What Is the Process for Rejecting Papers During Peer Review?

By Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

Submitting a research paper to a journal can make the editorial process feel unusually personal. Months or even years of research may be condensed into a manuscript, sent to people you do not know, and eventually returned with a decision that can determine whether you revise, resubmit, appeal, or start again with another journal. It is therefore understandable that researchers frequently ask: what is the process for rejecting papers during peer review, and exactly how do reviewers and editors reach that decision?

The first point to understand is that a peer reviewer does not normally have sole authority to reject a manuscript. Reviewers assess the paper and provide recommendations, criticisms, and evidence-based judgments. The journal editor considers those reports together with the manuscript, journal criteria, editorial policies, and sometimes additional expert opinions before making the formal decision. Elsevier’s reviewer guidance, for example, states that the editor ultimately decides whether an article is accepted or rejected and may seek another opinion when necessary.

Rejection can also happen at different stages. A manuscript may be rejected before external peer review, often called a desk rejection or editorial rejection, if the editor decides that it does not meet the journal’s scope or editorial criteria. Alternatively, a manuscript may pass initial screening, undergo external peer review, and then be rejected after the editor evaluates the reviewers’ concerns. Some journals also use decisions such as “reject and resubmit,” which can mean that substantial new work is required before the journal would consider a new version.

For a first-time author, these distinctions matter. A rejection caused by journal fit requires a different response from a rejection caused by an unresolvable methodological problem. Likewise, a paper rejected because its conclusions overreach the evidence may need a different revision strategy from one rejected because its contribution is insufficiently clear.

This guide explains the rejection process from submission to editorial decision, why papers are rejected after peer review, how conflicting reviewer recommendations are handled, what rejection letters really mean, when an appeal may be appropriate, and how authors can make a constructive decision about what to do next.

Most importantly, rejection should be treated as an editorial outcome that needs diagnosis—not simply as a signal to submit the same manuscript somewhere else unchanged.

Quick Answer: What Is the Process for Rejecting Papers During Peer Review?

When a manuscript undergoes peer review, independent experts evaluate areas such as the research question, originality, methodology, evidence, analysis, interpretation, presentation, and relevance to the journal. They submit reports to the editor and may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection.

The reviewers generally advise; the editor makes the formal publication decision. Editors evaluate the reviewers’ reasoning rather than simply counting recommendations. An editor may therefore reject a manuscript even when reviewer opinions differ, request revisions despite a negative recommendation, or seek an additional review when the existing reports do not provide enough clarity. Elsevier describes the editor as the person who ultimately decides whether an article should be accepted or rejected.

A typical rejection-after-review process looks like this:

1. The manuscript passes initial editorial screening.
2. The editor selects appropriate peer reviewers.
3. Reviewers independently assess the manuscript.
4. Reviewers return reports and recommendations.
5. The editor evaluates the manuscript and reviewer comments.
6. The editor determines whether the problems can reasonably be resolved through revision.
7. If not, the editor issues a rejection decision, usually with reviewer comments.
8. The author evaluates the feedback and decides whether to revise for another journal, make substantial additional changes, or appeal where the journal’s policy permits it.

The exact terminology and procedure vary among journals, publishers, and disciplines, so authors should always read the decision letter and the journal’s editorial policies carefully.

Key Takeaways

• Peer reviewers usually recommend; editors decide. A recommendation to reject is influential, but it is not automatically the final decision.
• A desk rejection happens before external peer review, while a post-peer-review rejection follows assessment by external reviewers.
• Editors normally consider the quality and seriousness of reviewer concerns rather than treating reviewer recommendations as a simple vote.
• Papers may be rejected because of major methodological limitations, weak evidence, insufficient contribution, inappropriate journal fit, serious interpretation problems, or concerns that cannot realistically be resolved through revision.
• “Reject and resubmit” is different from a straightforward rejection and usually indicates that the journal may consider substantially revised work as a new or renewed submission, depending on its policy.
• Rejection does not mean every reviewer comment is necessarily correct; authors should evaluate each comment critically and revise where it improves the research.
• An appeal is usually appropriate only when there is a substantive reason to challenge the editorial process or decision—not simply because the author disagrees with the outcome.

What This Page Covers

This guide explains:

• How a manuscript moves from peer review to rejection
• The roles of peer reviewers, editors, and editorial boards
• Desk rejection versus rejection after external review
• Common reasons reviewers and editors recommend rejection
• How conflicting reviewer recommendations are handled
• What “reject,” “reject and resubmit,” and “major revision” mean
• How authors should respond constructively after rejection

Table of Contents

1. Methodology and Academic Sources
2. What Does Rejection During Peer Review Actually Mean?
3. Who Has the Authority to Reject a Research Paper?
4. The Step-by-Step Process for Rejecting Papers During Peer Review
5. Desk Rejection vs Rejection After Peer Review
6. Why Are Papers Rejected After Peer Review?
7. What Happens When Reviewers Disagree?
8. Rejection vs Major Revision vs Reject and Resubmit
9. How Editors Decide Whether a Manuscript Is Fixable
10. Practical Examples of Peer-Review Rejection
11. How to Read a Rejection Letter
12. What Should You Do After Your Paper Is Rejected?
13. When Should You Appeal a Rejection?
14. Common Mistakes Authors Make After Rejection
15. Post-Rejection Checklist
16. Academic Ethics and Responsible Revision
17. How Contentxprtz Can Support Authors
18. Summary
19. Frequently Asked Questions
20. About the Author
21. Conclusion

Methodology and Academic Sources

The guidance in this article reflects established journal editorial practices and publicly available publisher and publication-ethics guidance. However, there is no single rejection workflow followed identically by every scholarly journal.

