1. Poor Fit with the Journal’s Scope

Submitting a manuscript to a journal that doesn’t align with your topic is one of the most common—and easily avoidable—reasons for rejection. Even high-quality research can be turned away if it doesn’t match the journal’s focus, audience, or article types.

Editors often reject papers at the initial screening stage if the topic falls outside the journal’s defined scope. This might include studies that are too specialised, too general, or simply misaligned with the journal’s mission or readership.

How to avoid it:

• Carefully review the journal’s aims and scope before submission.
• Read several recently published articles to understand what the journal prioritises.
• Use journal selection tools or databases to find a better fit if in doubt.

Choosing the right journal is a strategic decision. It increases the chances of acceptance, ensures your research reaches the right audience, and avoids unnecessary delays in publication.

2. Methodological or Statistical Flaws

Journals frequently reject research manuscripts due to issues with study design, data collection, or statistical analysis. Even if the research question is relevant and the topic fits the journal’s scope, methodological weaknesses can undermine credibility and reproducibility.

Common methodological reasons for rejection include:

• Inadequate sample size or power
• Lack of control groups or randomisation
• Poorly defined inclusion/exclusion criteria
• Ambiguous or biased data collection methods

Statistical flaws may involve:

• Inappropriate statistical tests
• Missing confidence intervals or effect sizes
• Overinterpretation of non-significant results
• Failure to account for confounders or multiple comparisons

How to avoid it:

• Clearly describe your methodology and justify your approach.
• Follow established reporting guidelines (e.g., CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA).
• Involve a statistician or methodological expert during study planning or manuscript preparation.
• Ensure your analysis aligns with your stated hypotheses and study design.

Methodological rigour is a cornerstone of publishable research. Reviewers are trained to spot these flaws—so addressing them early strengthens your submission and reduces the risk of rejection.

3. Inadequate Novelty or Significance

One of the top reasons research manuscripts are rejected is a lack of originality or scientific contribution. Journals seek to publish work that adds meaningful value to the field—whether through new findings, innovative methods, or novel interpretations of existing data.

If your study merely replicates known results, lacks a clear research question, or fails to demonstrate why the findings matter, it may be deemed unworthy of publication.

Common red flags include:

• Repeating previously published work without a new angle
• Addressing a question with little clinical, scientific, or theoretical impact
• Weak justification for why the study was conducted
• No clear implications for future research, policy, or practice

How to avoid it:

• Conduct a thorough literature review to identify gaps or controversies.
• Clearly articulate the why—what problem your study solves or what new insight it offers.
• Highlight how your research advances current knowledge, even incrementally.
• Avoid overstating your conclusions—clarity and credibility go hand in hand.

For editors and reviewers, novelty and significance are key drivers of acceptance. Make sure your manuscript answers the essential question: Why should this be published now, and why in this journal?

4. Language and Presentation Issues

Clear, professional writing is essential for successful manuscript submission. Journals frequently reject papers due to poor language quality, disorganised structure, or formatting that doesn’t follow author guidelines. These issues can make even strong research appear unpolished or difficult to assess.

Common presentation problems include:

• Grammatical errors and awkward phrasing
• Unclear abstracts or introductions
• Poorly structured sections (e.g. missing Methods or Conclusion)
• Inconsistent referencing style or citation errors
• Figures and tables that are cluttered, low-quality, or lack explanation

How to avoid it:

• Use precise, academic language and avoid jargon unless clearly defined.
• Have your manuscript professionally edited or proofread, especially if English is not your first language.
• Follow the journal’s formatting and submission guidelines to the letter.
• Ensure tables and figures are labelled clearly, with appropriate legends and units.

Presentation matters—well-written, well-structured manuscripts are easier to review and more likely to be taken seriously. Strong communication skills help ensure that your research speaks for itself.

5. Ethical Problems (Plagiarism, Consent, etc.)

Ethical issues are a major cause of manuscript rejection—often leading to immediate desk rejection or even permanent bans from future submissions. Journals take research integrity seriously, and any sign of unethical conduct can damage your reputation and delay your publication goals.

Common ethical reasons for rejection include:

• Plagiarism or self-plagiarism (duplicate publication)
• Lack of informed consent from study participants
• Missing ethics committee approval for human or animal studies
• Undeclared conflicts of interest or funding sources
• Data fabrication or image manipulation

How to avoid it:

• Use plagiarism detection software before submission.
• Include a clear ethics statement confirming approval and consent.
• Be transparent about funding, affiliations, and potential conflicts of interest.
• Follow established ethical guidelines (e.g. COPE, ICMJE, or institutional requirements).

Journals are increasingly using tools to detect misconduct and ensure compliance with ethical standards. Addressing these requirements early in the writing process helps avoid rejection and builds trust in your research.

6. Incomplete or Inaccurate References

Incorrect or incomplete references may seem minor, but they’re a common reason for manuscript rejection—particularly in journals that prioritise scholarly accuracy and transparency. Poor referencing suggests a lack of attention to detail and undermines the credibility of your work.

Common referencing issues include:

• Missing citations for key claims or data
• Outdated or irrelevant sources
• Inconsistent citation style or formatting
• Broken DOIs or incorrect author details
• Failure to cite recent literature from the target journal

How to avoid it:

• Use a reference manager (e.g. EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley) to stay consistent and accurate.
• Double-check that all in-text citations appear in the reference list—and vice versa.
• Follow the journal’s required citation style (e.g. Vancouver, APA, AMA).
• Include recent, peer-reviewed sources that reflect current thinking in your field.

Strong referencing not only supports your arguments but also shows reviewers that you’ve engaged meaningfully with the existing literature, both of which improve your chances of acceptance.

7. Non-Adherence to Author Guidelines

Failure to follow a journal’s author guidelines is a surprisingly common and easily avoidable reason for manuscript rejection. Many journals reject submissions during the initial screening phase simply because formatting, structure, or administrative requirements haven’t been met.

Common mistakes include:

• Incorrect file formats or document layout
• Missing required sections (e.g. disclosures, acknowledgements, author contributions)
• Exceeding word count or figure limits
• Improper reference style or in-text citations
• Incomplete submission forms or missing cover letters

How to avoid it:

• Carefully read the journal’s “Instructions for Authors” before submission.
• Use any provided templates or checklists to structure your manuscript correctly.
• Double-check word count, figure/table limits, and supplementary material requirements.
• Review all submission documents before uploading, including declarations and ethics statements.

Adhering to author guidelines shows professionalism and respect for the editorial process—and it increases the likelihood that your manuscript will move on to peer review without delays.

8. Reviewer Feedback Ignored (for resubmissions)

When resubmitting a manuscript—either to the same journal after revisions or to a new one—failing to address reviewer feedback is a common reason for rejection. Editors expect authors to engage thoughtfully with previous critiques, even if the paper is being submitted elsewhere.

Common pitfalls include:

• Resubmitting without a detailed response to reviewers
• Making superficial changes or ignoring key concerns
• Failing to revise figures, methods, or interpretations as recommended
• Not disclosing that the manuscript has been previously reviewed

How to avoid it:

• Carefully address each reviewer comment in a response letter or cover note.
• Clearly highlight changes in the revised manuscript.
• If you disagree with a suggestion, explain your rationale professionally.
• When submitting to a new journal, revise thoroughly and avoid reusing the manuscript unchanged.

Reviewer feedback—even if difficult to hear—is a valuable tool for improving your work. Demonstrating that you’ve taken it seriously increases your credibility and improves your chances of acceptance.