My Paper Got Rejected Twice from the Same Journal. What Should I Do Next? A Practical Publication Recovery Guide for Researchers

Introduction: Rejection Hurts, But It Can Also Improve Your Research

My paper got rejected twice from the same journal. What should I do next? If this question is running through your mind, you are not alone. Many PhD scholars, early-career researchers, and even experienced academics face repeated journal rejection. The experience can feel personal, especially when you have spent months designing a study, collecting data, writing the manuscript, revising references, formatting tables, and waiting through a long peer-review cycle.

However, a second rejection from the same journal does not automatically mean your research lacks value. It means one important thing: your next decision must be strategic. You need to understand whether the issue lies in journal fit, methodological strength, theoretical contribution, writing clarity, reviewer alignment, ethical compliance, or editorial priority.

Journal publishing has become more competitive. Global research output continues to grow, open-access publishing has expanded, and journals now receive more submissions than editorial teams can process quickly. The STM open-access dashboard reports that gold open-access articles, reviews, and conference papers increased from 14% of global output in 2014 to 40% in 2024, which reflects a major shift in publication volume and publishing models. (STM Association) At the same time, leading publishers emphasize that rejection can occur for several reasons, including journal scope mismatch, limited contribution, weak structure, outdated references, research ethics concerns, or insufficient methodological detail. (Springer Nature)

For PhD students, the pressure feels even heavier. Publication affects thesis submission, scholarship renewal, supervisor expectations, academic visibility, job applications, and confidence. Moreover, article processing charges, language editing costs, conference fees, and delayed graduation timelines can increase emotional and financial stress. So, when you ask, “My paper got rejected twice from the same journal. What should I do next?”, you are not only asking about a manuscript. You are asking how to protect your academic progress.

The right response is not panic. It is diagnosis. A rejected manuscript can become stronger when you treat reviewer comments as data, not as judgment. Elsevier advises authors to reflect on rejection feedback and use it to improve the manuscript or identify a more suitable journal. (www.elsevier.com) Similarly, Taylor & Francis notes that rejection happens to almost all academics and may simply mean the paper is not the right fit for that journal. (Author Services)

At ContentXprtz, we help researchers transform rejection into a structured publication recovery plan. Since 2010, we have supported students, PhD scholars, universities, and professionals in more than 110 countries through academic editing, proofreading, manuscript refinement, dissertation support, and publication assistance. This guide explains what to do after a second rejection, how to decide between appeal, revision, transfer, or new journal submission, and when expert academic editing can help you move forward with confidence.

Why a Paper May Be Rejected Twice by the Same Journal

When a manuscript receives two rejections from the same journal, the first step is to separate emotion from evidence. A journal may reject a paper twice for different reasons. Sometimes the first rejection relates to scope, while the second relates to methodological depth. Sometimes reviewers appreciate the topic, but the editor still sees a weak contribution. In other cases, the manuscript improves, yet it still does not meet the journal’s priority level.

Springer Nature explains that rejection reasons can be technical or editorial. Technical issues may include insufficient data, weak analysis, poor methodology, or missing ethical approval. Editorial reasons may include scope mismatch, limited impact, poor structure, outdated references, or failure to follow journal requirements. (Springer)

Therefore, if you are asking, “My paper got rejected twice from the same journal. What should I do next?”, start by identifying which rejection pattern applies to your case.

A second rejection usually falls into one of these categories:

• Desk rejection after resubmission: The editor did not send the revised paper for peer review.
• Reviewer-based rejection: Reviewers found unresolved scientific, theoretical, or methodological concerns.
• Scope-based rejection: The paper may be good, but it does not match the journal’s aims.
• Priority rejection: The paper meets minimum quality standards but lacks novelty for that journal.
• Compliance rejection: Formatting, ethics, reporting, authorship, or citation issues weakened the submission.
• Language and structure rejection: The research may be valid, but unclear writing reduced its perceived quality.

