What Does It Mean If Your Paper Is Rejected by a Journal and They Suggest Sending It to Another Journal or Conference?

By Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

When researchers ask what does it mean if your paper is rejected by a journal and they suggest sending it to another journal or conference, the most important point is this: the rejection applies to the journal that made the decision; it does not automatically mean the research itself is unsuitable for publication. A recommendation to try another journal or conference often indicates that the editor sees a potentially more appropriate venue for the work, although the precise reason depends on the wording of the decision letter and the journal’s editorial process.

A rejection letter can be difficult to interpret, particularly after months of research, manuscript preparation, formatting, submission, and possibly peer review. Researchers sometimes read the word “reject” as a judgment on the entire study. Editorial decisions are more specific than that. A manuscript may be declined because it does not closely match the journal’s scope, readership, editorial priorities, article format, perceived level of novelty, or current threshold for publication. Major publishers operate manuscript-transfer systems precisely because some papers rejected by one journal may be appropriate for another journal in the same portfolio. Springer Nature, for example, explains that an editor may reject a sound manuscript when it does not fit the journal’s aims and scope and may offer a transfer route to another journal.

A conference recommendation introduces another layer of interpretation. Depending on the discipline, conferences may serve very different purposes. In some fields, particularly computing and engineering, peer-reviewed conference proceedings can be important scholarly publication venues. In other disciplines, a conference may primarily be a place to present work, receive feedback, and develop a manuscript before journal submission. Publication and prior-publication rules therefore need to be checked carefully for the specific conference and any later journal you may approach. IEEE, for example, recognizes an evolutionary route from preliminary conference work to a more developed journal article, provided relevant prior work is disclosed and the later article contains substantial additional material.

The right response, therefore, is neither to assume that the paper is “bad” nor to accept the suggested destination automatically. Read the editor’s explanation carefully, separate journal-specific reasons from manuscript-specific weaknesses, address useful reviewer comments, investigate the suggested venue independently, and then decide whether transfer, revision, or a completely new submission strategy best serves your research.

Quick Answer: What Does a Rejection With Another Journal or Conference Suggestion Mean?

A journal rejection accompanied by a suggestion to submit to another journal usually means the current journal has decided not to publish your manuscript but believes another venue may be more suitable. The reason may involve scope, readership, article type, editorial priority, selectivity, or other journal-specific considerations. Publisher transfer systems are specifically designed to redirect some rejected manuscripts toward journals considered a better match.

However, a transfer or referral is not the same as acceptance. Springer Nature explicitly states that its transfer recommendations do not guarantee publication and that the receiving journal independently evaluates the manuscript. Elsevier similarly explains that after a transfer, editors at the destination journal assess the manuscript and make their own decision.

If the editor suggests a conference instead, investigate why. The work might be better suited to the conference’s specialist audience, format, stage of development, or disciplinary publishing culture. Do not assume that “conference” automatically means a lower-quality destination. Equally, do not assume that a conference recommendation guarantees acceptance.

Your next step should be to identify the actual reason for rejection, evaluate the recommended venue, improve the manuscript where appropriate, and check submission and prior-publication policies before submitting elsewhere. IEEE guidance, for example, stresses the importance of original work, disclosure of related publications, and compliance with rules governing concurrent submissions.

Key Takeaways

• A rejection with a transfer suggestion is still a rejection from the original journal, but it may indicate that another venue could be a better editorial fit.
• A recommendation is not a promise of acceptance. The destination journal ordinarily retains editorial independence and evaluates the manuscript under its own criteria.
• Scope mismatch and quality problems are not the same thing. Read the decision letter carefully to determine which issue actually affected your paper.
• Do not transfer automatically. Check the new journal’s aims, readership, indexing, publication model, fees, reputation, article requirements, and relevance to your research goals before agreeing.
• Reviewer comments can remain valuable after rejection. Use technically sound feedback to strengthen the manuscript even if you choose a different destination.
• A conference recommendation requires policy checking. Conference publication practices differ substantially among disciplines, and prior-publication rules can affect later journal submission.
• Avoid simultaneous submission unless the relevant venues explicitly permit it. Many publication policies restrict having substantially the same work under consideration at multiple venues at the same time.

