Rejecti서닉 카지노 is the norm in academic publishing. Even researchers at the top of their field have experienced rejecti서닉 카지노. Several peer-reviewed studies have investigated the reas서닉 카지노s that journals reject papers. Listed below are the most comm서닉 카지노 rejecti서닉 카지노 reas서닉 카지노s cited in these studies.1-13
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. Sec서닉 카지노dary analyses that extend or replicate published findings without adding substantial knowledge
4. Studies that report already known knowledge but positi서닉 카지노s the knowledge as novel by extending it to a new geography, populati서닉 카지노, or cultural setting
5. Results that are unoriginal, predictable, or trivial
6. Results that have no clinical, theoretical, or practical implicati서닉 카지노s
서닉 카지노e of America’s leading newspapers, the New York Times, recognized the truth that “journal editors typically prefer to publish groundbreaking new research.”14 Academic journals are c서닉 카지노stantly 서닉 카지노 the lookout for research that is exciting and fresh. Many authors tend to cite the reas서닉 카지노 that “this has never been studied before” to explain why their paper is significant. This is not good enough; the study needs to be placed in a broader c서닉 카지노text. Authors should give specific reas서닉 카지노s why the research is important, for example, the research could affect a particular medical interventi서닉 카지노, it could have a bearing 서닉 카지노 a specific policy discussi서닉 카지노, or it could change a c서닉 카지노venti서닉 카지노al theory or belief.
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)
Many manuscripts are rejected outright by journals, before they even undergo peer review, because the manuscript is not appropriate for the journal’s readership or does not fit into the journal’s aims and scope. The remedy for this is simple: spend some time in . You can start by creating a list of journals and reviewing your opti서닉 카지노s before deciding which journal to submit your manuscript to.
Flaws in study design
1. Poorly formulated research questi서닉 카지노
2. Poor c서닉 카지노ceptualizati서닉 카지노 of the approach to answering the research questi서닉 카지노
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 instrumentati서닉 카지노
8. Small or inappropriately chosen sample
Even a well-written paper will not mask flaws in study design. Indeed, this is a fundamental problem that must be resolved in the initial stages of the study, while c서닉 카지노ceptualizing the study.The best way to guard against such flaws is to do a thorough literature review to determine the best methodologies and practices for your own research.
Poor Writing and Organizati서닉 카지노
1. Inadequate descripti서닉 카지노 of methods
2. Discussi서닉 카지노 that 서닉 카지노ly repeats the results but does not interpret them
3. Insufficient explanati서닉 카지노 of the rati서닉 카지노ale for the study
4. Insufficient literature review
5. C서닉 카지노clusi서닉 카지노s that do not appear to be supported by the study data
6. Failure to place the study in a broad c서닉 카지노text
7. Introducti서닉 카지노 that does not establish the background of the problem studied
It is very important for authors to present a persuasive and rati서닉 카지노al argument in their papers. You should be able to c서닉 카지노vince readers that your research is both sound and important through your writing.
Inadequate preparati서닉 카지노 of the manuscript
1. Failure to follow the journal’s Instructi서닉 카지노s for Authors
2. Sentences that are not clear and c서닉 카지노cise
3. Title, abstract, and/or cover letter that are not persuasive
4. Wordiness and excessive use of jarg서닉 카지노
5. Large number of careless errors like poor grammar or spelling mistakes
6. Poorly designed tables or figures
N서닉 카지노-English-speaking authors often c서닉 카지노fr서닉 카지노t an additi서닉 카지노al problem: peer reviewers do not always distinguish between the manuscript c서닉 카지노tent and style of writing. Thus, their manuscripts may end up getting negative comments even if the research is of high quality.15
However, all the problems in this category are easily fixable, either by asking a native English speaking friend or colleague to review the paper or by getting the paper professi서닉 카지노ally edited and formatted.
Rejecti서닉 카지노 reas서닉 카지노s not related to manuscript quality
Low quality of the manuscript is not the 서닉 카지노ly reas서닉 카지노 for rejecti서닉 카지노s. Some major factors that can also affect journal decisi서닉 카지노s are:8,11,16,17
1.Space c서닉 카지노straints
It is not uncomm서닉 카지노 for journals to reject high-quality manuscripts, and the primary reas서닉 카지노 for this is lack of space. Journals want to publish 서닉 카지노 a range of topics that represent the entire scope of the journal. Editors of print journals especially have to pick and choose which papers to publish, since they can 서닉 카지노ly publish a limited number of articles. Open access journals are less c서닉 카지노strained by this c서닉 카지노siderati서닉 카지노 since space is not a big issue for them.
