My Paper Got Rejected Twice from the Same Journal: What Should I Do Next?

By Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

If you are searching “my paper got rejected twice from the same journal what should I do next,” the most important thing to know is that a second rejection does not automatically mean your research is unpublishable. It does, however, mean you should avoid simply making a few cosmetic changes and submitting the manuscript again without understanding why the journal has rejected it twice.

Two rejections from the same journal create a useful decision point. You now have more information than you had before the first submission: two editorial decisions, potentially multiple reviewer reports, evidence about how the journal interprets your contribution, and clues about whether the problem is the research itself, the manuscript’s presentation, the journal fit, or some combination of these factors.

Your next step depends heavily on what kind of rejection you received.

A paper rejected because its topic falls outside a journal’s scope requires a different response from a paper rejected because reviewers identified weaknesses in the methodology. A manuscript rejected because the contribution was judged insufficiently novel requires a different strategy from one rejected because the authors did not adequately address the first round of reviewer comments.

You therefore have several possible routes:

• substantially revise and submit to a different journal;
• appeal the decision if there is a legitimate factual, procedural, or technical basis;
• contact the editor only when the journal’s policy permits clarification;
• conduct additional analysis or research before resubmitting elsewhere;
• reconsider the manuscript’s framing, contribution, methodology, or evidence;
• or, in unusual circumstances, resubmit to the same journal only when the editor explicitly permits or invites a new submission.

The right choice is rarely “submit it again immediately.”

Instead, treat the second rejection as an opportunity for a structured manuscript diagnosis. Separate emotional disappointment from editorial evidence, determine what the two rounds of feedback are actually telling you, and decide whether the manuscript needs revision, repositioning, additional research, or a different journal audience.

This guide walks you through that process step by step.

Quick Answer: My Paper Got Rejected Twice from the Same Journal—What Should I Do Next?

If your paper has been rejected twice by the same journal, do not automatically submit it to that journal for a third time. First, compare both rejection letters and all reviewer comments to determine whether the second rejection resulted from unresolved scientific concerns, new problems, journal fit, editorial priority, or incomplete responses to the earlier review.

In most situations, your next practical step will be to revise the manuscript thoroughly and identify another journal whose scope, readership, article type, and publication priorities better match the paper. Major publishers themselves recognize journal transfer as a legitimate route after rejection. Elsevier, for example, describes rejection and transfer as separate editorial outcomes, while Springer Nature provides transfer options for manuscripts that may be better suited to another journal.

An appeal is different. It should normally be considered only when you can identify a substantive reason that the editorial decision deserves reconsideration—for example, a demonstrable factual error, a serious misunderstanding of the manuscript, evidence that a central criticism is technically incorrect, or a procedural concern covered by the journal’s appeals policy. Taylor & Francis, for example, states that genuine appeals should provide specific reasons, relevant evidence, and responses to the comments underlying the rejection rather than merely expressing disagreement with the outcome.

Your best immediate action is therefore:

1. Stop resubmitting temporarily.
2. Compare both rejection decisions.
3. Categorize every major criticism.
4. Identify which issues remain unresolved.
5. Decide whether the problem is fixable through revision.
6. Reassess journal fit.
7. Revise the manuscript substantially.
8. Appeal only if there is a strong basis.
9. Select the next journal strategically.
10. Submit a genuinely improved manuscript rather than the same rejected version.

Key Takeaways

• Two rejections from one journal should trigger diagnosis, not automatic resubmission.
• Determine whether the main problem is scientific quality, methodology, novelty, presentation, journal scope, editorial priority, or incomplete revision.
• Compare the first and second reviewer reports rather than treating each rejection separately.
• Repeated reviewer criticism usually deserves particular attention because it may indicate that the underlying issue was not fully resolved.
• A third submission to the same journal generally makes sense only when the editor explicitly allows or invites it.
• An appeal should be evidence-based and consistent with the journal’s formal appeal policy—not simply a request for another chance.
• Before submitting elsewhere, revise the manuscript using useful reviewer feedback and choose the new journal based on genuine scope and audience fit.

What This Page Covers

This guide explains:

• why a manuscript may be rejected twice by the same journal;
• how to interpret two rounds of reviewer and editor feedback;
• how to distinguish fixable manuscript problems from journal-fit problems;
• when an editorial appeal may be reasonable;
• when moving to another journal is the stronger strategy;
• how to revise the manuscript before the next submission;
• and how to avoid repeating the same publication mistakes.

Table of Contents

1. What a second rejection really means
2. Why papers get rejected twice by the same journal
3. How to compare your first and second rejection letters
4. Whether you should submit to the same journal again
5. When an appeal may be appropriate
6. A step-by-step plan after a second rejection
7. How to revise your manuscript strategically
8. How to select your next journal
9. Practical rejection scenarios
10. Common mistakes to avoid
11. Final resubmission checklist
12. How Contentxprtz can support manuscript revision
13. Summary
14. Frequently asked questions
15. About the author
16. Conclusion

Methodology and Academic Sources

The guidance in this article combines established scholarly publishing practices with publicly available author guidance from major academic publishers.

For example:

• Elsevier’s submission and decision guidance explains that manuscripts may receive decisions including revision, acceptance, rejection, or transfer and emphasizes the importance of journal-specific author requirements.
• Springer Nature’s Transfer Desk provides an alternative-journal route when a manuscript may be better suited elsewhere and expressly notes that transfer does not guarantee acceptance.
• Taylor & Francis guidance on peer-review appeals explains that an appeal should have a substantive basis supported by specific arguments, evidence, or new information.
• Wiley’s author resources emphasize journal selection, manuscript preparation, journal-specific requirements, and systematic responses to reviewer comments.

