Posted by Julie Claycomb | Published September 03, 2021, 08:00
Rejection hurts. Especially when it comes to manuscripts that embody years of work.
When facing rejection, many of us don’t even know that there is a formal process of appealing the decision. For those who have contemplated pleading for that precious second chance, we simply don’t know where to start. Deciding when or whether you should write a rebuttal, determining what steps you should take next if you choose the rebuttal path, and writing an effective, convincing rebuttal are just some of the hurdles you’ll need to tackle. Here, we consult with Cell Press editors to learn some tips and tricks and unpack some strategies for best navigating the rebuttal process.
Manuscript rejections fall into two main categories: desk rejections and rejections after review. A desk rejection is a decision made at the editorial level, and it means that your submitted manuscript is not sent out for review. There are an array of reasons for desk rejections, including:
With these underlying reasons contributing to desk rejections, it’s easy to see why rebutting a desk rejection rarely leads to a successful review and acceptance of a manuscript. However, on the flip side, desk rejections can be a blessing in disguise. When the message is received quickly, it enables you to pivot and focus your efforts on a more suitable journal.
Rejections after peer review can come from a variety of reasons. Among those that may warrant a rebuttal are: an outlier review, reviewer assumptions and perspectives that lead to an inaccurate or unfair review, reviewers and editors misunderstanding the data and conclusions, and a perceived lack of conceptual advance.
Ultimately, you need to decide what is best for your lab and team based on your evaluation of available resources, timelines, and the goals of the authors. In general, the chances of a paper being accepted after rebuttal are significantly lower than upon initial submission and review, so it’s important to approach the process with that expectation in mind. It also helps to recognize that rejections and their reasons are journal-specific and not a generic judgement on the impact or scientific merit of the work.
After you receive the decision letter from the editor, take a day or two to consider the decision carefully. Let it sit for a few days. This will help you respond with logic—instead of emotion—to the feedback. The decision letter usually contains detailed guidance on why the paper has been rejected or what would need to be done to improve the manuscript to a sufficient level for reconsideration. Reflect on the reasons for the manuscript’s rejection: Are there technical concerns? Are these many or few? And can they be addressed by existing methods in a reasonable timeframe? Was there a misunderstanding of the data or conclusions? Is the paper technically sound, but perceived to be lacking in its conceptual advance or novelty? In the former situations, a rebuttal may be worthwhile to attempt; however, in the last situation—the lack of a conceptual advance—a rebuttal is generally less likely to be successful. It’s worth reiterating that each situation is a bit different, and ultimately, you’ll need to decide what is best for your team.
If you decide that a rebuttal is warranted, the next step is to initiate a discussion with the editor. The editor is a valuable resource in a number of facets. They can help to place the decision letter in context, and assist you in prioritizing experiments and thinking about facets of the paper that could be strengthened for resubmission. They can also help you to consider and prioritize other journals that may be an appropriate home for your manuscript. So, if you’re thinking about a rebuttal, don’t go it alone! Holding a conversation with the editor is a crucial step in the process.
Start the rebuttal process by emailing the editor and setting up a time to talk, providing a brief explanation—what is the crux of the matter, and why do you think the rejection is unjustified? In parallel, create a point-by-point response and action plan to address the editor’s and reviewers’ feedback, as you normally would during a paper revision. Share this point-by-point response with the editor in your initial email inquiry, or at least a few days prior to your scheduled conversation, so that they can consider your points and be well prepared for a productive discussion.
In your point-by-point response, be specific and back up your claims with your own data or examples from the literature. Related to this, highlight any new data or insights your team has made in the intervening time frame that could strengthen the paper or address the major concerns. Suggest a plan for experiments you are able to achieve in a reasonable time frame to strengthen the conclusions of the paper and address any concerns about the extent of conceptual advance. Be honest and realistic about what is or is not feasible. In this capacity, the point-by-point plan is critical for framing a revision path and timeline, but it also helps determine whether the manuscript is best served by a transfer to another journal.
The tone of your rebuttal and the conversation with the editor is incredibly important. Above all else, be rational, not emotional. Be professional, express gratitude for the feedback, and focus on positive language. Simply trying to persuade the editor without new data or an experimental plan is rarely successful. Instead, work together to develop a logical and, importantly, feasible plan for which experiments can and will be undertaken, what perceived shortcomings they may address, and how you will strengthen the manuscript overall. After the discussion, the editor may consult with editorial colleagues, or with reviewers in cases where specific feedback on experiments is required, before formally inviting a revision. In some instances, it may be difficult to predict whether specific experiments will address the reviewers’ concerns. If these concerns are central to the rejection, the editor may ask to see the results prior to inviting a revision. A frank and respectful dialogue with the editor will enable you to make the best decision about whether to return your paper to the same journal (if this option is offered to you by the editor) or to try your hand elsewhere.
After hashing out the details of your revision and resubmission plan and timeline with the editor, it’s time to execute. We all know that science doesn’t always cooperate exactly as we would like, so what happens if there are delays or changes in the conclusions? First, if you have concerns about feasibility or how experiments may pan out, it’s perfectly acceptable to work through contingencies in your initial conversation with the editor, asking: What if this experiment doesn't end up being decisive? What if I can't set up this system? What would you require as a minimum for continued consideration? Be realistic and transparent about your concerns and build contingencies into your action plan. Maintaining communication with the editor throughout the process can be extremely useful for both authors and editors. For instance, the revision plan takes more time than expected, letting the editor know helps them to manage expectations for timelines and keeps your paper on their radar.
While every situation is unique, there are several outcomes you might encounter from a rebuttal.
For a desk rejection, if you are able to convince the editor of the conceptual advance or add data to extend the scope of the manuscript, the editor would most likely send it out for review. For post-review rejections, there are several possible outcomes, depending on the reason for the rejection. Best case scenario, the editor, in consultation with colleagues and/or reviewers and based on the point-by-point response, agrees to reconsider and invites a revision. Otherwise, the editor may be open to reconsidering the decision upon seeing new data that address reviewers’ concerns before inviting a formal revision. In one final scenario, the editor would provide their rationale for not reconsidering the decision and help to select a suitable transfer journal. In this situation, the editor may also consult with other editors to gauge their interest in considering the manuscript at their journal to facilitate a smooth transfer, though you reserve the right to reject the offer and try re-submitting elsewhere.
Really, the outcome depends on the work you’ve done and how well you present your case. If you follow this practical roadmap for navigating the rebuttal process. While we hope that your manuscript will be accepted upon review, may this article provide some guidance for those unfortunate situations when it is not.
Editor’s note: Cell Press editors Krista Bledsoe, Caeul Lim, and Kusumika Mukherjee and former editor Rashmi Sarnaik all contributed advice to this article.
