DOI:10.2214/AJR.06.0448
AJR 2007; 188:W113-W116
© American Roentgen Ray Society
Reasons for Rejection of Manuscripts Submitted to AJR by International Authors
Shigeru Ehara1 and
Kei Takahashi2
1 Department of Radiology, Iwate Medical University School of Medicine, 19-1
Uchimaru, Morioka 020-8505, Japan.
2 Department of Radiology, Iwate Medical University College of Liberal Arts,
Morioka 020-0015, Japan.
Received March 30, 2006;
accepted after revision August 18, 2006.
Address correspondence to S. Ehara
(ehara{at}iwate-med.ac.jp).
S. Ehara is the 2005 ARRS Lee F. Rogers International Fellow in Radiology
Journalism.
WEB This is a Web exclusive article.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to promote publication by
international authors in AJR by analyzing the reasons for rejection
of manuscripts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. Data available through the electronic system
for review of submitted manuscripts were analyzed over a 2-year period with
regard to country of origin, type of the manuscript, decision of the editors,
and reason for rejection. Countries with more than 50 submitted manuscripts
were selected, and rejection rates and reasons for rejection determined by one
of the editors were compared.
RESULTS. Eighteen countries had more than 50 manuscript submissions,
and the rejection rates ranged from 22.6% to 73.4%. Countries with high rates
of submission of reports of original research, including Clinical Observations
manuscripts, had high acceptance rates. Countries in which English is the
primary language had higher acceptance rates than those in which English is
not the primary language (29.1% vs 40.3%, p < 0.05). Countries
with English as the primary language, including Canada, the United Kingdom,
and Australia, had rejection patterns similar to that of the United States.
Language problems were not a major reason for rejection, except for
manuscripts from China. Lack of new or useful knowledge was by far the most
common reason for rejection in all countries (44-76% of all rejections).
CONCLUSION. High-quality scientific work is key to overcoming
barriers to publication. Designing an appropriate study that answers a clearly
defined and pertinent question is an important first step. Language problems
were not a major cause of rejection, except for manuscripts from China.
Keywords: medical publishing • radiology journals • research
Introduction
Electronic manuscript submission to AJR started on October
1, 2003. This system accelerated submission of manuscripts from all over the
world. A considerable number of manuscripts are from countries outside of
North America, but the rate of acceptance of major articles from these
countries is relatively low, 31%, compared with 45% from the United States
[1]. There are several possible
reasons for such a low acceptance rate, including language barriers. Many
observers believe that language barriers are an important factor in manuscript
rejection. However, the language barrier is not the sole factor.
In the current review system, various types of information, including
number of submissions, country of origin, type of manuscript, decision of the
editors, and reasons for rejection, can be obtained through a database
[2]. To promote contributions
by international authors, we used data from the AJR electronic
submission system to answer the following questions: Are there differences in
rejection rates among countries of origin? If there are differences, what are
the major reasons for rejection? If a country has a tendency toward a
particular reason for rejection, what is that reason? What suggestions can be
made to improve acceptance rate?
Materials and Methods
Included in this study was information on manuscripts submitted to
AJR during the 2-year period since the start of the current
electronic submission and review system (Rapid Review, Cadmus), October 1,
2003, to September 30, 2005. Institutional review board approval was not
required for this retrospective analysis. The data on the submitted
manuscripts available in this system were number of submissions in each
country of origin (based on address of corresponding author), type of
manuscript, decision by the editors (accepted, rejected, or decision pending),
and reason for rejection determined by the editors from a list of 17 reasons
included in the review system database
(Table 1). Because there was
overlap in the reasons for rejection, we grouped the 17 reasons into six
categories (Table 2). The
ratings assigned by the reviewers were not included in the review system
database.
We defined rejection rate as the number of manuscripts rejected in the
2-year period divided by the total number of manuscripts submitted (including
manuscripts pending decision) in the 2-year period and expressed the value as
a percentage. This rejection rate was different from the actual rejection rate
based on the follow-up findings for each submission, but it was more practical
in the limited time interval because final decisions had not been made in some
instances owing to delayed revision or resubmission. We defined acceptance
rate as 100 minus rejection rate.