What This Page Covers

This guide explains:

• What an editor may mean when rejecting a manuscript but suggesting another venue
• How to distinguish a scope rejection from a rejection based on substantive weaknesses
• Whether a journal-transfer suggestion should be considered a positive sign
• How journal and conference recommendations differ
• How to evaluate a suggested publication venue before accepting a transfer
• What revisions to make before resubmission
• How to avoid ethical problems involving simultaneous or overlapping submissions

Table of Contents

1. Methodology and Academic Sources
2. What a Journal Rejection With a Transfer Suggestion Really Means
3. Is the Suggestion a Good Sign?
4. Why Journals Recommend Other Journals
5. What It Means When the Editor Suggests a Conference
6. How to Read the Rejection Letter
7. Rejection Before vs After Peer Review
8. Should You Accept a Journal Transfer?
9. How to Evaluate the Suggested Journal
10. What to Revise Before Resubmitting
11. How to Handle Reviewer Comments
12. Practical Examples
13. Common Mistakes After Rejection
14. Resubmission Checklist
15. How Contentxprtz Can Support Manuscript Revision
16. Summary
17. Frequently Asked Questions
18. About the Author
19. Conclusion

Methodology and Academic Sources

This guide combines established scholarly publishing practice with current guidance from major academic publishers and professional publishing organizations. Because editorial processes differ between journals, publishers, conferences, and disciplines, no single interpretation should be treated as universal.

Official guidance is particularly useful here. Springer Nature operates a Transfer Desk for manuscripts that may be better suited to another journal and explicitly notes that a transfer recommendation does not guarantee publication. Elsevier operates an Article Transfer Service through which authors receiving eligible rejection decisions may select a suggested destination and finalize the submission before the receiving editors assess it.

For conference and overlapping-publication questions, discipline-specific rules matter. IEEE’s publishing guidance explains both restrictions on concurrent publication submissions and circumstances in which preliminary conference work may evolve into a more developed journal article with appropriate disclosure and additional contribution.

Researchers should therefore consult the actual instructions of the journal or conference they intend to use rather than relying on a universal rule.

What Does a Journal Rejection With a Transfer Suggestion Really Mean?

The safest interpretation is:

“This journal has decided not to publish the manuscript, but another venue may be more appropriate.”

That interpretation is deliberately narrower than either of these assumptions:

• “The editor thinks my paper is excellent.”
• “The editor thinks my paper is poor.”

Neither conclusion necessarily follows from a transfer recommendation.

Springer Nature describes transfer services as useful when papers are rejected for reasons such as journal scope or selectivity on interest level, and its author guidance specifically notes that editors sometimes reject sound manuscripts for reasons other than research quality.

Elsevier similarly presents article transfer as a mechanism for matching rejected manuscripts with journals considered more appropriate in terms of factors such as scope, readership and article type.

The critical question is therefore not simply, “Was I rejected?”

It is:

“Why was I rejected, and does that reason follow the manuscript to the next journal?”

If the problem is predominantly journal fit, choosing a better target may solve much of the difficulty.

If reviewers identified a serious methodological, analytical, theoretical, reporting, or evidential weakness, changing the journal without addressing that weakness may simply produce another rejection.

Is Being Recommended to Another Journal a Good Sign?

It can be more encouraging than a rejection letter that identifies fundamental problems, but it should not be interpreted as a guarantee or informal acceptance.

A specific referral may indicate that an editor can envision a more appropriate readership for the work. Publisher transfer programs are built around this principle. Springer Nature, for example, says its Transfer Desk helps authors identify more suitable journals, while also making clear that recommended journals assess transferred manuscripts independently.

Consider the wording.

Relatively encouraging wording

An editor might communicate ideas such as:

• The manuscript is outside the journal’s scope.
• The work may interest a more specialized readership.
• The paper is potentially suitable for another title.
• The article type does not fit the current journal.
• The manuscript may be transferred through the publisher’s journal-transfer system.

These messages suggest that venue fit is at least part of the problem.

Wording that requires substantial revision

The letter may instead identify:

• An unclear research question
• Insufficient methodological justification
• Weak statistical analysis
• Unsupported conclusions
• Limited theoretical contribution
• Inadequate engagement with relevant literature
• Missing controls or validation
• Serious reporting problems

In that situation, a recommendation to another journal should not distract you from the substantive criticism.

The most useful rule is:

Interpret the reason for rejection before interpreting the recommendation.

Why Would a Journal Reject a Paper and Recommend Another Journal?

There are several plausible reasons.

1. The manuscript is outside the journal’s scope

A technically competent article can still be unsuitable for a particular journal.

A journal focusing on clinical outcomes, for example, may decide that a laboratory-oriented study is more appropriate for a specialist experimental journal. A management journal may find a manuscript relevant to the general field but too focused on a particular information-systems problem for its readership.

Transfer systems explicitly recognize this type of mismatch.

2. The paper is too specialized for the current readership

A broad journal may receive a technically sound paper whose contribution matters mainly to a narrower research community.

The editor may therefore suggest a specialist title where readers are more likely to understand, cite, discuss, and build upon the work.

3. The article type fits another journal better

A journal may prioritize full original research articles while another venue accepts technical notes, case reports, methods papers, brief communications, datasets, replication studies, perspectives, or other formats.

