#1 Same Topic

Editors reject papers if they are too similar to another paper’s topic, argument, geography, theory, etc. Unfortunately, you might not know that is the reason for the rejection of your manuscript.

#2 No Argument

This is a major reason papers get rejected—the argument needs to be stated clearly and early! This is the single most important thing you can do to improve your chance of publication.

#3 Lack of Structure

Each section should relate to and link back to the core argument. Each section and most paragraphs should also include summary sentences that relate to the core argument. Don’t assume the reader is going to make assumptions!

#4 Objective does not Match Contents

This relates to structure; everything written in the paper should relate to the core argument. As you revise your papers, ask yourself: What does my paper set out to do (i.e., objectives, core argument) and does it achieve it?

#5 Background is a Too Broad 

A literature review should be a focused critical review of published papers relevant to your core argument--not a broad, general overview. It should comprehensively and specifically describe the current discourse related to theory, methods, and findings relevant to your core argument. It should cover what is unknown or missing (the gap). And articulate why the gap is worth addressing (significance). Note: Keep in mind that your discussion needs to relate back to this literature to show your contribution (how you filled the gap).

#6 Correlation = Causation

It does not. This is a fundamental methodological error that cannot be published. I repeat: correlation does NOT equal causation. Only longitudinal quantitative studies can produce findings related to causation. Otherwise, your findings are correlational. You cannot use terms like: causes, impacts, leads to, induces, generates, creates, etc. Use: is correlated, related, linked, associated, corresponds to, etc.

#7 Data are not Interpreted

Findings are not a summary of what you found, but a critical evaluation of analysis outcomes presented as key pieces of evidence supporting your core argument. Include what is important; omit what is neutral or irrelevant.

#8 Methods Lack Detail

A reader should be able generally replicate your study after reading the methods section. Don’t leave out important instructions. Further, there should be no question after reading your findings section regarding how or why you did something.

#9 Written like a Report

A journal paper is written around a core argument; whereas, a report summarizes findings in and of themselves. Refer to #2. Journals do not publish reports as research papers. Note: bulleted lists can be a symptom of a report—use sparingly.

#10 Biased Lens

If your paper is too positive or you cherry-pick literature, case examples, interpretation of findings, etc. the reader will suspect it is biased. Experts in your field have a broad knowledge of your topic and your omission of counter arguments or evidence in order to make your study look stronger will only bring your reliability as a scientist into question. Be sure to Include the most prevalent counter discourse(s) and question your findings by acknowledging limitations and suggesting future research.

#11 Over-reach

Related to biased-lens (#10). Happens when interpretation of findings and recommendations reach beyond presented evidence. It is better to subordinate your findings within the broader discourse—have confidence that your research is valuable as a small part in the big context!

#12 Editorial

Editorializing is not an appropriate academic writing style for a research paper. Editorial language is speculative and interpretive without referencing scientific evidence. Avoid making assumptions—lean on the evidence. 

#13 Journal Aims Ignored

Some journals aim to publish papers that, for example, develop indicators or make policy recommendations. Do not submit a manuscript without satisfying the requirements of the specific journal. Some editors might consider this a reason for rejection.

Bonus Content: Minor Revisions

These infractions likely will not lead to rejection individually, but in combination can evoke a major revision or rejection.

Too Many or Too Few Citations

The literature review is a review of the literature—all statements should cite the appropriate scientific authority. On the other hand, a journal paper is not a dissertation or thesis—there is no need for 100+ references. Cite theories, frameworks, software, data analysis models, etc., and include citations in the discussion to relate findings back to the literature review. Hint: cite papers published in the last five years as much as possible unless they are foundational works. 

Undefined Terms

Assume an intelligent but multi-disciplinary readership—define all key terms and concepts. If there is more than one definition, acknowledge which one is applied in your paper. If needed, include citations so readers can seek out more information, and so that you don’t have to be Wikipedia. Relatedly, be consistent with terms or specify if two or more are used interchangeably.

Use of Jargon

Key terms are useful and necessary as a part of scientific language; however, avoid overuse of special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand. Again, assume an intelligent but multi-disciplinary readership.

Imprecise Title

Your title is the most important statement of key terms that make your paper searchable on academic databases. Include a subject and verb and, if relevant, context. It should specific and concise.

Irrelevant Figures

Include figures judiciously. They should be a graphical way to present information and/or data that is too complex to describe fully in the text (i.e. maps, demographic data, conceptual frameworks, statistical analysis, photos). All figures should be referenced and key content described in the text. Typically, four to six figures are sufficient. Think long and hard about exceeding six figures--consider picking one figure from a series as an example and moving the rest to supplemental materials.  

IRB & Research Ethics

Most journals now require confirmation that authors were approved for research involving human subjects (or animals, but probably not relevant for this audience) through their relevant institutional review board (IRB) for human subjects. This is not just a formality but a protection for vulnerable groups and to ensure participant autonomy in our research practices. 

'Data' is Plural

Datum is singular.

Line-edit!!!

I rarely review a paper that doesn’t need a major edit for punctuation, grammar and syntax. Edit, edit, edit. Get someone to edit for you. If you are ESL, find a native English speaker to help edit. Edit again. Don’t let your stellar research fall through the cracks of poor writing.

© 2024 Jessica Diehl