Useful authoritative references include the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which describe standards for responsible peer reviewing; the Nature Communications editorial process, which explains editorial decision-making after review; the PLOS ONE editorial and peer-review process; and Elsevier’s reviewer guidance. COPE emphasizes the role of peer reviewers in maintaining the integrity of scholarly publication.

Authors should still consult the specific journal’s instructions because:

• Editorial terminology varies.
• Peer-review models differ.
• Journals apply different publication criteria.
• Some journals allow appeals under limited circumstances.
• Some journals use “reject and resubmit,” while others do not.
• Expectations concerning novelty or significance vary considerably between publications.

What Does Rejection During Peer Review Actually Mean?

A rejection during peer review means that the journal has decided not to publish the manuscript in its current editorial process.

When rejection occurs after external review, the manuscript has normally been evaluated by one or more subject specialists and then assessed by an editor. The editor concludes that the manuscript should not proceed toward publication through an ordinary revision cycle.

That conclusion may arise because the paper has one major problem or a combination of concerns.

For example:

• The research design cannot adequately answer the research question.
• The data do not support the central conclusion.
• The work does not provide the contribution expected by the journal.
• Essential experiments, analyses, or evidence are missing.
• The manuscript requires changes beyond what the editor considers reasonable for a revision.
• Reviewer concerns reveal important conceptual or interpretive problems.

Nature’s Communications Health editorial guidance describes outright rejection after peer review as an option when major conceptual, technical, or interpretational problems are present.

Importantly, rejection is a journal decision about a particular manuscript at a particular point in time. It does not necessarily mean that the underlying research has no value.

Who Has the Authority to Reject a Research Paper?

In standard journal peer review, the editor normally makes the final publication decision, while peer reviewers provide expert advice.

This distinction is fundamental.

A reviewer may write:

Recommendation: Reject.

However, that recommendation does not necessarily constitute the journal’s decision.

An editor may consider:

• The manuscript itself
• Reviewer reports
• The strength of reviewers’ reasoning
• Journal scope
• Editorial criteria
• Methodological concerns
• Novelty or contribution
• Reporting standards
• Ethical issues
• The feasibility of revision
• Conflicts between different reviews

Elsevier explicitly explains that the editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject and may request another opinion or a revised manuscript before deciding.

Nature Communications similarly describes editorial decisions as being informed by reviewers’ advice rather than mechanically determined by it.

Reviewers recommend; editors adjudicate

Suppose three reviewers make these recommendations:

Reviewer	Recommendation	Main Concern
Reviewer 1	Reject	Research design cannot answer the principal question
Reviewer 2	Major revision	Additional analysis may resolve concerns
Reviewer 3	Minor revision	Mostly presentation and interpretation issues

The editor should not simply count “two against one.”

Instead, the editor needs to determine which concerns are scientifically or academically decisive.

If Reviewer 1 identifies a genuine design flaw that cannot be repaired using the available study, that concern may outweigh several favorable recommendations. Conversely, if the editor concludes that the criticism rests on a misunderstanding, the manuscript may still be offered revision.

What Is the Process for Rejecting Papers During Peer Review?

Although procedures differ between journals, rejection after peer review usually develops through the following stages.

Step 1: The manuscript undergoes initial editorial screening

Before sending the paper to external reviewers, an editor or editorial team evaluates whether it should enter peer review.

Depending on the journal, the initial assessment may examine:

• Fit with journal scope
• Basic quality
• Originality or significance
• Completeness
• Compliance with journal requirements
• Ethical or reporting issues
• Whether the manuscript is suitable for the journal’s readership

Some manuscripts are rejected at this stage without external review. Nature Portfolio journals, for example, describe editorial processes in which manuscripts considered inappropriate for a journal may be rejected without external peer review.

If the manuscript passes screening, the editor proceeds to external review.

Step 2: The editor selects peer reviewers

The editor identifies researchers or specialists with relevant expertise.

Reviewer selection may consider:

• Subject expertise
• Methodological expertise
• Availability
• Potential conflicts of interest
• Previous reviewing experience
• Knowledge of the research area

COPE guidance emphasizes that peer review depends on responsible reviewer conduct, including confidentiality, transparency concerning conflicts of interest, and objective assessment.

