Reject and Resubmit Decision?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Hi everyone,

A manuscript on which I'm an author has been listed with a status of "Reject and resubmit." I've been googling that term and what it means seems to vary from field to field. Has anyone else encountered this in psych? It's a British journal so I'm wondering if it's a different way of saying "revise and resubmit" or more rejection-y than that. FWIW, the decision status has a deadline for resubmission and the first author told me that the suggested revisions are pretty minimal. It sounded like a "revise and resubmit" to me, but the "rejection" part is throwing me off.

Also, would it go back to the reviewers then or would the editor just decide after it's resubmitted? Or does it vary from situation to situation?

Thanks!

Given the context, I imagine it just means revise and resubmit. Technically, a request for revisions is a rejection. Whether or not something gets sent out to reviewers again usually depends on the nature of the revisions, the journal, who the editor is, what the mood of the editor is on that day, etc.

Originally Posted by Ollie123

Given the context, I imagine it just means revise and resubmit. Technically, a request for revisions is a rejection. Whether or not something gets sent out to reviewers again usually depends on the nature of the revisions, the journal, who the editor is, what the mood of the editor is on that day, etc.

+1

I have never heard that combination of terms, but it sure sounds like a revise/resubmit to me.

Regarding the editors/reviewers, that varies by journal. I've had editors just approve revisions, but I have also had them send it back out to reviewers for another round of comments (or even add another reviewer in one case).

Some journals say rejection and resubmit instead of revise and resubmit to avoid conveying definite acceptance. And because confusing people is fun.

Thanks, everyone! I will view it as a revise and resubmit. Here's hoping it doesn't go back to peer review--this process has taken so long, no wonder everyone says it can take years to publish!

Originally Posted by cara susanna

Thanks, everyone! I will view it as a revise and resubmit. Here's hoping it doesn't go back to peer review--this process has taken so long, no wonder everyone says it can take years to publish!

(I know an R & R isn't a sure thing, but) Congrats, cara! Way to go! Keep us posted and let us know how it turns out.

I've been in a similar situation with the whole reject and resubmit. It ended up going back to the reviewers for a second round of critiques.

Thanks, wigflip! I'll keep you all updated. I have a few others submitted too so hopefully one of them will turn out

Originally Posted by cara susanna

Thanks, wigflip! I'll keep you all updated. I have a few others submitted too so hopefully one of them will turn out

i have my fingers crossed (even as i'm typing this). for you, as well as for me. working on a beast right now. if we eventually get an R & R i will do the dance of joy.

Can I join in the commiseration?

Thanks to a request from reviewers, I am now reading journals in everything from physics to something known as "food engineering" in an attempt to learn how to quantify visual properties of image color, luminance/brightness and clarity using a combination of photoshop, Matlab, and some advanced mathematical techniques I'm just starting to wrap my brain around.

Never mind that the standard for research in this area is "The PI downloaded some pictures from google images and said 'these look close enough!'. Maybe if we were feeling particularly rigorous, we asked our friend to take a look", whereas I already did 4 months of pilot testing. My thesis is apparently where they have decided to dramatically increase the standards over the hundreds of previous articles in this area.

I swear the more research I do, the more convinced I become its FAR easier to publish crappy work. Doing a thorough job tends to complicate things, just raising questions and doubts.

Was this for an R&R? You could say "screw it" and hope for different reviewers, haha.

Yup, its an R&R. I'm expecting it will be sent to the same folks (and I'm fairly certain I know who at least one of them is). We are considering the possibility of giving them a polite "screw it" though. One reviewer did want us to shorten it, so I may use that to justify not doing this since to do so would obviously require several pages of additional analyses, not to mention having to explain what on earth half these properties even mean.

Originally Posted by wigflip

i have my fingers crossed (even as i'm typing this). for you, as well as for me. working on a beast right now. if we eventually get an R & R i will do the dance of joy.

