Nobody likes rejection, whether it’s by your lover, the organization you hoped to work for, or the journal where you submitted your manuscript. I can’t help you with the first two, but I can give you some strategies for avoiding the third scenario.
Ground rules
Consider these three ground rules when thinking about rejection.
- Don’t get discouraged. After all, many nurses say they want to write for publication, but you actually crafted an article and went through the submission process. Kudos! Remember that even prolific nurse authors sometimes experience manuscript rejection. Several years ago, I heard Bernadette Melynk, PhD, APRN-CNP, FAANP, FNAP, FAAN, vice president for health promotion and the chief wellness officer for The Ohio State University (and former dean of OSU’s college of nursing) speak at a Sigma Theta Tau International convention about her own experiences with rejection. She noted that when she and her writing partners receive a rejection notice, they review the peer review comments, rework the article, and submit it to another journal. Her matter-of-fact approach resonated with me and made me realize that a manuscript rejection doesn’t have to be the end of the road.
- It’s about the manuscript, not about you. In the first ground rule, I initially wrote: “Remember that even prolific nurse authors sometimes get rejected.” Then I realized that made the rejection seem personal; it’s not.
- Sometimes stuff happens. Editors aren’t perfect. We might decide not to send an article for peer review too quickly, or we may decide the peer review comments are too negative to offer the authors a chance to revise and resubmit, when in reality, the manuscript could have been salvaged. In my editor roles, I sometimes rejected an article that I later regretted. (Of course, I also accepted articles for publication that I later regretted. But that’s another story!)
Avoiding rejection
Here are some common problems that may lead to a rejected manuscript, along with ideas for how to avoid them. Some of the problems may not cause a rejection on their own but could when combined with others. In addition, considering these up front will save time if you’re asked to revise and resubmit.
| Problem | Prevention |
| The manuscript doesn’t fit with the journal’s editorial mission. | • Use tools such as the Directory of Nursing Journals website and Journal/Author Name Estimator (JANE) to select a journal that best fits your topic. • Before writing the article, read the journal’s mission or description on its website and in the author guidelines. • Mission statements can be a bit broad, so you may think your topic fits when it doesn’t. To get a better idea of what content the journal looks for, read the current issue and several recent past issues. |
| A similar article is slated for publication in an upcoming issue, or the topic is too similar to an article recently published. | • If the editor accepts query emails, send one before submitting the article to see if the editor is interested. • Scan the journal’s table of contents for the past 2 years. If you see a topic similar to yours, but you still think the journal is the best one for your topic, ensure your manuscript provides a different angle. You can state the different angle in your query email or when you submit the article. The editor will appreciate that you did your homework. |
| The author didn’t follow the journal’s author guidelines. | • Follow the guidelines, which include items such as reference format, word count, and tone, closely. If, for example, you use AMA style for your reference list, but the journal uses APA style, your manuscript may be rejected. The same is true if you submit a 2,000-word article for a journal’s department with a requested length of 500 to 1,000 words. Editors can usually tell within the first few paragraphs whether the author has followed the guidelines. |
| The manuscript doesn’t fall into any category of articles the journal publishes. | • Check the author guidelines and past issues to learn the types of articles (including those for departments) the journal is seeking. If, for example, the guidelines don’t list case studies, and you don’t see any published case studies in the past few years, then don’t submit a case study. |
| The manuscript is poorly written and organized. | • Avoid overuse of jargon, unnecessarily complex words, grammatical errors, and wordiness (longer is not necessarily better). • When appropriate, use active voice to improve readability. • When available, use publication guidelines for the type of article you’re writing. Check the author guidelines for any guidance in this area. For example, many journals require authors to follow the Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) 2.0 when reporting quality improvement projects. • Read past issues of the journal to see how articles are structured. • Have another colleague review the manuscript before submission and provide feedback. Some colleagues may not want to be critical of your work, so give them permission upfront to conduct a critical analysis so you can improve the manuscript. Also have someone from the target reader group conduct a review, especially if it’s a complex topic written for a novice clinician or a study with a complex methodology. |