Individual journal procedures vary. Always check the exact Instructions for Authors, editorial decision letter, peer-review policy, resubmission policy, and appeals procedure of the journal involved.

What Does It Mean If Your Paper Was Rejected Twice by the Same Journal?

A second rejection means that the journal has made a second negative editorial decision on your work, but the significance of that decision depends on what occurred between the two submissions.

It does not necessarily mean that two independent journals believe the research is unsuitable for publication. The same journal may have concerns about fit, priority, methodology, interpretation, presentation, or the extent to which previous feedback was addressed.

The key question is:

Why did the journal reject the paper the second time?

Consider four very different situations.

Situation 1: The same fundamental problem appears twice

Suppose the first reviewer said that your sampling strategy was insufficiently justified.

You revised the methodology section but did not provide stronger reasoning, sensitivity analysis, additional evidence, or a clear explanation of why the sampling approach was appropriate.

The second reviewer or editor raises essentially the same concern.

That is a strong signal that the problem was not resolved adequately.

Situation 2: You fixed the first concerns, but new concerns emerged

Perhaps the first review focused mainly on methodology, and you addressed those comments successfully.

During the second assessment, however, reviewers identify weaknesses in interpretation, statistical analysis, theoretical positioning, or the discussion.

This can happen because revision makes other aspects of a manuscript more visible. It does not automatically mean the first revision failed.

Situation 3: The manuscript is technically sound but does not meet the journal’s editorial threshold

Some journals evaluate not only technical validity but also factors such as novelty, perceived significance, audience relevance, article type, or editorial priority.

A well-conducted study may therefore still be a poor match for a particular journal.

Springer Nature explicitly notes that sound manuscripts can sometimes be more appropriate for another journal because of factors such as journal scope, which is one reason transfer mechanisms exist.

Situation 4: Your resubmission was effectively treated as a new manuscript

If the journal rejected the original paper and you later submitted it again without an explicit “revise and resubmit” invitation, the second submission may have been evaluated independently.

In that situation, you should not assume that the editor considered the manuscript part of the original review cycle.

The wording in your decision letters matters.

First, Identify Exactly What Kind of Decision You Received

Before revising anything, read the editor’s language carefully.

The difference between the following decisions is substantial:

• Reject
• Reject and resubmit
• Decline with invitation to submit a substantially revised manuscript
• Major revision
• Transfer recommended
• Out of scope
• Insufficient priority
• Editorial rejection
• Rejected after peer review

A formal “reject” generally means that the existing submission has ended. Elsevier’s author guidance, for example, distinguishes rejection from revision and transfer as separate outcomes.

Do not interpret a polite closing sentence such as “we hope you will consider us for future work” as permission to resubmit the same manuscript.

Look for explicit language.

If the editor writes:

“We would be willing to consider a substantially revised version as a new submission,”

that is materially different from:

“We regret that we cannot publish your manuscript.”

Why Do Papers Get Rejected Twice by the Same Journal?

There is rarely a single universal cause. Second rejections often reflect one or more of the following categories.

Possible issue	What it may mean	What you should investigate
Scope mismatch	The research does not sufficiently match the journal	Aims and scope, recent articles, readership
Limited novelty	Contribution is perceived as incremental or unclear	Literature gap, contribution statement, positioning
Methodological weakness	Design or analysis may not support the claims	Sampling, controls, measures, statistics, validation
Weak theoretical framing	Study is insufficiently connected to existing scholarship	Literature review, conceptual framework
Reviewer concerns not fully addressed	Revision did not solve the original problems	Response letter and revised manuscript
Claims exceed evidence	Conclusions are broader than the data support	Results, discussion, limitations
Poor presentation	Important contributions are difficult to understand	Structure, language, figures, abstract
Editorial priority	Paper may be sound but not sufficiently important for that journal	Alternative journals
Inconsistent manuscript	Revision introduced contradictions	Abstract, methods, results, tables, discussion
Reporting deficiencies	Required methodological or reporting information is missing	Discipline-specific reporting guidelines

The important point is not to guess which problem applies.

Build your diagnosis from the actual decision letters and manuscript.

Compare the First and Second Rejection Letters Side by Side

One of the most useful things you can do after a second rejection is create a reviewer-feedback matrix.

Do not read each report only as a long narrative.

Break the comments into specific issues.

For example:

Reviewer concern	First review	Your revision	Second review	Status
Sample justification	Raised	Added 2 sentences	Raised again	Unresolved
Statistical model	Raised	Reanalysed data	No longer raised	Probably resolved
Novelty	Not raised	—	Raised strongly	New issue
Literature coverage	Raised	Added references	Partly raised	Partially resolved
Conclusions too broad	Raised	Minor wording changes	Raised again	Unresolved

This simple exercise can reveal patterns that are difficult to see when you are reading several pages of comments emotionally.

Pay Special Attention to Repeated Criticism

If the same criticism appears after both submissions, ask:

Did I actually solve the problem, or did I merely add text about it?

This distinction matters.

Consider a reviewer comment such as:

The manuscript does not justify why this sample is appropriate for drawing the stated conclusions.

A weak revision might add:

The selected sample was considered appropriate for this study.

Nothing substantive has changed.

A stronger response might require:

• explaining the sampling framework;
• clarifying inclusion and exclusion criteria;
• adding a power or precision justification where appropriate;
• narrowing the conclusions;
• acknowledging limitations;
• performing additional robustness checks;
• or changing the research claim itself.

Good revision is not measured by how many reviewer comments you can mark “completed.”

It is measured by whether the underlying scholarly concern has genuinely been addressed.

My Paper Got Rejected Twice from the Same Journal: Should I Submit There Again?

Usually, not immediately—and often not at all unless the editor explicitly permits another submission.

After two rejections, another submission to the same journal should require a clear rationale.

Ask yourself five questions.

