������Ƶ

In the last article I wrote, I shared my experience on how cold emails can be an effective tool for initiating research collaborations, exchanging ideas, and even leading to impactful publications. In this article, I would like to extend that conversation and talk about something just as important: Daring to email journal editors when necessary.

As researchers, we regularly submit manuscripts for potential publication, and it is common to face either acceptance or rejection. Rejection is part and parcel of academic life, and it should be treated with openness and professionalism. This article is not meant to rant about rejection, but rather to emphasise that even a rejection should be reasonable. For instance, if a paper is deemed low in novelty or lacking significant contribution to warrant publication in that particular journal.

Unfortunately, not all rejections are reasonable. Many of us have experienced frustrating scenarios such as having our manuscript delayed for months without being sent for peer review, only to receive a desk rejection with vague or unconvincing justifications. In such cases, we should not be afraid of “offending” the editor or journal. It is perfectly acceptable to write in and seek clarification.

Let me share a personal experience. I once submitted a paper to a reputable journal. During the first round, it was reviewed by two reviewers who both recommended major revisions. We addressed all their comments and resubmitted. Eventually, both reviewers accepted the paper, as we later learned from the decision letter. However, the editor seemed to doubt the reviewers’ recommendations and invited two more reviewers. While this can be acceptable in cases of uncertainty, things got stranger after receiving feedback from these two additional reviewers, the editor invited a fifth reviewer, and later a sixth and seventh as well. At that point, we were puzzled by the editor’s actions. Our revised manuscript had already been with the journal for over two months, and the continuous invitations made little sense. I decided to write a polite email to the Editor-in-Chief to express our concern. Although I did not receive a reply, the very next day, we received the decision letter that gave us minor revisions, with the 3rd, 4th, and 5th reviewers offering only minor comments. It appeared the editor had cancelled the invitations to the 6th and 7th reviewers, which we appreciated.

That said, the situation raised questions: If two reviewers already recommended acceptance, and two others suggested only minor revisions, why continue inviting more reviewers? Was the editor hoping to find someone who would recommend rejection? I do not want to assume the worst, but the experience left me wondering. The takeaway here is: Sometimes, you may face unreasonable treatment in the publication process. When that happens, do not hesitate to escalate the issue respectfully to a higher level in the journal. In my case, it worked out. But not always.

There was another instance where I submitted a paper to a different journal, one I had never published in but had often received review invitations from. My submission was desk-rejected with a brief comment stating “lack of novelty”. Strangely, the next day I received another review request from the same editor, on a paper I felt was no stronger than mine. This led me to question: Why was my paper not at least sent for review? I wrote to the Editor-in-Chief to express my concern. Unfortunately, they simply forwarded my email to the handling editor, who then replied with a list of five to six points. However, his reasons were not convincing as everything he mentioned was, in fact, already addressed in my manuscript. It felt like a perfunctory response, and I was quite dissatisfied. I then sent a point-by-point rebuttal, copying the Editor-in-Chief and journal manager. Sadly, I never received a reply. But that is okay because I later submitted the same paper to another journal with a higher impact factor, and it got accepted.

The point of these two stories is this: If you believe you have been treated unfairly in the review process, do not be afraid to speak up. Seek clarification, challenge decisions when necessary, and do not let fear hold you back. Of course, not every effort will succeed but some will. And that could make all the difference.

“You will not know unless you try”.

Ir. Dr. Zong Yang Kong
Faculty of Engineering and Technology
Email: @email