Rejection

Not too long ago I wrote about resubmitting a manuscript. That was the second submission of that document, after a different journal had rejected it.

It took the initial journal 8 weeks to find two reviewers and get back to me with the letter above. Problem is, none of the reviewer comments are the type that scream out "poor science" or not-worthy-of-publication. It was fairly clear, though, that the clinician reviewers didn't have a full understanding of the material. So, apparently, the manuscript was rejected due to lack of fit and/or space, as the specifics aren't spelled out. Similar material has appeared in this clinical-focused journal - they must have been unable to use our recommended reviewers who would have understood the relevance. For my first publication, I received plenty of reviewer comments that were far more critical than what this journal gave me...and there was no doubt they were going to use my paper.

That's life. I don't regret submitting to this journal - it has the best citation record in the field. It just sucks that 8 weeks of the paper's life were wasted. I've no doubt that the second choice journal will publish the paper - as it is a regular for similar material from our lab and our peers. Well, at least I've been able to give talks at two conferences on this material.

Guess I've been inducted into the world of academic rejection.