The types of manuscripts in AJR were Original Research, Clinical
Observations (observational studies of clinical materials), Review, Technical
Innovation, Case Report, Opinion, Commentary, Perspective, On the AJR
Viewbox, Radiologic-Pathologic Conferences, Letter, and Reply
[3]. All types of manuscripts
except Letter and Reply were included in the database. We analyzed three
manuscript categories: all types of manuscripts, original research only
(including Original Research and Clinical Observations), and other
manuscripts, which included Case Report, Technical Innovation, Opinion,
Commentary, Perspective, On the AJR Viewbox, and
Radiologic-Pathologic Conferences articles and excluded letters to the editor
and replies.
Data collected during the 2-year period were obtained from the review
system database. First, we counted the number of manuscript submissions
according to country of origin and then selected countries from which more
than 50 manuscripts were submitted. Second, we compared the rates of and
reasons for rejection according to country. Third, we compared the reasons for
rejection for each country with those for the Unites States. Correlation
between rejection rate and types of manuscripts from each country was
evaluated with Pearson's correlation coefficient. Pattern of rejection was
analyzed by contingency analysis, and p < 0.05 was considered
significant.
Results
During the 2-year study period, 5,914 manuscripts were submitted, and 3,464
(58.6%) of these manuscripts were from countries outside of North America. The
decision for rejection was made for 1,972 (33.3%) of the manuscripts. Of 4,206
original research papers, 852 (20.3%) were rejected. Of a total of 1,708 other
manuscripts, 1,120 (65.6%) were rejected.
Eighteen countries had more than 50 manuscript submissions during the
2-year period (Table 3). The
acceptance rates from the countries with higher rates of submission of
original research reports (including Clinical Observations) were relatively
high and were reflected by the higher acceptance rates of original research
papers (Fig. 1A,
1B,
1C). Countries with relatively
high rates of submission of reports of original research and relatively high
manuscript acceptance rates were Switzerland (acceptance rate, 74.5%) and
Austria (73.4%). Because AJR accepted case reports during the study
period and many other journals did not, many case reports were submitted,
resulting in a high rejection rate. Four of the countries in which the primary
language is English (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, and Australia) had
significantly lower rejection rates than countries in which the primary
language is not English (29.1% for these four English-speaking countries
versus 40.3% for the other countries, p < 0.05). The rejection
rate was 30.2% for the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia,
and India versus 39.2% for the other countries (p < 0.05). The
rejection rates varied among the English-speaking countries
(Table 4).
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
|
Fig. 1A —Graphs show correlation between acceptance rates and rates of
submission of reports of original research. Total acceptance rate versus rate
of submission of reports of original research (Pearson's correlation
coefficient r =0.81, p <0.05).
|
|
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
|
Fig. 1B —Graphs show correlation between acceptance rates and rates of
submission of reports of original research. Acceptance rate of reports of
original research versus rate of submission of reports of original research
(r = 0.80, p < 0.05).
|
|
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
|
Fig. 1C —Graphs show correlation between acceptance rates and rates of
submission of reports of original research. Acceptance rate of manuscripts
other than reports of original research versus rate of submission of reports
of original research (r =0.48, p <0.05).
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
TABLE 4: Comparison of the Rejection Rates Between Counties in Which English Is
the Principal Language and Countries Where It Is Not
|
|
Reasons for rejection are presented in
Table 5. Category I (lack of
new or useful knowledge; reasons 2-4 from
Table 1) constituted 44-76% of
rejections and was by far the main type of rejection in all countries. Reason
3 (old knowledge with no new or useful material) and reason 4 (two or three of
reasons 1-3) were the most common causes of rejection.
