Decoding the Rejection Code: Understanding Why Articles Get Axed

In the competitive arena of medical publishing, manuscript rejection remains a significant barrier to disseminating research findings. This editorial delves into the multifaceted nature of manuscript rejection, elucidating common reasons and proposing actionable strategies for authors to enhance the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) CA), 2024-03, Vol.16 (3), p.e56920-e56920
Main Authors: Bhende, Vishal V, Sharma, Tanishq S, Krishnakumar, Mathangi, Ramaswamy, Anikode Subramanian, Bilgi, Kanchan, Mankad, Saptak P
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Audiences
Cardiac/Thoracic/Vascular Surgery
Citation management software
Collaboration
Editorials
Ethics
Feedback
Human subjects
Informed consent
Medical Education
Medical research
Other
Plagiarism
Publishing
Reproducibility
Research methodology
Scholarly communication
Writing
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In the competitive arena of medical publishing, manuscript rejection remains a significant barrier to disseminating research findings. This editorial delves into the multifaceted nature of manuscript rejection, elucidating common reasons and proposing actionable strategies for authors to enhance their chances of acceptance. Key rejection factors include a mismatch with journal scope, lack of novelty, methodological flaws, inconclusive results, ethical issues, poor presentation, data inaccessibility, author misconduct, and plagiarism. Ethical lapses, such as lacking informed consent, or submissions fraught with grammatical errors, further doom manuscripts. In addressing these pitfalls, authors are advised to ensure content originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and clear presentation. Aligning the manuscript with the journal's audience, scope, and editorial standards is crucial, as is professional conduct and responsiveness to feedback. Leveraging technological tools for citation management, grammar checking, and plagiarism detection can also significantly bolster manuscript quality. Ultimately, understanding and addressing common rejection reasons can empower authors to improve their submissions, contributing to the advancement of medical knowledge and their professional growth.
ISSN:2168-8184
2168-8184
DOI:10.7759/cureus.56920