The exact number of reviewers varies. Nature explains that its manuscripts are often sent to two or three referees, although the number may differ depending on the paper.

Step 3: Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript

Reviewers examine the work according to their expertise and the journal’s reviewing criteria.

Typical questions include:

• Is the research question meaningful and sufficiently clear?
• Is the methodology suitable?
• Are the methods described adequately?
• Does the evidence support the conclusions?
• Are analyses appropriate?
• Is the contribution sufficiently clear?
• Are important limitations acknowledged?
• Is relevant literature considered?
• Is the manuscript organized and understandable?
• Are there ethical or reporting concerns?

Reviewers usually prepare both detailed comments and a recommendation to the editor.

Possible recommendations may include:

• Accept
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject
• Reject and invite resubmission

Not every journal uses all of these categories.

Step 4: Reviewers submit reports and recommendations

Once reviews are returned, the editor receives both the detailed reasoning and, where the journal uses them, recommendation categories.

The reasoning matters more than the label alone.

For instance, compare these two recommendations:

Reviewer A: “Reject because I did not find the topic interesting.”

Reviewer B: “The primary conclusion relies on a comparison that the study design cannot support, and the existing dataset cannot resolve this limitation.”

Although both reviewers recommend rejection, Reviewer B provides a more substantive research-based reason.

Editors therefore need to assess the quality and relevance of the reports rather than simply treating recommendations as votes.

Step 5: The editor evaluates the reviews

The editor compares the reviewer feedback with the manuscript and the journal’s criteria.

At this point, several questions become important:

• Are reviewers identifying the same central problem?
• Is one reviewer raising a concern that others overlooked?
• Are the criticisms technically valid?
• Are reviewer requests reasonable?
• Could the concerns be resolved through revision?
• Would addressing the comments require an essentially new study?
• Does the manuscript still meet the journal’s editorial threshold?

This is where editorial judgment becomes particularly important.

Step 6: The editor decides whether revision is realistically possible

A manuscript may contain serious problems and still receive a major-revision decision if the editor believes those problems can realistically be corrected.

In contrast, rejection becomes more likely when the main concerns appear fundamental.

Examples include:

• A study design that cannot test the principal claim
• Missing data that cannot be recovered
• A central conclusion contradicted by the presented evidence
• Major conceptual weaknesses
• A contribution that does not satisfy the journal’s criteria
• Required work so substantial that it effectively represents a new study

Scientific Reports explains that rejection may occur when an editor concludes that a manuscript would not be suitable for publication even after revision.

That distinction—fixable through revision versus fundamentally unsuitable in its current research form—often separates major revision from rejection.

Step 7: The editor records the decision

The editor selects the appropriate decision in the journal’s manuscript-management system.

The exact label may be:

• Reject
• Decline
• Reject after review
• Reject and resubmit
• Transfer recommended
• Major revision
• Revise and resubmit

These terms should not be assumed to mean exactly the same thing across publishers.

Authors must read the accompanying decision letter.

Step 8: The journal sends the decision letter

The corresponding author normally receives a formal communication from the journal.

A rejection letter may contain:

• The editorial decision
• A short explanation from the editor
• Reviewer reports
• Confidential editorial context, where appropriate
• Information about transfer opportunities
• Information about an appeal procedure
• Instructions concerning possible resubmission, if permitted

The wording matters.

“Rejected” and “rejected but we would consider a substantially revised new submission” are not equivalent editorial signals.

Desk Rejection vs Rejection After Peer Review

These two outcomes are often confused.

Aspect	Desk Rejection	Rejection After Peer Review
External reviewers involved?	Usually no	Yes
Main decision maker	Editor/editorial team	Editor after considering reviewer reports
Typical timing	Earlier	Later
Common issues	Scope, editorial priority, basic suitability	Methods, evidence, interpretation, contribution, major reviewer concerns
Reviewer reports supplied?	Usually no	Usually yes
Revision for same journal	Depends on decision	Depends on decision
Best next step	Reassess journal fit and manuscript positioning	Diagnose reviewer and editor concerns before resubmitting

A desk rejection is not necessarily a judgment that the research is poor. A technically sound article can be unsuitable for a particular journal because the topic falls outside its scope or because the journal applies a different editorial threshold.

Similarly, passing desk screening does not mean eventual acceptance is likely. It simply means the paper has progressed to the next assessment stage.

Why Are Papers Rejected After Peer Review?

There is no universal list of rejection reasons. However, several categories occur repeatedly across scholarly publishing.

1. Fundamental methodological problems

Methodological weaknesses are particularly important when they undermine the study’s central conclusions.

Examples include:

• An inappropriate research design
• Invalid measurement
• Serious sampling problems
• Inadequate controls
• Incorrect analytical techniques
• Unsupported causal interpretation
• Major confounding that has not been addressed

A manuscript does not necessarily need perfect methods. Every research design has limitations.

The question is whether the methods are adequate for the claims being made.

2. Conclusions are not supported by the evidence

Authors sometimes make broader claims than their data allow.

