Maximising your chances of getting published
Resubmissions and revisions
#EditorObservations 08 Resubmissions and revisions (YouTube, 2m 3s)
Rejections are inevitable in academia. In fact, I would argue that rejections are the norm and acceptances are the exception. The mindset with which you approach a rejection, therefore, is critical. As a journal editor, I have observed quite a dramatic mindset change among authors over the past eight years. In the past, authors processed a rejection by considering which of the reviewer and editor comments were valid, reworking the manuscript, possibly even the study, and then submitting it to a different suitable journal. Today it feels like authors may have gotten too used to rejections. They no longer reflect on the feedback provided. Rather they just ricochet it of to another journal. It shows. When I received “ricochet submissions” it was quite obvious. Sometimes it felt like the authors had never even read a single paper published in Annals of Tourism Research; they certainly could not be bothered reformatting the manuscript to align with our submission guidelines. Careless. Loveless. Not surprisingly, such papers rarely make it past the editor’s desk.
The #editorobservations in this section illustrate some of those cases.
#editorobservation
It may seem obvious, but if a manuscript is desk rejected, it means “Your paper will not be published by this journal”.
It doesn’t mean – “This version of your paper will not be published but why don’t you try your luck and keep sending slightly modified versions”.
#editorobservation
It was hard enough for Scott McCabe to work through the submission backlog after his well-deserved break.
He shouldn’t be processing papers that we have already processed at Annals of Tourism Research.
There’s plenty of useful material online to learn about research integrity.
#editorobservation
The letter from the Editor-in-Chief you never want to receive:
#editorobservation
Did someone say I was so very patient? Not feeling so patient today.
8 manuscripts to assess.
And there is this one again!
The one manuscript that just keeps coming back like a boomerang. Literally like boomerang.
Never changes.
Just comes back.
#editorobservation
Editors are humans.
Editors read submitted articles.
No point re-submitting a previously rejected paper.
We remember.
Then we check our records.
Publishing is not a lottery – chances of winning do not increase with the number of tickets bought.
#editorobservation
Remarkable.
4th paper from same author in 2 months.
Same problem. Same outcome (desk rejection).
Publishing is not a lottery – more submissions do not increase publication chances.
Editors are not random algorithms – we have reasons for our decisions.
Author name burnt into my brain.
#editorobservation
Yes, Scott McCabe and I do read every single paper submitted to Annals of Tourism Research.
For each desk rejection, we take the time to explain the key reasons to authors.
Please read our comments to avoid future rejections. This is a note I had to write today:
#editorobservation
As editor-in-chief, my role is to assess the scholarly merit of manuscripts. I don’t mind dedicating time to this task. This is what I signed up for when I agreed to taking on this role for Annals of Tourism Research.
But increasingly, I find myself forced into the role of some kind of research ethics detective. I dislike this role. I have not signed up for it.
I really do wish authors wouldn’t force me into this role again and again, and more and more frequently. It is very unpleasant for all involved, always.
#editorobservation
I am observing a new phenomenon: authors resubmit their manuscripts to Annals of Tourism Research after they have already been rejected from Annals of Tourism Research.
Scott McCabe, our Associate Editors and I work hard to provide authors with meaningful feedback, even if it is just short feedback with desk rejections to help authors improve in future.
But we can’t keep reassessing the same manuscript again and again.
A rejection is a rejection and any learnings from a rejection need to be carried over to a different study to be submitted in future or for a resubmission of the manuscript at hand to another journal.
Best to workshop the manuscript among colleagues and get it in tip top shape before submitting.
#editorobservation
Not upset.
Just amused.
[Four years ago I would have allowed authors to fix papers and resubmit them. But we now process >1400 submissions a year, so Scott McCabe and I simply no longer have the capacity to coach authors through the Annals of Tourism Research submission process individually, as much as we would like to because we acknowledge that many authors lack mentoring at their own universities.]
#editorobservation
Music to my ears!
Today a truly heartwarming #editorobservation for a nerd like me: instead of picking a fight over methods that are wrong, but commonly used, these authors actually read up on the issues I raised, and submitted an improved paper to Annals of Tourism Research.
#editorobservation
What a nice way to end the week!
I hope they mean it.
Actually…
…even if they don’t mean it and I am just fooling myself thinking I may have made a tiny little difference to someone’s research…
…what a nice way to end the week!
#editorobservation
First submission: Desk rejection. Reason: purely applied research.
Second submission. Different paper. Desk rejection applied.
Why submit a 3rd purely applied paper?
Publishing is not a lottery: chances do not increase if you buy more tickets.
