The journey through submission, rejection, and eventual publication of scholarly work is challenging to academic researchers' resilience. Dealing with rejection without succumbing to burnout or impostor syndrome requires a growth mindset. This paper analyses one author's manuscript rejections over five years and makes recommendations for academic researchers regarding manuscript rejections. This retrospective longitudinal mixed-methods study included one author's rejected submissions from 2019 to 2023. Quantitative data on manuscript rejection characteristics: number of rejections, subsequent publication, submission (field and research type), journal location and impact factor, and nature of rejection (desk rejection, rejection after review or revision) were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data (narrative text indicating reasons for desk rejection) were analysed thematically. Ethics approval was obtained. Eighty submissions of 47 manuscripts were rejected, including 65% desk rejections. Most manuscripts were rejected once (60%) or twice (26%), and 77% were subsequently published. Most submissions were to journals in Africa (56%), on postgraduate student research (63%), in the field of medicine (71%). Themes related to reasons for desk rejection included not meeting journal requirements (scope, focus, criteria or priority), manuscript inadequacy (novelty, relevance, methodology, or contribution), and ethical issues (similarity indices, or ethics documentation). This study on manuscript rejections received by one author over five years revealed that most rejected manuscripts were subsequently published. Desk rejection was most common. We support literature on normalizing and destigmatizing rejection and bolstering resilience to support academic researchers when dealing with technical, manuscript-related revisions and inevitable emotional responses to rejection to ensure healthy longevity in their scholarly careers.
Merwe et al. (Wed,) studied this question.