What Is the Recommended Number of Submissions for a Manuscript Before Giving Up? A Practical Educational Guide for PhD Scholars

What is the recommended number of submissions for a manuscript before giving up? This is one of the most emotionally loaded questions in academic publishing. It usually appears after months, or even years, of research, drafting, revision, reviewer criticism, and waiting. For PhD scholars, early-career researchers, and busy academics, manuscript rejection can feel deeply personal. Yet the evidence shows that rejection is not unusual. Elsevier reports that, across more than 2,300 journals it analyzed, the average acceptance rate was about 32%, while some journals accept only a very small fraction of submissions. In parallel, Springer Nature notes that manuscripts are often rejected for reasons such as scope mismatch, limited contribution, structural weaknesses, or missing methodological detail rather than because the core research has no value. (Elsevier Author Services – Articles)

That context matters because many researchers ask the wrong question. They ask how many times they should submit before stopping. A stronger question is this: after how many strategically revised submissions should you pause, reassess, and reposition the manuscript? In most cases, there is no universal numeric limit imposed by publishing ethics or journal policy. However, a practical expert benchmark is three to five well-targeted submissions before you stop repeating the same cycle and make a deeper decision: substantially redesign the paper, change the target audience, split the article, seek professional academic editing, or retire the manuscript for now. This recommendation is an inference based on how scholarly publishing works: one rejection is normal, two can still reflect journal fit, but repeated rejection without strategic revision often signals a structural issue in framing, novelty, method presentation, or journal targeting. Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Taylor & Francis all emphasize journal fit, revision after rejection, and transfer pathways as better responses than blind resubmission. (www.elsevier.com)

The pressure around this question is real. Nature’s global PhD survey of more than 6,300 doctoral students found that 36% had sought help for anxiety or depression, 49% reported a long-hours culture, and 21% had experienced bullying in their PhD program. Those numbers help explain why one rejected manuscript can feel much larger than a publishing decision. It becomes tied to identity, funding, deadlines, graduation timelines, and career credibility. Add rising publication costs, language barriers, reviewer inconsistency, and intense competition, and many scholars start to wonder whether persistence is wise or wasteful. (Springer Nature Group)

This article offers an evidence-based answer for students, PhD scholars, and academic researchers who need clarity, not empty motivation. You will learn when repeated submissions still make sense, when they do not, how to interpret rejection patterns, and what practical next steps improve your chances of publication. If you need structured research paper writing support, specialized PhD thesis help, or student-focused academic editing services, this guide will also help you understand where professional support can save time, money, and emotional energy.

The short answer: do not “give up” after one or two rejections, but do not keep resubmitting blindly

A manuscript usually should not be abandoned after a single rejection. In fact, one rejection is common because no journal has a 100% acceptance rate, and even strong papers may be declined for fit, novelty thresholds, editorial priorities, or space limitations. Elsevier explicitly notes that authors should expect rejection from at least one journal, and Springer Nature points out that a quality paper may still be better suited to another journal. (www.elsevier.com)

At the same time, endless resubmission is rarely productive. If the same paper has been rejected three to five times, and the revisions between submissions were minor, that is usually the point to stop and reassess. That does not always mean giving up on the research. It means giving up on the current submission strategy. This distinction is crucial.

A useful academic rule of thumb looks like this:

• After 1 rejection: revise and retarget carefully.
• After 2 rejections: audit journal fit, contribution clarity, and reviewer patterns.
• After 3 to 5 rejections: conduct a deep editorial and strategic review before submitting again.
• After more than 5 rejections: continue only if you have made substantial changes in framing, methods explanation, article type, or journal tier.

This is not a universal law. It is a practical publishing benchmark grounded in editorial guidance about rejection, transfer, scope alignment, and manuscript improvement. (www.elsevier.com)

Why manuscripts get rejected repeatedly

Repeated rejection rarely happens for only one reason. More often, it reflects a cluster of issues that authors do not fully diagnose the first time.

