Baseless journal rejections

[Myword]

Do you get irrelevant and vague reasons for rejecting papers? Looks like the editors did not read it at all. Or reasons are petty or very vague. I'd rather have no comment. Ed says it lacks argument throughline when the entire paper is argument to the end. One example. Eds won't say the real reason I suspect. Maybe lack of interest or it was beyond their knowledge. They tell me of other journals with a LOWER acceptance rate.
    I currently have no access to my saved work on vacation  Is it asking too much for editor to send it back to me?

[Sun_Worshiper]

I've gotten desk rejects based on fit (vague), unspecified selection issues (vague), and a sense that the manuscript will probably be rejected upon review (vague). It is annoying, but what can you do? At least it is usually quick and I can move on to the next journal without having to process reviewers' comments.

You could ask the editor for the manuscript, but maybe it would be better to just enjoy your vacation and deal with this when you get home...

[Parasaurolophus]

This is not at all uncommon. My most frustrating one was for an R&R. I spent a ton of time and energy revising, and the end result was both much improved, and significantly different from the original (not that the original was bad). I got the rejection a day after submitting the R&R. I subsequently learned it never even went back to the referees (not surprising, given the 1-day turnaround).

[Myword]

They could be nice at least but choose not to be. I don't think my work is even read closely
Too many submissions they don't care about. So the quality is not the issue sometimes
I hope their own work is rejected.
Well, I found one really nice foreign editor of journal

[Ruralguy]

For one of the journals that tends to give me the harshest rejections (sometimes "personal", even though its double blind), the editor usually chimes in and warms over. Typically (s)he'll will say that though the reviewers lean a little toward reject, (s)he'll recommend a R&R if its essentially a re-write and explicitly answers to the following:"  and then the fairly strict conditions will be listed. So, at least for some harsh reviews in my field, some of the editors will be about as "nice" (really, "reasonable") as they can be and allow for highly conditional R&R's. Better than nuttin'.

[Sun_Worshiper]

The top journal in my field desk rejects around 60% of submissions and I know of journals in an adjacent field that are at more like 70-75%. I get it, since they get thousands of submissions every year and many are not worth a reviewer's time, but it also concerns me that editors are making these calls unblinded and, I suspect, in a somewhat slapdash fashion much of the time.

[Parasaurolophus]

The top journal in my field desk rejects around 60% of submissions and I know of journals in an adjacent field that are at more like 70-75%. I get it, since they get thousands of submissions every year and many are not worth a reviewer's time, but it also concerns me that editors are making these calls unblinded and, I suspect, in a somewhat slapdash fashion much of the time.

FWIW, MyWord, many of the journals in at least one area you submit to have rejection rates of 95-97%. And yes, desk rejection rates of 60%+.

=/

[Ancient Fellow]

I've gotten this before. You can look at it as the editor doing you a disservice in the short term, and a real service in the long run. Now don't misunderstand me, I've gotten rejections or R&R's that were entirely legitimate because I needed to improve the argument, and I take that on board without my ego getting involved. But when an editor gives a thoughtless desk rejection or blithely accepts an obviously frivolous reviewer rejection, they've crossed their journal off my list for the remainder of their tenure. It's clarifying.

[Myword]

And it continues as if my article was not read at all
A generic comment I assume...does not break new ground. So stupid and naive
Because it is allnew original. Most articles I read in my life
Were redundant and nothing much new. Sleepers.
I have a bad habit of writing on unpleasant subjects in the world. My approach
Is often historical in philosophy and not appreciated. But that's my background how I was trained
 I am not interested in boring shallow papers which are the majority
    Why  rewrite the style rules and notes?  Do you? Would you send your
Paper out to a journal in related fields?  Would they understand and accept it?
Some journals have a 20% acceptance rate or greater I noticed.
I don't know if my grudge interests you.  It's stale like this forum. Hate to say

[Kron3007]

And it continues as if my article was not read at all
A generic comment I assume...does not break new ground. So stupid and naive
Because it is allnew original. Most articles I read in my life
Were redundant and nothing much new. Sleepers.
I have a bad habit of writing on unpleasant subjects in the world. My approach
Is often historical in philosophy and not appreciated. But that's my background how I was trained
 I am not interested in boring shallow papers which are the majority
    Why  rewrite the style rules and notes?  Do you? Would you send your
Paper out to a journal in related fields?  Would they understand and accept it?
Some journals have a 20% acceptance rate or greater I noticed.
I don't know if my grudge interests you.  It's stale like this forum. Hate to say

It reads as though you think you are above critique.  I have had some reviews that I didnt agree with, and some that I felt were personal, but in most cases there is at least a nugget of legitimacy in their comments.  It is always best to drop the emotion and consider what they are saying, or why they would perceive it that way.  In some cases maybe they just didnt read it, in others, maybe you thought you communicated the information better than you did, and in some cases, they might be right. 

If they are recommending other journals with lower acceptance, it seems likely that they just dont think it is a good fir for their journal.  This is pretty common, and not really a big deal.  Nothing to take personally, its not like they said this is garbage and should never be published anywhere.

[jerseyjay]

Very few critical reports are completely useless to me. Some are mean, which is annoying.Some have been pedantic, which is also annoying. Several have been ignorant about what I am trying to do, have misread my argument, or otherwise don't "get" my piece. I actually find these useful if annoying: useful because if somebody with a PhD in history (my field) who is presumably reading more or less carefully can misconstrue my point, it is usually a sign that my writing, argument, etc., could be clarified.

The reports that are useless are those that want me to do something completely different (although that might indicate I need to be clearer about why I am doing what I am doing) or reject an article with no engagement (often after taking a long time). Reviews that demand engagement with scholarship outside the scope of my article are also not that useful.

Of course, a report's usefulness to me as a researcher is not the same as civil, polite, decent, or anything else.

As an aside, very infrequently does an editor send back my manuscript. Usually I submit a manuscript via some webpage and I can log on and download the submission if I don't have it. Less frequently I have emailed an article, but then I can usually just get it from my sent file. I cannot remember the last time I actually sent a snail mail copy of the article (and my recollection is that they usually said that you had to include a SASE if you wanted it back).

[Sun_Worshiper]

Rejections are part of academic life. Read the reports, make some changes to the manuscript if you think the reviewers are right, and send it off to the next journal. Then get to work on your next paper.

[Myword]

I am not questioning the reports, but the LACK of them. No comments or a glib one sentence. In recent years, I get desk rejections for 3 of my articles. I don't feel I'm above critique, far from it. I am very self-critical.   But I don't think that my particular style or perspective is what they want.

It is clear the editors are not reading it, or they don't care to give reasons. I know now that
the abstract and first page are crucial to make a good impression. I rewrite the first page over and over
now. Abstracts vary by the word count. I know what editors are looking for in philosophy but sometimes it does not fit my interest or approach. I even wrote a satirical guideline.
  Well, I got an important article and Reply Discussion published this year, anyway.

     A journal published an important article and Reply to an article  with no rewrites this year.

[secundem_artem]

It is clear the editors are not reading it, or they don't care to give reasons.

I once hit the "submit" button at 10am.  At 10:01 I received the email that the paper had been received.  And at 10:04 I got a desk rejection.  Clearly the wrong journal.  Sometimes, all an editor needs to see is a title before they spike the paper.  Merde happens. 

[Myword]

The thing is that I run out of appropriate journals to send articles to

I know that when I think I am finished writing. I am not done yet!