Elsevier’s description of its transfer process specifically identifies article type as one factor considered when matching manuscripts to destination journals.

4. The paper does not meet the current journal’s selectivity threshold

Some journals receive many more publishable manuscripts than they can accommodate. Editorial selection may therefore involve perceived significance, breadth of appeal, priority, or novelty in addition to basic technical soundness.

A paper that does not meet one journal’s editorial threshold may still be appropriate for another legitimate peer-reviewed venue.

5. The publisher has a formal transfer system

Sometimes the suggestion is partly procedural.

Large publishers may operate groups of related journals and offer eligible authors an easier route to another title rather than requiring a completely new submission. Springer Nature and Elsevier both describe formal systems designed for this purpose.

That convenience is useful, but it does not remove the author’s responsibility to evaluate the destination independently.

What Does It Mean If the Editor Suggests a Conference Instead?

A conference recommendation can mean several different things, and you should not infer the editor’s reasoning beyond what the decision letter actually says.

Depending on the research field, the editor may consider the work:

• Particularly relevant to a specialized conference community
• Suitable for discussion before further development
• Timely but not sufficiently developed for the journal in its current form
• Better suited to a shorter presentation or proceedings format
• More relevant to a practitioner or specialist audience concentrated at a particular conference

However, disciplinary differences are substantial.

In some areas of computer science and engineering, archival peer-reviewed conference papers are significant scholarly outputs. IEEE explicitly acknowledges an evolutionary publishing model in which preliminary findings can appear in conference form and later develop into a fuller journal article, provided relevant policies on originality, disclosure, citation, and substantive development are followed.

In other fields, a conference presentation may not constitute the same kind of archival publication.

Before sending the rejected paper to a conference, check:

1. Does the conference publish full proceedings papers, abstracts, posters, or presentations only?
2. Will acceptance create a prior-publication issue for a later journal manuscript?
3. Does the conference permit work that has already been submitted elsewhere?
4. Would a later journal require substantial new material?
5. Is the conference reputable and appropriate for your discipline?
6. Are the dates compatible with your research or degree timeline?
7. Do you want a conference publication, a journal article, or both as distinct stages of the research?

Do not assume that replacing “journal” with “conference” is merely a change of submission website. It may change your publication strategy.

Journal Suggestion vs Conference Suggestion

Situation	What It May Mean	What It Does Not Mean	Sensible Next Step
Specific journal recommended	Editor or transfer system sees a possible better fit	Acceptance is guaranteed	Check scope, reputation, requirements and reviewer comments
Publisher offers several journals	Manuscript is eligible for a transfer workflow	Every listed journal is equally suitable	Compare each destination yourself
Editor says “consider another journal” without naming one	Current venue is not suitable	Manuscript necessarily has no substantive problems	Review decision reasons and select a new target independently
Editor recommends a specialist journal	Audience or scope may be narrower than current venue	Specialist automatically means inferior	Assess relevance and scholarly standing
Conference recommended	Work may fit the conference’s audience, stage or format	Conference acceptance is guaranteed	Check conference status and publication policy
Major technical problems identified plus transfer suggestion	Another venue is available, but revision may still be necessary	Transferring will solve manuscript weaknesses	Revise before submitting

The practical takeaway is simple: the destination recommendation and the quality assessment are separate pieces of information. Evaluate both.

How to Read the Rejection Letter Correctly

Do not react only to the word “rejected.” Break the letter into components.

Step 1: Identify the decision stage

Was the paper rejected:

• Immediately after submission?
• After an editor examined the manuscript?
• After external peer review?
• After a revision round?

The stage affects how much diagnostic information the rejection may contain.

Step 2: Find the stated reason

Look for language related to:

• Scope
• Reader interest
• Novelty
• Priority
• Methodology
• Analysis
• Presentation
• Article type
• Contribution
• Reporting quality

Write the reason down in one sentence.

For example:

“The journal considered the topic relevant but too specialized for its broad readership.”

That is much more useful than writing:

“My article was rejected.”

Step 3: Separate editor comments from reviewer comments

The editor makes the publication decision.

Reviewers provide recommendations and technical assessments, but the editor decides how those assessments affect the journal’s decision.

If reviewer comments are supplied, classify them by importance rather than treating every comment equally.

Step 4: Examine the recommendation itself

Ask whether the editor:

• Named a particular journal
• Offered an automatic publisher transfer
• Suggested several journals
• Recommended a conference
• Simply advised submitting elsewhere

These are different situations.

Step 5: Check whether action is required

A formal transfer offer may contain a link or workflow through which you choose whether to proceed. Springer Nature states that authors retain control over whether a manuscript is transferred and that its transfer service does not move a manuscript without the author’s approval.