This diagnosis matters because each rejection type needs a different next step. An appeal may work only when there is a clear factual error or misunderstanding. A journal transfer may work when the research is solid but not aligned with the first journal. A full rewrite may be needed when reviewers question the research design, theoretical framing, or contribution.

Step One: Read the Decision Letter Like a Research Dataset

After a second rejection, do not revise immediately. First, read the decision letter carefully. Then read it again after 24 hours. Strong researchers do not react to rejection. They analyze it.

Create a rejection analysis table with four columns:

• Reviewer or editor comment
• Type of issue
• Severity
• Action required

For example, if the editor says, “The manuscript does not make a sufficient theoretical contribution,” the issue is not grammar. It is positioning. You need to strengthen the research gap, theoretical lens, and contribution section.

If the reviewer says, “The sampling method is unclear,” the issue is methodological transparency. You need to revise the methodology, explain sampling logic, justify sample size, and add reliability or validity details.

If the reviewer says, “The manuscript is outside the journal scope,” the issue is journal fit. You need to find a better-targeted journal rather than forcing the same manuscript back into the same outlet.

This is where professional academic editing services can help. A skilled academic editor does more than correct grammar. They identify gaps in argument flow, research positioning, reviewer response logic, and journal alignment.

Step Two: Decide Whether You Should Appeal, Resubmit Elsewhere, or Rewrite

Many authors want to appeal after rejection. However, appeals rarely succeed unless the journal made a clear error. Taylor & Francis advises authors that editors rarely reverse rejection decisions and that authors are often better served by submitting to another journal. (Author Services)

An appeal may be appropriate when:

• A reviewer misunderstood a central method despite clear evidence in the manuscript.
• The decision contains a factual error.
• The editor overlooked a required document.
• The journal’s own policy was not followed.
• A reviewer made contradictory or unsupported claims.

An appeal may not be appropriate when:

• You simply disagree with the decision.
• The paper lacks novelty for that journal.
• The journal clearly says the decision is final.
• Reviewers identified valid weaknesses.
• The editor rejected the paper on priority grounds.

If you ask, “My paper got rejected twice from the same journal. What should I do next?”, the most practical answer is often this: do not submit again to the same journal unless the editor explicitly invites a substantially revised version. Elsevier’s Researcher Academy notes that some journals may welcome resubmission of significantly revised manuscripts, but authors should check the journal’s Guide for Authors before doing so. (Researcher Academy)

Step Three: Identify Whether the Problem Is the Paper or the Journal Fit

A strong paper can still fail in the wrong journal. Journal fit is not only about topic. It includes article type, methodology, theoretical orientation, region, audience, contribution level, and citation culture.

Before choosing the next journal, ask these questions:

• Does the journal publish studies using my methodology?
• Has the journal published similar topics in the last three years?
• Does my paper cite recent articles from that journal?
• Does the journal prefer theoretical, empirical, review, or applied studies?
• Does my paper meet the journal’s word limit and structure?
• Does the journal accept my type of data, region, or disciplinary approach?
• Is the expected contribution level realistic for my study?

Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports supports journal evaluation by providing transparent journal intelligence, including metrics and rankings for informed journal selection. (Clarivate) However, impact factor alone should not drive your decision. A lower-ranked but better-aligned journal may give your paper a more realistic publication pathway.

If you need structured PhD thesis help, ContentXprtz can assist with journal targeting, manuscript readiness review, reviewer response preparation, and publication strategy.

Step Four: Rebuild the Manuscript Before Sending It Anywhere

After two rejections, avoid the common mistake of submitting the same manuscript to a new journal with only superficial edits. Editors and reviewers often detect unresolved weaknesses quickly.

Instead, rebuild your manuscript in five layers.

Strengthen the Research Gap

Your introduction should not merely say that “limited studies exist.” It should explain why the gap matters. A strong research gap includes context, contradiction, limitation, and consequence.

Weak version: “Few studies have examined digital banking adoption among students.”