1. Did the editor invite another version?

If yes, follow the invitation precisely.

If no, assume you need a different publication strategy unless the journal’s policies state otherwise.

2. Has the manuscript changed substantially?

Changing grammar, reorganizing paragraphs, adding citations, or altering the title is generally not the same as resolving substantive editorial concerns.

A third attempt would be easier to justify if the paper has undergone meaningful changes such as:

• new experiments;
• additional data;
• revised statistical analysis;
• redesigned methodology;
• substantial theoretical redevelopment;
• major reframing of the contribution;
• narrowed claims;
• new validation;
• or a fundamentally stronger manuscript architecture.

3. Is the journal actually the best fit?

Researchers sometimes become attached to a target journal because of:

• prestige;
• impact metrics;
• supervisor preference;
• institutional expectations;
• familiarity;
• or the time already invested in submission.

But sunk effort does not improve journal fit.

Ask whether researchers who need your findings actually read that journal.

4. Was the second rejection based on journal-specific priority?

If the editor essentially says the work does not meet the journal’s novelty, significance, or audience threshold, repeatedly editing the manuscript may not change that judgment.

Another journal may evaluate the same contribution differently because it serves a different scholarly community.

5. Can the main criticisms realistically be corrected?

Some problems are revision problems.

Others are research-design problems.

Still others are journal-fit problems.

You need to know which type you have.

Should You Appeal the Second Rejection?

You can consider an appeal only when you have a clear substantive basis and the journal permits appeals.

An appeal is not simply:

“Please reconsider because we worked very hard.”

Nor is it:

“We disagree with Reviewer 2.”

A credible appeal normally focuses on specific grounds.

Taylor & Francis, for example, asks authors appealing editorial decisions to explain precisely why they disagree, respond to relevant editorial or reviewer comments, provide new information where relevant, and provide evidence when they believe a reviewer made a technical error or had a conflict of interest.

An Appeal May Be Worth Considering When:

• a reviewer has made a demonstrably incorrect technical assertion central to the decision;
• the editor appears to have relied on a misunderstanding that can be objectively corrected;
• a reviewer criticizes the manuscript for omitting something that is clearly present;
• the decision appears inconsistent with the journal’s stated procedures;
• you have compelling new information directly relevant to the rejection;
• a serious potential conflict of interest can be documented;
• or the journal’s stated appeal criteria clearly apply.

An Appeal Is Usually Weak When:

• you simply disagree with the reviewers’ opinion;
• you believe the journal should appreciate the importance of your topic more;
• you want another reviewer because the existing reviewer was critical;
• you are frustrated by the amount of revision already completed;
• publication is important for your graduation or promotion;
• your supervisor strongly wants that particular journal;
• or you cannot identify a specific factual or procedural basis for reconsideration.

Personal urgency may be very real, but it does not by itself establish an editorial reason for reversing a decision.

How to Write an Academic Appeal Professionally

If an appeal is justified, keep it focused.

A useful structure is:

1. State the manuscript title and identification number.
2. Identify the decision being appealed.
3. Thank the editor for considering the manuscript.
4. State the exact basis of the appeal.
5. Quote or paraphrase the relevant criticism accurately.
6. Explain your response with evidence.
7. Point to manuscript sections, analyses, or data supporting your position.
8. Remain professional and non-accusatory.
9. Follow the journal’s appeal procedure exactly.
10. Accept that the original decision may still stand.

Do not turn an appeal into an emotional rebuttal of every negative comment.

What Should You Do Next? A Step-by-Step Plan

Step 1: Do Not Resubmit Immediately

Give yourself enough distance to read the decision analytically.

The first reading often produces emotional reactions:

• “The reviewer misunderstood everything.”
• “The comments contradict each other.”
• “They did not read the paper properly.”
• “There is nothing else I can change.”

Some of those impressions may eventually prove valid.

But they are not yet a revision strategy.

Save the decision letters and reviewer comments. Then evaluate them systematically.

Step 2: Collect the Entire Submission History

Create one folder containing:

• the original submitted manuscript;
• first decision letter;
• first reviewer reports;
• first response-to-reviewers document;
• first revised manuscript;
• second decision letter;
• second reviewer reports;
• supplementary files;
• journal author guidelines;
• and all important editorial correspondence.

This creates an audit trail of what changed and what did not.

Step 3: Categorize Every Major Comment

Use categories such as:

A. Journal fit

• scope;
• audience;
• article type;
• priority.

B. Contribution

• novelty;
• theoretical significance;
• practical significance;
• research gap.

C. Methodology

• design;
• sampling;
• measurement;
• controls;
• validity;
• reproducibility.

D. Analysis

• statistical methods;
• qualitative analysis;
• assumptions;
• robustness;
• interpretation.

E. Reporting

• missing information;
• unclear tables;
• inconsistent numbers;
• inadequate methodological detail.

F. Writing

• organization;
• language;
• clarity;
• repetition;
• terminology.

G. Claims

• overstatement;
• unsupported causality;
• generalization;
• insufficient limitation discussion.

This prevents you from treating every reviewer comment as equally important.

Step 4: Separate Fatal Problems from Fixable Problems

A useful distinction is:

Fixable through manuscript revision

Examples include:

• unclear abstract;
• disorganized discussion;
• inadequate explanation of methods;
• missing citations;
• weak limitation section;
• imprecise terminology;
• poor figure presentation.

Potentially fixable through additional analysis

Examples include:

• missing robustness checks;
• inadequate subgroup analysis;
• alternative model specification;
• additional validation.

Potentially requiring new research

Examples include:

• unsuitable study design;
• inadequate measurement;
• fundamentally insufficient sample;
• missing control condition;
• necessary data never collected.

Journal-fit problems

Examples include:

• topic outside scope;
• audience mismatch;
• wrong article type;
• novelty threshold mismatch.

The appropriate next action depends on the category.

Revise the Research Logic Before Revising the Language

After rejection, researchers sometimes concentrate first on grammar because language is visible and relatively easy to change.

But if reviewers criticized the science, rewriting sentences will not solve the main problem.

Before proofreading, ask whether the logic works:

Research question → Study design → Data → Analysis → Results → Interpretation → Conclusion

Each link should support the next.

For example:

If your study is observational, check whether the language implies causation beyond what your design can establish.

If the sample is highly specific, check whether the discussion generalizes beyond that population.

If an exploratory analysis generated an interesting pattern, check whether the manuscript presents it as exploratory rather than as though it were a prespecified confirmatory finding.

Language editing becomes most valuable after the scholarly argument is stable.

Revisit the Novelty and Contribution Statement

“Lack of novelty” is one of the hardest comments for authors because it can mean several different things.

A reviewer may mean:

• the question has already been studied;
• the method is well established;
• the dataset is not sufficiently distinctive;
• the theoretical contribution is unclear;
• the practical contribution is modest;
• recent literature has not been considered;
• or the manuscript does not communicate what is genuinely new.

Do not respond by repeatedly writing:

“This study is novel because no previous study has…”

Instead, define the contribution precisely.

Ask:

• What does the scholarly community know before this paper?
• What remains uncertain?
• What does this study add?
• Does the evidence genuinely support that addition?
• Who needs this new information?
• Why is the contribution important for the target journal’s readership?

Sometimes the research is useful but the novelty claim is exaggerated.

In that situation, a more realistic framing can make the manuscript stronger.

Check Whether Your Methods Can Support Your Conclusions

Reviewer concerns about methodology deserve careful attention because they often affect the credibility of the entire paper.

Review:

• study design;
• participant or sample selection;
• eligibility criteria;
• measurements;
• instruments;
• data cleaning;
• missing data procedures;
• statistical assumptions;
• qualitative coding processes;
• model selection;
• validation;
• controls;
• sensitivity analyses;
• confounding;
• and limitations.

Do not add analyses only because “the reviewer asked.”

Ask whether the requested analysis is scientifically appropriate.

If you disagree with a reviewer request, your eventual response should explain why, using methodological reasoning rather than preference.

Reassess the Discussion Section

The discussion often becomes vulnerable after extensive revision because new analyses are added without fully integrating them into the argument.

Check whether your discussion:

1. answers the research question;
2. interprets rather than merely repeats results;
3. distinguishes evidence from speculation;
4. compares findings appropriately with previous work;
5. explains differences from earlier studies cautiously;
6. recognizes limitations;
7. avoids unsupported causal claims;
8. describes implications proportionately;
9. identifies what the study contributes;
10. ends with conclusions supported by the actual data.

A more cautious manuscript can be stronger than a more dramatic one.

Decide Whether You Need a Different Journal

After two rejections from the same publication, journal selection deserves a fresh analysis.

Do not choose the next journal using only an impact factor, ranking, or familiar title.

Consider:

• subject scope;
• readership;
• types of studies recently published;
• methodological orientation;
• accepted article types;
• geographic emphasis where relevant;
• theoretical orientation;
• word limits;
• open-access requirements;
• publication charges;
• data-sharing policies;
• reporting requirements;
• indexing requirements relevant to your institution;
• and whether your manuscript resembles work the journal actually publishes.

Major publishers maintain journal-finding and transfer mechanisms precisely because an unsuccessful first destination does not necessarily mean the manuscript lacks value. Wiley encourages authors to identify an appropriate journal and follow its specific author guidelines, while Springer Nature and Elsevier provide transfer routes when another publication may offer a better fit.

However, a publisher’s transfer recommendation should still be evaluated critically. Springer Nature specifically notes that a transfer does not guarantee publication and that the destination journal independently assesses the manuscript.

Use the Rejected Reviews Before Submitting Elsewhere

Moving to another journal does not mean ignoring the previous reviewers.

Reviewer reports are often one of the most valuable outcomes of an unsuccessful submission.

Before submitting elsewhere, ask of every substantive criticism:

• Is it scientifically valid?
• Would another reviewer raise the same concern?
• Can I resolve it now?
• Does it reveal unclear writing?
• Does it expose an unsupported claim?
• Does it identify missing literature?
• Does it reveal a methodological limitation that must be disclosed?

You do not need to agree with every reviewer.

But you should not discard useful criticism merely because the paper was rejected.

A new editor sees the revised manuscript, not the frustration attached to the previous process.

Practical Example 1: The Same Methodological Concern Appears Twice

Situation

A doctoral researcher submits a quantitative study to a journal.

The first reviewers question whether the sample is adequate for the conclusions.

The researcher adds a short paragraph defending the sample and resubmits.

The manuscript is rejected again, with the editor noting continuing concerns about statistical power and generalizability.

The mistake

The author treated the criticism primarily as a writing problem.

The real concern was methodological.

Better next step

The researcher should determine whether the dataset can support the proposed analysis.

Possible actions include:

• consulting appropriate statistical guidance;
• conducting an appropriate power, precision, or sensitivity assessment where justified;
• narrowing the claims;
• adding robustness analysis;
• explaining limitations explicitly;
• or redesigning the paper around conclusions the evidence can support.

Why this approach is stronger

The revision addresses the underlying scientific question rather than merely defending the existing manuscript.

Practical Example 2: The Paper Is Good, but the Journal Fit Is Weak

Situation

A management researcher studies operational practices within small regional businesses.

The manuscript is submitted to a broad international strategy journal.

The first editorial process questions the study’s general contribution. After revision and resubmission, the paper is rejected again because the editor believes the contribution is too specialized for the journal’s readership.

The mistake

The researcher assumes that more rewriting will eventually make the paper suitable for the same journal.

Better next step

Instead of artificially inflating the contribution, the researcher should consider a journal whose readers are more directly interested in:

• small-business management;
• operations;
• regional entrepreneurship;
• sector-specific management;
• or applied organizational research.

The abstract and introduction can then be rewritten around the needs of that audience.

Why this approach is stronger

Journal selection becomes part of scholarly communication.

The goal is not merely to find a journal willing to accept the paper. It is to find an appropriate scholarly audience for the contribution.

Practical Example 3: A Reviewer Appears to Have Made a Technical Error

Situation

An author receives a second rejection partly because a reviewer claims the manuscript did not perform a particular analysis.

However, the analysis is present in the revised manuscript, reported in the Methods, Results, and supplementary material.

The rejection letter explicitly relies on the alleged absence of that analysis.

Weak response

“The reviewer clearly did not read our paper. We demand another reviewer.”

Better response

First check the journal’s appeals policy.

Then document:

• exactly what the reviewer stated;
• where the analysis appears;
• the relevant page and line numbers;
• what the analysis shows;
• and why this issue materially affected the decision.

If an appeal is permitted, write a concise, evidence-based request.

Why this approach is stronger

It distinguishes a genuine factual issue from ordinary disagreement with peer review.

Practical Example 4: The Revision Creates New Problems

Situation

Reviewers ask an author to strengthen the literature review and explain several additional theories.

The author adds multiple new sections.

The manuscript becomes much longer and loses its original conceptual focus.

On the second review, another reviewer criticizes the paper for being unfocused and theoretically inconsistent.

What happened?

The author responded to each comment individually without reconsidering the manuscript as a whole.

Better next step

After responding to reviewer comments, perform a complete structural edit.

Ask:

• Does the paper still have one clear central argument?
• Does each theory serve that argument?
• Are concepts used consistently?
• Does the introduction promise what the results and discussion deliver?
• Can unnecessary material be removed?

Revision should improve the manuscript as an integrated scholarly work, not create a collection of responses to reviewers.

Practical Example 5: The Paper Was Rejected for Limited Novelty

Situation

A manuscript reports a competent replication or contextual extension of previous research.

The authors repeatedly describe it as “highly novel.”

Reviewers disagree.

Better strategy

Do not manufacture novelty.

Instead, clarify the real contribution:

• Does the study test whether an established finding transfers to another population?
• Does it provide evidence from an understudied context?
• Does it challenge the robustness of an earlier conclusion?
• Does it provide a useful methodological comparison?
• Does it supply higher-quality evidence on an uncertain question?

A realistic contribution may fit well in a journal that values replication, applied research, confirmatory evidence, or context-specific scholarship.

Common Mistakes After a Second Journal Rejection

Mistake 1: Sending the Same Paper to Another Journal Immediately

Changing the journal name in the cover letter is not a revision strategy.

Better approach: Resolve important scientific and communication weaknesses before the next submission.

Mistake 2: Ignoring Reviewer Comments Because the Paper Was Rejected

The next reviewers may identify exactly the same problems.

Better approach: Treat credible reviewer comments as a free pre-submission critique.

Mistake 3: Changing Only Grammar

Language matters, particularly when unclear writing obscures the research.

But language editing cannot repair a flawed design or unsupported conclusion.

Better approach: Revise research logic first, structure second, language third.

Mistake 4: Appealing Because You Are Disappointed

Rejection is disappointing, especially after months of revision.

But disappointment is not evidence that the decision was incorrect.

Better approach: Appeal only when the journal’s criteria and your evidence support doing so.

Mistake 5: Attacking the Reviewer

Avoid writing:

• “The reviewer clearly lacks expertise.”
• “Reviewer 2 does not understand basic statistics.”
• “The comments are ridiculous.”
• “The editor has treated us unfairly.”

Even when criticism appears mistaken, respond to the argument, not the person.

Mistake 6: Submitting to a Lower-Ranked Journal Without Checking Fit

Changing journal prestige does not automatically solve a mismatch.

Better approach: Select for audience, scope, research type, and methodological fit.

Mistake 7: Hiding Important Limitations

A limitation does not disappear because you omit it.

Better approach: State meaningful limitations transparently and explain how they affect interpretation.

Mistake 8: Overclaiming Novelty to Compensate for Rejection

Claims such as “the first ever,” “completely novel,” or “groundbreaking” require strong justification.

Better approach: Describe the contribution precisely.

Mistake 9: Treating Reviewer Requests as a Checklist Without Thinking

Not every reviewer suggestion should necessarily be implemented exactly as phrased.

Better approach: Understand the scholarly concern behind the request and respond appropriately.

Mistake 10: Choosing the Next Journal Before Revising the Paper

Your revised manuscript may target a different audience from the original version.

Better approach: Improve the paper first, then assess journals against the manuscript it has become.

How to Prepare the Manuscript for the Next Journal

Once you decide to move elsewhere, treat the next submission as a new publication project.

Recheck the Title

Does the title accurately communicate:

• population;
• topic;
• intervention or phenomenon;
• method where relevant;
• and central focus?

Remove exaggerated claims.

Rewrite the Abstract

Do not assume the existing abstract remains suitable after major revision.

Check that it accurately reflects:

• background;
• objective;
• methods;
• principal results;
• and conclusion.

The conclusion in the abstract should not exceed what the results demonstrate.

Strengthen the Introduction

The introduction should establish:

1. what is known;
2. what remains unresolved;
3. why the gap matters;
4. what the study investigates;
5. and what contribution the paper attempts to make.

Do not turn it into an exhaustive literature review.

Recheck Methods Against Current Manuscript Claims

Methods should provide enough detail for readers to understand what was actually done.

