How to assess a rejection and plan your next step

The short answer

A rejection is a decision about one manuscript at one journal, not a final verdict on your research. To plan what comes next, work out which kind of rejection you received, read the letter and any reviewer reports for what they actually say, and sort the problems into those a different journal might not share and those any journal would raise. Most often, the next step is to revise and submit to a better-matched journal. Sometimes it is to resubmit to the same journal on invitation. Occasionally, it is to appeal.

A rejection can sting, particularly after months of work, and that reaction is worth acknowledging rather than acting on. If you can, wait a day or two before deciding anything. The letter usually reads differently once the first response has passed.

Three kinds of rejection

Desk rejection

A desk rejection comes from the editor without external peer review, usually relatively soon after submission. Common reasons include a poor match with the journal’s scope or readership, an article type the journal does not publish, a contribution the editor judges too limited for that journal, and problems with presentation, reporting, or compliance with the author guidelines. Desk rejection letters are often brief and sometimes standardized, so they may tell you little beyond the main reason.

Rejection after peer review

Here the manuscript went to reviewers, and the editor decided against publication on the basis of their reports and the editor’s own reading. The reports are valuable even though the decision is negative. They show how informed readers in your field responded to the work, and reviewers at the next journal may raise similar concerns.

Reject and resubmit

Some journals use a decision, sometimes worded as reject and resubmit or rejection with encouragement to resubmit, that declines the current version but invites a substantially revised manuscript, usually treated as a new submission. This differs from a major-revision decision, in which the manuscript remains under consideration. Read the wording carefully, and if it is unclear whether resubmission is invited, ask the editorial office. Our guide to what a revise-and-resubmit decision really means covers the revision route in detail.

Reading the decision letter carefully

Read the letter and the reports at least twice: once for the overall message and once to extract every specific point. A practical method is to copy each comment into a document or spreadsheet and label it:

• Scope or fit: the work falls outside the journal’s focus, suits a different readership, or is the wrong article type.
• Substantive: concerns about design, data, analysis, interpretation, or the strength of the contribution.
• Presentation: clarity, structure, length, reporting, or missing information.
• Unclear or disputed: comments you believe are mistaken or do not yet understand.

Scope and fit problems may disappear at a better-matched journal. Substantive and presentation problems usually will not, because a new set of reviewers is likely to notice the same weaknesses. Comments you believe are mistaken still deserve attention: a reviewer’s misunderstanding often points to a passage that could be clearer.

Should you appeal?

Many journals have a formal process for appealing editorial decisions. The Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (external link), produced by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME, say that journals should have visible policies on how they handle complaints and appeals. The existence of a process does not make every decision appealable, however, and an appeal is not a way to request another round of review because you disagree with the reviewers.

An appeal may be reasonable when:

• a reviewer or editor appears to have misread a central part of the manuscript, and you can show this with specific evidence from the text;
• there is a demonstrable factual or procedural error, such as comments that refer to a different manuscript or file;
• you have specific, documented concerns about bias or an undisclosed conflict of interest.

Before appealing, read the journal’s policy. It should say whether appeals are accepted, how to submit one, and who considers it. Keep the appeal brief, factual, and courteous, address the specific grounds, and be prepared for the original decision to stand. Until the appeal is resolved, treat the manuscript as still under consideration at that journal and do not submit it elsewhere.

Revising before you submit elsewhere

It is tempting to send a rejected manuscript straight to the next journal. Unless the rejection was purely about fit, revise first. Work through the substantive and presentation points you identified, decide which you can address, and make the changes. Where you cannot address a concern, for example because your data do not allow a particular analysis, acknowledge the limitation in the paper rather than leaving it for the next reviewers to find.

Choosing the next journal

Use what the rejection taught you about fit. Look at what the candidate journal has published recently, its article types, and its readership, and verify its indexing and policies independently; the Think. Check. Submit. journal checklist (external link) is a useful prompt. Some publishers offer to transfer a rejected manuscript, sometimes with its reviewer reports, to another journal in their portfolio; weigh such an offer on its merits, as you would any other journal. Our guide on how to choose a journal beyond its impact factor sets out the criteria.

Reformatting for the new journal

Each journal has its own requirements for structure, word count, abstract format, reference style, figures, declarations, and supplementary files. Reformat fully rather than changing only the obvious elements; a manuscript that still carries another journal’s style or name suggests a hurried resubmission. Check that the title page, declarations, and any mention of the previous journal have been updated.

One journal at a time

Submit to only one journal at a time. The ICMJE Recommendations on overlapping publications (external link) state that authors should not submit the same manuscript, in the same or different languages, simultaneously to more than one journal, and journals commonly ask you to confirm this at submission. Wait for a final decision, or withdraw the manuscript formally, before submitting elsewhere.

Cover-letter considerations

Write a new cover letter that explains why the manuscript fits the new journal; do not adapt one written for the previous journal. Whether to mention an earlier submission depends partly on the journal, since some ask about prior submissions directly. The ICMJE Recommendations on sending the manuscript to the journal (external link) note that when a manuscript has been submitted to another journal before, it is helpful to include the previous editors’ and reviewers’ comments with the authors’ responses, and that doing so may expedite review. Sharing them can also show how the work has improved.

For a reject-and-resubmit to the same journal, include a point-by-point response to the earlier comments. The guide on how to respond to reviewer comments point by point explains how to structure one.

Moving forward

Rejection is a routine part of academic publishing at every career stage. What matters is how you use the information it gives you: identify the type of decision, sort the feedback, fix what would travel with the manuscript, choose the next journal deliberately, and reformat properly. This takes longer than resubmitting the next day, but it gives the manuscript a fairer hearing at its next journal.

If you would like a second reading of a decision letter or help planning a resubmission, reviewer response and resubmission support covers this stage.