Language barrier, category IV, was not a major reason for rejection of
manuscripts from most countries, including countries with English as the
primary language and European countries. The causes directly related to
language problems were reason 13 (major language problems, English not the
primary language of the author) and reason 14 (too poorly written, phrased, or
presented). Category IV, which also included reason 15 (failure to follow
AJR Author Guidelines) constituted 0-8.6% of rejections, excluding
China. Reason 13 was an uncommon cause of rejection, affecting only two
articles, which were from Japan.
Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia had rejection patterns similar to
those of the United States. India, Austria, China, and Switzerland had a
rejection pattern quite different from that of the United States (p
< 0.05). The high acceptance rate of the small number of manuscripts
submitted from Austria and Switzerland might have been due to contributions
from a few academic centers in those countries.
Discussion
Journals strive to publish the best possible pertinent scientific work.
Scientific merit, including timeliness and importance of the topic, should be
the prime determinant of the quality of a scientific publication. The most
common reason for rejection is a lack of new knowledge. Errors in research
methodology, data analysis, and language are flaws that can be salvaged to
some extent. Errors in manuscript organization, including methods, results,
figures, tables, graphs, and references, are correctable.
Many journal editors expect reviewers to assess the scientific merits and
validity of research, rather than identify grammatical and typographical
errors. Language problems are correctable and should not be the prime reason
for rejection. Reviewers, however, can become critical of manuscripts
containing large numbers of language errors, which are difficult to eliminate
without careful editing. Authors who use English as a second language have
many lessons to learn, but there are solutions. Computer software for
translation is far from perfect, but it is becoming more sophisticated and
usable. Assistance from professional editors is more widely available through
the use of the Internet and email. In addition, some journals, such as
AJR, help by publishing journal articles in printed
[4,
5] and electronic media, such
as lectures on the ARRS Web page
[6].
Although countries using English as one of two or more principal languages
have patterns of rejection similar to those of the United States, the
rejection rate, 26.6-38.9%, is quite variable. For countries such as India,
however, where medical education and medical records are solely in English but
many languages and dialects are spoken, the rejection rate is quite high,
possibly because of the effect of educational, cultural, and socio-economic
backgrounds.
There were limitations to this study. It was retrospective, and reviewer
bias might have been present. The number of reviewers outside North America
has increased significantly. In October 2003, none of 650 reviewers was from
outside these two countries. In April 2005, 160 (11.7%) of 1,359 and in August
2006, 336 (19.4%) of 1,731 reviewers were from outside the United States and
Canada (ARRS, unpublished data). International reviewers from
non-English-speaking countries may have an approach to language problems
different from that of reviewers from English-speaking countries. Reviewers
were not asked to reanalyze manuscripts to confirm the reasons for
rejection.
High-quality scientific work is a key factor in overcoming language
barriers. Important first steps in research are to define the unknown and to
appropriately frame the research question. Many researchers worldwide
participate in advanced imaging research. Because imaging findings are often
more self-explanatory than the findings in other clinical disciplines,
radiology journals may be more readily internationalized. We hope that such
internationalization will bring radiologists around the world more useful
information that can lead to improved daily clinical practice and educational
and research activities.
Acknowledgments
We thank Rebecca Haines, ARRS department of publications, and Robert
Stanley, editor in chief of AJR, for helpful advice and help in data
collection.
References
- Chen MY, Jenkins CB, Elster AD. Internationalization of the
American Journal of Roentgenology: 1980-2002.
AJR 2003; 181:907
-912[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Kliewer MA, DeLong DM, Freed K, et al. Peer review at the
American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript
characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.
AJR 2004; 183:1545
-1559[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- AJR author guidelines. Available at:
http://www.ajronline.org/misc/ifora.shtml.
Accessed October 2006
- Provenzale JM, Stanley RJ. A systematic guide to reviewing a
manuscript. AJR 2005;185
: 848-854[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Kliewer MA. Writing it up: a step-by-step guide to publication for
beginning investigators. AJR 2005;185
: 591-596[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Stern EJ. Academic writing and publication: perspective. Available
at:
http://www.arrs.org/scriptcontent/edu/meetingAudio05/index.cfm.
Accessed October 2006
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
Top
Abstract
Introduction