Can I join in the finger crossing, please? I'm also working on a bear of an MS at the moment, and I'm spending the whole summer writing in hopes of getting several MS's before I leave. Hope we all get good news!

Good luck, everyone, on your R&R's!

I recall one of those evil things some years back taking two years because they kept sending the cursed revisions back to the committee again... and again... and again. And they kept nitpicking on crap again... and again... and again. *sigh*

Here's hoping for speedy turnaround times!

Originally Posted by paramour

Good luck, everyone, on your R&R's!

I recall one of those evil things some years back taking two years because they kept sending the cursed revisions back to the committee again... and again... and again. And they kept nitpicking on crap again... and again... and again. *sigh*

Here's hoping for speedy turnaround times!

Well I've only had one peer-reviewed paper published without revisions requested. If you can at least address most of their issues and then give a tacful reply to the ones youo don't want to address, you might be in good shape.

It puts them in a precarious position if you do major revisions - chances are you'll get it accepted!

Good luck to everyone navigating the jungle known as academic publishing!

I swear the more research I do, the more convinced I become its FAR easier to publish crappy work. Doing a thorough job tends to complicate things, just raising questions and doubts.

This seems true. It is particularly galling when you read a journal to which you've recently received the most nit-picky reviews ever and you wonder ". . . but they published this?" The review process is completely unpredictable and ideosyncratic. I think sub-areas matter a lot. It is much easier, for example, to publish something in sleep medicine on the impact of cognition in Sleep Medicine than it is to publish a psychophysiology paper in say. . . Psychophysiology

Funny you should bring up Psychophysiology...the lab (not me personally) had a paper rejected from there a few years ago due to some relatively nuanced issues RE: obscure methodological issues, then went on to publish a very similar paper that lacked any kind of control group. Sort of a forest for the trees kind of thing....

Once I'm on my own, I'm planning to do some meta-science research looking at things like IRBs, peer-review, data management issues (per my other thread), etc. the scientific method is a far bit better than alternatives, but there is much room for improvement!

I think the issue is mostly about who the researchers are that are consulted for review. I tend to be an easy reviewer in some ways and hard in others. I don't care if you cite every relevant reference, I only care that the argument for the study is coherent. My biggest sticking point on articles I've reviewed recently is stats. I don't give a crap about multiple comparisons corrections (I think this is mostly nonsense, especially in smaller n studies) and, in fact, usually results in a bit of back and forth when I'm the author, but I do care about apriori hypotheses and if your results make sense. I figure a lot of wrong can be righted with replication and if the result is interesting from a theoretical level I'd rather publish it than not. But, I do find it odd that I see some many articles for review where the selected statistics do not even test what the author's argue. This happens mostly when I'm asked to review papers for medical journals. In general, I think the process will always be idiosyncratic because reviewers have different personalities and thresholds for what they think important and not important.

I've reviewed several manuscripts for journals, and it's always interesting when you get to see the other reviewers' and editor's comments. There's always quite a range, and sometimes really don't care about things you or the other reviewers thought were important. Also, British medical journals tend to seem more brusque and to the point than American psychology journals, ancedotally.

I think an issue with peer review is that everyone feels that they need to be harsh and point out every little thing. Especially students--some of the harshest feedback I've gotten has been from students. No one feels comfortable saying "This paper is great! No further work is needed." Well, not at my level anyway.

Originally Posted by cara susanna

I think an issue with peer review is that everyone feels that they need to be harsh and point out every little thing. Especially students--some of the harshest feedback I've gotten has been from students. No one feels comfortable saying "This paper is great! No further work is needed." Well, not at my level anyway.

I have seen one review that was pretty much "This study was useless" in only slightly more words. The MS was accepted, btw.

Originally Posted by futureapppsy2

I have seen one review that was pretty much "This study was useless" in only slightly more words. The MS was accepted, btw.

I've seen a few of those this year.

Since you all are on the topic of submitting MS's and such, I have a few questions if you wouldn't mind answering.

