7

I got a rejection after minor revisions although I handled all requirements.

I got comments from two reviewers:

Reviewer #1: Good work. Like the paper.

Reviewer #2: I like these kinds of quantitative comparison papers and think they are good for science in general.

I didn't get any notice about the grammars or the error typos except one and already corrected it, Now the comments after reviewing say

I was hoping that the authors could provide new contributions that would be useful to other researchers. This was not in the paper

Also, one of the Reviewer ask for correcting an abbreviation I wrote which is right, and I mentioned the reference for this abbreviation with the replies to the comments.

What should I do ? Is there any chance to get the editor to look again at the paper?

If the paper doesn't have new contributions, why then it enters to minor revisions with some normal comments?

Improve this question
6
  • 4
    Hi, this question is hard to answer without knowing what the editor said, having read the comments. I don't think the part about correcting an abbreviation is relevant?
    – Azor Ahai -him-
    Commented Dec 5, 2022 at 17:38
  • 3
    Don't think reviewers are knowledgeable and that the editor will trust them. I have been a reviewer whereby I rejected a paper and other reviewers said accept. Main reason: I provided a detailed review with justifications and I'm a senior member of the community.
    – Prof. Santa Claus
    Commented Dec 5, 2022 at 21:37
  • 3
    @user20133451 please, don't destroy the existing question by deleting its contents.
    – Anton Menshov
    Commented Dec 5, 2022 at 22:07
  • 4
    Is this your first paper? What you describes happens a lot (at least in my experience). The best way to handle this situation is to improve the paper as much as you can/want and send it to a different journal.
    – Yanko
    Commented Dec 6, 2022 at 2:23
  • 2
    Just to warn you that ''minor revisions'' and ''major revisions'' can be somewhat subjective. I have had major revisions that were fairly easy to implement and apparently minor revisions which I could not deal with and led to rejection.
    – Tom
    Commented Dec 6, 2022 at 12:44

6 Answers 6

Reset to default
12

Your paper is not being rejected because it is wrong. It is being rejected because it doesn't contain anything new. It's like, if I were to write a paper that proves that 2 + 2 = 4 (because 2 = 1 + 1 and 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4), then that proof is not wrong, but it will also never be published.

This particular reject reason:

I was hoping that the authors could provide new contributions that would be useful to other researchers. This was not in the paper

Is very damning. As long as this this reason is true, most reputable journals will likely reject your paper.

You address this comment by adding more results. Superficial changes won't do it. You need either more analysis, more experiments, etc., or you need an argument as to why your paper does provide something new. The latter probably means a significantly rewritten introduction.

As it is, an appeal to this journal is likely to fail. You could try to submit to another journal, but it'll be important to fix the above objection first.

Edit:

If the paper doesn't have new contributions, why then it enters to minor revisions with some normal comments?

It's hard to say without knowing the first decision letter or the contents of the paper. However, it's rather common for editors/reviewers to give the author a chance to address the raised issues. If for the first decision the reviewer had already expressed doubts about the novelty of the paper, then they might be expecting you to explain what exactly your contribution is in the revision. They might expect you to spell out exactly what you've done that's new. This is arguably a minor revision, because it's something you ought to know well already and so should be able to address quickly.

A minor revision decision is not a sign that your paper is going to be accepted. For example, I've given minor revision decisions before the formal review process even started, because the paper was written in incomprehensible English and the recommendation was for the authors to get it proofread by a native English speaker.

Improve this answer
4
  • 3
    if the paper doesn't has a new contributions , why then it enter to minor revisions with some normal comments !!!!!
    – user20133451
    Commented Dec 6, 2022 at 3:37
  • 6
    @user20133451 I don't know, because I don't know what the reviewers wrote in the first review. However, I'd guess that it's because during the first review the reviewer already had doubts about the novelty of the paper, but wanted to give you a chance to explain yourself. Your explanation was unsatisfactory, resulting in a reject recommendation.
    – Allure
    Commented Dec 6, 2022 at 3:41
  • 4
    "If for the first decision the reviewer had already expressed doubts about the novelty of the paper..." -- my interpretation of the question is that the first two comments quoted ("Good work..." and "I like these kinds...") were the only significant comments in the initial reviews, i.e., there was no comment on lack of novelty until after the revision, which is understandably frustrating to OP.
    – nanoman
    Commented Dec 6, 2022 at 5:46
  • 2
    If you're lucky, your paper may be published anyway despite not containing anything novel. Example: calculus "invented" in 1994.
    – Trang Oul
    Commented Dec 6, 2022 at 9:13
8

If the paper doesn't have new contributions, why then it enters to minor revisions with some normal comments?

What could have happened here is that at first glance, the editor did not desk reject the paper and sent it out for review. The two reviewers in the first round did not think your paper was bad and suggested only minor revisions were necessary. In the second round, the first two reviewers were not available anymore (which is not an unlikely scenario) and another reviewer was brought in who had less of a good opinion of your paper and suggested to reject, which led to the editor rejecting it in the end. Or one of the first round reviewers did a more thorough review in the second round and found shortcomings initially missed.

In the end, although in an ideal world it should be, peer review is not an unbiased system and the quality of reviews is not always stellar and not all reviewers will be a good match for the articles they review. From my own experience both as an reviewer and a reviewee, it is not unlikely that one person really only has minor comments and thinks a paper is worth publishing with some minor changes, while the next has three pages of remarks and feels that only major revisions will make the very same article publication ready, if ever.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    If this happens (new reviewer invited) it should be noticeable by the authors, since the reviewer will have a different ID.
    – Allure
    Commented Dec 6, 2022 at 14:13
7

Submit to a lower-ranking journal.

Improve this answer
2
  • 4
    Correct advice, but technically not answering the question at all.
    – usr1234567
    Commented Dec 6, 2022 at 9:31
  • 1
    I think it answers the question posed in the title.
    – Ian
    Commented Dec 6, 2022 at 14:13
6

It is unlikely that you will get any better result from this journal.

You weren't rejected for minor things like correcting abbreviations. The third review is saying that there isn't sufficient innovation in the paper (nothing new) to warrant publication. The editor seems to agree.

You might get a different else from another journal, but probably not from this one. If the third review says more, consider what they say carefully.

Improve this answer
1
  • 8
    "I was hoping that the authors could provide new contributions that would be useful to other researchers. This was not in the paper" and "I like these kinds of quantitative comparison papers and think they are good for science in general." are not contradictory; it just means your approach was good but you failed to provide anything new.
    – Stuart F
    Commented Dec 5, 2022 at 17:58
1

The reviewer who stated

"I was hoping that the authors could provide new contributions that would be useful to other researchers. This was not in the paper."

May very well be wrong. If you believe that your paper does in fact make new contributions, you may do well to point them out in a new version of the paper. I see that done in papers all the time.

If you do not believe that your paper makes new contributions, then I guess there is your answer. You may be able to expand on the paper so that it does make new contributions.

Improve this answer
0

The pragmatic answer is to earnestly address the reviewer comments and then submit to a lower ranking journal. Realistically, this may be the best chance for the paper.

Also, make a note to modify your paper writing process going forward so that this is less likely to happen .

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .