• March 2018: I submitted my paper in a Q2 journal. The Editor in Chief (EIC) approved for peer review. He sent it to Editor for Europe.
  • April 2018: I was asked by the Editor for Europe to re-submit it with changes.
  • May 2018: I re-submitted the paper. The EIC approved for review. The Editor for Europe sent out for peer review.
  • September 2018: I received a positive feedback by the reviewers. The Editor for Europe asked me for minor changes.
  • Early October 2018: I submitted a revised manuscript.
  • Mid-October 2018: I received an acceptance letter by the EIC and a congrats email by the Editor for Europe asking me to wait for the proof to check before publication.
  • End of October: I received a new reject letter by the EIC!

I asked for clarification. The EIC said that my response rate was low. He did not even apologize for the frustration they caused me for a long 8-month process and an amateur treatment. Nevertheless, I re-submitted the paper correcting a number that dropped the response rate; as he suggested. I received another reject letter.

My final response to the EIC: "I can accept nothing less than proceeding to the publication of my paper as it was accepted by you (reviewed by the Editor for Europe and by two reviewers); " The acceptance letter was attached with my letter. I am now waiting for his response within 48 hours" although I am not waiting for any change in his decision.

My questions:

  1. Did this happen to anyone of you? If yes, what was the final outcome?
  2. Is there a legal path to ask for my right to publish my paper?

I also worry for my data; it took me 6 months to finalize emails with repondents' list.

  • 5
    Why do you think you can force them to publish? – Solar Mike Oct 28 '18 at 16:48
  • 3
    What is a response rate in this case? – Dmitry Savostyanov Oct 28 '18 at 16:57
  • What is, and what is the significance of, "response rate"? Is it a statistic that you develop in the paper? Is it something you cite? Is it something about other peoples' response to your paper? Specifically, what is it that it could cause rejection? What does "correct" response rate mean? Factually accurate? An assumption? Something you cited correctly/incorrectly? – paul garrett Oct 28 '18 at 18:29
  • 5
    So the editor noticed that the response rate was too low for the conclusions, then when this was pointed out you changed the reported response rate to the "correct" number? You don't see that this appears suspect? – Tobias Kildetoft Oct 28 '18 at 19:08
  • I also worry for my data; it took me 6 months to finalize emails with repondents' list. It must be nice to work in a field where 6 months is a long time to work. – Azor Ahai -- he him Oct 29 '18 at 22:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.