Rejection is common in academic publishing: Can I avoid it?

Collectively, we have published about 300 papers, which means that we were rejected more than 600 times (assuming we get it published on the second attempt, which is highly unlikely)!  In addition, we both review for at least 30 peer-reviewed journals, so we have done out share of rejections. 

Rejection is common in academic publishing. Even researchers at the top of their field experience rejection. 

Based on our experiences and existing literature, here are some reasons why papers get rejected.

Things to consider before you start: Lack of originality, novelty, or significance

1. Results that are not generalizable
2.  Use of methods that have become obsolete because of new technologies or techniques
3. Secondary analyses that extend or replicate published findings without adding substantial knowledge and studies that report already known knowledge but positions the knowledge as novel by extending it to a new geography, population, or cultural setting (“me too” studies)
4. Results that are unoriginal, predictable, or trivial
5.  Results that have no clinical, theoretical, or practical implications

How to: Read, ask, consult….this is where collegial consultation, reading literature and reaching out to experts BEFORE you do your study is necessary.  Being at conferences helps to get a broad perspective of where the field is and if you are being novel, original and if your research will make a difference.  Most importantly,  did you ask enough the questions that start “WHY”? Why would your audience care?  Why do you expect to see what you see? Why is it important? Why wasn’t it done before?

Design, design, design: Flaws in study design

1. Poorly formulated research question
2. Poor conceptualization of the approach to answering the research question
3. Choice of a weak or unreliable method
4. Choice of an incorrect method or model that is not suitable for the problem to be studied
5. Inappropriate statistical analysis
6. Unreliable or incomplete data
7. Inappropriate or suboptimal instrumentation
8. Small or inappropriately chosen sample

How to: Points 1-8 are really due to a lack of a logic model applied before and during the writing.  Logic models allows one to connect the question, with hypothesis (of one can be stated), with the methods, outcomes, with the analyses and finally with the conclusions.  I always advise my trainees to write in point form and draw lines between these elements.  Lines cannot cross and everything is connected.  Unconnected elements need to be either removed, or other elements need to be added to connect them.  Elements whose lines cross need to be rearranged.  Only once this exercise is complete we can start populate this with information.

Note that logic model needs to be applied before and after the data is collected.  Before to make sure that you do not commit a fatal error that would deem your research un-publishable.  After, to make sure that the way you present it makes sense to the reader. 

Getting the writing done: Poor writing and organization

1.  Inadequate description of methods
2. Discussion that only repeats the results but does not interpret them
3. Insufficient explanation of the rationale for the study
4.  Insufficient literature review
5.  Conclusions that do not appear to be supported by the study data
6. Failure to place the study in a broad context
7. Introduction that does not establish the background of the problem studied

How to: It is very important for authors to present a persuasive and rational argument in their papers. You should be able to convince readers that your research is both sound and important through your writing. 

To consider once you are done: Mismatch with the journal

1. Findings that are of interest to a very narrow or specialized audience that the journal does not cater to specifically
2. Manuscripts that lie outside the stated aims and scope of the journal
3.  Topics that are not of interest to the journal’s readership
4.  Manuscripts that do not follow the format specified by the journal (e.g., case report submitted to a journal that explicitly states it doesn’t publish case reports)

How to:  Spend some time in choosing the accurate journals for submitting you paper. You can start by creating a list of journals and reviewing your options before deciding which journal to submit your manuscript to. 

  

Other: Inadequate preparation of the manuscript

1. Failure to follow the journal’s Instructions for Authors
2. Sentences that are not clear and concise
3. Title, abstract, and/or cover letter that are not persuasive
4. Wordiness and excessive use of jargon
5. Large number of careless errors like poor grammar or spelling mistakes
6. Poorly designed tables or figures

Relevant References

Bordage G (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manucripts: The strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9): 889-96.

Byrne DW (2000). Common reasons for rejecting manuscripts at medical journals: A survey of editors and peer reviewers. Science Editor, 23(2): 39-44.

Coronel R (1999). The role of the reviewer in editorial decision-making. Cardiovascular Research, 43(2): 261-264. doi: 10.1016/S0008-6363(99)00177-7.

McKercher B, Law R, Weber K, Song H, Hsu C (2007). Why referees reject manuscripts. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31(4): 455-470. doi: 10.1177/1096348007302355.

Pierson DJ (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respiratory Care, 49(10): 1246-52.

Wyness T, McGhee CN, Patel DV (2009). Manuscript rejection in ophthalmology and visual science journals: Identifying and avoiding the common pitfalls. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology, 37(9): 864-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2009.02190.x.

3 easy ways to form and maintain effective research teams

"If you want to go fast go alone, if you want to go far go together" (African proverb)
 
In an academic world the word "team" is traditionally not well liked and accepted.  We tend to call ourselves collaborations, networks, and coauthors.  Regardless of the point of view, in order to form and maintain effective research teams, collaborations, networks, or groups, a certain formation and maintenance process needs to be followed.  Reviewing business literature, it appears there are 3 key steps to build and maintain teams:
 
Step 1. Frequent, open communication:  Most team dysfunction is rooted in communication breakdowns, such as poor listening, interrupting, rambling, inability to get to the point, and simply not communicating frequently enough to create team cohesion.  
 
How to:  Drs. Leonard J. Marcus and Barry Dorn of the National Preparedness Leadership Initiative in their Meta-leadership framework suggest that teams should develop a code word to let each other know when things are starting to fall apart.  
 
Step 2. Take time to create team cohesion: Relationships cannot develop in a vacuum. Spending less time together will not create stronger team bonds. Building effective team cohesion involves taking the time to get to know working styles, personalities, and preferences.
 
How to: Yes, we are all super busy.  However, it does not have to be a "pub night" or anything like what we see in the movies, when the whole office hangs out after work hours having fun.  Team cohesion can be built during short, informal interactions.  Glenn Regehr, a master team builder in the medical education world, would have a 5 minute morning ritual of walking by everyones' office during his days at the Wilson Centre (Toronto) and asking them how their day was. As a recipient of his walkabout, I believe we even managed to write a paper like that once, or at least came up with an idea for one.  Coffee also tastes better when it is shared!
 
3. Give honest, regular feedback: Everyone on the team needs to get feedback in order to feel connected to the team effort. Even if that feedback is critical, the team member knows that their contributions are being noticed and evaluated. For the team to stay on track and avoid retreating into dysfunction, everyone needs to be talking with each other about expectations, goals, performance, and progress. 
 
How to:  Make it an explicit part of your everyday routine.  An inquiry based approach may be helpful in making feedback less awkward.  "I observed that  ___ & I was concerned that ___.  What did you think about ___.?" Listen and re-phrase what was said. "How could we solve a similar problem in the future?"
 
 In the words of Ifeanyi Enoch Onuoha: “teamwork is the secret that makes common people achieve uncommon results”.  In my experience, research teams are not different than any other teams found in business or sports - they all want to achieve uncommon results.  To form and maintain the teams requires work, and this work should be part of the daily activities of any research team. 

About this Blog

I have been a researcher in simulation supported learning for many years, published over 150 peer reviewed papers, supervised nearly 50 graduate students, mentored and coached many professionals, and advised organizations on how to develop a research capacity in their simulation spaces.  I consider myself a consultant, as well as a coach.

The purpose of this blog is to provide research tips and some synapses of what is new in the literature for busy professionals who want to improve their research skills.