Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology IAMM  | About us |  Subscription |  e-Alerts  | Feedback |  Login   
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 Home | Ahead of Print | Current Issue | Archives | Search | Instructions  
Users Online: 476 Official Publication of Indian Association of Medical Microbiologists 
  Search
 
  
 ~  Similar in PUBMED
 ~  Search Pubmed for
 ~  Search in Google Scholar for
 ~  Article in PDF (311 KB)
 ~  Citation Manager
 ~  Access Statistics
 ~  Reader Comments
 ~  Email Alert *
 ~  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
 ~  References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1242    
    Printed22    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded135    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
  Table of Contents  
CORRESPONDENCE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 32  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 350-351
 

Rejection of a manuscript: The other side of the story


1 Department of Pathology, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India
2 Department of Surgical Oncology, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India

Date of Web Publication10-Jul-2014

Correspondence Address:
R Patnayak
Department of Pathology, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0255-0857.136611

Rights and Permissions



How to cite this article:
Patnayak R, Jena A. Rejection of a manuscript: The other side of the story. Indian J Med Microbiol 2014;32:350-1

How to cite this URL:
Patnayak R, Jena A. Rejection of a manuscript: The other side of the story. Indian J Med Microbiol [serial online] 2014 [cited 2020 Nov 27];32:350-1. Available from: https://www.ijmm.org/text.asp?2014/32/3/350/136611


Dear Editor,

We have read the article "Rejection of a manuscript" by Kapil, with interest. [1] The points raised by this article are relevant in the field of microbiology as well as in other disciplines. As mentioned in the article, the reviewers are indeed the pillars of the entire process.

In view of today's motto of "publish or perish" many budding authors are encountered daily. [2] Surprisingly, the number of scientific journals is also mushrooming in a proportionate manner.

For the first timer authors, getting a manuscript rejected is an entire novel experience. [3] For many of them, it results in heartburns. The role of an experienced reviewer in this matter lies in giving constructive comments, and suggestions to improve the manuscript. The time taken to review also should be reasonable. Many reviewers will be busy with their routine work besides reviewing the manuscripts. So, if they could not give adequate time to review an article, they should intimate the same to the journal website promptly. Many of the articles submitted to the journal would not meet the criteria set by that particular journal. In these cases they should be returned to the authors without causing unnecessary delay.

On their part, the authors prior to writing their articles should spend considerable time in the pre-planning stage itself, so as to have an appropriate study design. While writing the introduction and discussion part, they should make marginal notes in order to properly cite the accurate source of information and avoid the allegation of plagiarism. [1] Going through the journal's website for knowing the journals preferences and other instructions including reference style also can save precious time. Whenever necessary, statistics also should be used. [3] Copy right and ethical board clearance tends to be other tricky issues. Therefore, before conducting a study, consent forms should be prepared and properly explained to the patients and their attendants.

In spite of all this, even if an article gets rejected, then instead of getting dejected, one should go back to the paper again, take suggestions from the reviewers' comments and try to rewrite the article. The articles, particularly, case reports should be carefully chosen so as to have a clinical significance. After all, ultimately, our articles should contribute towards scientific literature as well as help the patients.

 
 ~ References Top

1.Kapil A. Rejection of a manuscript. Indian J Med Microbiol 2013;31:329-30.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.Satyanarayana S. Unethical practices in scientific publications. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2011;54:1-2.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
3.Ramsay-Baggs P. Feeling rejected? Ann Maxillofac Surg 2012;2:1-2.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

2004 - Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow

Online since April 2001, new site since 1st August '04