Stronger version: “Although digital banking adoption has been widely studied among general consumers, limited evidence explains how student users evaluate trust, usability, and financial risk during early adoption. This gap matters because student banking behavior shapes long-term digital finance engagement.”

Clarify the Theoretical Contribution

Many papers get rejected because they describe a topic but do not contribute to theory. A journal article must explain what it adds to scholarly conversation.

Ask:

• Does the paper extend a theory?
• Does it test a theory in a new context?
• Does it challenge previous findings?
• Does it integrate two frameworks?
• Does it propose a new relationship?
• Does it offer practical implications grounded in evidence?

Improve Methodological Transparency

APA’s Journal Article Reporting Standards guide authors on what information should appear in manuscript sections for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method research. (APA Style) Use such reporting standards to check whether your manuscript explains design, sample, measures, analysis, assumptions, ethics, limitations, and reproducibility.

Update the Literature Review

A literature review should not read like a list of studies. It should synthesize debates, patterns, contradictions, and missing perspectives. Add recent studies from the target journal and related Scopus or Web of Science indexed sources.

Rewrite the Discussion

The discussion section should not repeat results. It should interpret findings, connect them with theory, compare them with previous studies, explain unexpected outcomes, and offer implications.

This is where research paper writing support can make a practical difference, especially for scholars who have strong data but struggle with academic argumentation.

Step Five: Prepare a Fresh Journal Submission Strategy

Once the manuscript is improved, shortlist three to five journals. Rank them by fit, not prestige alone.

A smart journal strategy includes:

• Primary target journal: Best fit for topic, method, and contribution.
• Secondary journal: Similar audience with slightly broader scope.
• Backup journal: Realistic option with faster review cycle.
• Open-access consideration: Check article processing charges.
• Indexing check: Confirm Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, ABDC, or UGC Care status if relevant.
• Ethics check: Avoid predatory journals.

Taylor & Francis explains that journal transfer may be offered when a paper is rejected because it is unsuitable or out of scope. (Author Services) However, do not accept a transfer automatically. Check the receiving journal’s aims, indexing status, review standards, APC, and credibility.

Step Six: Write a Strong Cover Letter for the New Journal

Your cover letter should not sound defensive. It should briefly explain the manuscript’s contribution, relevance, and originality.

A strong cover letter includes:

• Manuscript title
• Article type
• Research problem
• Key contribution
• Fit with journal scope
• Ethical approval statement, if applicable
• Conflict of interest declaration
• Confirmation that the paper is not under review elsewhere

Avoid mentioning previous rejections unless the journal asks. The new journal should evaluate the revised manuscript on its current merit.

Step Seven: Use Rejection to Improve Your Publication Mindset

Repeated rejection can damage confidence. However, academic publishing is not a test of personal worth. It is a system of evaluation, fit, revision, and persistence.

When you ask, “My paper got rejected twice from the same journal. What should I do next?”, remember that the answer is not “start over.” The answer is “review evidence, revise strategically, and reposition intelligently.”

Many successful papers were rejected before publication. What separates published authors from discouraged authors is not perfection. It is process discipline.

At ContentXprtz, our book authors writing services and academic publication support help researchers refine complex ideas into clear, credible, and reader-focused work.

Ethical Academic Support: What Help Is Acceptable?

Professional academic support is ethical when it improves clarity, structure, formatting, language, argument flow, and publication readiness without falsifying data, fabricating results, or replacing the researcher’s intellectual contribution.

Ethical support may include:

• Academic editing
• Proofreading
• Journal formatting
• Literature review refinement
• Reviewer response editing
• Research gap improvement
• Discussion strengthening
• Citation style correction
• Plagiarism risk review
• Cover letter editing

Unethical support includes:

• Fabricating data
• Writing fake results
• Creating false references
• Manipulating images
• Submitting to predatory journals knowingly
• Hiding conflicts of interest
• Ghostwriting that violates institutional rules

ContentXprtz supports ethical academic refinement. We help scholars communicate their research more clearly while respecting authorship, originality, and academic integrity.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. My paper got rejected twice from the same journal. What should I do next if both rejections mention different reasons?