Do not assume that doing nothing will automatically send your manuscript elsewhere.

Desk Rejection vs Rejection After Peer Review

Understanding the stage of rejection helps determine your next step.

Desk rejection

A desk rejection occurs before the manuscript enters full external peer review.

A desk rejection accompanied by another-journal suggestion often points strongly toward questions of fit, readership, priority, article type, or editorial selection—but you should still rely on the actual decision letter rather than assuming the cause.

Recommended response: Reassess journal targeting first, then inspect the manuscript for obvious weaknesses before resubmitting.

Rejection after peer review

A rejection after review provides more information.

You may have:

• Editorial comments
• Two or more reviewer reports
• Suggestions for additional analysis
• Requests for clarification
• Criticism of methods
• Questions about interpretation
• Recommendations for future work

If the journal then suggests another publication venue, do not simply upload the identical manuscript somewhere else without reviewing this feedback.

The reviewers have effectively given you a pre-resubmission diagnostic.

Even if you disagree with some comments, decide explicitly which ones require:

• Revision
• Clarification
• Additional evidence
• Better explanation
• No change, with a defensible reason

Should You Accept the Suggested Journal Transfer?

Accept a transfer when the destination appears genuinely appropriate—not merely because it is convenient.

A transfer may make sense when:

• The new journal’s aims and scope closely match your study.
• Its readers are the audience you want to reach.
• Its article type fits your manuscript.
• Its editorial standards are appropriate for your work.
• Publication charges, if applicable, are acceptable to you or your institution.
• You have reviewed any reviewer feedback and are ready to revise.
• The transfer saves administrative work without compromising your publication strategy.

Publisher transfer systems can reduce resubmission administration. Springer Nature says its service can move submission files into the new workflow, while Elsevier describes transfer as a way of avoiding a complete restart of the submission process. The receiving journal still makes its own editorial decision.

Decline or reconsider when:

• The suggested journal is outside your research area.
• Its audience does not match your intended readership.
• The publication model conflicts with your funding situation.
• You have institutional requirements concerning indexing or journal eligibility.
• You prefer another journal after conducting your own search.
• Substantial revisions are necessary before any new submission.
• You do not understand why the destination has been recommended.

Convenience should be one factor—not the only factor.

How to Evaluate the Recommended Journal

Before accepting a transfer, conduct your own journal-fit assessment.

1. Read the aims and scope

Do not rely only on the journal’s title.

Read the official scope statement and determine whether your manuscript directly addresses topics the journal says it publishes.

2. Examine recent articles

Look at recent issues and ask:

• Are studies like yours being published?
• Does your methodology appear in the journal?
• Is your topic central or peripheral?
• Would the journal’s typical reader care about your research question?

3. Check article types

Make sure the journal publishes the type of manuscript you have written.

4. Review publication requirements

Check:

• Word limits
• Structure
• Reference style
• Supplementary-material requirements
• Data or reporting policies
• Ethics declarations
• Author guidelines

5. Review publication costs

Determine whether the journal is:

• Subscription based
• Fully open access
• Hybrid
• Subject to an article processing charge
• Eligible for institutional or funder support

Springer Nature notes that transfer recommendations may include both subscription and open-access journals, illustrating why authors still need to evaluate the publication model of each destination.

6. Confirm institutional requirements

If the publication is connected to:

• A PhD requirement
• Academic promotion
• Grant reporting
• Institutional evaluation
• Professional accreditation

check whether your university, funder, or employer has specific requirements before accepting a new venue.

Should You Revise the Paper Before Sending It to the Suggested Journal?

In most cases, reviewing the manuscript before resubmission is wise even when the transfer process allows rapid resubmission.

Springer Nature’s transfer guidance states that authors have an opportunity to revise and finalize the submission before the normal editorial process begins at the receiving journal.

Treat rejection as a revision checkpoint.

Review these areas:

Title

Does the title accurately communicate the research question, population, method, or contribution?

Abstract

Can a new editor quickly understand:

• The problem
• Objective
• Method
• Principal results
• Main conclusion
• Contribution

Introduction

Is the research gap clearly established rather than merely asserted?

Literature review

Does the literature support the actual research problem and position the study within current scholarship?

Methodology

Could another researcher understand what was done and why?

Results

Are results presented clearly without mixing observation and interpretation unnecessarily?

Discussion

Does the discussion explain what the results mean rather than simply repeat them?

Conclusion

Does the conclusion stay within the evidence provided?

Language

Are sentences precise, readable, academically appropriate, and free from avoidable ambiguity?

Journal fit

Have terminology, framing, article length, and emphasis been adapted appropriately for the new audience?

