In my opinion, this kind of situation will definitely exist in the publication of academic journals, at least in the editorial department that publicly "promises" the deadline for manuscript processing, which will make the author feel the existence of this problem, and it is impossible to avoid it! I feel that this problem is divided into two aspects: one is feeling, that is to say, refusal and urging behavior are not necessarily related, but a feeling or a coincidence; Another aspect is the objective problem. Here I only analyze the objective phenomenon of "retiring at once" that may exist in the publication of academic journals.

There is a time limit for manuscript processing, and naturally there is a time node, that is, a decision must be made before this node-whether to hire or not. Whether the deadline is up or not, the editor always needs to make a decision-whether to hire or reject the manuscript? Either way, this is one of the daily work of editors. When the deadline approaches, this decision is even more urgent and difficult! Of course, in order to avoid all kinds of problems, some periodicals adopt the treatment of "rejecting manuscripts without hiring". I don't agree with this way, but I can understand: first, there are too many manuscripts, and second, there will be a rebound if the manuscript is directly withdrawn.

In the process of manuscript processing, if you choose to hire, both the integrity of the process and the adequacy of evaluation need to basically meet the requirements, that is, make a "sufficient decision", otherwise it will be difficult to pass the follow-up review! In terms of whether it can be recorded, it is relatively easy to choose not to record, as long as there is evidence to support it. Here, please don't crooked ways, don't scold mom! Empathy is in line with objective laws, but how to ensure that the author is not wronged is another problem. This is not only a problem of not wronged the author, but also a problem of not losing high-quality manuscript sources, which a responsible editor does not want to happen.

Being able to select excellent manuscripts (with the help of reviewers) represents the level of editors and journals, and not losing high-quality manuscripts is also the embodiment of editing ability. In order to evaluate and assess the work of editors, I often observe from two angles: to see who arranges and distributes more high-impact papers, and also to see the communication effect after republishing (another publication) in the rejection. The key question here is: why drag it to the upper limit of the deadline? Why wait until someone urges you to make a decision?

Academic journals with some level are all based on a certain rejection rate. This rejection rate is not rigidly stipulated by the editorial department (you can't), but is determined by the "supply and demand relationship". "A rising tide lifts a boat", the editorial department increases the choice through the propaganda of "Welcome to contribute", and then achieves the purpose of improving the level and level of periodicals through "selecting the best among the best", and even adjusts the direction of running periodicals. Generally speaking, people who run periodicals with heart will not blindly pursue the rejection rate, but will maintain the rejection rate at a reasonable level. In my opinion, in the publication of domestic academic journals, it is more appropriate to maintain the rejection rate at around 70%, so the journals have a certain "room for improvement". The high rejection rate shows that a large number of manuscripts are not suitable for the level and direction of this journal. As a result, a large number of editing power and peer review resources are used for a large number of unsuitable manuscripts. This is not only a waste of publishing resources, but also a waste of the author's time cost. At this time, in order to save costs for both parties, the general publishing house will clearly put forward some "directions and types that do not recommend authors to contribute". In other words, when the rejection rate is low, it is necessary to promote and attract authors to contribute; When the rejection rate is too high, such as more than 90%, we should further clarify the scope, level and type of receiving manuscripts.

According to my observation, about 30% of the 70% rejected manuscripts are easy to do-regardless of the level, direction and level, the other 40% manuscripts need to be considered and measured in many aspects. Of these 40%, 20% is more difficult-hovering between retreating and not retreating. About 20% of the rejected manuscripts and about 10% of the accepted manuscripts, totaling about 30%, will be in a state of "repeated analysis and comparison".

Macro standards for hiring and rejecting manuscripts are easy to formulate, but when it comes to a manuscript, many standards will become blurred. From the perspective of decision-making, this part of the decision-making is often qualitative, vague, empirical, and even by feeling. Decision-makers are the most difficult to make decisions, and experienced old editors are relatively easy, relying on experience. At the ever-changing moment, if the editor-in-chief is sensitive and often adjusts and reflects on the direction of running a journal, it is difficult for experienced old editors to make a decision. Experience often does not adapt to the adjustment of the direction of running a periodical, which will affect the improvement of the periodical level.

