How To Deal with Journal Paper Rejection

How To Deal with Journal Paper Rejection

Introduction: Rejection Is Normal—Even for Excellent Research

For most researchers, few emails provoke as much emotion as the subject line that reads: “Decision on your manuscript.” If you have submitted a paper to a scholarly journal, you already know the feeling—the nervous click, the rush of hope, and the sinking heart when you see the words “we regret to inform you…”

It may be some consolation to remember that journal rejection is the rule rather than the exception. Across disciplines, far more manuscripts are declined than accepted, and even those that do make it into print often go through multiple rounds of revision. Only a tiny fraction of papers are accepted as they are. In other words, if you have received a rejection, you are in very good company.

What really matters is how you respond. A rejection letter can be a dead end—but it can also be an invaluable source of information about how to improve your work, choose a better journal, and ultimately get published. This article walks you through the different types of rejection, shows you how to interpret editorial feedback, and offers practical strategies for turning a setback into a step forward.

1. First Reactions: Managing the Emotional Impact

Before you analyse the editor’s letter, acknowledge that rejection hurts. You may feel disappointed, angry, embarrassed, or tempted to give up on the paper entirely. This is normal. However, making decisions in the heat of the moment—firing off an angry email, abandoning the project, or immediately resubmitting without revision—is rarely helpful.

Instead, try the following:

• Step away for a day or two. Give yourself time for the emotional sting to fade. You will be able to read the decision letter more objectively later.
• Avoid taking it personally. Rejection is about the manuscript in its current form and its fit with the journal—not about your worth as a researcher.
• Talk to colleagues or mentors. Many will have their own rejection stories and can provide perspective and encouragement.

Once you feel calmer, you can return to the decision letter ready to extract its useful content.

2. Understanding the Different Types of Rejection

Not all rejections are the same, and your response should depend on the type of decision you received. Common categories include:

2.1 Desk Rejection (Before Peer Review)

A desk rejection occurs when the editor declines your paper without sending it out for full peer review. The reasons may include:

• Poor fit with the journal’s scope or readership.
• Obvious failure to follow the journal’s author guidelines.
• Perceived lack of novelty or significance.
• Major problems with language, structure, or presentation.

Desk rejections are frustrating because they often come with only a brief explanation, such as “does not fit our current publishing agenda.” This phrase can be used both when a paper genuinely falls outside the journal’s scope and when the editor feels that the manuscript is not competitive enough for their readership.

Although detailed feedback is rare at this stage, the key message is clear: this journal is very unlikely to publish this paper in its current form. Unless the editor explicitly invites you to revise and resubmit, your best option is usually to improve the manuscript and look for a more suitable venue.

2.2 Rejection After Peer Review

A rejection after peer review—sometimes called a reject with feedback—usually means that the editor found serious concerns in the reviewers’ reports. These concerns may relate to:

• Methodological weaknesses or inadequate data.
• Flaws in analysis or interpretation.
• Insufficient contribution to the field.
• Major problems with clarity, organisation, or coherence.

While painful, these decisions often come with detailed comments that can be extremely useful. Even if the current journal does not want to see a revised version, you can use this feedback to strengthen the paper for submission elsewhere.

2.3 “Reject and Resubmit” Decisions

Sometimes an editor will reject a manuscript but explicitly invite you to “revise and resubmit” as a new submission. This means the paper has potential, but the required changes are substantial enough to warrant a fresh evaluation. You may need to:

• Reanalyse your data or add new analyses.
• Restructure the article significantly.
• Clarify your theoretical framework or contribution.

Although technically a rejection, a “reject and resubmit” decision is encouraging: the editor is signalling that they see promise in your work and are open to reconsidering it once improved.

2.4 “Revise and Resubmit” (Major or Minor Revisions)

Sometimes the decision is not “reject” at all but a request for minor or major revisions. These are good outcomes, but they still require careful handling. Treat them as conditional rejections: publication is not yet guaranteed, but you are on the right track. We discuss how to respond to such decisions in more depth below, as many of the same principles apply.

3. Diagnosing the Reasons Behind Rejection

Once you have identified the type of rejection, you need to understand why the journal declined your paper. Read the decision letter slowly and systematically:

• Highlight key reasons. Is the issue primarily scope, novelty, methodology, writing quality, or something else?
• Distinguish between editor and reviewer comments. Editorial concerns usually carry more weight, but reviewer feedback often reveals specific weaknesses.
• Look for patterns. If more than one reviewer raises the same issue, it almost certainly needs to be addressed.

If the letter is vague, you may be left guessing. In such cases, show the letter to a trusted colleague or mentor and ask for their interpretation. They may spot issues that are harder to see in your own work.

4. Deciding on Your Next Step

After you understand the main reasons for rejection, you have three broad options:

1. Revise and resubmit to the same journal (if invited to do so).
2. Revise and submit to a different journal.
3. Set the paper aside temporarily and reconsider your approach.