If both rejection letters mention different reasons, treat them as two layers of feedback rather than two separate failures. First, compare the decision letters side by side. Look for repeated concerns, such as unclear contribution, weak methodology, poor journal fit, or insufficient literature coverage. Then identify new concerns that appeared after revision. A new concern may mean that your revision improved one part of the paper but exposed another weakness.

For example, the first rejection may say that your paper lacks theoretical contribution. After you revise the theory section, the second rejection may say the methodology lacks transparency. This does not mean your revision failed. It means the manuscript still needs deeper development.

The best next step is to conduct a manuscript audit. Review the title, abstract, introduction, research gap, theory, methods, results, discussion, limitations, and references. Then ask whether the manuscript now fits the same journal. If the editor did not invite another resubmission, choose a new journal.

You should also avoid emotional rewriting. Do not add excessive citations, overstate contribution, or change your research questions without reason. Instead, revise with evidence. If needed, seek expert academic editing services to convert scattered reviewer comments into a structured revision plan.

2. Should I submit the same paper to the same journal for a third time?

Submitting the same paper to the same journal for a third time is usually not advisable unless the editor clearly invites a new version. A third submission without invitation may create a negative impression. Editors handle many manuscripts, and they expect authors to respect editorial decisions. If the rejection letter states that the decision is final, you should move to another journal.

However, there are exceptions. If the journal rejected the paper due to a correctable issue, such as missing ethical approval documentation, formatting errors, incomplete files, or unclear response to reviewers, you may contact the editorial office politely. Ask whether a substantially revised version would be considered. Keep the message short, professional, and evidence-based.

If the second rejection involved reviewer concerns about novelty, contribution, or methodological limitations, a third submission to the same journal may not help. In that case, your energy is better spent improving the manuscript and identifying a better-fit journal.

So, if you are still wondering, “My paper got rejected twice from the same journal. What should I do next?”, the practical answer is this: submit again only with editorial permission. Otherwise, revise thoroughly and target a journal whose scope, audience, and contribution expectations align with your work.

3. Is a second rejection a sign that my research is not good enough?

No, a second rejection does not automatically mean your research is weak. It means the manuscript did not meet the expectations of that journal at that time. Academic publishing involves quality, fit, timing, novelty, reviewer interpretation, and editorial priority. A good paper can be rejected if it does not align with the journal’s aims or if the editor believes the contribution is not strong enough for that readership.

That said, you should not ignore the signal. A second rejection often means the manuscript needs deeper revision. It may need a sharper research gap, stronger theory, clearer methodology, better writing, updated references, or a more convincing discussion. Treat the rejection as peer-review evidence.

A useful approach is to classify comments into three groups. The first group includes essential revisions that affect validity. The second includes important revisions that affect clarity and contribution. The third includes optional style improvements. Work through them in that order.

Also, ask an experienced academic editor, supervisor, or subject expert to review the paper. Sometimes authors are too close to their work to see structural problems. With the right revision, many rejected papers can become publishable.

4. How do I know whether the journal rejected my paper because of poor fit?

Poor journal fit often appears in subtle language. The editor may write that the manuscript is “outside the scope,” “not suitable for our readership,” “does not meet the journal’s priority,” or “does not make a sufficient contribution to current debates in the journal.” These phrases suggest that the issue may not be the topic alone. It may involve the journal’s audience, theoretical orientation, methodological preference, or contribution threshold.

To test journal fit, review the journal’s recent articles. Look at papers published in the last two or three years. Ask whether your paper resembles them in topic, method, theory, region, article type, and level of contribution. If the journal mostly publishes longitudinal studies and your paper uses a small cross-sectional survey, fit may be weak. If the journal favors theory-building papers and your manuscript is mainly descriptive, fit may be weak.

Also, check whether your manuscript cites recent papers from the journal. If it does not, the editor may feel that your work does not engage with the journal’s conversation.

