Rejected for publication: What now?

So, your manuscript was rejected? Before you start firebombing the editor’s place of work and writing screeds on your blog, consider the following. Put yourself in the reviewer’s shoes. It may be hard to do so, but it is often the best way to understand what the reviewer is trying to communicate. If the reviewer … read more

For better outcomes in the review process, send your editor some food and drink

If the results from a recently published article on the factors affecting judges making parole decisions are analogous to that of a journal editor making accept/revise/reject decisions on manuscripts, then send your editor some food and encourage them to take a break. Danziger, S., J. Levav, and L. Avnaim-Pesso, 2011: Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. … read more

Guidelines for Authors, Editors, and Reviewers

This statement was adopted by the Council of the American Meteorological Society on 22 September 2010. It was largely derived from guidelines that were published by the American Chemical Society and were also adopted by the American Geophysical Union. Publications Commissioner David Jorgensen deserves a lot of credit for bringing these guidelines to the Council. … read more

The most prestigious journal in the world

Caleb Emmons, Professor of Mathematics at Pacific University, is the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Universal Rejection. The Web site of the journal promotes the advantages of the journal. You can send your manuscript here without suffering waves of anxiety regarding the eventual fate of your submission. You know with 100% certainty that … read more

Important advice from an editor for responding to reviewers

Occasionally as an editor I see an author respond to a reviewer, let’s say Reviewer 1, in the following manner. “Response to Reviewer 1′s comment that we should rerun the model: Reviewer 2 didn’t see a problem with our method, so we choose not to rerun the model.” It may well be that Reviewer 2 … read more