For example, an observational study may demonstrate an association but describe the finding as proof of causation.

A revision might solve the problem if the claims can simply be moderated. However, if the entire paper depends on a conclusion that the evidence cannot support, rejection becomes more plausible.

3. Insufficient contribution for the target journal

Different journals evaluate contribution differently.

A manuscript may contain technically competent research but still fail to meet a journal’s expectations concerning:

• Novelty
• Significance
• Theoretical contribution
• General relevance
• Advancement of knowledge
• Interest to the journal’s readership

PLOS Medicine, for example, explains that manuscripts may be rejected when they do not satisfy its criteria relating to areas such as originality, importance, cross-disciplinary interest, or methodological soundness.

This is why journal selection matters.

4. Major conceptual problems

Sometimes reviewers disagree not with an isolated analysis but with the foundation of the study.

Examples include:

• An inadequately defined construct
• A theoretical model that does not support the hypotheses
• A research question that the chosen design cannot answer
• Incorrect assumptions underlying the analysis

Such problems can be difficult to address without redesigning substantial parts of the research.

5. Missing essential evidence

Reviewers may determine that the conclusions require evidence the manuscript does not contain.

Whether this produces rejection or revision depends on the scale of the missing work.

A manageable additional analysis may justify major revision.

An entirely new data-collection programme may not.

6. Serious interpretation problems

A technically correct analysis can still be interpreted incorrectly.

For instance, authors may:

• Overgeneralize beyond the study population
• Ignore plausible alternative explanations
• Treat statistically non-significant results as proof of equivalence
• Make causal claims from unsuitable evidence
• Understate major study limitations

Editors will consider whether these problems can be corrected without changing the fundamental nature of the paper.

7. Inability to address reviewers’ concerns satisfactorily

Rejection can also occur after a revision.

An author may submit a revised manuscript, but reviewers or editors may conclude that critical concerns remain unresolved.

A detailed response letter cannot compensate for a substantive problem in the research itself.

What Happens When Reviewers Disagree?

Conflicting recommendations do not automatically result in either rejection or acceptance. The editor assesses the substance of the disagreement and determines what further action is appropriate.

For example:

• Reviewer 1: Accept
• Reviewer 2: Reject

The editor could:

• Agree with Reviewer 1
• Agree with Reviewer 2
• Request revisions
• Seek clarification from a reviewer
• Invite another reviewer
• Conduct an additional editorial assessment

Elsevier notes that editors weigh the different views and may seek another opinion before deciding.

This illustrates an important point for authors: reviewer recommendations are advisory assessments, not votes in an election.

Why reviewer disagreement happens

Two competent researchers can evaluate the same paper differently because they may focus on different aspects.

One may prioritize methodological rigor.

Another may focus on theoretical contribution.

A third may have specialist knowledge that reveals an issue the other reviewers did not identify.

Disagreement therefore does not automatically indicate that the peer-review system has failed. What matters is how the editor evaluates the competing arguments.

Rejection vs Major Revision vs Reject and Resubmit

Understanding these decisions prevents authors from responding incorrectly.

Decision	What It Generally Means	Typical Author Response
Major revision	Journal remains willing to consider the manuscript if substantial concerns are addressed	Revise carefully and prepare a point-by-point response
Reject	Current editorial consideration has ended	Diagnose feedback and consider another journal
Reject and resubmit	Substantial additional work is required, but the journal may consider a new version	Confirm journal instructions before undertaking major revisions
Transfer option	Current journal declines the paper but another journal within the publisher may be suitable	Evaluate the suggested journal independently

“Reject and resubmit” is particularly journal-dependent.

For example, some Nature Portfolio editorial guidance describes a reject-with-resubmission possibility when concerns are extensive but the editors still see potential interest in substantially revised work.

Never assume that a rejection automatically includes permission to resubmit.

How Do Editors Decide Whether a Manuscript Is Fixable?

A useful way to understand editorial judgment is to ask whether the problem affects the presentation of the research or the foundation of the research.

Consider the distinction:

Concern	Often Potentially Revisable	Potentially Fundamental
Unclear writing	Yes	Rarely
Incomplete discussion	Yes	Rarely
Additional sensitivity analysis	Often	Sometimes
Weak explanation of methods	Often	If essential methods were not performed
Overstated conclusions	Often	If central claims collapse when corrected
Missing control group	Sometimes not	Often
Unsuitable study design	Difficult	Often
Insufficient data for main conclusion	Difficult	Often
Journal fit	Usually requires another journal	Yes for that journal

The practical lesson is simple: not all negative reviewer comments carry the same editorial weight.

Ten minor presentation comments may be easier to resolve than one fundamental methodological objection.

Practical Example 1: Public Health Research

Situation

A research team submits a cross-sectional study examining the relationship between sleep duration and symptoms of anxiety among university students.

The manuscript’s central claim

“Reduced sleep causes increased anxiety among university students.”

