Is it appropriate to resubmit a revised paper to the journal that rejected it?

[rota1234]

Are there unspoken or spoken rules around resubmitting a humanities paper to a journal that previously rejected it? A friend prematurely submitted a paper to journal x (which is prestigious but not impenetrable) two years ago and received a desk rejection. My friend dramatically restructured and rewrote the paper, and the paper has now received strong positive feedback from colleagues. Since journal x is a strong fit for this unusual paper, is it appropriate to resubmit?

[pigou]

I can't speak for the humanities, but in my field it's generally against journal policies. That said, if the paper is substantially rewritten, why not give it a shot? Just be upfront about it in the cover letter for the submission so it's not deceptive -- and you can be explicit about all the things that have changed. If the paper would be a good fit for the journal and it's now competitive, I have a hard time believing the editor wouldn't give it a second look.

[adel9216]

I asked that question to a professor in our departement (we are co-authors on a paper that got rejected) and she said that if the paper is substantially different, it's worth trying again.

[polly_mer]

Why was the paper rejected the first time?  Have the revisions addressed those concerns?

I've certainly seen wasted effort all around by resubmitting repeatedly to a journal that rejected the first time for being a poor fit based on editorial judgement, even though the authors kept claiming that some revisions now made the article a good fit.

In my non-humanities fields, it's entirely possible to have a great paper that doesn't belong in a specific journal at this time.  I can think of several journals that explicitly state something like "please consult the current list of areas; we will reject papers outside those areas, even if we historically published in those areas".

[youllneverwalkalone]

My friend dramatically restructured and rewrote the paper

Assuming this means that 1) the paper is now substantially different from the one that got desk-rejected and 2) that the rewriting has especially focused on addressing the issues that caused the rejection. If that's the case, I think resubmitting the paper to the same journal should be reasonable.

It is a bit hard to assess that without knowing the specific and what the rejection letter said. Your friend could also send an e-mail to the journal editor to explain the situation and ask whether they'd welcome a resubmission.

[dr_codex]

Why was the paper rejected the first time?  Have the revisions addressed those concerns?

I've certainly seen wasted effort all around by resubmitting repeatedly to a journal that rejected the first time for being a poor fit based on editorial judgement, even though the authors kept claiming that some revisions now made the article a good fit.

In my non-humanities fields, it's entirely possible to have a great paper that doesn't belong in a specific journal at this time. I can think of several journals that explicitly state something like "please consult the current list of areas; we will reject papers outside those areas, even if we historically published in those areas".

Yes, and sometimes there's an "at this time" issue. In my humanities field, there's sometimes an unspoken policy that they will only publish one article on X every few years. Not a lot that you can do about it, revise as you will.

[Kron3007]

Just to add to what seems to be the majority, I think it is fine as long as it is substantially different.  The worst that will happen is another rejection, so why not try?

[Parasaurolophus]

Many journals have a reject-with-possibility-of-resubmission option for referees. In those cases, obviously, you can resubmit.

Otherwise, I'd be wary of doing it. I think the correct answer is 'very rarely'. But, given that it's substantially different, I think it's permissible. I think it's even more permissible given that the first draft never went to referees. But your friend should include a cover letter explaining why they're resubmitting it.

[Ruralguy]

Agreed...just submit, but explain, and you're covered. Of course that may not mean you'll be accepted!

[Myword]

I did something like this last week in humanities. The first time it was rejected, and I regretted sending it. I don't blame them for a big No answer. I rewrote it entirely and cut pages and am trying again. Journal has the old manuscript and letters in their system if they want to see it. Does your journal possess this memory file?

If you are unsure and not want to waste time, you could email them to see if it is acceptable now. But I would just send it in, especially if you really think the journal is a good one for this paper and respect it.
  perhaps one reason why some articles are criticized by reviewers and rejected is because they themselves either strongly disagree with it (if based on opinion not facts) or wrote articles or books that rejected the main ideas of the article. If you argue
that Author Jones is overrated and criticize her work and the reviewer has published defense of her work,why would the reviewer want to see your work published?