What Should You Do With Reviewer Comments After Rejection?

Use reviewer comments as evidence for revision, not as commands that must be followed mechanically.

Create a reviewer-comment table

Reviewer Comment	Importance	Action	Manuscript Location
Research gap unclear	High	Rewrite final introduction paragraphs	Introduction
Sampling rationale needs explanation	High	Add methodological justification	Methods
Figure difficult to read	Medium	Redesign labels and caption	Results
Add unrelated literature	Low/Questionable	Assess relevance before adding	Literature review

This process helps prevent emotional reactions from driving revision decisions.

Prioritize repeated criticism

If multiple reviewers independently identify the same issue, investigate it carefully.

Repeated comments about an unclear contribution, weak methodological explanation, or unsupported conclusion may indicate that the manuscript itself is not communicating the research effectively.

Do not make changes merely to appear compliant

Researchers remain responsible for the accuracy and intellectual integrity of their manuscript.

If a reviewer’s recommendation is inappropriate, irrelevant, or based on a misunderstanding, ask why the misunderstanding occurred. Sometimes the best response is not to adopt the suggestion but to make the manuscript clearer so future readers do not make the same interpretation.

Does a Transfer Mean the Previous Peer Review Will Follow the Manuscript?

Not necessarily. Transfer procedures differ by publisher and workflow.

For example, Springer Nature states that under its Transfer Desk process, previous reviewer reports are not transferred to the receiving journal through that particular workflow. Once the manuscript reaches the new journal, normal editorial assessment proceeds.

Other publishers and individual journal systems may use different procedures.

Therefore, check:

• The rejection letter
• Transfer instructions
• Destination journal information
• Any statement concerning reviewer reports

Do not assume that the next editor has seen the previous reviews.

Regardless of whether reports travel electronically, you can still use the feedback yourself to improve the manuscript before the next submission.

Practical Example 1: Rejected Because the Study Is Too Specialized

Situation

A researcher submits a machine-learning study on a highly specialized medical imaging application to a broad medical journal.

The editor rejects the manuscript without external review and suggests a specialist biomedical-imaging journal.

Common interpretation

“My study must not be good enough for the first journal.”

Better interpretation

The decision may primarily concern audience and editorial fit.

A broad medical journal and a specialist imaging journal may evaluate significance from different perspectives.

Better next step

The author should:

1. Read the specialist journal’s scope.
2. Examine recent papers.
3. Confirm that the methodology and audience fit.
4. Improve the manuscript before resubmission.
5. Adjust the introduction and discussion so the contribution is framed for the specialist readership.

Why this approach is stronger

The researcher responds to the actual editorial signal—fit—instead of treating rejection as a global judgment on the study.

Practical Example 2: Rejected After Peer Review but Offered a Transfer

Situation

A business researcher submits a paper examining remote-work practices and employee engagement.

The journal sends the manuscript for review.

Reviewers identify:

• An underdeveloped theoretical framework
• Weak explanation of sample selection
• A discussion section that overstates causality

The editor rejects the article but offers transfer to another journal in the publisher’s portfolio.

Weak response

Accept the transfer immediately and submit the unchanged manuscript.

Better response

Before transferring, the researcher:

1. Strengthens the theoretical framework.
2. Explains the sampling decision more transparently.
3. Changes causal language that is not justified by the research design.
4. Reviews the destination journal’s scope.
5. Adapts the manuscript to its readership.

Why this works

The transfer solves a venue problem.

Revision addresses the manuscript problems.

Both may need attention.

Practical Example 3: Journal Rejection With a Conference Recommendation

Situation

A computer-science researcher submits a technically interesting paper to a journal.

The editor recommends presenting or publishing the work through a specialist conference instead.

Common mistake

The author assumes:

“I will publish the same paper in the conference and then submit the identical article to another journal.”

That can create publication-policy problems.

IEEE guidance recognizes that conference work may later develop into a journal article, but it requires appropriate disclosure and expects the later journal version to contain substantially more technical information while citing and distinguishing the earlier conference work.

Better approach

The author checks:

• Whether the conference publishes archival proceedings
• Its simultaneous-submission policy
• Copyright arrangements
• Requirements of likely future journals
• How much additional research would be needed for a later article

The decision is then made as part of a publication strategy rather than as an emotional response to rejection.

Practical Example 4: Transfer Suggestion but Another Journal Is Better

Situation

A publisher’s transfer system recommends three journals.

Journal A is broadly related but expensive for the author’s funding situation.

Journal B is relevant but serves a different readership.

Journal C fits well, but the researcher independently identifies Journal D from another publisher as an even stronger disciplinary match.

Correct response

The researcher is not obliged to select one of the recommended journals.