Reviewer concern

The reviewers point out that the study measured sleep and anxiety at the same time. Therefore, it cannot establish whether reduced sleep preceded anxiety, whether anxiety affected sleep, or whether another factor influenced both.

Possible editorial reasoning

Changing grammar, adding references, or performing another simple analysis cannot turn a cross-sectional study into evidence of temporal causation.

If the paper’s entire claimed contribution depends on proving causation, the editor may reject it.

Improved approach before another submission

The authors could:

• Reframe the conclusion as an association
• Revise the title and abstract
• Explain the limitations explicitly
• Remove unsupported causal language
• Reconsider whether the revised contribution fits another journal

Why this matters

The rejection is not necessarily saying that the dataset has no value. The problem is the mismatch between the study design and the claim.

Practical Example 2: Engineering Research

Situation

A research team submits a new optimization technique to a selective engineering journal.

The method performs adequately, but reviewers observe that similar approaches have already been published and that the manuscript does not demonstrate a sufficiently distinct technical contribution.

Reviewer responses

Reviewer 1 recommends major revision.

Reviewer 2 recommends rejection because the novelty claim is not convincing.

Editorial outcome

The editor decides to reject.

Why?

Even if the authors improve the language and provide additional comparisons, the journal may conclude that the paper does not meet its particular contribution threshold.

Better next step

Before submitting elsewhere, the authors should:

1. Conduct a stronger literature comparison.
2. Identify precisely what is technically new.
3. Remove exaggerated novelty statements.
4. Strengthen benchmarking where possible.
5. Select a journal whose scope and contribution threshold fit the work.

The lesson is that journal rejection and research invalidity are not synonymous.

Practical Example 3: Qualitative Education Research

Situation

A researcher interviews teachers about their experiences adopting generative AI tools in secondary education.

Reviewers find the topic valuable but criticize:

• Insufficient explanation of participant recruitment
• Limited detail about coding
• Weak discussion of researcher reflexivity
• Conclusions that extend beyond the interviewed population

Possible outcome

Unlike a fundamentally unsuitable research design, these problems may potentially be corrected through substantial revision if the underlying research process was sound and appropriately documented.

The editor might therefore request major revisions rather than reject the manuscript.

Why this example matters

Peer-review decisions depend not simply on whether a manuscript has problems, but on whether those problems are realistically addressable.

Before-and-After Examples: Problems That Can Influence a Decision

Overstated conclusion

Weak:
“Our study proves that remote work increases employee productivity.”

Improved:
“Our findings indicate an association between reported remote-working frequency and self-reported productivity within the studied sample.”

The improved version makes the claim more consistent with evidence that may not establish causation.

Unsupported novelty

Weak:
“This is the first study ever to investigate this issue.”

Improved:
“This study extends previous research by examining the issue within [specific context], with particular attention to [defined contribution].”

Absolute “first-ever” claims require strong evidence.

Vague methodological description

Weak:
“Participants were selected randomly.”

Improved:
“Participants were selected using simple random sampling from the eligible population listed in [sampling frame], following the stated inclusion criteria.”

Greater precision helps reviewers assess whether the claimed method was actually appropriate.

How to Read a Rejection Letter

Do not read only the word “reject.”

A rejection letter usually contains several layers of information.

1. Read the editor’s comments first

The editor may explain which concerns were decisive.

These comments often help distinguish between:

• Journal fit
• Contribution
• Methodological problems
• Unresolved reviewer concerns
• Scope of required revision

2. Separate major concerns from minor comments

Create three categories:

Critical

• Could invalidate the main conclusion
• Requires new data
• Exposes a fundamental methodological weakness

Substantial but addressable

• Requires reanalysis
• Requires major restructuring
• Requires additional literature or explanation

Minor

• Language
• Presentation
• Formatting
• Clarification

This prevents authors from spending hours fixing punctuation while overlooking the reason the manuscript was actually rejected.

3. Look for repeated concerns

If multiple independent reviewers identify the same problem, investigate it carefully.

Repeated feedback does not automatically mean the reviewers are correct, but it is a strong signal that the manuscript may not communicate or justify that point adequately.

4. Distinguish disagreement from misunderstanding

If a reviewer appears to misunderstand an important element, ask:

Why was it easy to misunderstand?

Sometimes the reviewer is mistaken.

Sometimes the paper did not explain the point clearly enough.

Either way, improving clarity may help the next submission.

What Should You Do After Your Paper Is Rejected?

The most productive response is systematic rather than immediate.

Step 1: Avoid submitting the unchanged manuscript immediately

A rapid resubmission can simply carry the same weaknesses to another journal.

Instead, diagnose the reasons for rejection.

Step 2: Build a reviewer-comment matrix

Create a simple working table:

Comment	Importance	Do We Agree?	Planned Action
Sampling strategy insufficiently explained	High	Yes	Expand methods
Additional subgroup analysis requested	Medium	Partly	Assess validity first
Conclusion too broad	High	Yes	Narrow conclusion
Add unrelated theoretical framework	Low	No	Do not add unless relevant

This turns criticism into an actionable revision plan.

Step 3: Re-evaluate your manuscript’s central claim

Ask:

• What does the evidence actually demonstrate?
• Are the conclusions proportionate to the data?
• Has the paper overstated novelty?
• Is the research question adequately answered?
• Does the title accurately represent the study?

Step 4: Fix substantive problems before language problems

Excellent English cannot rescue invalid methodology.

The usual priority should be:

1. Research validity
2. Analysis
3. Claims and interpretation
4. Structure
5. Clarity
6. Language
7. Formatting

Step 5: Select the next journal strategically

Before resubmission, evaluate:

• Scope
• Article types
• Audience
• Publication criteria
• Recent papers
• Methodological expectations
• Author guidelines

Do not choose a journal only because it appears easier to enter.

Step 6: Revise the manuscript for the new journal

A new journal means a new editorial context.

Check:

• Title
• Abstract
• Keywords
• Length
• Structure
• Citation style
• Reporting requirements
• Supplementary information
• Cover letter

Authors who need an independent language and structural check before resubmission can consider professional research paper editing support, particularly when reviewer comments indicate problems with clarity, organization, argumentation, or communication.

Editing should strengthen presentation without replacing the researcher’s responsibility for the research, methods, evidence, interpretation, or claims.

When Should You Appeal a Rejection?

An appeal should normally be based on a substantive reason, not simply disappointment with the editorial decision.

Appeal procedures differ significantly between journals.

Elsevier, for example, maintains a formal editorial decision appeals policy, while some PLOS journals also describe formal written appeal procedures.

Possible reasons to investigate an appeal may include:

• A material factual misunderstanding that directly determined the decision
• Evidence that an important part of the manuscript was overlooked
• A significant procedural concern
• A reviewer conflict or other issue covered by journal policy
• A demonstrably incorrect technical criticism central to the rejection

An appeal is generally weaker when the argument is merely:

• “We worked very hard.”
• “We need this publication.”
• “Another researcher likes the paper.”
• “We disagree with Reviewer 2.”
• “The reviewer was too negative.”

Before appealing:

1. Read the journal’s appeal policy.
2. Identify the exact error or procedural concern.
3. Support your argument with evidence.
4. Keep the communication professional.
5. Distinguish factual errors from legitimate scholarly disagreement.

Do not submit the manuscript to another journal simultaneously while an appeal remains active unless the relevant publication policies explicitly allow it.

Common Mistakes Authors Make After Rejection

Mistake 1: Treating every reviewer comment as mandatory truth

Reviewers are experts, but they are not infallible.

Better approach: Evaluate each comment against your data, methodology, literature, and research objectives.

Mistake 2: Rejecting all criticism emotionally

The opposite response is equally unhelpful.

Better approach: Ask which criticisms reveal genuine weaknesses, even if the wording feels harsh.

Mistake 3: Changing journals without revising the manuscript

The next reviewers may identify exactly the same problems.

Better approach: Correct transferable weaknesses before resubmission.

Mistake 4: Focusing only on language

Editing can improve readability but cannot repair invalid research design or fabricated evidence.

Better approach: Address substantive research concerns first.

Mistake 5: Adding analyses simply because a reviewer requested them

Not every requested analysis is methodologically appropriate.

Better approach: Add an analysis only when it strengthens the research and can be justified academically.

Mistake 6: Attempting to “hide” limitations

Trying to minimize legitimate limitations can damage credibility.

Better approach: Explain important limitations transparently and state how they affect interpretation.

Mistake 7: Appealing automatically

An appeal without a clear substantive basis rarely addresses the actual problem.

Better approach: Appeal only when journal policy and the circumstances support it.

Mistake 8: Overcorrecting the manuscript

Authors sometimes respond to criticism by adding excessive explanations, references, analyses, and theoretical material.

Better approach: Make targeted revisions that improve the manuscript’s argument and evidence.

Post-Rejection Checklist for Authors

Before sending the manuscript to another journal, check the following:

• I have read the editor’s decision separately from the reviewer reports.
• I understand the principal reason or reasons for rejection.
• I have separated fundamental concerns from minor comments.
• I have evaluated each reviewer comment rather than accepting or dismissing it automatically.
• The methodology supports the research question.
• The analyses support the conclusions.
• Claims of novelty are accurate and appropriately qualified.
• Causal language is justified by the research design.
• Major limitations are acknowledged clearly.
• I have strengthened sections that reviewers found confusing.
• I have checked whether additional analyses are methodologically justified.
• I have selected a new journal based on genuine scope and audience fit.
• The manuscript complies with the new journal’s author guidelines.
• All references are authentic and traceable.
• Any professional editing has preserved my intellectual contribution and authorship responsibilities.
• I have checked my university, institution, funder, or publisher policies where relevant.

Academic Ethics and Responsible Revision

A rejected manuscript should never be “fixed” by compromising research integrity.

Authors remain responsible for:

• Data
• Methods
• Analyses
• Interpretation
• Figures and tables
• Research claims
• Citations
• Ethical approvals
• Authorship
• Final submission

Never respond to rejection by:

• Fabricating additional data
• Inventing references
• Altering results to produce a preferred conclusion
• Hiding contradictory findings
• Misrepresenting research methods
• Claiming analyses that were never performed

Likewise, references suggested by reviewers, editors, editing tools, or AI systems should be checked before inclusion.

COPE’s peer-review guidance emphasizes ethical standards and the contribution of responsible reviewing to the integrity of scholarly publication.

Professional academic support can appropriately improve language, organization, readability, and consistency. However, the researcher must retain responsibility for the intellectual content and should comply with applicable university or journal policies concerning third-party or AI-assisted editing.

How Contentxprtz Can Support Authors After Peer-Review Rejection

Peer-review rejection sometimes reveals a research problem that only the researcher can resolve. In other cases, the underlying study may be sound, but reviewers identify unclear argumentation, weak manuscript organization, inconsistent terminology, language problems, or an inadequate explanation of the study’s contribution.

Contentxprtz can provide ethical editorial support in areas such as:

• Research-paper language editing
• Structural and clarity review
• Academic proofreading
• Consistency of argumentation
• Abstract and conclusion alignment
• Reviewer-response clarity
• Journal-specific presentation
• Citation and reference consistency
• ESL academic-language support

Researchers preparing a revised manuscript can explore Contentxprtz’s research paper editing service when an independent editorial review would help clarify the paper before resubmission.

For manuscripts that require broader language or presentation improvement, academic editing support may also be relevant. Authors preparing theses or dissertations for later publication should ensure that any editorial assistance complies with institutional requirements.

Professional editing cannot guarantee journal acceptance, and it should not replace methodological decisions or the author’s scholarly contribution. Its appropriate role is to help valid ideas and research findings communicate more clearly.

Summary: What Is the Process for Rejecting Papers During Peer Review?

The rejection process normally begins after a manuscript passes editorial screening and is sent to external experts. Reviewers assess the research and send reports and recommendations to the editor.

The editor then evaluates those reports, the manuscript, and the journal’s publication criteria before making the formal decision.

Rejection becomes more likely when concerns involve fundamental problems that cannot realistically be corrected through an ordinary revision—for example, a research design that cannot support the study’s principal claim, insufficient evidence for the conclusion, major conceptual problems, or a contribution that does not meet the journal’s editorial criteria.

Reviewer recommendations are not normally treated as simple votes. An editor can weigh conflicting reviews, seek another opinion, request revisions, or decide that one particularly serious concern is decisive.

After rejection, authors should identify the substantive reasons behind the decision, assess reviewer feedback critically, correct genuine weaknesses, reconsider journal fit, and revise before submitting elsewhere.

An appeal may be appropriate when journal policy permits one and there is a specific factual, technical, ethical, or procedural basis for challenging the decision. It should not be used simply because rejection is disappointing.

Above all, a rejected manuscript needs diagnosis before resubmission.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the process for rejecting papers during peer review?

The process usually involves reviewers evaluating a manuscript, submitting reports and recommendations, and an editor making the formal decision after considering those reports and the journal’s criteria.

A paper typically reaches this stage only after passing initial editorial screening. Reviewers may identify concerns involving methodology, evidence, novelty, interpretation, or other aspects of the research. The editor then judges how serious those concerns are and whether they could realistically be addressed through revision.

If the problems are considered fundamental, the editor may reject the manuscript. If they appear correctable, the author may instead receive a major- or minor-revision decision.

Procedures vary between journals, so the decision letter and the journal’s editorial policy should always be treated as the authoritative guidance for a particular submission.

2. Who actually decides whether a paper is rejected—the reviewers or the editor?

The editor normally makes the formal decision, while reviewers provide recommendations and expert assessments.

A reviewer can recommend rejection, but another reviewer may recommend revision or acceptance. The editor examines the reasoning in all reports and may also conduct an independent assessment.

Elsevier’s reviewer guidance explicitly explains that the editor ultimately decides whether an article is accepted or rejected and may seek an additional opinion when necessary.

Therefore, authors should pay attention not only to the recommendation selected by each reviewer but also to the substantive problems described in the reports.

3. Can my paper be rejected if only one reviewer recommends rejection?

Yes. A single rejection recommendation can contribute to rejection if the editor considers the reviewer’s concern sufficiently serious and valid.

For example, two reviewers might focus mainly on presentation while another identifies a fundamental flaw in the research design. The editor could reasonably decide that the methodological concern outweighs the favorable comments.

The reverse is also possible. An editor may disagree with a reviewer’s recommendation to reject if the criticism appears addressable or unsupported.

Peer review should therefore not be understood as a majority-vote system.

4. Is desk rejection the same as rejection after peer review?

No. Desk rejection normally occurs before external peer reviewers evaluate the manuscript, whereas rejection after peer review occurs after external expert assessment.

A desk rejection may result from journal scope, editorial priorities, basic suitability, or other screening criteria. Some Nature Portfolio editorial processes explicitly describe rejecting papers without external review when editors judge them inappropriate for the journal.

A rejection after peer review normally gives the author more detailed scientific or scholarly feedback because external reviewers have examined the work.

The revision strategy should therefore differ depending on which type of rejection occurred.

5. What are the most common reasons papers are rejected after peer review?

Common reasons include major methodological limitations, conclusions that are not adequately supported, insufficient contribution for the particular journal, significant conceptual problems, missing essential evidence, and concerns that would require more work than an ordinary revision could reasonably accommodate.

Journal criteria differ considerably. A study considered insufficiently significant for one publication may be appropriate for another journal with a different scope.

Authors should identify the decisive reason for their own manuscript’s rejection rather than applying a generic explanation to every editorial decision.

6. What does “reject and resubmit” mean?

“Reject and resubmit” generally means that the current version has been rejected but that the journal may be willing to consider substantially revised work.

It usually signals that the required changes are greater than those expected in an ordinary revision cycle. Depending on the journal, the new manuscript may be treated as a new submission, may receive a new manuscript number, or may return to previous reviewers.

Not all journals use this decision category. Nature Portfolio provides examples of editorial processes in which rejection may be accompanied by an invitation to submit substantially revised work.

Authors should follow the wording of the decision letter rather than assuming that every rejection permits resubmission.

7. Should I appeal if I think the reviewers were wrong?

Not automatically. An appeal is strongest when you can identify a specific factual, technical, procedural, or policy-related reason that materially affected the decision.

Scholarly disagreement alone may not justify an appeal. Reviewers and authors can legitimately interpret evidence differently.

If you believe an appeal is warranted, read the journal’s appeal policy carefully and construct a concise, evidence-based argument. Some publishers, including Elsevier, maintain formal written procedures for appeals against editorial decisions.

Avoid emotional arguments based on the amount of work invested in the manuscript or your need for publication.

8. Can I submit a rejected paper to another journal?

Generally, once a journal has issued a final rejection and no active reconsideration or appeal remains, authors can consider submitting the manuscript to another journal, subject to the relevant publication policies.

However, immediate resubmission of the identical manuscript is often a missed opportunity.

Review the editor’s letter and reviewer comments first. Correct valid methodological, analytical, interpretive, structural, and language problems before approaching another publication.

You should also reformat the manuscript for the new journal and ensure the scope is genuinely appropriate.

Most importantly, avoid simultaneous submission to multiple journals where journal policies prohibit it.

9. Should I respond to reviewer comments even if I am submitting the paper elsewhere?

You do not normally need to send the original reviewers a response if the manuscript has been finally rejected and you are moving to an unrelated journal. However, you should still work through their comments internally.

Create a response matrix and decide for each substantive comment whether to:

• Revise the manuscript
• Perform justified additional analysis
• Clarify existing information
• Moderate a claim
• Explain a limitation
• Retain the original approach for a defensible reason

Reviewer feedback can improve a manuscript even when the original journal will never see the revised version.

10. When can professional editing help after peer-review rejection?

Professional editing can be useful when reviewers or editors identify problems involving clarity, organization, academic language, argument flow, consistency, excessive wording, ambiguous explanations, or presentation.

It is less appropriate to expect editing alone to solve fundamental research problems. An editor cannot ethically manufacture missing data, repair an invalid research design through wording, invent citations, or determine what results researchers should report.

Researchers should first address substantive scientific or scholarly concerns. Once the underlying research and interpretation are sound, an independent editorial review can help ensure that those ideas are communicated accurately. Contentxprtz’s research paper editing service is designed to support this communication stage while preserving the researcher’s responsibility for the work.

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

Understanding what is the process for rejecting papers during peer review makes a rejection letter easier to interpret and, more importantly, easier to act on constructively.

Peer reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide expert advice. The journal editor then assesses those reports together with the manuscript and the journal’s editorial criteria. When the editor determines that the central problems cannot reasonably be resolved through ordinary revision—or that the paper does not satisfy the journal’s requirements—the manuscript may be rejected.

The distinction between desk rejection, rejection after review, major revision, and reject-and-resubmit matters because each decision calls for a different response.

After rejection, begin with the research rather than the formatting. Check whether the methodology supports the question, whether the evidence supports the conclusions, whether the claimed contribution is defensible, and whether reviewer concerns expose genuine weaknesses. Then improve structure, explanation, language, and journal-specific presentation.

For some manuscripts, careful self-review and collaboration with co-authors will be sufficient. For others—particularly papers where reviewers repeatedly raise clarity, language, organization, or argumentation concerns—professional research paper editing support can provide an additional independent review before the next submission.

Journal acceptance can never be guaranteed. What authors can control is the rigor of their research, the accuracy of their claims, the quality of their response to legitimate criticism, the suitability of the next journal, and the clarity with which the manuscript communicates its contribution.

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