Journal fit is often the hidden problem

Taylor & Francis identifies sending a paper to the wrong journal as a major reason for desk rejection. Springer Nature similarly lists out-of-scope submissions among common rejection causes. This means a manuscript may be scientifically sound but mismatched to the journal’s readership, topic boundaries, or contribution expectations. (Author Services)

A paper on a niche regional case, for example, may struggle in a broad international theory journal but fit well in a specialized field journal. Likewise, a solid applied paper may fail in a journal seeking conceptual novelty, while succeeding in a practitioner-oriented outlet.

The contribution is not clear enough

Editors and reviewers often reject papers not because the research is weak, but because the manuscript does not clearly answer a simple question: What is new here, and why should readers care? Springer Nature highlights insufficient advance or impact as a common rejection reason. (Springer Nature)

The paper has presentation weaknesses

Elsevier and Taylor & Francis both stress that structure, language, formatting, and adherence to author guidelines influence editorial decisions. These issues are especially important for multilingual scholars and first-time authors. Even strong data can be overlooked when the manuscript reads unclearly or buries the core contribution. (Elsevier Author Services – Articles)

Reviewer feedback was not converted into strategy

Elsevier advises authors to reflect on rejection feedback and use it to improve the manuscript and find a better home for the work. When authors resubmit too quickly, they often fix surface comments but miss the deeper editorial signal. (www.elsevier.com)

So, what is the recommended number of submissions for a manuscript before giving up?

The most balanced answer is this: there is no fixed ethical or editorial maximum, but three to five strategic submissions is the point at which you should stop repeating the same process and decide whether the manuscript needs major repositioning. This recommendation is an expert synthesis, not a formal publisher rule. It follows from several realities:

First, rejection is normal. Elsevier notes that authors can expect at least one rejection because no journal accepts everything. (www.elsevier.com)

Second, journals differ in scope and threshold. A manuscript rejected at one journal may be appropriate for another, and major publishers now offer transfer systems precisely because valid manuscripts are often declined for fit rather than fatal flaws. Taylor & Francis, Springer Nature, and Springer all explain transfer options for rejected manuscripts. (Author Services)

Third, repeated submission without deeper revision creates diminishing returns. If reviewer letters across multiple journals repeat the same criticisms about novelty, theory, sample, statistics, or writing clarity, more submissions alone will not solve the problem.

Therefore, the recommended approach is not “keep going forever” and not “quit after one failure.” It is persist intelligently for three to five rounds, then reassess rigorously.

When you should definitely keep submitting

You should usually continue submitting when one or more of these conditions apply:

The rejection was mainly about fit

A scope-based desk rejection often says more about journal targeting than manuscript quality. Taylor & Francis and Springer transfer guidance both support this interpretation. (Author Services)

The reviewers saw promise

If the decision letter says the work has merit but needs substantial revision, that is not a signal to abandon the project. APA guidance on revise-and-resubmit decisions shows that manuscripts with publication potential are often invited back after major revision. (apa.org)

You can clearly fix the problems

If reviewers asked for stronger positioning, clearer tables, better literature framing, or more transparent methods, those are actionable issues.

The paper still serves a career goal

If the manuscript supports graduation, promotion, funding, or research visibility, it may justify another careful submission after meaningful improvement.

When you should stop submitting the same version

You should pause before another submission when these patterns appear:

The same major criticism keeps returning

If multiple journals independently question novelty, design quality, or theoretical contribution, that is a strong diagnostic signal.

You are only changing the cover letter and journal formatting

That is not revision. It is resubmission theater.

The target journals keep becoming less aligned

A common sign of frustration is when authors chase any journal that might say yes. That often worsens the problem.

The paper no longer matches your strongest research direction

Sometimes the article was useful at one stage of your PhD but no longer deserves more months of effort.

