As an author, if your work is rejected for publication, you essentially have two options. In the first part of this two-part series, we discussed option number one: appealing the rejection decision and continuing to try to publish your work in the same venue.
There are times, though, when going this route is, for various reasons, not appropriate. Or, maybe you already wrote an appeal letter to the publisher or editor who made the rejection decision—and, despite your best efforts, you got a reply stating that the decision was final.
Exploring Alternative Publishing Paths
…So, in this second installment, we’ll discuss option number two: deciding on a different path for your work and moving forward with that path.
This option, of course, can mean a variety of different approaches. It might mean abandoning the entire idea behind your work and starting from scratch. On the other hand, it could also mean taking the same work and re-submitting it—mostly as is—to a different publication venue. Moreover, it might also mean submitting it elsewhere but making substantial changes first.
Analyzing the Rejection Letter
The first step, therefore, is to take a deep dive into the rejection letter and thoroughly analyze why, exactly, the manuscript was rejected.
If the work is scientific in nature, it might very well be an interesting manuscript, but you just chose the wrong venue in which to try publishing it. For instance, perhaps the experiments that the paper describes focus mainly on chemistry, but you submitted it to a journal that publishes primarily biological works—so, the reviewers suggested changing courses and trying out a biology journal.
When choosing which biology journal you want to pursue, it could be tempting to focus solely on impact factor and prestige. Be aware, though, that if you fall into this trap, you may very well end up right back where you started—with a rejected paper—if it’s not a good fit. So, keep in mind that a journal with a slightly lower impact factor could still result in lots of eyes on your paper, and lots of recognition as an established author.
On the other hand, maybe your work is less scientific and falls more into the indie author category. This might include a biography, autobiography, or analysis of historical trends. And perhaps the publisher rejected it on your first attempt simply because the subject matter doesn’t align closely enough with the type of content they are known to print.
In this type of situation, it could be helpful to ask the publisher and/or reviewers for guidance (if they haven’t provided it already) on where to go from here. Or, reach out to trusted friends and colleagues for recommendations as to where you might experience more success.
Evaluating Feedback and Next Steps
But regardless of what kind of work you’re attempting to get into print—and no matter where you choose to submit it for a second try—it’s imperative to first thoroughly study any feedback that you got from your rejection letter the first time around.
For a science-related work, it could be that multiple reviewers are essentially saying, “Your scientific claims aren’t backed up by enough evidence for this paper to have any credibility.” If that’s the case, abandoning this paper and starting from scratch could be a better time investment than trying to move forward with this idea.
…Or, at the very least, if you do move forward with this same idea, it might be necessary to conduct several more experiments—possibly taking many more weeks or months—before trying to submit your paper for publication again.
Meanwhile, if your submission is a piece that analyzes a historical event’s significance, the editor might say, “This work, while factually accurate, really doesn’t provide enough of an angle that would interest the target audience of this venue.”
So, in a situation like that, ask yourself: “Is it worth continuing to find a target audience that might be interested in analyzing this part of history? If so, does this mean looking for a publisher that focuses more on this book’s content? Or does it mean altering the content first, and then looking for another publisher?” The answers to these questions will mold and shape the next part of the journey.
Key Questions to Consider
…And before embarking on that next step, ask yourself the following questions:
- How can I hook my reader? Getting a reader to have an interest in your work is much like an in-person first impression—it has to be done right away, and you don’t have much time. So, if your manuscript or book was rejected the first time around, think about whether the introductory chapter or the abstract—which are the first parts of the work that the readers will see—might be modified to create more of the initial spark that might encourage editors, and ultimately readers, to keep going.
- Are my thoughts clearly organized? Achieving that initial interest, while certainly important, is only half the battle. If an editor does get interested enough to continue reading, but your thoughts are all over the place, it is highly unlikely that they will be able to follow along—and with so many other submissions on their desk, pretty soon, they’re probably going to give up. So, make sure your ideas are organized and easy to follow, and create an understandable map of where your work is going. This could mean significant re-structuring of your original work, which might take weeks or even months—but if that’s what it takes to make sure your work is top quality, that’s where the priority must be.
- Are the spelling and grammar polished enough for my work to be taken seriously? If your work is full of typos, misspellings, and grammar error, chances are, the editor and/or reviewers are going to lose interest pretty quickly—and unfortunately, that’s true even if your ideas are relevant and top-notch. Some reviewers and editors will state in their feedback that one of their reasons for rejecting the paper was too many spelling and grammar issues—but, then again, some won’t. Either way, though, fixing this problem is likely going to go beyond using AI spelling and grammar check tools, and reading through the work yourself might not be enough either—it could very well mean enlisting the help of professional editing services or possibly translation services. Again, this might result in a slowdown of the process; remember, though, quality comes first.
Inevitably, though, there will be times that no matter how many angles you take, your work is just not going to see the light of day—at least, not right now.
If that happens, try not to be too discouraged, because it doesn’t have to mean a waste of efforts. You can still possibly put the work on your resume as a “work in progress,” and as time goes on and interests in the field evolve, there could come a point in the future where your ideas become more relevant. So, while your work might have to be shelved for now, don’t just toss it—keep it around in case something could come out of it later on!
Conclusion
Wherever the path forward takes you, though, here’s the bottom line: rejection of your work can—and should—always be some kind of learning experience. Sometimes it takes submitting to the wrong journal to learn and find the right journal. Or, sometimes, in order to learn what kind of content your target audience is looking for, you first have to pursue publishing the wrong kind of content—again, though, it’s a learning process. For this reason, there is really no such thing as a “waste of time” when taking the plunge and deciding to try to get your work published. The end result might not be what you had hoped for, but it will, without question, make you a more skilled and savvy writer going forward!
By: Anne Brenner
Anne is an Assistant Managing Editor at Technica Editorial