Willy A Renandya &
Supakorn Phoocharoensil
If you have been rejected, you are not alone. Rejection is very common in the academic publication game.
We have all had our fair share of feeling jubilant when our papers get accepted, and feeling of frustration when we receive a rejection letter.
We share below common reasons why manuscripts may get rejected, based on years of our experience as researchers, writers, editors and reviewers. We hope you find these useful.
1. POOR FIT BETWEEN YOUR PAPER AND THE JOURNAL
Your paper is out of synch with the aims and scope of the journal. If you send a practice-oriented paper to a research-oriented journal, for example, you will receive a straight rejection from the editor.
2. DATED TOPIC
In the field of language education, some topics are considered dated, e.g., sentence-level error analysis, schema-theoretic model for teaching reading, integrative motivation. This however does not mean that these topics do not have any educational value. They do!! It’s just that a lot have been written about these topics and not much new insight can be generated from a new research study on these topics.
3. DATED REFERENCES
One of the first things we look at when reviewing a manuscript is the reference list. A quick glance shows whether or not the author has access to the most recent scholarship related to their research. If most of the references are dated (published some 20 years ago), that is already grounds for rejection.
4. POOR LANGUAGE QUALITY
A poorly written paper that contains a lot of language errors is another common reason for rejection. Language related issues include typographical errors, grammar mistakes, incorrect words, run-on sentences, lack of paragraph coherence, etc.
For writers from expanding circle countries, it can be quite challenging to produce an error-free manuscript. Our advice is to seek professional help. There are excellent professional editors who charge a small fee for their service.
5. NON-COMPLIANCE OF JOURNAL GUIDELINES
Most journals are quite strict and would give you an immediate rejection if your manuscript does not follow their guidelines. Do read the author guidelines carefully which include information about length, format, referencing style, etc. The guidelines are available in the journal’s website.
6. WEAK LITERATURE
Editors and reviewers expect to see two things in the literature review section of your paper: a sound theoretical framework and a synthesis of relevant past research studies. These carry substantial weight when they assess the quality and suitability of your submission.
For example, if your paper is on teachers’ cognition on the teaching of implicit grammar, the editor/reviewer would expect that you use Simon Borg’ teacher cognition framework and provide a synthesis of recent research on the topic, highlighting in particular a critical gap that needs to be filled.
7. POOR RESEARCH QUESTIONS.
The overall quality of your research may be negatively affected by poorly worded research questions. This is because, good research questions reflect a researcher’s deep understanding of the literature and a real gap in our knowledge that needs to be addressed.
Well-formulated research questions enable the researcher to choose the most appropriate research design for their study.
8. WEAK RESEARCH DESIGN
Most editors and reviewers look for studies with a good research design. For instance, an experimental study aimed at assessing the effectiveness of a teaching method should minimally involve two groups: a treatment and control groups who are given a pre and post-tests.
To further strengthen the design, the researcher can employ a couple post-tests to measure the immediate and delayed effects of the treatment. A single-group, post-test only design is considered inadequate.
9. INCOMPLETE DATA ANALYSIS
All too often, we receive manuscripts with incomplete data analysis. For an experimental research study, we expect to see comprehensive reports of descriptive and inferential statistics, and where possible, the effect size of the treatment.
In addition, we would also like to know how the researcher controls the alpha level (i.e., rejection level) when multiple inferential statistics are involved.
10. INADEQUATE DISCUSSION
This is a classic problem for novice researchers such as graduate students. Even though the results are well-presented, the overall quality of the paper might suffer, if the discussion section is poorly done.
Discussions of the findings should make clear reference to the theoretical framework and research studies cited in the literature review section. Citing big players in support of your research findings can help increase the credibility of your research.
11. LACK OF TRIANGULATION
A paper that reports a piece of research from a single instrument (e.g., questionnaire) is generally not publishable. Editors and reviewers expect research papers that involve the use of multiple sources of data.
It is generally accepted that findings derived from one instrument need to be validated by at least one (if not two) other instruments. This way, the results would be more credible and trustworthy.
12. VIOLATION OF RESEARCH ETHICS
Research papers that don’t adhere to strict ethics procedures may be grounds for rejection. Well-established journals are very particular about research ethics and will not hesitate to send you a rejection letter, if your research violates standard ethical procedures (e.g., breach of confidentiality of participant identity).
USEFUL RESOURCES
Thanks Pak Willy, this is really useful not only for me myself but also for those who are interested in writing an article in a journal.
I, myself has the same experience. Thanks for sharing and motivation pak Willy
Thank you, Pak Prof Willy, for sharing this.
Wonderful, pak Willy… Thank you for sharing
These are eminently important considerations. In my practice, articles often violate at least 3-4 of these rules. This is a valuable checklist to review both before and during the write-up phase.