Demystifying the Manuscript Rejection Letter

The academic twitter-verse has been buzzing recently with the chatter of failure after a Michigan State University doctoral student wore a skirt made of 17 rejection letters to her dissertation defense. What this story delightfully illustrates is that failure and rejection are normal occurrences in science. However, in today's social media-focused climate where victories are triumphantly shared, and our shortcomings selectively ignored, it is easy to feel alone in our failure. For early career researchers (ECRs) especially, a manuscript rejection letter in our inbox can feel quite defeating during our career's most critical formative years. At the recent Wiley Editors Strategy Day, the Editors-in-Chief (EICs) and Deputy Editors (hereinafter the editors) of ASLO's family of journals spoke at length about their relationship with authors, both real and perceived, and the pain points authors may feel throughout the editorial process. Many of these pain points had to do with rejection: a lack of understanding the reasons for it, how to deal with it, and how to ultimately move the manuscript forward. I reached out to the ASLO editors to follow up on our conversations and get their take on this important topic of manuscript rejections (Fig. 1). In this issue of the Bulletin, the Raelyn Cole Editorial Fellows (RCEFs) present the results of a recent survey of the ASLO Associate Editors. One of the major themes that emerged from their responses echoes one of my main takeaways from the Wiley Editors Strategy Day: that editors genuinely enjoy their work and take seriously their role guiding and improving papers, especially for ECRs. Since my experience at Strategy Day, I started to view the editorial process as more collaborative than combative, and editors as allies for, rather than barriers to, publishing. In a recent blog post, RCEF Fellow Kelsey Poulson-Ellestad discusses the concept of the “shepherd” narrative as an extension to the strict “gatekeeper” narrative to better describe the roles of editors (Poulson-Ellestad 2019). Another fellow, Scott Hotaling, also described in a recent tweet that, “Editors are human. They want to help you succeed!” What are some ways that authors can leverage this shift in perspective to improve outcomes for their manuscripts? For one, authors can consider reaching out to their potential editors with pre-submission inquiries, especially when they are unsure if the paper fits the journal's scope. Indeed, the editors I spoke with cited fit for the journal as one of the most common reasons a manuscript is rejected. By starting a conversation with the editor early, even before submission, an author can save time and effort by identifying appropriate target journals with the ease of a short email. In addition, the initial rejection may not necessarily be the end of a paper's chances in that journal. If you feel strongly that either a reviewer misinterpreted a critical component of your work, or that you can address a major issue that was identified in the reviews, you may be able to appeal the decision to your editor. It should be noted, however, that many of the ASLO editors I spoke with said that while they would welcome this sort of appeal, it is still rather rare for a decision to be overturned in this manner. The overwhelming consensus, though, was that a polite email to the editor can never hurt! Lastly, many of the editors reiterated just how frequently papers are rejected. One editor added that, “it [rejection] is very normal,” while another implored authors to view rejections more positively. The vast majority of reviewers and editors provide thoughtful feedback, and this feedback ultimately helps the paper become better. It is important to not take critical reviews personally; one editor pressed that learning how to deal with and efficiently respond to rejection early in your career will only help in securing publications and grant funding down the road. On a positive note, many editors added that most papers do in fact end up published somewhere. Did you know that the foundational paper that inspired ASLO's Raymond Lindeman Award was initially rejected by reviewers? “In the end,” one editor said, “the goal is really to help the authors improve the overall quality of the manuscript and find the best ‘fit’ (home) for the article.” In an upcoming issue of the Bulletin, ASLO's EICs and Deputy Editors will elaborate more on this topic and provide their perspectives and more advice on how to respond to rejection. Stay tuned!