Date Posted: 04 March 2010
Recent analysis of 662 manuscripts submitted to Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (CEO) have identified the top 7 reasons why manuscript submissions fail to survive the editor's red pen. In an review published in CEO the most common reasons listed for rejection of a manuscript were (i) it did not add to the current literature; (ii) poor methodology; (iii) problematic control groups; (iv) poor English and grammar and/or poorly organized; (v) the study needed further work/clarification; (vi) "simultaneous submission to another journal/plagiarised" and finally, (vii) some "other" reason.
While the bad news illustrated that over 73% of the manuscripts failed to get published, the good news was that many of the flaws appear to be common and avoidable. Anyone that has conducted professional research will be aware of the considerable time, effort and diligence required to meet an acceptable standard, consequently, understanding the mechanics of acceptance and rejection can make a direct contribution to career progression. Most journals reject somewhere between 60-80% of manuscripts received and the general perception is that the higher the rejection rate the more prestigious the journal.
An analysis of 622 papers submitted to CEO between Jan and Dec, 2008 revealed that 145 were rejected immediately (no further review), 300 were rejected after full peer review and 42 were rejected but were returned with a recommendation to resubmit, subject to specific advice. In 2007, CEO was mid-ranked 26th of 45 ophthalmology and vision science journals listed by ISI Web of Science.
The most common reason for rejection (31%) was that a manuscript did not add to the current literature suggesting that the author had a low to average grasp of the current state in their field. This was followed (26%) by "poor methodology/questionable results" followed by (12%) "small sample sizes or problematic control groups". Analysing these top three reasons for rejection it can be seen that almost 70% of the reasons can be readily avoided through an additional investment of time in reading, design and planning. Interestingly, many of the reasons for rejection found by CEO have also been found by a variety of other journals suggesting that the same errors occur on a regular basis. The authors conclude that while "rejection" is an inevitable part of the publication process which aims to continually improve the standard there are some tools that can be used to "rejection-proof" your submission. [Clinical and Experimental of Ophthalmology, 2009, 37: 833-835].
no comments posted
Your IP address: 38.107.191.80