Springer Nature explicitly states that its transfer service is optional and that authors retain the final decision over where their manuscripts are submitted.

Lesson

A recommendation is decision support, not a command.

Common Mistakes Researchers Make After This Type of Rejection

Mistake 1: Sending the unchanged manuscript immediately

A rapid transfer is convenient, but reviewer and editor feedback may reveal issues worth correcting first.

Better approach: Conduct at least one structured revision pass.

Mistake 2: Assuming the recommended journal will accept the paper

Transfer recommendations do not generally equal acceptance. Springer Nature and Elsevier both describe independent assessment at the receiving journal.

Better approach: Treat the destination as a new editorial decision.

Mistake 3: Assuming rejection means poor research

Some rejections concern scope, readership or journal priorities.

Better approach: Identify the stated reason before judging the manuscript globally.

Mistake 4: Ignoring substantive criticism because another journal was suggested

A new journal will not automatically make methodological problems disappear.

Better approach: Separate transfer convenience from manuscript revision.

Mistake 5: Selecting a journal only because the publisher recommended it

The author’s goals may differ from the matching system’s criteria.

Better approach: Independently investigate the journal.

Mistake 6: Submitting to multiple venues at the same time

Simultaneous-submission rules can create ethical and procedural problems. IEEE requires authors to follow its policies concerning original work and multiple submissions, and ACM-related publication guidance likewise restricts substantially identical work being simultaneously considered by multiple publications except where an applicable policy explicitly permits otherwise.

Better approach: Confirm withdrawal or final rejection before starting an incompatible submission elsewhere.

Mistake 7: Treating a conference recommendation casually

A conference proceeding can affect later journal publication depending on the discipline and publisher.

Better approach: Check prior-publication rules before proceeding.

Mistake 8: Reformatting before deciding whether the journal actually fits

Formatting can consume substantial effort without improving publication strategy.

Better approach: Evaluate scope and suitability first; format after selecting the venue.

A Step-by-Step Decision Process After Rejection

Step 1: Read the letter twice

The first reading may be emotional.

On the second reading, extract the decision logic.

Step 2: Write the rejection reason in one sentence

For example:

“The editor considered the paper technically relevant but outside the journal’s primary readership.”

or:

“Peer reviewers identified methodological weaknesses that require substantial revision.”

Step 3: Classify the problem

Is it primarily:

• Journal fit?
• Manuscript quality?
• Both?
• Unclear?

Step 4: Review the suggested destination

Research the recommended journal or conference independently.

Step 5: Review all editor and reviewer feedback

Create an action table.

Step 6: Revise the manuscript

Correct genuine weaknesses before resubmitting.

Step 7: Check publication ethics and overlap

This becomes particularly important if a conference is involved. Avoid incompatible simultaneous submissions and disclose related prior publications where required.

Step 8: Recheck journal fit

Compare:

Research question → Manuscript contribution → Target readership → Journal scope

All four should align.

Step 9: Reformat only after choosing the destination

Apply the new venue’s instructions carefully.

Step 10: Submit with realistic expectations

A thoughtful resubmission improves the manuscript and its fit, but no legitimate editorial process can guarantee acceptance.

Resubmission Checklist

Before sending your rejected paper to another journal or conference, check:

• I understand why the original journal rejected the manuscript.
• I have separated scope-related concerns from substantive research concerns.
• I have reviewed every editor comment.
• I have reviewed every relevant peer-review comment.
• Important methodological criticisms have been addressed.
• Unsupported or exaggerated conclusions have been corrected.
• The research contribution is clearly stated.
• The abstract accurately represents the study.
• The new journal’s scope matches the manuscript.
• I have examined recent papers from the destination journal.
• The article type is permitted.
• Publication fees and access options are understood.
• Institutional or funder requirements have been checked.
• The manuscript has been adapted to the new audience.
• Journal-specific formatting has been reviewed.
• I am not violating simultaneous-submission rules.
• If a conference is involved, I understand its proceedings and prior-publication policy.
• Any related prior publication will be disclosed and cited where required.
• All references are authentic and traceable.
• Co-authors agree with the new submission strategy.
• The final manuscript has been proofread before resubmission.

How Contentxprtz Can Help After a Journal Rejection

Professional support can be useful when you understand the editor’s decision but are unsure how effectively the manuscript addresses the issues raised.

The most appropriate assistance after rejection is usually revision-focused rather than acceptance-focused.

Contentxprtz can support researchers with areas such as:

• Manuscript structure
• Academic language
• Clarity and coherence
• Reviewer-comment analysis
• Research-paper editing
• Journal-specific presentation
• Consistency between research questions, methods, results, and conclusions
• Reference and formatting checks
• Final proofreading

Researchers remain responsible for their research design, data, findings, interpretation, claims, authorship, citations, and final submission. Editing should improve scholarly communication without replacing the author’s intellectual contribution.