4.1 When to Revise for the Same Journal

If the editor explicitly invites you to revise and resubmit, this is usually worth doing. It means that the journal sees genuine promise in your work. In this case:

• Prepare a detailed revision plan, matching each requested change to specific sections of your manuscript.
• Be realistic about whether you can make the required changes. If the editors are asking for new data you cannot obtain, you may need to reconsider.
• Commit to the process. A thorough revision and a clear response letter will significantly increase your chances of success.

4.2 When to Move On to Another Journal

If there is no invitation to resubmit—or if you believe that aligning your paper with the journal’s expectations would require changing its core argument or focus—it is often better to submit elsewhere. Before you do:

• Use the feedback you have received to strengthen your manuscript. Address as many substantive concerns as possible.
• Identify a more appropriate journal by checking scopes, aims, and previously published articles.
• Adapt your manuscript to the new journal’s guidelines, structure, and audience.

Be aware that in some fields, the same reviewers may be approached by multiple journals, so it is wise to resolve serious issues now rather than hoping they go unnoticed.

4.3 When to Reassess the Project Itself

If you have received multiple rejections with consistent criticism—especially about fundamental issues such as methodology or contribution—it may be time to step back and ask whether the project needs substantial rethinking. Options include:

• Reframing the paper’s main research question or contribution.
• Conducting additional analyses or collecting more data.
• Splitting an overly ambitious paper into two more focused articles.

This can be difficult, but in the long run it is better to strengthen your research than to send the same flawed manuscript from journal to journal.

5. How to Revise After Rejection

Whether you are resubmitting to the same journal or sending the paper elsewhere, a careful, systematic revision is essential.

5.1 Use Feedback as a Revision Roadmap

Use the editor’s and reviewers’ comments to guide your revisions:

• Create a table listing each comment, your response, and the location of any changes in the revised manuscript.
• Address every point—even if only to explain why you decided not to make a particular change.
• Be honest with yourself about weaknesses. If multiple reviewers found your argument unclear, consider restructuring the paper rather than making only cosmetic edits.

5.2 Writing an Effective Response Letter

When you resubmit your revised paper, always include a response to reviewers or “rebuttal” letter. In that letter:

• Thank the editor and reviewers for their time and constructive feedback.
• Organise your responses by reviewer and by numbered comment.
• For each point, briefly quote or paraphrase the comment, then describe exactly what you changed (or why you did not change it).
• Maintain a professional, polite tone—even if you disagree with a recommendation.

This document is your chance to demonstrate that you take the process seriously and are capable of engaging thoughtfully with criticism. Editors appreciate authors who respond systematically and respectfully.

5.3 Improving Language and Presentation

Reviewers and editors frequently mention issues with language, clarity, or structure as reasons for rejection. Improving your English can be challenging, especially if it is not your native language. Strategies include:

• Rewriting complex sentences in simpler, more direct forms.
• Asking colleagues to read your paper and highlight confusing sections.
• Using professional editing and proofreading services, such as Proof-Reading-Service.com, which specialise in academic and scientific writing and can help you meet the standards of international journals.

A well-edited, clearly written manuscript not only reduces one common reason for rejection, but also makes it easier for reviewers to appreciate the quality of your research.

6. Learning from Rejection: Building Long-Term Publishing Strength

Every rejection, however unwelcome, is also an opportunity to develop as a researcher and writer. Over time, you will see patterns in the feedback you receive and can work proactively to address them in future projects.

• Track comments across papers. Do reviewers frequently mention similar issues (e.g. unclear methods, weak theoretical framing, language problems)? If so, these are areas to prioritise in your professional development.
• Improve journal targeting. Use previous experiences to refine your sense of which journals are a good fit for your work.
• Strengthen your network. Discuss rejection and revision strategies with mentors and peers; many will be willing to share decision letters and how they responded.

Remember, too, that reviewers are not infallible. You may occasionally receive contradictory or unreasonable comments. Learning to evaluate and respond to feedback critically—accepting what is helpful, respectfully explaining why you cannot implement other suggestions—is part of becoming an independent scholar.

Conclusion: Turning “No” into “Next Steps”

Rejection letters will never be pleasant to receive, but they do not have to be the end of the story. By understanding the different types of rejection, diagnosing the reasons behind them, and engaging constructively with feedback, you can transform setbacks into stronger papers and better publication outcomes.

Successful researchers are not those who never face rejection; they are those who respond strategically. They choose journals carefully, follow guidelines precisely, seek feedback, revise thoughtfully, and polish their language and presentation with the help of professional proofreaders when needed. With each cycle of submission, review, and revision, your work improves—and so do your chances of eventual acceptance.

If you are currently staring at a rejection letter, take a deep breath, step away, and then come back with fresh eyes. Read the comments slowly, make a plan, seek advice where needed, and consider enlisting experienced human proofreaders such as those at Proof-Reading-Service.com to help you refine your manuscript for its next destination. The journey to publication may be long and winding, but every “no” you encounter can bring you closer to a well-deserved “yes.”