Editorial pubs.acs.org/cm
Should I Reveal the History of My Manuscript? From Rejection to Acceptance
C
matter of journal policy, we may not be able to rely on the reviews provided with your submission. As authors and editors, we truly understand your position. We all have experienced rejection, and we will evaluate your manuscript and associated correspondence objectively, without prejudgement, whether or not it is a first time submission or has been declined elsewhere. Peer review is the backbone of the scientific establishment, designed to maintain standards and continually improve the quality of published science. Inclusion of thoughtful responses to reviewer comments with your submission to Chemistry of Materials is a productive approach to a rejection, which improves the quality of your manuscript, and could result in speedier publication. Ultimately, we believe that this is how science and peer review should work. As always, we are open to your comments.
hoosing the right journal for your paper is important, and ideally, this choice is made before the manuscript is written or finalized. Writing a paper with a specific journal in mind helps authors achieve the right flavor for the manuscript with respect to the focus of the paper, the data presentation, and whether the topic seems to be “at home” in this publication. Your choice of journal is based upon a number of factors, which may include aiming for a high impact interdisciplinary journal that is characterized by a high risk of rejection. Should you pursue that route and learn that your manuscript is declined, there is a bright side: A 2012 paper in Science concluded that rejected manuscripts published elsewhere accrue more citations, on average, than papers published in the same journal as first submissions.1,2 This surprising result may be attributable to the multiple rounds of peer-review. Reviewer comments can provoke sober second thoughts, highlight weaknesses of the manuscript, recommend important points that need to be emphasized, and contribute new insights and ideas, thus enabling substantial improvements in the revised manuscript. Oftentimes, a reviewer who “does not get it” may have had difficulties understanding your paper due to unclear writing or poor structure. Instead of blaming the reviewer, the comments should be viewed as a helpful guide. While it is always difficult to hear bad news, there is indeed a positive aspect to rejection, as long as you use the input to produce a better piece of work. Once the initial shock of rejection wears off, the question arises as to where to submit your revised manuscript. At Chemistry of Materials, we want to provide some guidance, should your “sober second thoughts” lead you to us with your newest version of your manuscript. We welcome submissions of manuscripts that have been rejected by other journals, and the editors strive to review every manuscript objectively, regardless of its history. If your manuscript has been peer reviewed by another journal, we encourage you to disclose the reviewer comments in their entirety (no selective editing!), provide a letter with point-by-point responses to these comments, as you would in response to referees at the revision stage of peer review, and describe any changes in your manuscript. Manuscripts may be rejected by interdisciplinary journals due to lack of broad appeal or potential for widespread media coverage rather than for profound scientific achievements. Full disclosure under these circumstances can allow us to arrive at a decision more quickly. Though rare, in some cases we can proceed without additional peer review if you make a compelling case, if you provide a thoughtful and detailed response to the reviewer comments, and if our own editorial analysis supports such a decision. We also ask that you give us permission to contact the editor of the prior journal so that we may request the actual reviews and decision letter. Note, however, that journals outside the ACS systems are not obliged to share this information. As a © 2014 American Chemical Society
■
Jillian M. Buriak, Editor-in-Chief AUTHOR INFORMATION
Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Calcagno, V.; Demoinet, E.; Gollner, K.; Guidi, L.; Ruths, D.; de Mazancourt, C. Science 2012, 338, 1065−1069. (2) Ball, P. Nature News; DOI: 10.1038/nature.2012.11583.
Published: April 22, 2014 2487
dx.doi.org/10.1021/cm501152b | Chem. Mater. 2014, 26, 2487−2487