If the analysis changed after peer review, make sure the Methods, Results, tables, figures, supplementary files, and abstract all reflect the revised analysis consistently.

Audit Every Number

After multiple revisions, numerical inconsistencies can appear easily.

Compare:

• abstract;
• participant flow;
• methods;
• results;
• tables;
• figures;
• supplementary information.

A number appearing in three places should agree unless there is a clearly explained reason for the difference.

Rebuild the Discussion Around the Revised Results

Do not retain discussion claims simply because they were present in version one.

Each major interpretation should still follow logically from the current results.

Check References

Verify that references:

• genuinely exist;
• support the claims attached to them;
• are cited accurately;
• follow the destination journal’s requirements;
• and include important recent scholarship where necessary.

Researchers remain responsible for verifying every citation used in their manuscripts.

Should You Include Previous Reviewer Comments When Submitting to a New Journal?

Follow the new journal’s requirements.

In ordinary circumstances, you should not independently send confidential correspondence from a previous journal unless:

• the new journal requests it;
• a formal transfer process carries the reviews;
• the relevant editorial system permits or requires it;
• or you have clear permission to provide it.

Some publisher transfer systems can carry previous peer-review material to another journal. Elsevier, for example, states that in certain post-review transfers, previous referee input may travel with the manuscript.

Do not assume the same process applies across publishers or journals.

Check the destination journal’s policy.

How to Select a Better-Fit Journal After Two Rejections

A systematic shortlist is safer than randomly moving from one journal to another.

Create a table like this:

Selection factor	Journal A	Journal B	Journal C
Scope match	Strong	Moderate	Strong
Publishes your article type	Yes	Yes	Yes
Similar recent papers	Several	Few	Several
Audience match	Strong	Strong	Moderate
Methodology fit	Strong	Moderate	Strong
Word limit workable	Yes	No	Yes
Publication model acceptable	Yes	Yes	Yes
Institutional requirements met	Check	Check	Check
Reporting requirements manageable	Yes	Yes	Yes
Overall suitability	High	Medium	High

Then read several recent articles from each journal.

Ask:

If my manuscript had already been published in this journal, would it look intellectually at home there?

That question is often more useful than asking only whether your keywords appear in the journal’s scope statement.

Should You Lower Your Journal Target After Two Rejections?

Not automatically.

The stronger question is whether you need a different journal target, not simply a “lower” one.

Journal hierarchy is not one-dimensional.

A specialized journal may be a better destination than a broad journal because it reaches the scholars most interested in your exact research question.

Similarly, another journal of comparable standing may simply define novelty or scope differently.

Choose based on:

• intellectual fit;
• readership;
• research design;
• contribution;
• practical publishing requirements;
• and your institutional obligations.

Prestige alone should not determine the submission strategy.

Final Revision Checklist Before Your Next Submission

Use this checklist only after you have completed the substantive revision.

• I have read both rejection letters carefully.
• I have compared comments from both rounds of review.
• I have identified repeated reviewer concerns.
• I understand why the second rejection occurred.
• I have separated journal-fit problems from manuscript problems.
• I have addressed valid methodological concerns.
• I have checked whether the conclusions are fully supported by the evidence.
• I have revised the novelty and contribution statements realistically.
• I have checked the manuscript for internal contradictions created during revision.
• I have reviewed the abstract after completing all substantive changes.
• I have checked all tables, figures, and supplementary files.
• I have verified important numerical values across the manuscript.
• I have checked references for authenticity and relevance.
• I have clearly acknowledged meaningful study limitations.
• I have selected the next journal based on scope and audience rather than desperation.
• I have read the destination journal’s latest author instructions.
• I have reformatted the manuscript where required.
• I have prepared a journal-specific cover letter.
• I have checked authorship information and author approval.
• I am not simultaneously submitting the manuscript to multiple journals where prohibited.
• I have preserved all previous manuscript versions and editorial correspondence.
• I have completed a final language and consistency review.

What If You Are Emotionally Exhausted After the Second Rejection?

This part of the publication process deserves recognition.

A manuscript can represent:

• months or years of research;
• difficult data collection;
• doctoral milestones;
• collaboration;
• funding obligations;
• career progression;
• supervisor expectations;
• and a considerable amount of intellectual effort.

A rejection therefore does not always feel like a simple administrative decision.

However, try to separate two questions:

How do I feel about the rejection?

and

What does the rejection tell me about the manuscript?

Both are legitimate questions, but only the second should guide your technical revision.

Discuss the decision with:

• co-authors;
• your supervisor;
• a methodological adviser;
• a trusted colleague in the field;
• or an experienced academic editor.

Ask them to read the rejection letter before explaining your own interpretation.

Their independent reading can help reveal whether you are overreacting to a minor comment or underestimating a serious one.

Academic Ethics During Revision and Resubmission

Rejection pressure should never lead researchers to compromise research integrity.

Do not:

• fabricate new data to satisfy reviewers;
• invent analyses that were never performed;
• create references that do not exist;
• conceal important methodological problems;
• manipulate results merely to obtain statistical significance;
• misrepresent reviewer comments;
• submit simultaneously to multiple journals where journal policies prohibit it;
• or misstate whether a manuscript has been published elsewhere.

Researchers remain responsible for:

• data;
• analysis;
• interpretations;
• claims;
• citations;
• authorship;
• methodology;
• and final submission.

Professional editing can improve clarity, organization, language, and scholarly communication, but it should not replace the researcher’s intellectual responsibility.

Your university, funder, discipline, or journal may also have specific rules concerning professional editing or AI-assisted manuscript preparation. Check the policies that apply to your work.

When Professional Manuscript Review May Be Useful

You may be able to revise the paper effectively yourself if:

• the reviewer comments are clear;
• the methodological issues are within your expertise;
• co-authors can provide strong critical feedback;
• the manuscript is already well structured;
• and the remaining problems are relatively contained.

