REASONS WHY ARTICLES ARE REJECTED

Students keep sending email to me regarding reasons why their articles, projects, analysis papers were rejected by their supervisors. A number of them complained that they meet their supervisors quite seven times and unsuccessful seven times. Some said they meet their supervisors 10 times before he approved their chapter one. The subsequent article can inform you why most articles are rejected.
The following are eight reasons a piece of writing was rejected:

IT FAILS THE TECHNICAL SCREENING
Before they even go to the editor-in-chief, articles are checked for technical components. The most reasons they’re rejected are:

• The article contains components that are suspected to be plagiaristic, or it’s presently beneath review at another journal
• The manuscript isn’t complete; it should be lacking key components similar to the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references and every one table and figures).
• The English isn’t enough for the review method,
• The figures aren’t complete or aren’t clear enough to scan.
• The article doesn’t adjust to the Guide for Authors for the journal it’s submitted to.
• References are incomplete or terribly previous.

IT DOESN’T FALL AMONG THE AIMS AND SCOPE

• For the journal Carbon, the fabric studied could contain carbon, however isn’t carbon.
• The study uses a carbon material however the main focus is on one thing completely different.
• There is no new carbon science.

IT’S INCOMPLETE

• The article contains observations however isn’t a full study.
• It discusses findings in respect to a number of the add the sector however ignores alternative vital work.

THE PROCEDURES AND/OR ANALYSIS OF THE INFO IS SEEN TO BE DEFECTIVE

• The study lacked clear management teams or alternative comparison metrics.
• The study failed to adjust to recognized procedures or methodology that may be continual.
• The analysis isn’t statistically valid or doesn’t follow the norms of the sector.

THE CONCLUSIONS CAN’T BE EVEN ON THE PREMISE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE PAPER

• The arguments are illogical, unstructured or invalid.
• The data doesn’t support the conclusions.
• The conclusions ignore giant parts of the literature.

IT’S SOLELY SMALL EXTENSION OF A SPECIAL PAPER, USUALLY FROM AN EQUIVALENT AUTHORS.

• Findings are progressive and don’t advance the sector.
• The work is clearly a part of a bigger study, sliced up to form as several articles as doable.

IT’S INCOMPREHENSIBLE.

• The language, structure, or figures are therefore poor that the advantage cannot be assessed. Have a native English speaker scan the paper. Albeit you’re a native English speaker.

IT’S BORING.

• It is depository, progressive or of marginal interest to the sector
• The question behind the work isn’t of interest within the field.
• The work isn’t of interest to the readers of the precise journals