(Potentially) Politically Motivated Manuscript rejection from a journal director

Question

Update

It was informally confirmed to me that the reason for rejection is affiliation with a sanctioned institution. The publisher complies with international sanctions, and the journal follows the publisher's rules. Working with editors and reviewers from sanctioned entities does not interfere with the publisher's policies.

The restrictions are not mentioned on the journal's website, nor were the reason for rejection explicitly stated in email. This was my source of confusion.

---

My paper was 'found not suitable' by a journal director. I suspect this decision might be based on one of my affiliations, which is currently sanctioned by the US (not sure about EU), although the journal itself is EU/CERN-based. There is no mention of any submission restrictions on the journal’s website, and they even have a non-discrimination statement. Here are some reasons for my suspicions:

• Fast Rejection: The rejection letter was on the same day, which didn't allow enough time to process it.

• Source of Rejection: The rejection was issued by a director, not a topical editor.

• Relevant Publications: The journal has previously published papers on related topics.

• Previous Rejection History: My paper was previously rejected by another (more reputable) journal after the third round of review.

• Undisclosed Source Information: I have information from a source I can't disclose that the rejection is based on my affiliation.

It also seems that the journal has no issue with editors and reviewers from my organization.

My question is: should I reply to the journal expressing my concerns?

Answer 1

First of all, sorry that your paper was rejected. This kind of thing literally happens to every academic but it does sting and it can be demoralizing.

It is extremely unlikely to have been a result of sanctions against your country. I serve as both a journal editor and a referee for dozens of journals. In math, the review process is single blind, meaning the referee knows the identities of the authors when they write a referee report. I have seen hundreds of papers from people in countries under sanctions, still have their work published in math journals in the sanctioning countries. Most editors probably have no idea there even are sanctions and no desire to be part of them.

I remember when I traveled to Iran in 2022. Despite the deep divisions between the US government and the Iranian government, what struck me what that the people were extremely welcoming and kind. Divisions between two governments does not imply bad feelings between the citizens of those governments. Even if your country is under sanctions, a large majority of researchers in your area (even in the sanctioning countries) would still be welcoming and supportive of you. I advise you to try to avoid the mindset that people are out to get you. That mindset will not make you happy long term.

That said, desk rejections of good papers do still happen. Publishing is very random. Most academics can tell stories of papers rejected by lower journals then published in better journals. It does get easier as you get more established. It is very unwise to accuse the editor of discrimination or unfair treatment. Believe me, they reject plenty of good papers even from people in their own countries. The best thing to do is to accept that article publishing is fairly random, build up an expectation of rejections so they don't sting as much, resubmit elsewhere, and move on. Antagonizing senior people in your field is unwise, regardless of what country you are from. You will probably be connected to this editor again sometime, either as an editor, or as a referee of one of your papers/grants, or through a conference, etc. There is no reason to go out of your way to create negative feelings. Relatedly, I would not go around telling others that you think your paper is being rejected because of your affiliation. Instead, submit it elsewhere and while you are waiting for a response, write another paper. Let your body of work speak for itself.

Answer 2

This is difficult to interpret from the outside. There are two basic possibilities:

If "journal director" is an employee of the publisher, then there's not much to say. The publisher is presumably prohibited by sanctions from publishing your paper (see example, example), which is "the end". Even if the editorial board choose to accept the paper, the publisher cannot publish it without risking government action, so they will overrule the editorial board. There is no point writing to the journal, unless you are looking to confirm that you are indeed prohibited from publishing with them.

If "journal director" is a member of the editorial board, then this is a desk rejection, probably for quality reasons. Editorial board members generally do not care about your affiliation, and likely consider doing so highly unethical (see David Ketcheson's answer here). If you're going to dispute a desk rejection from EBMs, you need academic reasons.

Note some of the things you write about - fast rejection, relevant publications and especially previous rejection history - are meaningless because the first simply implies that they had time to consider the manuscript today (some editorial board members are genuinely able to do this), the second implies that the rejection was for reasons other than scope, and the last they likely don't even know about (it's not public knowledge).

Answer 3

Let's assume for the moment that a journal wanted to immediately reject your paper because of sanctions against your country. I have no doubt that in this case they would reject your paper, explaining that this is a result of sanctions. A la Dr Strangelove,

Of course, the whole point of [sanctions] is lost, if you keep [them] a secret!

There are other reasons why a journal is unlikely to do this in general, but I think you can be confident that they didn't do it to your paper in particular.

Answer 4

Try another journal and move on.