New answers tagged

0

Based on what you have said, the editor has, based on the reviews, decided that your introduction and conclusions were not suitable for the journal. Therefore the editor rejected your paper. You seem to suggest that the journal should accept every paper that has novel, correct experiments. That is not the way most journals work. Usually the criteria are ...


8

Many journals are now encouraged to publish the data on the "efficiency" of the review process, e.g. the average time before initial submission and publication. Expected time to publication may be an important consideration for authors, along with the journals impact factor. So, imagine that you run a journal, where a paper on average goes through 2.5 ...


0

Write back to the journal asking if the decision is correct, for the reasons you gave in the OP. It feels like they were intending to make a major revision decision, but made a reject & resubmit decision instead. In many editorial management systems, the buttons to reject and to revise are right next to each other, and human error can easily cause the ...


-1

If the reviewers didn't express much dissatisfaction, or rather, expressed general satisfaction, it may have been an editorial decision. I suspect that the journal's editors know their readers well and are just trying to match your paper to reader expectations. Some journals place a very high value on the presentation, which you indicate is fine, but the ...


1

It does seem unusual, but I would still suggest resubmitting to this journal: Since the reviews were positive, you may have a good chance of acceptance on the second round. If the reviewers had deeper concerns which didn't come through in their reviews, you may get a better explanation on the second round, thus giving you a chance to really improve the ...


Top 50 recent answers are included