection-reasons

  5. Taylor & Francis Author Services: https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/

  6. ICMJE Recommendations: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/

Thank You!

Questions?

For More Information:

  • Springer Nature: https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors
  • Taylor & Francis: https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/
  • Elsevier: https://www.elsevier.com/researcher/author
  • PubMed Central: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

Good luck with your manuscript submissions!

AI Assistant

Declaration

  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • with Extended Thinking for creating the contents for the slide decks.
  • You may find links for the content here

Connect with me on

  • LinkedIn for collaboration and training opportunities.