Almost every researcher has opened an email that begins with the words "We regret to inform you…" A rejection feels personal, but editors make these decisions for practical — and usually fixable — reasons. Most rejected manuscripts are not bad research. They are solid work sent to the wrong journal, described unclearly, or submitted before they were truly ready. This guide explains the most common reasons research papers get rejected, what editors and reviewers actually see, and how to fix each problem before you submit — plus the difference between the two kinds of rejection, and what to do when one arrives.
A desk rejection happens before peer review. The editor screens your manuscript for fit, basic quality, and completeness, and decides not to send it to reviewers. This is often a judgement about fit and preparation rather than about the worth of your research, and it usually arrives quickly. A rejection after peer review is different: reviewers examined the work in depth and identified problems the editor considers too substantial for revision. The consolation is that the reviewer reports are a free expert audit of your paper — use them properly, and the next version will be stronger.
What the editor sees: A manuscript whose topic, article type, or level of specialisation does not match the journal's stated aims and scope. The work may be perfectly good, but it belongs in a different journal's pages, so it is declined without review.
How to fix it: Read the aims and scope page carefully, look at what the journal has published recently, and confirm it accepts your article type before you submit. Choosing where to send a paper is a research task in itself — our guide on how to choose the right journal for your research paper shows how to do it systematically.
What reviewers see: A paper that repeats what is already known, or whose new element is buried so deeply that they cannot tell what the work adds. If reviewers cannot answer the question "so what?" within the first pages, enthusiasm fades fast.
How to fix it: State your contribution explicitly in the abstract and at the end of the introduction, in plain sentences: what was unknown, what you did, and what changes as a result. Position the work honestly against the closest existing studies, and explain the difference rather than hoping readers will spot it.
What reviewers see: Missing control groups, a sample too small or unjustified for the claims made, an inappropriate statistical test, or conclusions that reach further than the data allows. These are the hardest criticisms to answer because they concern the research itself, not the writing.
How to fix it: Describe the design fully enough to be evaluated and repeated. Justify your sample size, choose analyses that match your data and questions, and report limitations openly. Most importantly, make sure every conclusion in the discussion is supported by a result you actually present.
What reviewers see: A vague abstract, a rambling introduction, methods mixed into results, undefined terms, and arguments that are difficult to follow. Reviewers are volunteers reading carefully but quickly; if they struggle to understand the paper, they rarely recommend it.
How to fix it: Follow the standard structure for your article type, write an abstract that states the question, method, main result, and conclusion, and keep one clear point per paragraph. If you are not writing in your first language, consider a professional language edit before submission — reviewers judge the science more fairly when the language does not get in the way.
What reviewers see: Citations missing from the reference list, references that are never cited, key recent literature ignored, or a style that matches no recognised format. Sloppy referencing signals sloppy work, fairly or not.
How to fix it: Check every citation in both directions — everything cited appears in the list, and everything in the list is cited. Apply the journal's required style consistently, and make sure you have engaged with the current literature in your niche, not only classic sources.
What the editor sees: No ethics approval statement for research involving humans or animals, no conflict-of-interest disclosure, hints of text copied from earlier work, an author list that does not reflect who did the work, or signs that the paper is under consideration elsewhere. These are not minor matters — they can end a submission immediately and damage your reputation.
How to fix it: Include the required ethics approval and consent statements, disclose funding and conflicts of interest, and agree the author list and order with all co-authors before submitting. Confirm the work is original and submit it to one journal at a time.
What the editor sees: The wrong manuscript format, a paper far over the word limit, low-resolution figures, missing declarations or supplementary files, or author names left inside a file that was supposed to be anonymised for double-blind review. It suggests the author never read the instructions.
How to fix it: Work through the guide for authors line by line before you upload anything: article structure, word count, figure requirements, reference style, required statements, and separate title page where requested. Ten minutes with the checklist prevents one of the most avoidable rejection reasons.
What reviewers see: Typographical errors, placeholder figures, unresolved comments between co-authors, half-finished analysis, or a discussion that seems to argue with itself. The impression is of a draft, and drafts get rejected even when the underlying study is sound.
How to fix it: Let the finished draft rest for a few days, then read it fresh from beginning to end. Ask a colleague outside the project to read it critically, resolve every internal comment, and proofread the final version carefully before it leaves your desk.
What reviewers see: An introduction that cites only a handful of older sources, skips the studies closest to the present work, or lists previous findings without explaining how they relate to each other. Reviewers notice quickly when the author does not seem to know the current conversation in the field, and they worry that the study may duplicate work that has already been done.