[professing]

I agree with the majority for the most part that it doesn't hurt to try. However, I would email the editor first so as not to waste time in the process. I say this because an inquiry email is usually quickly responded to... The review process - even the editor review process - can be longer, depending on the journal.

I have to say in my experience, I would not submit a manuscript that was previously rejected to the same journal. I've actually done this a couple of times early in my career  - after substantial revisions - and been rejected. Each time I was shocked and sent it to colleagues for their opinion. Each time, they were surprised, but revealed some of the subtle reasons why the manuscript may have been rejected. In each case, I came to learn that it may have less to do with the quality of the contribution and more to do with the written/unwritten aims, scope and audience of the journal.

Since I don't know the original reason for rejection, I can only assume it may have to do with the aims/scope. If it had to do with writing quality, this would be different. Either way, best of luck!

[youllneverwalkalone]

I agree with the majority for the most part that it doesn't hurt to try. However, I would email the editor first so as not to waste time in the process. I say this because an inquiry email is usually quickly responded to... The review process - even the editor review process - can be longer, depending on the journal.

I have to say in my experience, I would not submit a manuscript that was previously rejected to the same journal. I've actually done this a couple of times early in my career  - after substantial revisions - and been rejected. Each time I was shocked and sent it to colleagues for their opinion. Each time, they were surprised, but revealed some of the subtle reasons why the manuscript may have been rejected. In each case, I came to learn that it may have less to do with the quality of the contribution and more to do with the written/unwritten aims, scope and audience of the journal.

Since I don't know the original reason for rejection, I can only assume it may have to do with the aims/scope. If it had to do with writing quality, this would be different. Either way, best of luck!

I agree and that is why I wrote that it is a bit hard to assess the situations without knowing the specifics. Sometimes a desk-rejection letter can point out at certain factual problems, but may also hint at the fact that the editor does not really like that area of research or did not think that the paper had potential.

I second the idea of sending an inquiry before submitting. 

[professing]

I agree with the majority for the most part that it doesn't hurt to try. However, I would email the editor first so as not to waste time in the process. I say this because an inquiry email is usually quickly responded to... The review process - even the editor review process - can be longer, depending on the journal.

I have to say in my experience, I would not submit a manuscript that was previously rejected to the same journal. I've actually done this a couple of times early in my career  - after substantial revisions - and been rejected. Each time I was shocked and sent it to colleagues for their opinion. Each time, they were surprised, but revealed some of the subtle reasons why the manuscript may have been rejected. In each case, I came to learn that it may have less to do with the quality of the contribution and more to do with the written/unwritten aims, scope and audience of the journal.

Since I don't know the original reason for rejection, I can only assume it may have to do with the aims/scope. If it had to do with writing quality, this would be different. Either way, best of luck!

I agree and that is why I wrote that it is a bit hard to assess the situations without knowing the specifics. Sometimes a desk-rejection letter can point out at certain factual problems, but may also hint at the fact that the editor does not really like that area of research or did not think that the paper had potential.

I second the idea of sending an inquiry before submitting.

Agreed completely!

[Kron3007]

Personally I would just submit it in rather than inquiring with the editor, but to each their own.  I just think it would be much easier for the editor to give you appropriate feedback when they can see the manuscript in question.  They are highly unlikely to remember the specifics, so a copy seems appropriate to me. 

[professing]

Personally I would just submit it in rather than inquiring with the editor, but to each their own.  I just think it would be much easier for the editor to give you appropriate feedback when they can see the manuscript in question.  They are highly unlikely to remember the specifics, so a copy seems appropriate to me.

I guess it depends on the field and/or the journals. I'm in a pretty interdisciplinary field and I submit to journals in several intersecting fields. I've pretty much discovered that resubmissions don't work for me (unless there is a dramatic change in editorship and aims/scope) but perhaps in other fields it is less cut and dry.