I'm an undergrad and my professor and I are writing a manuscript and plan to send it to the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology (I believe that's what she said it was called) in November. She said this way I can put it on my CV when I apply this fall. I've been told you can put MS's that are in review on your CV, but do you have to wait until you get a R&R before you can put that? And if you do wouldn't it be waaay after the December deadlines for applications when I would hear about it since we are sending in November? Sorry, this process just seems confusing and daunting to me as I've never submitted to a journal before. Thanks in advance for any responses. :]

Nope, right after they are submitted you can list them as submitted. I wouldn't put under review until you actually know that they are (sometimes the editor emails you, sometimes you just assume after a month has passed and you haven't heard anything).

Originally Posted by cara susanna

Nope, right after they are submitted you can list them as submitted. I wouldn't put under review until you actually know that they are (sometimes the editor emails you, sometimes you just assume after a month has passed and you haven't heard anything).

Thanks for the clarification. By the way, I love your icon. Roger is one of the best characters ever.

No problem. And I think that Dr. Penguin should be a role model for all of us as clinicians

Originally Posted by cara susanna

No problem. And I think that Dr. Penguin should be a role model for all of us as clinicians

IDK. I love Roger's clip-clop couple's therapy orientation. If ravens don't pan out, that's diss topic number 2!

I've always listed things as under review after I submit them--I figure if the editor's reviewing it, it's still under professional review, YMMV, of course...

Originally Posted by futureapppsy2

IDK. I love Roger's clip-clop couple's therapy orientation. If ravens don't pan out, that's diss topic number 2!

I've always listed things as under review after I submit them--I figure if the editor's reviewing it, it's still under professional review, YMMV, of course...

I've generally approached it the same way as cara, and have held off on "under review" status until I hear back from the journal in some capacity. That being said, I can also see the argument for just listing it as "under review" right away, and wouldn't see anything at all wrong with doing that. I just tend to be hyper-conservative (to a fault at times) when it comes to touting my own accomplishments via CV.

Originally Posted by futureapppsy2

IDK. I love Roger's clip-clop couple's therapy orientation. If ravens don't pan out, that's diss topic number 2!

I've always listed things as under review after I submit them--I figure if the editor's reviewing it, it's still under professional review, YMMV, of course...

Clip-clop couples' therapy may be the sole savior of couples' therapy efficacy! I would fully support an RCT to test it.

As for listing "submitted" instead of "under review," I've just had waaaay too many desk rejections to feel comfortable about putting "under review" on my CV until I know it is. Haha.

I've only once had an R&R that turned into a rejection the second time. If they invite for a resubmit, chances are they will take it if you address their comments thoughtfully. Good luck!

In my personal experience, I've never actually have a journal send me anything saying that my MS was under review/sent to reviewers, so I guess that's my reason for just going with "under review" after submission. That being said, I tend to be conservative when it comes to my CV as well (e.g., I generally don't list post/conference presentations until after I've given them), so I can't fault you guys in the least.

Speaking of which, I know people who list MS's that they are revising for submission to *another journal* after a rejection/R&R invite they turned down as "in revision." This always seemed odd to me--thoughts?

One manuscript on which I am an author was pretty harshly rejected after a positive R&R invite that included the words "I would like to publish this." It was truly bizarre. In general, though, I think an R&R, especially a positive and reasonable one, is a great sign, so congrats to everyone getting R&R invites--and even better, acceptances!

And yes, cara, we *so* need an RCT on clip-clop!

Hey, just wanted to update that the revised manuscript has been accepted for publication and is now in press!

Originally Posted by cara susanna

Hey, just wanted to update that the revised manuscript has been accepted for publication and is now in-press!

Congrats - that's a pretty fast turnaround on their part!

Originally Posted by cara susanna

Hey, just wanted to update that the revised manuscript has been accepted for publication and is now in press!

Congrats! First of many, I hope!