Two Kinds of Rejection
Rejections arrive from two different places, and confusing them leads authors to draw the wrong lesson.
- Desk rejection — the editor declines before sending the manuscript out. Usually fast, and usually about fit or completeness rather than quality.
- Rejection after review — reviewers read the work and recommended against it. Slower, and about the substance.
A desk rejection often means you chose the wrong venue. A review rejection means something in the work itself needs to change. The first is cheap to fix; the second is the useful one.
Desk Rejection Reasons
| Reason | How to prevent it |
|---|---|
| Out of scope | Read the aims and scope and three recent articles before submitting |
| No suitable reviewer available | Choose a journal that has published on your method, not just your topic |
| Incomplete submission | Work through the journal's checklist; supply every declaration |
| Similarity above the threshold | Quote and cite properly; paraphrase genuinely; check before submitting |
| Missing ethical approval or consent | State the approving committee and consent for any human or animal research |
| Already published or under review elsewhere | Submit to one journal at a time |
| Unreadable English | Have the manuscript read before submission; journals do not rewrite papers |
| Ignoring the journal's format entirely | Use the template; it signals you have engaged with the venue |
Every row here is avoidable, and together they account for a large share of all rejections.
Rejection After Review
When reviewers have read the work and still recommend rejection, the reasons cluster into a few recognisable patterns.
- No identifiable contribution. The work is competent but adds nothing not already established.
- Conclusions exceed the evidence. The data support a narrower claim than the paper makes.
- The method cannot answer the question. A design problem revision cannot repair.
- Insufficient engagement with the literature. Prior work is ignored, or only agreeing work is cited.
- Not reproducible. The method is described too thinly for anyone to repeat.
- Results that do not support the framing. The introduction promises something the results do not deliver.
Methodological Problems
Methods attract the most reviewer criticism, because they determine whether anything else in the paper can be trusted.
- Sample too small or unjustified for the analysis performed
- Sampling method unstated, so the population the findings apply to is unclear
- No comparison or control where the claim requires one
- Statistical test inappropriate for the data type or distribution
- Significance reported without effect size or uncertainty
- Instrument reliability and validity not addressed
- Confounding factors unacknowledged
- Analysis that appears chosen after seeing the results
Writing and Presentation
Presentation rarely causes rejection on its own, but it makes every other weakness harder to forgive.
- An abstract that describes activity rather than findings
- An introduction that reaches the research gap on page four
- Results and interpretation mixed together
- The same data repeated in text, table and figure
- Figures illegible at published size, or axes without units
- References incomplete, inconsistent, or not matching the citations
- Limitations stated as filler rather than specifics
Quick Checklist
- Reason identifiedDesk or review
- Comments readCalmly, twice
- Fixable issues fixedBefore resubmitting elsewhere
- Better-fit journalChosen next
- No duplicate submissionOne journal at a time
Deciding What to Do Next
| Situation | Next step |
|---|---|
| Out of scope | Choose a better-fitting journal; revise the cover letter |
| Major method problems | Strengthen the study before resubmitting anywhere |
| Presentation problems | Revise writing and figures, then submit elsewhere |
| Factual error by reviewers | Consider a reasoned appeal to the editor |
Handling Rejection Well
It is common
Most researchers receive many rejections.
Use the comments
Free expert feedback.
Wait before replying
Avoid emotional responses.
Keep moving
Revise and submit to the next journal.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a desk rejection?
A decision by the editor before peer review, usually for scope, format, similarity or missing files.
Should I appeal a rejection?
Only if you can show a clear factual error in the review. Otherwise revise and submit to a better-fitting journal.
Can I submit the same paper elsewhere after rejection?
Yes, once it is rejected — ideally after improving it using the reviewers' comments.
Can I submit a rejected paper to another journal?
Yes, ideally after revising it using the comments.
Should I mention the earlier rejection to the new journal?
Not usually required, unless the journal asks.
From Submission to Publication at IJCRT
- SubmitPaper ID issued
- ScreenScope & similarity
- ReviewDouble-blind
- DecideEmail & SMS
- RevisePoint by point
- AcceptCopyright & fee
- ProduceDOI on request
- PublishMonthly issue
Review time depends on reviewers and on the revision needed, so no fixed turnaround is promised; acceptance or rejection is notified by email and SMS.
Ethical Grounds
These are not repairable by revision, and some carry consequences beyond the single manuscript.
- Plagiarism, including inadequate paraphrasing and self-plagiarism
- Duplicate or simultaneous submission
- Data fabrication or falsification
- Image manipulation that changes what the data show
- Missing ethical approval or consent for human or animal research
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest
- Authorship that does not reflect contribution
See plagiarism guidelines for how similarity is actually assessed.
How to Read a Rejection
- Wait. Read the decision, then leave it for two days. First reactions are rarely useful.
- Separate the types. Sort comments into factual errors, disagreements, and requests for clarity.
- Look for agreement. Where two reviewers raise the same point independently, that point is real.
- Distinguish fatal from fixable. A design flaw is different from a thin literature review.
- Extract the value. Reviewer comments are free expert consultation on your work, which is what they are worth even when the answer is no.
What to Do Next
- Revise before resubmitting elsewhere. Sending the identical manuscript to the next journal wastes the reviews you just received.
- Move down your shortlist rather than dropping to any journal that will take it.
- Consider a different article type — some rejected papers work as short communications or case studies.
- Appeal only for factual error. Disagreement with a judgement is not grounds; a misread method is.
- Do not respond to solicitation. Exploitative journals target recently rejected authors.
Reducing the Risk
- Choose the journal before you finish writing
- State your contribution in one sentence and check every section serves it
- Write the methods for a stranger who must repeat the work
- Match every claim's strength to the evidence behind it
- Cite work that disagrees with you, and say why you differ
- Complete every declaration before submitting
- Have a colleague outside your group read it first
See how to write a research paper and the publication guidelines.
Publish Your Research Paper in IJCRT
UGC and UGC-CARE approval, along with alignment with the latest UGC-CARE recommendations and guidelines. IJCRT is aligned with UGC's Suggested Parameters for Choosing Peer-Reviewed Journals.
IJCRT is a Transparent, Peer-Reviewed, Open Access Journal (Refereed Journal). Following the discontinuation of UGC and UGC-CARE journal listing alignment with the latest UGC-CARE recommendations and guidelines, IJCRT is aligned with UGC's Suggested Parameters for Choosing Peer-Reviewed Journals.
Useful pages on ijcrt.org
Keywords
Topics and search terms covered by this guide.
More From the IJCRT Blog
This guide is part of the IJCRT journal blog — practical guidance on publishing, indexing, metrics and research integrity, written to be verifiable rather than promotional.
Related Guides
More from the same area of the IJCRT journal blog.