The opportunity cost is too high

With more than five million scholarly articles published each year, competition for attention is intense. Time spent forcing one underperforming manuscript through repeated low-probability submissions may be better invested in a stronger paper. (PMC)

A better decision framework than counting rejections

Instead of obsessing over the number alone, score your manuscript on five questions after every rejection:

1. Was the journal genuinely the right fit?

Read the aims and scope again. Study recently published articles. Taylor & Francis specifically advises authors to identify journals by tracking where similar work appears. (Author Services)

2. Did the editor or reviewers challenge the contribution?

If yes, your abstract, introduction, and discussion may need sharper framing.

3. Did they question methods, reporting, or ethics?

Springer Nature lists ethics and insufficient detail as common rejection reasons. Those need more than cosmetic changes. (Springer Nature)

4. Are the comments fixable within a realistic timeline?

Some issues require a few days of editing. Others require new data, fresh analysis, or a reconceptualized paper.

5. Does this paper still deserve priority?

Not every manuscript should remain an active project forever.

If your answers are encouraging, resubmit strategically. If not, redesign.

How professional academic editing changes the outcome

For many scholars, the biggest breakthrough comes not from another random submission, but from a stronger manuscript package. Professional academic editing can help with:

• sharper contribution statements
• stronger abstracts and cover letters
• language clarity for non-native English writers
• tighter journal alignment
• better response-to-reviewer documents
• formatting compliance
• reduction of avoidable desk-rejection triggers

That is why many researchers seek academic editing services before the third or fourth submission rather than after the seventh. For doctoral researchers, dedicated PhD and academic services can also help convert reviewer feedback into a more publishable argument. Authors working on monographs or thesis-to-book transitions may benefit from book author writing services, while interdisciplinary professionals often need corporate writing services for policy, technical, or knowledge-transfer outputs.

Authoritative resources every researcher should use

Before your next submission, review these high-quality resources:

• Elsevier Researcher Academy on rejected manuscripts
• Springer Nature on common rejection reasons
• Taylor & Francis on article transfers and next steps
• COPE guidance on concurrent and duplicate submissions
• APA Style guidance on responding to reviewers

These sources are useful because they combine ethics, editorial expectations, and practical submission advice. (Elsevier Researcher Academy)

Frequently asked questions for PhD scholars and researchers

FAQ 1: Is one rejection a sign that my manuscript is not publishable?

No. One rejection is not reliable evidence that your manuscript is unpublishable. In scholarly publishing, rejection is common even for strong papers. Elsevier states that no journal has a 100% acceptance rate and that authors should expect at least one rejection during the publication process. Journals also reject papers for reasons unrelated to core research quality, including scope mismatch, editorial priorities, space constraints, and audience fit. Springer Nature adds that papers may be declined because they are out of scope or not the right level of advance for that specific journal, not because the work has no value. (www.elsevier.com)

What matters more is the type of rejection. A desk rejection based on fit suggests that the paper may perform better elsewhere. A rejection with detailed reviewer comments may actually be useful because it gives you a roadmap for improvement. A revise-and-resubmit invitation is even more positive because it signals potential for publication after revision. APA guidance makes clear that revise-and-resubmit decisions are typically used when the manuscript has publication potential but needs more work. (apa.org)

Researchers often personalize rejection because the publishing process is slow, expensive, and emotionally demanding. Yet one decision from one journal is not a final verdict on your intellectual worth or your research future. Treat the first rejection as data. Ask whether the editor questioned fit, framing, methods, novelty, or writing quality. Then revise with discipline and choose the next journal more strategically. That is a healthier and far more effective response than assuming the paper is finished after one disappointment.

FAQ 2: What is the recommended number of submissions for a manuscript before giving up if I am a PhD student?

For a PhD student, the recommended number of submissions for a manuscript before giving up is usually three to five strategic attempts, not three to five unchanged submissions. That difference matters. A PhD manuscript often serves several goals at once: thesis progress, academic identity, supervisor expectations, and future employability. Because of that, it deserves persistence. However, persistence should be structured. (www.elsevier.com)

If the first rejection is mostly about fit, revise lightly and retarget. If the second rejection repeats concerns about contribution or clarity, pause for a stronger review. If you reach a third, fourth, or fifth rejection, do a full diagnostic review with your supervisor, co-authors, or a professional editor. Look for recurring patterns: weak novelty claim, underdeveloped theory, limited methods explanation, poor English, unclear statistics, or wrong journal tier. At that stage, continuing without a major change is usually inefficient.

For PhD students, the key question is not whether the paper deserves publication in the abstract. The real question is whether the paper still justifies the time it is consuming relative to your thesis deadlines and broader publication strategy. Sometimes the best move is to turn one struggling article into a more focused paper. Sometimes it is to lower the target journal tier. Sometimes it is to hold the manuscript and publish stronger work first. So yes, keep going after rejection. But after three to five thoughtful submissions, switch from persistence mode to strategy mode.

FAQ 3: Should I submit the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time to save time?

No. Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals is generally considered unethical. COPE’s 2024 position on concurrent and duplicate submissions explains that submitting the same paper to more than one journal at the same time creates ethical and practical problems. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors also states that authors should not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal because it can waste editorial and peer-review resources and create publication conflicts. (Publication Ethics)

This issue matters even more for stressed PhD scholars because parallel submission can seem tempting when graduation timelines are tight. However, it can seriously damage trust with editors and publishers. If two journals begin peer review on the same manuscript, you may have to withdraw from one, and that can harm your reputation. In severe cases, editors may raise concerns about research integrity.

A better way to save time is to prepare a ranked journal list before the first submission. Build a primary target, a second-choice journal, and a third-choice journal in advance. Then, if the manuscript is rejected, you can move quickly while staying ethical. You can also use publisher transfer systems when appropriate. Taylor & Francis, Springer, and Springer Nature all describe transfer pathways that can simplify resubmission after rejection. (Author Services)

So the answer is clear: do not submit simultaneously. Move sequentially, revise intelligently, and preserve your professional credibility.

FAQ 4: How do I know whether the problem is journal fit or manuscript quality?

This is one of the most important distinctions in publishing. Journal fit means the manuscript may be solid, but not right for that journal’s readership, priorities, or scope. Quality problems mean the paper itself needs improvement before it is likely to succeed anywhere. Editors often signal the difference, but authors must learn to read rejection letters carefully. (Springer Nature)

A fit problem usually sounds like this: “outside the scope,” “not suitable for our audience,” “better suited to a more specialized journal,” or “does not align with current editorial priorities.” A quality problem sounds more like this: “limited novelty,” “insufficient methodological detail,” “unclear contribution,” “poor organization,” or “language requires substantial improvement.” Springer Nature’s guidance on rejection reasons clearly reflects this difference. (Springer Nature)

The most reliable indicator is pattern recognition across multiple decisions. If one journal says “out of scope,” but another says “interesting work, but not enough advance for our readership,” your issue may still be fit and positioning. If three different journals criticize theory, methods, and writing clarity, the manuscript itself likely needs deeper work.

This is where academic editing and manuscript assessment become valuable. A skilled editor or publication consultant can separate a targeting problem from a structural paper problem. That distinction saves time. Without it, researchers often waste months moving the same underdeveloped manuscript from journal to journal. With it, they can either reposition the paper effectively or rebuild it into something stronger and more publishable.

FAQ 5: Does a desk rejection count as a real submission when deciding whether to keep going?

Yes, a desk rejection does count as a real submission, but it should be interpreted differently from a full peer-review rejection. A desk rejection means the editor declined the manuscript before external review, often due to scope mismatch, formatting issues, unclear contribution, or other editorial screening criteria. Elsevier advises authors to know the journal and follow author guidelines closely to avoid desk rejection. Taylor & Francis also notes that sending work to the wrong journal can slow down the publishing process. (Elsevier Author Services – Articles)

Because desk rejections happen early, they may not always indicate that the research itself is weak. In many cases, they reveal a mismatch between the manuscript and the journal or weaknesses in how the manuscript presents its value. If you receive one desk rejection, you should not conclude that the paper is failing broadly. Instead, audit your abstract, title, cover letter, aims-and-scope alignment, and author-guideline compliance.

Still, desk rejections should absolutely be counted in your strategy. If you collect several desk rejections in a row, that suggests a journal-selection or presentation problem. It means your targeting process needs improvement. Repeated desk rejections are often more diagnostic than painful peer-review rejections because they show that editors do not see enough immediate fit or clarity to send the paper out.

So yes, count them. But use them wisely. One desk rejection is normal. Three desk rejections in succession should trigger a significant review of your journal choice, framing, and manuscript presentation.

FAQ 6: Is it better to keep revising one rejected paper or start a new paper?

The answer depends on opportunity cost. A rejected paper may still be worth pursuing if it addresses a timely question, supports your thesis, and has feedback that points to fixable issues. However, if the manuscript has already gone through several submissions with recurring criticism and little progress, starting a new paper may be the more rational decision. This is especially true for PhD students who must balance thesis completion, job applications, teaching, funding deadlines, and mental health. (Collège Doctoral)

There is no shame in redirecting effort. Academic productivity is not just about persistence. It is also about strategic allocation of time. If one paper needs a complete redesign, you may publish faster by writing a shorter, more focused article from the same dataset or by moving on to a stronger project. Elsevier’s guidance on rejection emphasizes learning from feedback and identifying a better home for the work. That sometimes means a better version of the same paper. Sometimes it means a different paper altogether. (www.elsevier.com)

A good test is this: can you clearly describe the next meaningful revision steps? If yes, keep working. If not, the paper may be absorbing energy without giving you a realistic pathway to publication. In that case, step back. A strategic pause is not failure. It is scholarly judgment. The strongest researchers are not the ones who refuse to stop. They are the ones who know when to revise, when to retarget, and when to redeploy their effort into stronger outputs.

FAQ 7: What should I do immediately after receiving a rejection email?

First, do not respond emotionally. Rejection feels personal, but immediate reaction often leads to poor decisions. Elsevier advises authors not to take rejection personally and to value any feedback they receive. That is excellent advice because your first task is interpretation, not action. (www.elsevier.com)

Second, classify the rejection. Was it desk rejection, post-review rejection, revise and resubmit, or transfer invitation? That classification determines your next steps. A transfer invitation, for example, may save time. Taylor & Francis and Springer Nature explain that transfer systems exist specifically to help authors move suitable manuscripts efficiently to other journals. (Author Services)

Third, create a decision memo. Summarize the journal’s reasons, reviewer points, and likely next actions. Identify which comments are major and which are minor. If multiple reviewers converged on the same problem, treat that issue as high priority.

Fourth, decide whether you need help. If the feedback centers on clarity, structure, language, or positioning, professional editing can accelerate improvement. If the feedback targets methods or theory, speak with supervisors or co-authors.

Finally, avoid rushing the next submission. Fast resubmission feels productive, but it often repeats the same weaknesses. A slower, more analytical response usually improves acceptance odds. The best post-rejection mindset is calm, diagnostic, and deliberate. Rejection is disappointing, but it also gives you privileged insight into how editors and reviewers read your work.

FAQ 8: Can a rejected manuscript ever be resubmitted to the same journal?

Sometimes yes, but only under the journal’s stated terms. Authors should distinguish between outright rejection and a formal invitation to revise and resubmit. APA guidance explains that revise-and-resubmit decisions are used when a manuscript has potential but needs further work. In that case, the journal is explicitly inviting a new version for reconsideration, often with the same reviewers. (apa.org)

An outright rejection is different. Some journals may allow a new submission only if the manuscript has changed substantially, while others will not consider it again unless invited. COPE case discussions also show that resubmission situations can become ethically or procedurally complex if authors misunderstand the status of the original decision. (Publication Ethics)

If you are unsure, follow the editor’s wording exactly. Look for phrases such as “revise and resubmit,” “submit as a new manuscript,” or “this decision is final.” When in doubt, you can send a brief professional inquiry asking whether a substantially revised version would be considered. Do not assume that cosmetic revisions justify resubmission to the same outlet.

From a strategy perspective, resubmitting to the same journal only makes sense when the journal’s feedback is specific, actionable, and aligned with a meaningful revision plan. If the rejection reflects fundamental lack of fit or lack of enthusiasm, another journal is usually the better route. Resubmission to the same journal is a precision move, not a default response.

FAQ 9: How can academic editing improve my acceptance chances after repeated rejection?

Academic editing improves acceptance chances by making the manuscript easier for editors and reviewers to trust. That effect is often underestimated. Many rejected papers are not rejected because the underlying research is worthless. They are rejected because the argument is hard to follow, the contribution is buried, the methods are underexplained, the literature review is unfocused, or the writing obscures the research value. Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Taylor & Francis all point to clarity, structure, guideline compliance, and presentation quality as important factors in editorial decisions. (Elsevier Author Services – Articles)

Professional academic editing can address all of these. A strong editor does more than correct grammar. They sharpen the title, abstract, introduction, transitions, argument flow, and response-to-reviewer language. They also help reduce desk-rejection risks by aligning the manuscript more closely with journal expectations. For multilingual scholars, this support can be especially valuable because language issues can unfairly distract from sound research.

After multiple rejections, editing is often most useful when combined with publication strategy. That means reviewing journal fit, novelty claims, and structural messaging alongside language and formatting. In other words, the best editing is not cosmetic. It is publication-oriented.

For researchers who feel stuck, outside editorial review often creates the distance needed to see what internal teams have missed. That can be the turning point between repeated rejection and eventual acceptance.

FAQ 10: What if I am emotionally exhausted and thinking of giving up entirely?

That feeling is more common than many researchers admit. The publishing process can be slow, uncertain, and deeply discouraging. Nature’s PhD survey found high levels of long-hours culture, mental-health strain, and difficult academic environments. Those realities shape how rejection feels. When you are already carrying thesis pressure, funding concerns, or career anxiety, one manuscript can seem like proof that everything is falling apart. It is not. (Springer Nature Group)

If you are emotionally exhausted, the first step is not another submission. The first step is recovery and clarity. Take distance from the paper for a short period. Then return with a structured review. Ask: what exactly did the rejection say, what patterns are emerging, what fixes are realistic, and what support do I need? Sometimes emotional exhaustion comes less from the manuscript itself and more from trying to solve too many problems alone.

This is also the moment to normalize help. Talk to supervisors, collaborators, writing groups, or professional editors. A manuscript is a document, not a moral test. You are allowed to pause. You are allowed to seek support. You are allowed to retire a paper temporarily and come back later.

Giving up on one version of one manuscript is not giving up on your career. Often, it is the beginning of a more mature publishing strategy. Researchers grow not only by enduring rejection, but by learning how to respond to it without letting it define their confidence or their future.

Final takeaway: persist, but do it strategically

So, what is the recommended number of submissions for a manuscript before giving up? The most practical answer is three to five thoughtful, revised, and well-targeted submissions before you stop and reassess the manuscript at a deeper level. After that point, the issue is rarely persistence alone. It is usually fit, framing, clarity, or strategy.

One rejection is normal. Two are still manageable. Three to five should trigger serious reflection. More than that only makes sense if the paper has undergone meaningful transformation.

For students, doctoral researchers, and academic professionals, the goal is not just to submit more. The goal is to publish more wisely. When needed, invest in expert research paper assistance, specialist PhD support, and targeted student writing services so that each submission has a stronger chance than the last.

If your manuscript has been rejected and you are unsure what to do next, this is exactly when careful editorial guidance matters most.

Explore ContentXprtz’s PhD Assistance Services and publication support solutions to strengthen your manuscript, clarify your contribution, and submit with greater confidence.

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