I will often make statistical analysis of the dissemination effect of articles published in previous years, with the aim of providing editors with the basis for "decision-making" and adjusting the standards and direction of employing people in time! Similar articles, related teams, evaluation expressions and so on. If you don't belong to the category with good effect, you can refuse. Is this the right decision? No one can guarantee it! This is also the place that reflects the publisher's level-continuous learning, continuous research and continuous adjustment!

For manuscripts within this range (about 30% of the contributions), even if the review comments come back (what the author sees is "waiting for editing"), the editor often won't decide and deal with them immediately-he is always afraid of making mistakes and wants to wait for comparison with the later manuscripts. In other words, I still want to "try my best" before "dragging". At this point, there are also times to forget. This is what a responsible editor-an editor who is responsible for the author and the journal-should do. Of course, editors with strong sense of responsibility and limited level will hesitate longer and decide that they need more conditional support.

Some of them can't get the "specified number" of review opinions because of their delay: some of the review opinions are not very good, and the editors feel that there is no problem and they don't want to "retreat". They want to wait and see if there are other review opinions to support their own ideas; Sometimes, some of the judges who came back had good opinions and were unwilling to "return", but when another opinion came back and was not satisfied, they had to return.

To sum up, we can see that more responsible editors and journals with acceptable standards are very entangled in the process of deciding to withdraw manuscripts. At least about 30% of the manuscripts (calculated by the rejection rate of 70%) are not so easy to decide-not to say that editors are great and think for the author, but first of all, we must ensure the level of the journal and reflect the editing level. We must carefully analyze and reflect the guidance of the editor-in-chief and periodicals in these 30% manuscripts. Rejection of manuscripts is an important event for a specific author, but it is a daily work for editors who face rejection every day. Here, I often compare the editor to a surgeon: eviscerating is an important thing for patients, but it is a daily job for doctors. This may be the essential reason for the tension between doctors and patients. If you don't understand this, the relationship will always be in a state of conflict and opposition.

Then, let's go back to our topic. Under what circumstances is it easy to "retire at once"? Obviously, this is 30% of the manuscript! In other words, 30% of the authors may have the psychology of quitting. This is also the most difficult thing for editors to do, but 40% is not much different from the previous 70%, so 50% of the authors may be pushed back. This face seems to be relatively big, but not all of these authors are urging, and not all of these 50% have to wait until the final decision, so there will not be so many authors who really encounter "urging back". My experience is that, for whatever reason, the manuscripts decided by the deadline (whether they are hired or rejected) generally account for less than 30% of the submissions. Our magazine promised to make a decision in four months, but for a long time, it averaged about two months. If most people decide on the deadline, it will not be about two months on average.

Why is there a phenomenon of pushing back? Earlier, I analyzed the process of manuscript processing, indicating that it is possible. Then, we can understand the basis of this "passive" decision by analyzing it from the psychological point of view. We all have experiences in life. Things are always dragging their feet. If you don't put it off until the end, you will always have no bottom and can't make up your mind. Once the deadline comes, we will make a decision, especially if we are urged, and the decision will become easy. Psychologically speaking, this kind of forced decision-making can greatly reduce the psychological pressure of decision-makers, and has a role of shirking responsibility and self-liberation. From this point of view, even if the deadline is not met, as long as the decision is in the "hesitant" stage, there is the possibility of "postponing". Urge and speed up decision-making and reduce the anxiety and pressure of decision-making.

Then, how should editors and publishers solve the hesitation of this decision, and more importantly, avoid urging to relieve the pressure or eliminate the author's feeling of "retreating after urging"? Similarly, how should the author face this situation and guide the editor to make a favorable decision easily? ! It's no use complaining. Empathy, harmony, and strive for things to develop in a direction that is beneficial to you. This is the key.

The language failed and was rejected? Compile and compile to help you! Edit Ideas)-a native language editing brand from Washington, USA, has thousands of native language experts to serve you. Provide scientific research services for scientific researchers, such as polishing SCI/SSCI/EI papers, academic translation, submission pre-examination, target journal selection, academic promotion, etc.

SCI|SCI papers |SCI journals |elsevier|sci retouching |SCI paper translation |sci English retouching and modification |SCI paper publishing | Paper translation service company | English paper modification company-compilation | version