I submitted a paper in a renowned journal. The first decision was a major revision (revise and resubmit) asking questions. I answered them all and the reviewers were happy with the answers. The second decision was reject and the reason told by the associate editor was that this kind of work is not in correct place in this journal and we should try some other journal. My point is that they could have rejected that in the first review only if this is the reason of rejection.

My question: Is such a rejection common?

  • 3
    What is your question?
    – ff524
    Commented Sep 14, 2017 at 16:28
  • 9
    In principle, this should happen very rarely - as you say, whether a paper fits the journal scope should be clear upon submission or after first review. I can imagine it happening if the edits significantly clarified the paper, and changed the editor's understanding of the paper's main purpose, or place in the context of the literature.
    – AJK
    Commented Sep 14, 2017 at 17:24
  • 2
    Maybe the major revisions improved the paper. If so, it will be a better paper when you submit to another journal. Thus, you gained by this!
    – GEdgar
    Commented Sep 29, 2017 at 13:03


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .