Technical reasons for rejection include: These rejection reasons can be avoided by investing enough time in reading around the subject area, carefully deciding on the topic to focus on, the hypothesis and planning a comprehensive experiment as outlined in the Springer Nature Journal Tutorial: Writing a Journal Manuscript. Editors decide whether to send a manuscript for peer review based on the degree to which it advances our understanding of the field, the soundness of conclusions, the extent to which the evidence presented - including appropriate data and analyses - supports these conclusions, and the wide relevance of these conclusions to the journals readership. Authors should note that as Nature is an interdisciplinary journal, referees for a paper are chosen for different reasons, for example a technical expert and a person who has a general overview of a field might both referee the same paper. Cookie Notice If the scale of revisions means that the authors would need a long period of time and the manuscript would need extensive reworking, it may be suitable to reject the manuscript but invite the authors to resubmit. So far I have not received any email which tells rejection. Remember if your manuscript is sent for a second round of peer review the reviewers will see this letter too. *Please note that using these tools, or any other service, is not a requirement for publication, nor does it imply or guarantee that editors will accept the article, or even select it for peer review. Can I ask the editor to publish a withdrawn manuscript after acceptance? In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles For example; too small a sample size or missing or poor controls, Poor analysis such as using inappropriate statistical tests or a lack of statistics altogether, Inappropriate methodology for answering your hypothesis or using old methodology that has been surpassed by newer, more powerful methods that provide more robust results, Weak research motive where your hypothesis is not clear or academically valid, or your data does not answer the question posed, Inaccurate conclusions on assumptions that are not supported by your data, Not enough of an advance or of enough impact for the journal, Research ethics ignored such as consent from patients or approval from an ethics committee for animal research, Lack of proper structure or not following journal formatting requirements, Lack of the necessary detail for readers to fully understand and repeat the authors analysis and experiments, Lack of up-to-date references or references containing a high proportion of self-citations, Has poor language quality such that it cannot be understood by readers. ensure that the paper is at the length specified by the manuscript editor (including number of figures). You will need to go through the through the decision letter to see what the journal has said about the manuscript. //--> All Nature editors report to the Editor of Nature, who sets Nature's publication policies. Thank the reviewers and editors for their time and comments. 10. Often, a positive-toned review will have concerns similar to those. All of these points are covered in the Writing a Journal Manuscript and the Writing in English tutorials. The peer review file is published online as a supplementary peer review file. Journalists have embargoedaccess to papers via the Nature Research press site, and are permitted to show papers to independent specialists a few days in advance of publication, under embargo conditions, solely for the purpose of eliciting comment on the work described. I submitted a manuscript to a Nature journal. If you do not think you will be able to return a revised manuscript in the allotted time tell the editor immediately. A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). who will be interested in the new results and why. We recommend that before you decide your next steps you take a few days to consider you options. Reviewers are expected to treat the manuscript confidentially. Editors make decisions on manuscripts using a variety of criteria, if one of your manuscripts is rejected it does not mean the journal or the editor wont be willing to consider your work again in the future. If an author wishes to appeal against Nature 's decision, the appeal must be made in writing, not by telephone, and should be confined to the scientific case for publication. It stated 'Under consideration' until today, when it changed to 'Decision made,' and then back to 'Under consideration.' In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles [CDATA[// > Although Nature's editors regard it as essential that any technical failings noted by referees are addressed, they are not so strictly bound by referees editorial opinions as to whether the work belongs in Nature. As there are many steps involved in the editorial process, this may in some cases take longer than you had anticipated. For example; too small a sample size or missing or poor controls. Appeals of a rejection decision are only successful in a handful of cases and usually only when you can provide strong evidence or new data that can respond to and alleviate the concerns of the editor and reviewers. In replying to the referees comments, authors are advised to use language that would not cause offence when their paper is shown again to the referees, and to bear in mind that if a point was not clear to the referees and/or editors, it is unlikely that it would be clear to the nonspecialist readers of Nature. //-->
David Van Patten,
Articles D