Search Results

You seem to be conflating "Bias" and "Negativity". Bias would imply that your paper was being reviewed unfairly, either because of its content, or its authors - if they were known or divined by the re …

Many journals publish correspondence or short reports that are brief research works, usually with a single finding, straightforward methods, and not much more than that. They are intended for quick, " …

Each journal will have it's own fairly vague differences between different tiers of evaluation, but what the editor has described and "Reject and Resubmit" are exactly the same thing. Essentially, yo …

However, given that I ultimately aim for an academic career, I think it might be worth some efforts to get something published. This alone makes me thing that it may be worth the effort - attempt …

It is likely an amalgam of the truth and a gentle let-down. It's a polite way to reject someone, in that it doesn't place the failure in the hands of the applicant. There's nothing you technically did …

My friend has got such rejection from the same journal, he received exact same text, which means that it was simply copy pasted. … This is very likely true - journals get a substantial number of submissions, and for most actually tailoring their desk rejection emails would be overly burdensome, and likely not terribly productive. …

I have a few potential scenarios in mind beyond just "They don't like you": As Peter Jansson said, reviewers usually get a space to address just the editor, rather than the author, and in those comm …

Rejection doesn't even imply that you submitted to the wrong journal, or that the work wasn't worth trying to get in there - the vagaries of editorial discretion, publishing cycles, and reviewers mean …

And honestly, the transparency argument is a little bit of a non-starter unless you're also going to quote the reasons for the rejection of the paper. …