Really horrid journal rejection - aarghhh

[Catabogus]

This is probably more of a vent than anything else (though if anyone does have any words of wisdom I’d be delighted! Solidarity also much appreciated).

I submitted a paper I was very proud of to a very good journal (in social science) over a year ago. The journal sat on it for months on end and then returned it with two positive referees’ reports. Both said the paper had the potential to make a very exciting conceptual contribution to the field, but needed some revisions to clarify the argument. I did the R&R and included a long cover letter explaining in painstaking detail how I’d clarified the argument, and resubmitted 4 months ago, feeling very optimistic.

Today I got an unexpected rejection from the journal. Apparently neither of the original referees were willing to review the revisions (why not?! I’ve never heard of this before) so they sent it to a new reviewer, who clearly hated it.

The new report contained no engagement with my paper’s argument or conceptual contribution- just a rather random list of contextual details he/she thought I’d missed and the bald statement that my concept didn’t make sense (no real reason given). Most of the comments don’t really seem relevant to my paper at all, and they are all entirely different from the original reports. And of course the long response to referees’ comments that I spent hours on wasn’t useful at all, as the original referees never saw it.

I’ve never heard of both referees refusing to review the revisions before. And I do think the journal could have handled this better (eg perhaps letting me know I would be writing the cover letter for a different person so a really detailed engagement with their specific points wasn’t necessary?). I did wonder about sending the editor some feedback but perhaps this will just be seen as sour grapes.

I’m feeling really deflated and miserable. Of course I can resubmit somewhere else - but then that’s potentially another year wasted waiting for reviews (with no guarantee of I won’t get the same reviewer!). Also the journal I submitted to gave me special dispensation to add an extra 1000 words to develop the argument in response to the first reviews, which of course makes the paper much too long for other journals - hence a massive cutting job will be needed.

Aaaaarrrggghhh! Perhaps what I actually need is advice on getting over this and back in the saddle? Thank you oh wise ones.

That's really shit. Rejections are a fact of life but I think the journal could have handled this better. I wonder if the original readers are now on Action Short of a Strike? It's not uncommon to be unable to read something for a second time due to work and life commitments, but to refuse to do so suggests something else.

Hi! Sorry to hear this, rejections sucks!

Frustratingly, it is par for the course in the job, and one of the things that ground me down most about academia - you're so proud and relieved to have finished and submitted a paper, the fruition of years of work, and then a bunch of strangers shit all over it.

In my experience (both as first author, co-author and spouse of a seasoned academic), it is actually quite rare for papers to get published in the first jouenal they go to. Again frustrating, and by the time it gets published it might be full of revisions and caveats you don't actually like - but you will get it out there eventually.

Dust yourself off, roll up your sleeves and turn it around for another journal. You can do it!

(And when you need some solidarity, head to Shit My Reviewers Say to remind yourself that everyone goes through this.)

It's always soul destroying but in this situation, I would send a quick note to the editor so that they can have a look and intervene if necessary. When I review papers, I'm always surprised when asked if I want to continue to review the amendments as this seems like the only responsible thing to do. This is why I only review if I know I have enough time to follow the whole thing through to the end.

As an editor myself I think this was handed poorly by the journal. Sometimes you do get reviewers who clearly wanted the author to write a completely different article than what they did, and then it is the editor's role to assess whether another reviewer who is more on board with the approach should be brought in, reject straightaway, etc. But to have done this after the first round of reviews confirmed this was a viable article for the journal was poor form.
At the beginning of my career I internalize the advice that you don't ever get back to an editor an question their decision, you just accept whatever their verdict graciously. However, in this case I find myself wondering whether it would be possible to do what @MercyChant66 suggests. You would have to be extremely polite and also (worst case scenario) prepared for the possibility that the editor will take it badly and this might mean burning bridges with them and the journal. Again I am not sure I would do it myself, perhaps in certain circumstances.

That is very poor of the journal. If neither of the original reviewers agreed to look at the revisions, then the editor themselves could have made a judgement call based on your revisions and cover letter.

I have successfully appealed that type of rejection on 2 occasions. I would encourage you to write to the editor and take back some power / control. You owe them nothing. Your time is precious. Their process was inadequate.

Re reviewers refusing to re-review: it does not surprise me in the context of unsustainable workloads and people withdraeing their free labour. As a reviewer, I object to second and third review rounds, which are increasingly common compared to 10 or 15yrs ago. I expect editors to deal with revisions based on the first round of reviews. If the edits are so substantial, then it s a resubmit.

Appeal Appeal Appeal

omg, just Appeal

Phrase it as you're trying to be reasonable, and yet clearly you deserve at least 1, preferably 2 more opinions.

So far you have 2 praiseful opinions, one who hates it. 2 more opinions & you'd have a majority either way. Point out to the editor how this article is probably going to engage lots of interest and that is a terrific thing.

Also point out the specific things where Ref3 didn't make sense; you basically want to make the case (politely) that Ref3 is WRONG. I once had a prof open a resubmit cover letter with words to the effect "THE REVIEWER IS WRONG" : that article got accepted quickly, too.

Appeal Appeal Appeal. I've never regretted an appeal.

ps: I have declined to review a revision. Reviewing takes so much time nobody actually pays me for.