| The manuscript doesn’t contribute to the literature or offer any new information. | • Review the literature to see what’s been published in the past. • Be sure your manuscript passes the “So what?” test: Why would readers be interested in the content? • Clearly highlight the manuscript’s value. For example, in the introduction, state the unmet need you tried to address, and in the discussion section, describe how the work provides new insights. The new insights don’t have to be groundbreaking. It may be that you addressed an understudied patient population or deepened the knowledge base. Or you can highlight that the article contains a solution to a common problem. |
| The introduction doesn’t set up what follows. | • In general, the introduction should include why the topic is important, the knowledge gap or problem to be solved, research questions (if applicable), and a brief summary of key findings or impact of your efforts. (The full description of the findings should appear in the results section.) • Consider writing the introduction after you’ve completing writing all other sections. • The introduction should set the stage for the article and draw in the reader. |
| The literature review is poor. | • Remember that the literature review should help identify the gap in the existing literature that your manuscript addresses. • Be thorough in your literature search; include multiple databases. • Have a structure for the review, for example chronological or thematic. Synthesize the studies succinctly. • Be sure your review is up-to-date and avoid references that are off-topic. •In the conclusion, summarize the highlights and connect it to your study or topic. |
| The discussion section is weak. | • Instead of rehashing the findings, which should appear in the results section, synthesize key findings and show how they fit with the literature. • Describe the implications and applications of the findings. This helps show the value of the content. • Include strengths and limitations. |
| Plagiarism or another ethical issue detected. | • Meticulously document sources of information. • Run a plagiarism detection program such as Ithenticate before submission to ensure you haven’t inadvertently plagiarized. • Fully disclose any potential conflicts of interest. • Disclose how any artificial intelligence (AI) tools were used (other than basic spelling/grammar checkers). |
| Abstract doesn’t accurately reflect the manuscript. | • Write the abstract last and be sure it aligns with the manuscript’s content. |
| Graphics are unclear. | • Choose graphics that best convey the data or information you want to present. For example, a pie chart isn’t helpful if you have too many data points with small percentages. • Write titles that reflect the content and ensure labels are clear. • Provide a legend that defines any abbreviations used in the graphic. |
What to do
When you receive a rejection email, first try not to over-react. Remind yourself of the ground rules.
In some cases, your manuscript may not have reached the peer review stage (sometimes called a “desk rejection”) because the editor felt it was inappropriate to take up the reviewers’ time. (Peer reviewers usually aren’t compensated to conduct reviews.)
If peer review comments are provided, consider them with an eye to how you might improve your manuscript and whether you might have missed the mark in choosing the target journal. If the peer reviews weren’t included, most journals will provide them upon request. You might also want to share the manuscript and reviews with a trusted colleague to obtain feedback.
Resist any temptation to email or call the editor to explain why your manuscript shouldn’t have been rejected. It’s highly unlikely to work, and you don’t want to jeopardize future submissions to the same journal.
If you believe that you can sufficiently review the manuscript for resubmission elsewhere, carefully select a journal, review its guidelines, and work on your revisions. In some cases, you may decide that the effort required for revision isn’t worth your time. That’s fine; you likely learned from the feedback you received, which will help improve your future writing efforts.
It may interest you to know that editors dislike sending rejection notices as much as authors dislike receiving them. I hope these tips help you position your manuscript for publication success!
Cynthia Saver, MS, RN, is editor of the award-winning book Anatomy of Writing for Publication for Nurses, 5thed. She has more than three decades of publishing experience as a writer, editor, and publishing executive. Cynthia’s work has appeared in many journals, and her past positions include editorial director for American Nurse Journal, which she helped launch. Cynthia is passionate about helping nurses share their expertise by writing for publication and happily shares her knowledge though The Writing Mind blog, articles, short presentations, and workshops.
References
Herron CR. The essential elements of the discussion section of a research manuscript. AMWA J. 2024;39(3):25-27. doi: 10.55752/amwa.2024.348
Morton PG, Marrelli TM. Submissions and revisions. In: Saver C. Anatomy of Writing for Publication for Nurses. 5th ed. Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International; 2024; 121-134.
Morton PG. Writing the research report. In: Saver C. Anatomy of Writing for Publication for Nurses. 5th ed.Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International; 2024; 199-213.
Saver C. How to select and query a publication. In: Saver C. Anatomy of Writing for Publication for Nurses. 5th ed. Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International; 2024; 38-56