A well-targeted submission can save months. ContentXprtz offers PhD support and academic publication guidance to help researchers assess journal fit before submission.

5. Should I revise the manuscript before submitting to a new journal?

Yes. Always revise before submitting to a new journal, especially after two rejections. Sending the same manuscript elsewhere without revision wastes time and may lead to another rejection. Reviewer feedback is valuable because it shows how readers interpret your work. Even if you disagree with some comments, use the feedback to improve clarity, structure, and contribution.

Start with the manuscript’s central argument. Can a reader understand the research problem within the first few paragraphs? Does the introduction explain why the study matters? Does the literature review synthesize rather than summarize? Does the methodology include enough detail for evaluation? Does the discussion explain what the findings mean?

Next, adapt the manuscript to the new journal. Change the formatting, word count, reference style, abstract structure, keywords, and cover letter. More importantly, revise the framing. A paper submitted to an education journal may need a different emphasis than the same paper submitted to a management journal.

Do not treat journal submission as copying and pasting. Treat it as scholarly positioning. A carefully revised and targeted manuscript has a better chance of receiving constructive peer review.

6. Can professional academic editing improve my chances after rejection?

Professional academic editing can improve your chances when the core research is valid but the manuscript suffers from weak structure, unclear language, poor flow, or underdeveloped argumentation. Editors cannot guarantee acceptance, and ethical providers should never promise guaranteed publication. However, strong editing can help reviewers understand your study more easily.

Academic editing after rejection may include improving the title, abstract, introduction, research gap, literature review synthesis, methodology clarity, results presentation, discussion depth, limitations, implications, and references. It can also help reduce ambiguity, improve sentence structure, remove repetition, and align the paper with journal expectations.

For non-native English speakers, editing can be especially valuable. Reviewers may misinterpret unclear writing as unclear thinking. A polished manuscript helps ensure that the research is judged on its intellectual merit rather than language barriers.

At ContentXprtz, our research paper writing support focuses on ethical refinement. We help researchers strengthen communication, structure, and publication readiness while preserving the author’s original contribution.

7. Should I use the reviewer comments when submitting to another journal?

Yes, but use them carefully. Reviewer comments from one journal can help you improve the manuscript before submitting elsewhere. You do not usually need to include the previous reviewer comments with the new submission unless the journal transfer system requires it. However, you should use the comments to guide revision.

For example, if reviewers criticized the literature review, strengthen it before submitting to another journal. If they questioned the data analysis, check assumptions, add robustness tests, or clarify procedures. If they found the discussion weak, rewrite it to connect findings with theory and practice.

Do not assume that new reviewers will miss old problems. Peer reviewers often notice similar weaknesses, especially if they relate to contribution, methods, or clarity. Therefore, previous comments provide a useful quality checklist.

You can also create a private response matrix for yourself. Even if you do not submit it, the matrix helps you track how each issue was addressed. This disciplined approach improves manuscript quality and reduces the chance of repeated rejection.

8. When should I consider changing the title, abstract, and keywords?

You should revise the title, abstract, and keywords whenever you change the target journal or reposition the manuscript. These elements shape the editor’s first impression. A vague title may hide the value of your study. A weak abstract may fail to show contribution. Poor keywords may reduce discoverability.

After two rejections, ask whether your title clearly communicates the topic, method, population, and contribution. A title should not be too broad. For example, “Digital Banking Adoption” is weak. “Trust, Usability, and Risk Perception in Digital Banking Adoption Among Indian University Students” is clearer.

Your abstract should include the research problem, purpose, method, sample or data source, key findings, contribution, and implications. Avoid generic claims such as “This study contributes to the literature.” Explain how it contributes.

Keywords should match the language used by your target journal and database users. Include discipline-specific terms, method-related terms, and concept-based terms. Strong metadata supports indexing, searchability, and reviewer understanding.