If reviewer or editor feedback indicates that the manuscript needs clearer structure, stronger academic expression, or a careful pre-resubmission review, Contentxprtz’s research paper editing service can help refine the manuscript while preserving the researcher’s ideas and responsibility for the work.

Researchers dealing with broader submission strategy and journal-selection concerns may also review Contentxprtz’s journal publication services, while authors needing general language and manuscript refinement can explore academic editing support.

Professional editing cannot guarantee journal acceptance, but it can help ensure that avoidable problems in language, organization, consistency, and presentation do not obscure the research itself.

Authoritative Publishing Resources

Researchers who want to verify publisher-specific rules should consult the relevant official source rather than relying solely on general advice.

Useful starting points include:

• Springer Nature guidance on manuscript rejection and alternative journals, which explains that rejected research may sometimes be suitable for another Springer Nature journal.
• Springer Nature Transfer Desk guidance, which explains its optional transfer workflow and makes clear that recommendations do not guarantee publication.
• Elsevier Article Transfer Service, which explains how alternative journals may be recommended following rejection.
• IEEE conference submission policies, which explain rules concerning original work, prior publication, and multiple submissions.

Always prioritize the current instructions of the exact journal or conference you intend to approach.

Summary: What It Means When a Journal Rejects Your Paper but Suggests Another Venue

If a journal rejects your manuscript and suggests another journal or conference, the rejection should be interpreted specifically rather than globally.

The original journal has decided not to publish the manuscript.

The additional recommendation may indicate that:

• Your topic fits another readership better.
• The manuscript is too specialized for the original journal.
• Another article format may be more suitable.
• The journal’s current editorial threshold was not met.
• A publisher transfer system has identified another possible destination.
• A conference may suit the topic, development stage, audience, or disciplinary publication model.

What the recommendation does not automatically mean is:

• The paper will be accepted elsewhere.
• The manuscript requires no revision.
• The recommended venue is necessarily your best option.
• Reviewer criticisms can be ignored.
• A conference version can automatically be republished as an identical journal paper.

The strongest response is to understand the rejection reason, use valid feedback to improve the manuscript, evaluate the suggested venue independently, check publication policies, and then make a deliberate resubmission decision.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What does it mean if your paper is rejected by a journal and they suggest sending it to another journal or conference?

It means the original journal has decided not to publish the manuscript, but the editor or publisher believes another venue may be worth considering. The recommendation may reflect differences in scope, readership, article type, editorial priority, specialization, or publication format.

Formal publisher transfer systems make this relatively straightforward in some cases. Springer Nature and Elsevier both operate processes through which eligible rejected manuscripts may be directed toward potentially better-fitting journals. Importantly, the receiving journal still conducts its own editorial assessment, so the recommendation is not equivalent to acceptance.

Read the rejection reason before deciding what the recommendation means. A scope-based rejection requires a different response from one involving serious methodological criticism.

2. Is it a positive sign when an editor recommends another journal?

It can be encouraging, particularly when the editor indicates that the paper may suit another journal’s scope or readership, but it should not be treated as an assurance of publication.

Springer Nature explains that manuscripts may sometimes be rejected because they are not a good fit for a journal’s aims and scope even though another journal may be appropriate.

The strongest signal is not the existence of a recommendation alone but the wording around it.

If the editor says the study is sound but mismatched to the journal, that is different from a letter that lists fundamental methodological problems and then merely provides alternative submission options.

3. Does a transfer recommendation mean the next journal is likely to accept my paper?

No. A transfer recommendation should not be interpreted as guaranteed or automatic acceptance.

Springer Nature explicitly states that a transfer does not guarantee publication and that recommended journals independently assess submissions. Elsevier likewise explains that editors at the destination journal evaluate transferred manuscripts.

A transfer can improve logistical convenience and may improve journal fit, but the manuscript must still satisfy the receiving journal’s editorial and scholarly standards.

Approach the transferred submission as seriously as a new submission.

4. Should I automatically submit to the journal recommended by the editor?

No. Investigate it independently before agreeing.

Check its aims and scope, recent articles, readership, article types, editorial standards, publication model, fees, institutional eligibility, and relevance to your research objectives.

A publisher’s recommendation can be useful because it narrows the search, but your publication priorities may differ.

Springer Nature explicitly states that its transfer process is optional and that authors retain control over the destination of their manuscripts.

A recommended journal should therefore be treated as a serious candidate—not an obligation.

5. Why would a journal suggest a conference instead of another journal?

The editor may believe that the research fits the conference’s specialist audience, format, disciplinary culture, or current stage of development. However, you should not infer a precise reason unless the decision letter explains it.