Independent professional review can be useful when:

• two rounds of feedback appear contradictory;
• the same criticism keeps returning;
• you cannot identify why reviewers misunderstand the manuscript;
• your contribution is difficult to articulate;
• the manuscript has undergone so many revisions that its structure has become inconsistent;
• English-language clarity is interfering with communication;
• the response to reviewers needs to be checked for completeness;
• or you want an independent pre-submission assessment before targeting another journal.

The goal of legitimate academic editing should be to strengthen communication while preserving the researcher’s ownership of the study, evidence, interpretation, and final decisions.

How Contentxprtz Can Help After Repeated Journal Rejection

A second journal rejection can be a useful point for an independent manuscript review because the paper now contains both the research itself and a substantial editorial history.

Contentxprtz can support researchers with areas such as:

• manuscript structure and clarity;
• research-paper language editing;
• response-to-reviewer organization;
• consistency checks across revised sections;
• abstract and title refinement;
• academic tone;
• argument flow;
• journal-specific formatting;
• citation and reference consistency;
• and review of whether important editorial comments appear to have been addressed clearly.

Researchers who need an independent review before their next submission can explore the Contentxprtz research paper editing service.

Where broader manuscript preparation is required, academic editing support may also help improve clarity and presentation.

For researchers specifically navigating journal submission and resubmission requirements, journal publication services may be relevant when used as ethical publication support rather than as a promise of acceptance.

Professional support cannot guarantee that a journal will accept a manuscript. Editorial decisions remain with journals, and researchers remain responsible for their scholarly claims, methods, data, references, and final submissions.

Summary: What to Do After Your Paper Is Rejected Twice by the Same Journal

If your paper has been rejected twice by the same journal, your next move should be based on diagnosis rather than persistence alone.

Start by comparing the two decision letters and reviewer reports.

Identify:

• repeated criticisms;
• newly raised problems;
• methodology concerns;
• novelty concerns;
• reporting weaknesses;
• presentation problems;
• and indications that the paper simply does not fit the journal.

Do not assume a third submission to the same journal is appropriate unless the editor explicitly permits or invites another version.

Appeal only when you can provide a specific and credible basis consistent with the journal’s appeal policy.

Otherwise, use the two rounds of peer-review feedback to make the manuscript stronger and identify another journal whose readership and scope genuinely match the research.

Most importantly, distinguish between:

a paper that needs better writing,
a paper that needs better analysis,
a study that requires additional research,
and a manuscript that simply needs a better journal home.

Those situations require very different solutions.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. My paper got rejected twice from the same journal—what should I do next?

If my paper got rejected twice from the same journal what should I do next is the question you are facing, begin by comparing both decision letters rather than immediately resubmitting.

Create a list of the reasons given for the first and second rejection. Identify which criticisms were repeated, which were resolved, and which appeared for the first time.

Then decide whether the core issue concerns the manuscript itself or its fit with the journal.

If the paper requires substantial scientific revision, complete that revision before considering another submission. If the work appears sound but does not match the journal’s scope or editorial priorities, selecting another journal may be more sensible.

A third submission to the same journal should generally require clear permission or encouragement from the editor.

If you believe the decision resulted from a demonstrable factual, technical, or procedural problem, check the journal’s formal appeal procedure before contacting the editor.

2. Is being rejected twice a sign that my research is bad?

No. Two rejections do not, by themselves, establish that the research is “bad.”

A journal can reject work for several different reasons, including scope, perceived novelty, editorial priority, methodology, reporting quality, interpretation, or presentation.

What matters is the substance of the feedback.

For example, repeated comments about inadequate controls or unsupported conclusions deserve serious scientific attention. In contrast, repeated comments about poor fit with a journal’s audience may suggest that the destination rather than the underlying research is the primary problem.

Avoid both extremes:

• assuming the reviewers must be wrong because you believe the study is strong;
• or assuming your entire research project has failed because a journal rejected it.

Use the editorial record as evidence and evaluate each concern independently.

3. Can I submit the paper to the same journal for a third time?

You should normally do so only when the editor or journal policy clearly permits another submission of the same work.

A standard rejection usually closes that submission. A statement such as “we would consider a substantially revised manuscript as a new submission” is different because it explicitly leaves a route open.

If no such invitation exists, repeatedly submitting the manuscript may be unproductive.

Before considering another attempt, ask whether the manuscript has changed substantially enough to address the previous reasons for rejection.

If the paper still has the same methodology, contribution, analysis, and journal-fit problem, changing wording alone is unlikely to alter the outcome.

When uncertain about whether a new submission is permitted, consult the journal’s official policy or contact the editorial office professionally rather than assuming.

4. Should I appeal after a second rejection?

Appeal only when you have a substantive basis for doing so.

A reasonable appeal might identify a factual error central to the rejection, document a serious technical misunderstanding, present relevant evidence, or raise a procedural concern permitted under the journal’s appeal policy.

Simply disagreeing with a reviewer’s opinion is usually not enough.

Publisher policies vary, so check the specific journal’s procedure first. Taylor & Francis, for example, asks authors to provide specific reasons and evidence when appealing editorial decisions.

If the issue is fundamentally editorial judgment about novelty, priority, or journal fit, moving to another journal may be more productive than appealing.

Keep any appeal factual, concise, respectful, and focused on the decision—not on criticism of individual reviewers.

5. Should I address reviewer comments even if I submit the manuscript to another journal?

Yes, you should seriously evaluate all substantive reviewer comments before submitting elsewhere.

You are not obligated to accept every suggestion uncritically, but ignoring useful feedback can lead the next reviewers to identify the same weaknesses.

