Document Detail


Manuscript rejection in ophthalmology and visual science journals: identifying and avoiding the common pitfalls.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  20092595     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
PURPOSE: The majority of ophthalmology and visual science journals reject more original manuscripts than they accept. Submissions to Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology were analysed over a 12-month period with the aim of identifying common reasons for editorial rejection of manuscripts. METHODS: A content analysis was carried out of reviewer and section editor comments of all rejected manuscripts (original papers) submitted to Clinical 0mp; Experimental Ophthalmology between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2008. Comments were categorized by reasons for rejection. RESULTS: A total of 662 manuscripts were submitted to Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology via ScholarOne Manuscripts from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008 with a final decision date of up to 1 April 2009. The overall rejection rate for these manuscripts was 73.6%. The most common reason for rejection of manuscripts was 'does not add to current literature', followed by 'poor methodology', 'problematic control groups', 'poor English and grammar/poorly organized', 'needs further work/clarification' and 'simultaneous submission to another journal/plagiarized'; the remainder had either no readily categorized reason stated or were grouped into an 'other' category. DISCUSSION: Understanding why original research work is rejected can be invaluable to an author's publishing career. The categories that emerged from this content analysis are reflected in other literature on the topic, therefore the flaws in manuscripts rejected by Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology appear to be both common and avoidable. Armed with this knowledge an author may strive towards a more 'rejection-proof' manuscript when submitting to ophthalmology and visual science journals.
Authors:
Tami Wyness; Charles Nj McGhee; Dipika V Patel
Related Documents :
10917835 - Scientific publishing. publish and perish in the internet world.
16522625 - Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the...
23791325 - Research utilization and evidence-based practice in occupational therapy: a scoping study.
3490145 - The scientific literature in diagnostic radiology for american readers: a survey and an...
20658955 - Prognostic biomarkers in malignant lymphomas.
7877775 - No place of their own: an exploratory study.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Clinical & experimental ophthalmology     Volume:  37     ISSN:  1442-9071     ISO Abbreviation:  Clin. Experiment. Ophthalmol.     Publication Date:  2009 Dec 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-01-22     Completed Date:  2010-03-30     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  100896531     Medline TA:  Clin Experiment Ophthalmol     Country:  Australia    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  864-7     Citation Subset:  IM    
Affiliation:
Editorial Office of Clinical 0mp; Experimental Ophthalmology, New Zealand National Eye Centre, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Journal Impact Factor
Manuscripts as Topic*
Ophthalmology*
Peer Review, Research*
Periodicals as Topic* / statistics & numerical data
Plagiarism
Quality Control
Research Design
Vision, Ocular

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Amniotic membrane extraction solution for ocular chemical burns.
Next Document:  Publication and citation analysis of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology and Cli...