The process of submitting a paper to the high-quality scholarly journal is long and hard. Averagely above 30-50% of manuscripts (MS) are rejected at the first stage before it could be revised at the peer review process. If an author makes the paper according to the rules of a Journal, this situation may be different.
The common missteps and how to correct them?
Some tips are:
1. Technical oversight
- The MS contains some repeated parts.
This is one of the most common mistakes and as the result, the article fails Plagiarism check.
- The article is sent to several journals simultaneously.
It is another common pitfall. The MS should be under consideration only in one journal. It is an essential rule during the publishing process.
- Some parts of the manuscript are absent.
The text of an article should be divided into the commonly used sections (Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Results and Discussion, Conclusion).
- One more precondition concerns the level of English. If it is not suitable to the journal requirements, the article will be rejected. So, it is better to give a manuscript for revising to a native speaker or translator before sending it to a journal.
- Another misdoing – the quality of figures and tables are not accurate or some of their parts are out.
- An author does not keep the rules of the Authors Template. This mistake is one of the most valuable.
- The last frequently occurring miscarriage deals with references which can be very old or incorrect.
2. A range of a journal’s scope
For example, a paper entered the Journal of Horticulture and Plant Research deals with a plant but does not consider this object in the field of agriculture.
3. The article contains only the part of an investigation
The study performs not a complete research and contains a cursory examination. Another mistake here – the literature observe is not sufficient and lacks sources of great value for an investigation. Hence, the wide-ranging study includes no background on the issue.
4. The deviations in the data collection and further analysis
The data are not sufficient or methods of data gathering are not appropriate to a certain field of investigation. In some cases, the analysis is not available.
5. Problem with the conclusions
The conclusions do not logically come out of the goals and main text of a paper. It is one of the commonly spread miscarriages among authors. The summary should be short and deal with data and introduction of the article.
6. Content is not relevant, inexplicable or it is just an extension of the same author’s paper
- The timeliness is not modern or does not belong to the field of investigation. So, the study which is highlighted in the article should be significant for a chosen direction.
- The language of a paper is also essential. It should be simple and understandable. It should make it easily readable whilst the scientific style should be conserved.
These are some of the main problems which may influence the decision on a paper during the editor check. We hope that the above expanding tips will be useful for you and help to publish your manuscripts.