How to fix it: Search systematically rather than from memory, and include recent work alongside foundational studies. For each key source, explain briefly what it found and what it left unresolved. Your review should build a logical case: this is what is known, this is the gap or disagreement that remains, and this is why your study is the next step. If a closely related paper was published while you were writing, acknowledge it and explain how your work differs, rather than hoping reviewers will not notice it.
What reviewers see: Titles and conclusions that promise more than the study delivers, causal language where only an association was observed, or results from one setting presented as if they applied everywhere. Overclaiming is a common reason for rejection because it undermines trust in everything else the paper says, even when the underlying data are sound.
How to fix it: Match every claim to the design that produced it. An observational study can report an association; it cannot, on its own, prove that one factor caused another. A small or single-site study can offer preliminary evidence, not a universal rule. Qualify honestly where qualification is due, and let the strength of the claim follow the strength of the evidence. Reviewers respect a paper that knows its own limits far more than one that hides them.
What reviewers see: Graphs with missing axis labels or units, tables that repeat the text word for word, photographs or charts too small to interpret, and numbers in the text that do not match the numbers in the tables. When reviewers cannot verify a result quickly, they lose confidence in it.
How to fix it: Design each figure and table to stand on its own, with a clear title, labelled axes, defined abbreviations, and a caption that explains what the reader should notice. Show the data, not just a summary of it, where the journal allows. Check every number in the text against its table or figure before submission, and make sure supplementary data, where required, are complete and clearly labelled.
What the editor sees: Passages copied without attribution, a manuscript substantially overlapping a paper the same authors have already published, or one study split into several thin papers that each add very little. Most journals now screen submissions with similarity-checking software, so these problems are usually detected before peer review begins.
How to fix it: Write in your own words and cite the source whenever you use another author's ideas, methods, or phrasing, even when you paraphrase. If your new paper builds on your own earlier work, say so explicitly, explain what is new, and cite the earlier paper. Do not divide a single coherent study into multiple publications simply to increase the count; reviewers recognise the pattern, and editors treat it as a serious integrity issue. If you are unsure whether overlap is acceptable, disclose it in the cover letter and let the editor decide.
What the editor sees: A vague title that could describe dozens of papers, an abstract that reads like a general introduction rather than a summary of this study, or keywords so broad that the paper cannot be found or matched to suitable reviewers. Because the title and abstract are often all an editor reads before deciding whether to send a paper for review, weakness here can cause a desk rejection on its own.
How to fix it: Make the title specific: include the population, intervention, or phenomenon studied and, where appropriate, the study design. Write the abstract last, after the rest of the paper is finished, and check that it answers four questions: what was asked, how it was studied, what was found, and what it means. Choose keywords that a researcher in your niche would actually search for, including the specific terms used in your field rather than only general ones.
What reviewers see: A methods section too brief to repeat the work, software or equipment described without version or settings, or a statement that data are available on request when the journal requires a public repository or a detailed availability statement. In fields where replication matters, this alone can justify rejection.
How to fix it: Describe materials, procedures, and analyses in enough detail that a competent researcher in your field could repeat the study. Record software versions, instrument settings, and any custom code or protocols, and deposit data in the repository the journal specifies where required. Transparency here does not weaken a paper; it is what allows reviewers to trust it.
What the editor sees: A solid but incremental study sent to a journal that publishes only major advances, a highly specialised paper sent to a broad general journal, or a manuscript whose central finding has just been published elsewhere. None of these reflects badly on the research itself, but each is a legitimate editorial reason to decline.
How to fix it: Judge the journal by what it actually publishes, not by its reputation alone. Compare your paper honestly with recent articles in the journal: is your contribution of a similar scale and type? If a competing paper has just appeared, do not ignore it; cite it, explain what your work adds, and consider whether a journal with a different emphasis would be a better fit. A realistic target journal is not a compromise — it is the place where the right readers will find the work.
Understanding the editor's first screening helps explain many desk rejections. The editor typically reads the cover letter, title, and abstract first, then scans the introduction for the stated contribution, checks the methods for obvious gaps, and looks at the figures and tables to see whether the results are presented clearly. At this stage the editor is not judging every detail; the editor is asking whether the paper belongs in this journal, whether it is complete, and whether it is ready for reviewers' time. A paper that answers those questions cleanly in its opening pages is far more likely to be sent for review than one that leaves the editor searching for its point.
Reviewers, by contrast, read slowly and critically. They test the logic of the argument, check whether the methods can support the conclusions, and look for gaps the authors may have missed. This is why a paper can pass the editor's screening and still be rejected after review: the two stages ask different questions. Preparing for both means writing an opening that is clear and a body that can withstand close examination.