9. How long should I wait before submitting the revised paper to another journal?

You should not rush, but you should also avoid unnecessary delay. The right timeline depends on the depth of revision required. If the rejection was mainly due to journal fit, you may need two to four weeks to revise formatting, cover letter, references, and framing. If reviewers identified major methodological or theoretical weaknesses, you may need one to three months.

For PhD scholars under submission deadlines, time management is critical. Create a revision calendar. Dedicate the first week to analyzing comments. Use the next phase for major revisions. Then leave time for editing, proofreading, formatting, plagiarism checking, and journal selection.

Avoid submitting immediately after receiving rejection. Emotional decisions often lead to poor journal targeting. Also avoid waiting so long that references become outdated or the topic loses relevance.

A balanced approach works best. Revise with care, seek feedback, finalize journal fit, and submit only when the paper is stronger than before.

10. How can ContentXprtz help if my paper got rejected twice from the same journal?

ContentXprtz can help you move from rejection confusion to publication strategy. We do not treat rejection as failure. We treat it as diagnostic feedback. Our team supports researchers through manuscript review, academic editing, proofreading, literature review refinement, journal formatting, response-to-reviewer editing, publication strategy, and PhD thesis support.

If you are asking, “My paper got rejected twice from the same journal. What should I do next?”, our process begins with understanding the rejection letters. We identify whether the issue relates to scope, novelty, method, theory, writing, ethics, formatting, or journal fit. Then we help you create a structured revision plan.

Our services are especially useful for PhD scholars, early-career academics, and international researchers who need publication-ready writing but want to maintain ethical authorship. We support clarity, argument strength, academic tone, citation integrity, and journal alignment.

ContentXprtz also offers corporate writing services for professionals who need research-based reports, white papers, and publication-quality documents beyond academia.

A Practical 7-Day Recovery Plan After the Second Rejection

If your paper has just been rejected again, use this seven-day plan.

Day 1: Do not revise. Read the decision letter once and step away.

Day 2: Re-read the comments and highlight repeated issues.

Day 3: Classify feedback into scope, theory, method, writing, ethics, and formatting.

Day 4: Decide whether appeal, transfer, or new submission is appropriate.

Day 5: Shortlist three better-fit journals.

Day 6: revise the abstract, introduction, contribution, and methodology.

Day 7: Get expert review or proofreading before final submission.

This plan gives structure to a stressful moment. It also prevents rushed decisions.

Common Mistakes to Avoid After Two Rejections

Many researchers lose time because they respond emotionally. Avoid these mistakes:

• Submitting immediately to another journal without revision
• Ignoring reviewer comments
• Appealing without evidence
• Choosing a predatory journal out of frustration
• Overstating findings to appear more novel
• Adding too many unrelated citations
• Changing the research aim without methodological alignment
• Treating proofreading as a substitute for substantive revision
• Hiding previous ethical or data limitations
• Selecting a journal only because it has a high impact factor

A rejection recovery strategy should protect both publication chances and academic integrity.

Conclusion: Rejection Is Not the End of Your Publication Journey

So, my paper got rejected twice from the same journal. What should I do next? Start with calm analysis. Read the decision letters carefully, diagnose the rejection reasons, revise the manuscript deeply, and choose the next journal strategically. Do not resubmit to the same journal unless the editor clearly invites it. Do not rush to a new journal without strengthening the paper. Most importantly, do not confuse rejection with lack of academic value.

A rejected manuscript can become publishable when you improve its contribution, align it with the right journal, clarify the methodology, strengthen the discussion, and polish the writing. Peer review is demanding, but it can also make your research stronger.

ContentXprtz supports students, PhD scholars, academic researchers, universities, and professionals with ethical academic editing, proofreading, dissertation refinement, manuscript improvement, and publication assistance. Since 2010, we have helped researchers across more than 110 countries move from draft to publication-ready work with confidence and clarity.

Explore our PhD and academic services to turn rejection into a stronger submission strategy.

At ContentXprtz, we don’t just edit, we help your ideas reach their fullest potential.