Conference publication also has different meanings across disciplines.

IEEE, for example, recognizes that technical work can develop from preliminary conference publication into a more substantial journal article, subject to requirements concerning peer review, disclosure, citation, originality, and additional technical contribution.

Before accepting the suggestion, determine whether the conference publishes archival proceedings and how that publication could affect later journal submission.

6. Should I revise my manuscript before transferring it?

Usually, yes—at least review it carefully before final submission.

If the rejection included reviewer comments, use the period between decisions to address legitimate criticisms. If the rejection was primarily related to scope, you may still need to adapt the introduction, title, abstract, terminology, discussion, and framing for the new journal’s audience.

Springer Nature’s transfer process explicitly gives authors an opportunity to revise and finalize a transferred submission before the receiving journal’s normal editorial process proceeds.

Fast transfer is useful, but speed should not replace revision.

7. Can I submit the rejected manuscript to two journals or a journal and conference at the same time?

You should not assume that simultaneous submission is allowed.

Policies vary by organization and venue, but major scholarly publishing frameworks commonly impose restrictions. IEEE states that authors must follow its rules concerning original work, prior publication and multiple submissions. ACM-related publication policy likewise restricts substantially the same paper being simultaneously submitted to multiple publications except where an applicable policy specifically permits otherwise.

The safest practice is to read the exact policies of both destinations before submitting.

Do not try to accelerate publication by creating an undisclosed overlapping submission.

8. Do I need to tell the new journal that my manuscript was previously rejected?

A prior rejection itself is not necessarily something that must be highlighted unless the destination journal or transfer workflow asks for that information.

However, you must follow the receiving venue’s submission instructions accurately and disclose related prior or concurrent publications where required.

If you are using a formal publisher transfer service, the workflow itself may already identify the submission as transferred internally. Springer Nature notes that transferred manuscripts proceed through the normal editorial process at the receiving journal and that publication does not identify the final article as having been transferred.

Never fabricate or conceal information requested by the submission system.

9. Will the new journal see the previous reviewers’ reports?

That depends on the transfer system.

You should not assume that reviewer reports automatically accompany every transferred manuscript. Springer Nature, for example, states that previous reports are not transferred through its Transfer Desk workflow described for authors.

Other publishers or journal partnerships may have different arrangements.

Check the transfer instructions provided with your specific rejection letter.

Whether or not the new editor sees the old reports, you should still use constructive reviewer feedback to strengthen the paper before resubmission.

10. When should I consider professional editing after journal rejection?

Professional editing can be useful when the research itself is complete but the rejection or reviewer feedback identifies problems involving clarity, organization, academic language, argument flow, consistency, reporting, or adaptation to the new journal.

It may also help when you have revised the paper extensively and want an independent language and structural review before resubmission.

Editing should support the researcher’s intellectual work rather than replace it. Researchers remain responsible for the study, data, methodology, conclusions, references, and final submission.

If those are the areas creating difficulty, a focused research paper editing service may help you prepare a clearer and more coherent resubmission without making unrealistic promises about acceptance.

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

When a journal rejects your manuscript but suggests another journal or conference, the most useful response is not to interpret the rejection emotionally or to accept the recommendation automatically.

Start by identifying why the first journal declined the paper.

If the reason is scope, readership, article type, specialization, or editorial priority, another legitimate journal may indeed provide a better home for the study. Formal transfer systems operated by publishers such as Springer Nature and Elsevier are built around precisely that possibility, while still leaving the final editorial decision with the destination journal.

If the rejection contains substantive criticism, treat the feedback as an opportunity to strengthen the paper before the next submission. Reconsider the argument, methodology explanation, evidence, analysis, discussion, conclusions, references, and academic presentation wherever necessary.

If a conference is recommended, investigate its publication model carefully. In fields where conference proceedings form part of the archival literature, the decision may affect what can subsequently be submitted to a journal. Follow the policies of the specific venues involved and disclose related work where required.

Most importantly, remember that journal fit and manuscript quality are related but different questions. A paper may be unsuitable for one journal yet appropriate for another. Conversely, choosing a different journal cannot repair genuine research or communication weaknesses.

A careful self-review may be sufficient when the rejection is clearly related to scope and the manuscript is otherwise strong. When editor or reviewer feedback exposes substantial problems in clarity, structure, academic expression, or presentation, specialist academic editing can provide an additional layer of review before resubmission.

The goal should never be simply to send the rejected manuscript somewhere else as quickly as possible. The better goal is to understand what happened, improve what can genuinely be improved, select an appropriate scholarly audience, and submit a stronger manuscript with realistic expectations.

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