Separate comments into:

• scientifically valid concerns;
• requests that improve clarity;
• optional suggestions;
• misunderstandings caused by unclear writing;
• and comments you believe are technically inappropriate.

Then revise accordingly.

Previous peer review effectively gives you information about how knowledgeable readers may interpret the manuscript. Use that information to strengthen the next version.

A new journal does not erase the problems identified during the previous review process.

6. How do I know whether the problem is my manuscript or the journal?

Look at the language of the decision.

Comments about:

• methodology;
• inadequate evidence;
• weak analysis;
• unsupported conclusions;
• missing controls;
• unclear reporting;
• or theoretical inconsistency

usually point toward the manuscript or research.

Comments about:

• scope;
• readership;
• article type;
• editorial priority;
• or suitability for the journal

more strongly suggest a journal-fit issue.

Sometimes both are present.

You can also compare your paper with recent articles in the journal. Consider topic, methodological approach, contribution type, scale of evidence, and intended audience.

Do not evaluate fit using keywords alone. A paper may mention the same subject as a journal while addressing a research question that falls outside what its readers usually expect.

7. Should I change the paper significantly before submitting to another journal?

If the reviews identified substantive weaknesses, yes.

The purpose is not to make changes merely so the manuscript “looks different.” The goal is to produce a stronger scholarly paper.

Depending on the feedback, meaningful revision might include:

• reanalysis;
• additional methodological explanation;
• narrowing claims;
• restructuring the introduction;
• updating literature;
• rewriting the discussion;
• strengthening limitations;
• improving tables or figures;
• clarifying the contribution;
• or conducting additional research.

If the manuscript was rejected only because of a clear scope mismatch and reviewers identified no scientific concerns, less substantive revision may be necessary.

Even then, revise the title, abstract, framing, cover letter, formatting, and terminology for the new journal rather than submitting a generic manuscript unchanged.

8. How should I choose the next journal after two rejections?

Choose the next journal by matching the manuscript to its actual scholarly audience.

Begin with the paper’s:

• topic;
• research question;
• method;
• study population or context;
• theoretical contribution;
• and article type.

Then examine potential journals for:

• aims and scope;
• recently published papers;
• readership;
• article categories;
• methodological fit;
• submission requirements;
• publication model;
• and institutional requirements relevant to you.

Publisher journal-finding or transfer services can provide suggestions, but those recommendations should be treated as starting points rather than guarantees. Springer Nature explicitly states that transferred manuscripts still undergo independent assessment and that transfer does not guarantee acceptance.

A carefully chosen specialist journal may be a stronger destination than an apparently more prestigious but poorly matched publication.

9. What if Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 gave contradictory advice?

Contradictory reviewer advice is not unusual because reviewers may approach the paper from different theoretical, methodological, or disciplinary perspectives.

Do not attempt to satisfy both comments mechanically if doing so would make the manuscript incoherent.

Instead:

1. identify the underlying concern behind each comment;
2. determine whether the recommendations are genuinely incompatible;
3. decide which approach is scientifically appropriate;
4. explain your reasoning clearly;
5. and ensure the resulting manuscript remains internally consistent.

For example, one reviewer may request substantial theoretical expansion while another wants the paper shortened.

The solution may not be simply “add everything and then delete something else.” A stronger response might integrate the most relevant theoretical material more efficiently.

When revising for another journal, prioritize scientific coherence over trying to reproduce every requested change from a previous review cycle.

10. When should I seek professional academic editing after repeated rejection?

Professional academic editing may be useful when the manuscript’s underlying research is sound but problems with clarity, organization, argumentation, consistency, or response-to-reviewer communication are making evaluation difficult.

It can also help when extensive revisions have produced:

• duplicated material;
• contradictory terminology;
• inconsistent numbers;
• an unfocused discussion;
• a weak abstract;
• unclear contribution statements;
• or language that obscures the research.

However, editing should not be treated as a substitute for correcting methodological or ethical problems.

If reviewers question the design, data, statistical analysis, validity, or interpretation, those concerns require appropriate scholarly expertise and author involvement.

Researchers wanting an independent manuscript review before another submission can consider research paper editing support from Contentxprtz, while remaining responsible for all research decisions and final content.

About the Author

Dr. Aanya Mehta

Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

Dr. Aanya Mehta is a research-oriented writer and professional communicator with a strong focus on accuracy, clarity, and evidence-based insight. Her work combines analytical thinking with accessible writing, helping readers understand complex business topics through well-researched, credible, and practical content.

Conclusion: Turn the Second Rejection into a Better Publication Strategy

A paper rejected twice by the same journal needs more than another quick round of editing.

It needs a careful diagnosis.

Read both decision letters together. Identify repeated concerns. Separate journal-fit problems from research problems. Determine which criticisms require better explanation, which require new analysis, which require more realistic claims, and which may reveal limitations that cannot be removed through editing.

If the research remains sound but the journal is a poor fit, choose another publication whose audience is better aligned with the manuscript.

If the manuscript has substantial weaknesses, fix them before submitting again.

If you believe the second rejection resulted from a specific technical, factual, or procedural problem, check whether a formal appeal is justified and permitted.

And if the manuscript has been revised repeatedly to the point that it is difficult to evaluate objectively, an independent structural or language review may help you see problems you have become too familiar with to notice.

Contentxprtz provides research paper editing support for researchers who want to strengthen manuscript clarity, organization, academic communication, and consistency before their next submission. Such support should complement—not replace—the researcher’s responsibility for the evidence, methodology, interpretations, citations, and final scholarly decisions.

A second rejection is therefore not a signal to keep pushing the same manuscript through the same door. It is a reason to understand what the editorial process has taught you, strengthen the work where necessary, and choose the next publication route more deliberately.

“At Contentxprtz, we don’t just edit; we help ideas reach their fullest potential.”