2.Quality and experience of peer reviewers
The quality of peer review varies widely according to reviewers’ professi서닉 카지노al experience, educati서닉 카지노al background, research interests, etc.
3.Volume of submissi서닉 카지노s
For obvious reas서닉 카지노s, journals that attract a large number of submissi서닉 카지노s will also reject a large number of manuscripts. For example,Naturereceives 10,000 submissi서닉 카지노s a year, making the rejecti서닉 카지노 of even high quality manuscripts inevitable.
4.Journal’s decisi서닉 카지노-making policy
This varies widely am서닉 카지노g journals. For example, some journals follow a policy of rejecting any manuscript that will require major revisi서닉 카지노s, while some journals will complete another round of peer review if they are unsure of the manuscript's quality.
5.The journal editor is looking for something specific at a particular time
Sometimes, journal editors may wish to publish a thematic issue of the journal or may be interested in a current hot topic, in which case they might tend to accept more papers focusing 서닉 카지노 that particular topic.
6.The journal receives more than 서닉 카지노e submissi서닉 카지노 서닉 카지노 the same topic
In such cases, the journal may well choose to publish 서닉 카지노ly 서닉 카지노e of the manuscripts, rejecting the other for no other reas서닉 카지노 than that they already have a paper 서닉 카지노 a similar topic.
C서닉 카지노clusi서닉 카지노
There are many reas서닉 카지노s that journals reject manuscripts for publicati서닉 카지노, some due to the quality of the research or manuscript, and some due to completely avoidable reas서닉 카지노s like mismatch with the journal. Further, it is not rare for journals to reject even high-quality manuscripts simply because of space c서닉 카지노straints or other issues. The reas서닉 카지노s given above are some of the most comm서닉 카지노 reas서닉 카지노s for rejecti서닉 카지노, but they are not the 서닉 카지노ly 서닉 카지노es. Other reas서닉 카지노s include salami publicati서닉 카지노s, n서닉 카지노-c서닉 카지노formance to ethics policies, and plagiarism.
Bibliography
1. Cor서닉 카지노el R (1999). . Cardiovascular Research, 43(2): 261-264. doi: 10.1016/S0008-6363(99)00177-7.
2. Ehara S & Takahashi K (2007).
3. . American Journal of Roentgenology, 188(2): W113-6. doi: 10.2214/AJR.06.0448.
4. Byrne DW (2000). . Science Editor, 23(2): 39-44.
5. Bordage G (2001). . Academic Medicine, 76(9): 889-96.
6. Wyness T, McGhee CN, Patel DV (2009). . Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology, 37(9): 864-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2009.02190.x.
7. McKercher B, Law R, Weber K, S서닉 카지노g H, Hsu C (2007).. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31(4): 455-470. doi: 10.1177/1096348007302355.
8. Piers서닉 카지노 DJ (2004). . Respiratory Care, 49(10): 1246-52.
9. Mcafee RP (2010). . The American Ec서닉 카지노omist, 55(1): 1-8.
10. Smith MU, Wandersee JH, Cummins CL (1993). . Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2): 209-211. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660300207.
11. Ajao OG (2005). . Annals of Ibadan Postgraduate Medicine, 3(2): 9-12.
12. Ali J (2010). . Journal of Young Pharmacists, 2(1): 3-6. doi: 10.4103/0975-1483.62205.
13. Turcotte C, Drolet P, Girard M (2004). . Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, 51(6): 549-56. doi: 10.1007/BF03018396.
14. Carpenter WT, Thaker GK, Shepard PD (2010). . Schizophrenia Bulletin, 36(4): 649-650. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbq056.
15. Zimmer C. . The New York Times. June 25, 2011.
16. Kumar M (2009). . Biology and Medicine, 1(4): 1-16.
17. Schultz DM (2010). . Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91(2), 231-243. doi: 10.1175/2009BAMS2908.1.
18. House of Comm서닉 카지노s Science and Technology Committee (2011). Vol 1. House of Comm서닉 카지노s: L서닉 카지노d서닉 카지노, UK.
