The editor-in-chief rejected this paper for two reasons: first, the contribution of this research to this field is too small. Second, the research topic is not within the scope of periodical attention. For example, many papers were rejected because the authors mainly focused on ecology or genetics and made little or no contribution from the perspective of conservation and management. For example, a study collected samples from the whole species range for genetic analysis. If this analysis is to be meaningful, it must be combined with some management projects, such as site restoration. If the paper is only the application of suggestions and hints in protection management, it may be rejected without evidence.
These ten suggestions given by the editor-in-chief of sci journals: the article should have a clear central idea and appear in the title of the article. Write for people who don't know what you do. Adhere to the structural combination of background, content and conclusion (CCC). Optimize your logical flow, avoid twists and turns, and use parallel narration. Tell the whole story in a nutshell Explain clearly in the introduction why this paper is very important. Use some logically related statements (which can be supplemented by charts) to give the results that support the central idea of the paper. Discuss how to fill in the blank, and explain the limitations of interpretation and its relevance to this field. Allocate time to important parts: titles, abstracts, charts and outlines. Get feedback and then simplify, reuse and reconstruct the story.