Decision letters often use polite, standard wording that can be hard to interpret. "Lacks sufficient novelty" usually means the contribution was not clear or not substantial enough for that journal, not necessarily that the work is worthless; the remedy is to state the contribution more sharply or to target a journal where that level of advance is welcome. "Methodological concerns" means reviewers doubted the design, analysis, or reporting, and this criticism needs a substantive response, not just clearer writing. "Not of interest to the journal's readership" is a scope judgement, and it points to a different journal rather than a rewrite. "Incremental" suggests the advance over existing work is small; consider whether additional analysis, a stronger framing, or a more specialised journal would help. Reading the phrase together with the detailed reviewer comments, rather than alone, is what turns a vague letter into a usable revision plan.
Example 1 — a buried contribution. Before: "This study examines factors affecting animal health in rural areas." That sentence could describe many studies and gives the reader no reason to continue. After: "This study is the first to compare vaccination uptake across three delivery models in rural veterinary practice in the study region, and it identifies the model associated with the highest completion rate." The revised version names what is new, where it was studied, and what the reader will learn. The study has not changed; its presentation has, and that difference often decides whether reviewers engage with the paper.
Example 2 — an overclaim. Before: "The intervention improves animal welfare." That claim reaches beyond what a single study can usually support. After: "In this controlled trial, animals receiving the intervention showed improved welfare scores on the measures used, compared with the control group over the study period." The revised version is narrower, but it is defensible, and a defensible claim is more persuasive than a sweeping one.
Example 3 — a scope mismatch. Before: a paper on general livestock management submitted to a journal focused on veterinary clinical practice, rejected at the desk stage. The fix was not a rewrite but a retargeting: the authors identified a journal whose recent articles covered livestock management and extension practice, adjusted the introduction to speak to that readership, and the paper proceeded to peer review. The lesson is practical: when the problem is fit, the solution is a better destination, not more pages.
When reviewer reports arrive, read them once in full, then work through them a second time with a pen in hand. Sort every comment into three groups. The first group is comments you accept and can act on: a missing analysis, an unclear passage, an uncited study. The second group is comments you partly accept: the reviewer has identified a real weakness, but the suggested remedy may not be the best one, and you can address the underlying concern in a different way. The third group is comments you respectfully disagree with, where you have a reasoned basis for your original choice. For this group, do not simply ignore the comment; explain your reasoning in the response letter and, where possible, strengthen the paper so the point is addressed even if the reviewer's exact suggestion is not followed.
Pay special attention to comments that appear in more than one review, because agreement between independent reviewers usually signals a genuine problem. Also watch for the difference between a comment about presentation and a comment about substance: presentation comments are fixed by rewriting, while substance comments may require new analysis, additional data, or a reframing of the conclusions. If two reviewers contradict each other, you do not have to satisfy both literally; explain the contradiction to the editor, state which approach you followed and why, and let the editor judge. Editors expect authors to exercise judgement, not to obey every comment mechanically.
Choosing the next journal is a decision, not a reflex. Start from the reviewer comments: if they pointed to a scope problem, choose a journal whose scope clearly covers the topic; if they pointed to a novelty problem, consider a specialised journal where the contribution will be judged by readers who know the field closely. Check recent issues for articles similar in scale and method to yours, confirm the article type is accepted, and read the guide for authors before you invest time in reformatting. Resist the temptation to submit to a long list of journals in rapid succession; each submission deserves the same care as the first, including a cover letter written for that journal and a manuscript reformatted to its requirements. If the decision letter invited a revised resubmission to the same journal, treat that as a distinct opportunity and follow its instructions exactly, including any deadline given.
Your cover letter for a resubmission should be brief and honest. Name the paper, explain what has changed since the previous version, and, where appropriate, summarise how the main reviewer concerns were addressed. You do not need to mention every journal that previously declined the paper, and you should not disparage previous reviewers or editors. A clear, professional cover letter signals that the manuscript has been taken seriously since its last submission. For a fuller walkthrough of the submission process, see our guide on how to publish a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal, and for help judging fit, our guide on how to choose the right journal for your research paper.
An appeal is appropriate only in narrow circumstances: a reviewer made a clear factual error, misunderstood a central element of the study in a way that changed the outcome, or the decision appears to rest on a procedural mistake. In those cases, write a short, polite letter that identifies the specific error, provides the evidence, and explains how correcting it would affect the decision. Do not appeal because you disagree with a judgement call about novelty or importance, and do not appeal in anger. Most appeals are unsuccessful, and a graceless appeal can harm your standing with a journal you may wish to submit to again. In the great majority of cases, the better use of your energy is a careful revision and a well-chosen next journal. Rejection is a normal part of academic publishing, and the researchers who publish most consistently are usually those who revise and resubmit most systematically, not those who have never been rejected.
