what do you think of the ‘reject and resubmit’ category?
I’ve noted that many journals have added or continue to use (well, at least one has recently discontinued) the “reject & resubmit” category for manuscripts. I’ve heard strong “for” and “against” statements for including or doing away with the category.
Journals of course traditionally “accept” a manuscript, or offer it a “major” or “minor revision.” And most manuscripts submitted to top journals get the ol’ “reject.” My sense — though I haven’t seen any of this articulated in an editorial statement (some journal probably has explicitly said something about this) — is that the “reject and resubmit” option essentially is for manuscripts with some potential, but that really, really need a lot of work and they thus will essentially be treated as a completely new submission, perhaps getting a new set of reviewers, etc. The “reject and resubmit” category of course also gives the authors an opportunity to send the paper back to the journal (which, I guess, usually isn’t the case for rejected manuscripts, without a petition).
Anyways, what do you think of the “reject and resubmit” category?
Over a breakfast conversation with David Jacobs a while back, I learned that AJS has always been open to taking a second look at rejected papers. David noted that he has used this option successfully in the past. The main thing is to write a submission letter outlining how the current version of the paper addresses the criticism that sank the previous version, etc. Apparently a relatively well-kept secret.
Omar
January 2, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Right, I’m guessing that if the revised/new manuscript is substantially different, one could successfully petition.
Overall, I have to say that I dislike the reject and resubmit category. Somehow it just feels so non-committal, and where journals already (sometimes) have 3-4+ rounds of review, it just seems much easier to send a manuscript to another outlet (most fields have 2-3 top outlets). Over the past years I’ve gotten a few reject and resubmits, in each case I just sent the manuscript to another journal (in one case the piece immediately found a home, in another case it was published in the third outlet I sent it to). I’ve also been on the reviewer side of reject and resubmits — and, I guess there is one case (that I can remember) where the manuscript eventually was published in the outlet.
I guess the question one has to answer is whether the manuscript would get better if re-submitted to the same outlet, the outlets visibility probably is important as well, timing issues, etc.
So, what do the journals get out of the category? Reject and resubmit probably goes to papers that would normally just be rejected — so I suppose journals get an “option” to publish the paper later, in case it develops into something interesting and classic (journals, of course, don’t want to make the mistake of rejecting something that turns out to be a classic).
I don’t know what journals use ‘reject and resubmit’ these days (and whether other disciplines have that category — anyone know?). I know AMR used to have it (I believe they dropped it last year), AMJ perhaps, I think Org Sci uses it, as does ASQ I think — do the sociology journals?
teppo
January 2, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Well, I gotta like it since Jerry Jacobs gave me one that turned into something back in ’04.
Omar
January 3, 2011 at 1:50 am
I’m not a fan of ambiguity or complexity on professional issues. Reject and resubmit is lame. Authors should be able to tell from the reviews if they can answer objections. If they can and the paper is rewritten, then editors should simply agree to review it as a new paper. Having been on the AJS board and a managing editor for Soc Meth, and an author, it’s better to be honest and blunt. Accept, reject, or R&R with a *clear* explanation of what the issues are. Then it’s up to the authors to decide what to do.
fabiorojas
January 3, 2011 at 2:33 am
Soc Meth.
Best journal name ever.
Kieran
January 3, 2011 at 2:48 am
Is “Kieran” Irish for “Beavis?”
fabiorojas
January 3, 2011 at 3:12 am
Oh come on. You laughed.
Kieran
January 3, 2011 at 3:20 am
Yes I did, and the gaps in my teeth showed!
fabiorojas
January 3, 2011 at 3:53 am
I really really dislike reject and resubmits that pretend to be an R&R. (Ask me over beer about 3 rounds at one “A” journal).
There are cases when I think a reject & resubmit is very helpful: when the reviewers suggest what you should do, rather than merely tell you why they dislike your paper.
Joel West
January 4, 2011 at 3:58 am
This seems to be standard operating procedure for science and humanities journals, but as an applied mathematician I was (unpleasantly) surprised to encounter the reject and resubmit option for the first time from a prestigious science journal.
mathguy
May 9, 2011 at 6:51 pm
I should add that perseverance in the face of an R&R pays off. My paper was finally accepted, but it was a long grind to get there. Hope that cheers up the other lost souls searching the internet for solace after their first reject & resubmit :)
mathguy
September 9, 2011 at 4:05 am
mathguy: congrats!
teppo
September 9, 2011 at 4:10 am