The self-check earlier in this article covers the essentials. The extended checklist below adds the details that catch authors out most often. Work through it in order, and do not submit until every item is genuinely complete.
Do not resubmit the identical manuscript to another journal the same day. First, read the decision letter and reviewer reports completely, then set them aside for a day or two — the useful criticism is easier to see once the disappointment fades. Separate the comments into what you can fix (clarity, missing analysis, incomplete reporting), what needs a reasoned response, and what tells you the journal was simply the wrong fit. Revise thoroughly, then choose the next journal with those lessons in mind: the step-by-step process in our guide on how to publish a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal will help you manage the resubmission properly. A revised paper, honestly improved, is a new submission — not a failed one.
Before your next submission, confirm each of the following:
| Reason | What the editor sees | How to fix it |
|---|---|---|
| Scope mismatch | Topic outside the journal aims | Read recent issues before submitting |
| Weak methods | Design cannot answer the question | Strengthen design or choose another study |
| Poor writing | Unclear argument and language errors | Edit, then ask a colleague to read it |
| Missing ethics | No approval or consent statement | Add the approval number and statement |
| Outdated references | Literature review years behind | Update with recent key papers |
| Originality concerns | Heavy overlap with published work | Rewrite in your own words and cite sources |
These authoritative external resources explain the standards and tools mentioned in this guide:
Why was my paper rejected without peer review?
That is a desk rejection. It usually means the editor judged the manuscript a poor fit for the journal's scope, or found basic problems with completeness, structure, or compliance with the author guidelines. It is a decision about fit and preparation, and on its own it says little about the quality of your research.
Does a rejection mean my research is bad?
No. Papers are rejected for many reasons unrelated to the value of the underlying work, including scope, timing, and presentation. What matters is whether the reviewer comments identify genuine problems — and whether you address them before submitting again.
Can I resubmit a rejected paper to the same journal?
Only if the editor invites it — for example, where the decision letter suggests a substantially revised version could be considered as a new submission. Otherwise, revise and take the paper to a more suitable journal.
Should I appeal a rejection decision?
Appeals rarely succeed and should be reserved for cases where you can show a clear factual error or a misunderstanding that changed the outcome. If you do appeal, be brief, polite, and specific, and accept that the editor's final decision stands.
How can I improve my chances with the next submission?
Choose a journal whose scope fits, act on the reviewer comments you received, follow the guide for authors exactly, and run the self-check above before you submit. If you want experienced help with structure, language, or formatting, that is precisely what author services exist for.
How many rejections are normal before a paper is accepted?
More than many authors expect. It is common for a paper to be declined by one journal and accepted by another after revision, and experienced researchers treat the first submission as part of the process rather than a final verdict. What matters is not the count of rejections but whether each revision genuinely improves the paper.
What does "reject and resubmit" mean?
It is a distinct decision, different from both a straightforward rejection and a request for revision. The editor is saying the current manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form, but a substantially revised version may be considered as a new submission. Read the letter carefully: it usually explains what would need to change, and there may be a deadline for the new submission.
Should I tell the next journal that the paper was rejected before?
You are not normally required to list journals that previously declined a paper, but you should be transparent about anything the new journal asks about, including prior submissions of closely related work, preprints, and overlapping publications. If reviewer comments from a previous round led to substantial changes, summarising those improvements in the cover letter can work in your favour.
What should I do if reviewers contradict each other?
Do not try to follow both instructions literally when they conflict. Address the underlying concern each reviewer raised, choose the approach you can defend, and explain the contradiction and your reasoning in your response to the editor. Editors are accustomed to conflicting reviews and expect authors to exercise judgement.
How long should I wait before following up on a submission?
Check the journal's stated review times first, and allow the full period it indicates before enquiring. A polite enquiry to the editorial office after that period is reasonable; repeated enquiries are not. If a paper has been under review for far longer than the journal's usual timeframe, you may ask for a status update, but do not submit the paper elsewhere while it is still under consideration.
Can a harsh review still be useful?
Yes, often more useful than a gentle one. A blunt review may identify a weakness that polite reviews overlooked. Set the tone aside, extract the substantive points, and judge each one on its merits. If a review contains no substantive criticism at all, that itself is information: it may indicate a scope or fit problem rather than a problem with the work.
Ready to put these lessons to work? Our author services can help you prepare a submission-ready manuscript — or, if your paper is ready now, you can Submit your manuscript
Need support preparing your manuscript? Explore our Author Support Services or browse our Peer-Reviewed Journals.