A Letter from the Frustrated Author of a Journal Paper
Dear Editor,
I am writing to express my frustration with the review process and editorial decision for my recently submitted manuscript, “The Effects of Mindfulness Meditation on Stress and Anxiety.” Despite the significant time and effort I invested in this research, it was rejected without a clear explanation or constructive feedback.
The Review Process: A Lack of Transparency
During the review process, I was provided with no indication of the reviewers’ concerns or specific reasons for rejection. The editor’s decision letter simply stated that my work was “not a good fit” for the journal. This lack of transparency made it impossible for me to address any perceived deficiencies or improve my manuscript.
Moreover, the review process itself was delayed and lacked communication. I was initially informed that the turnaround time was three months, but it ended up taking over six months for a decision to be made. During this period, I received no updates or progress reports, leaving me in limbo and unable to plan my next steps.
The Editorial Decision: A Subjective Dismissal
The editor’s decision letter hinted at concerns about the “novelty” of my research, suggesting that it did not offer significant advancements over previous studies. However, I believe that the originality and implications of my work were understated.
My study utilized a unique combination of mindfulness meditation techniques and objective measures of stress and anxiety. The findings revealed novel insights into the mechanisms by which mindfulness meditation may alleviate psychological distress. I was surprised and disappointed that these contributions were not recognized or acknowledged by the reviewers.
A Call for Constructive Feedback
I understand that the journal’s editorial board has the right to accept or reject submissions based on their assessment of quality and fit. However, I believe that authors deserve constructive feedback that enables them to improve their work and advance their research.
I kindly request that the editors reconsider my manuscript and provide more detailed and specific reasons for rejection. Constructive feedback would not only help me improve my manuscript but also enhance my understanding of the expectations of the journal and the field at large.
Conclusion: A Plea for Fairness and Transparency
I urge the editors to revisit the review process and editorial decision for my manuscript. A fair and transparent process, coupled with constructive feedback, is essential for maintaining the integrity of scientific publishing and fostering the growth of researchers.
I would like to know if you are interested in reading the article above? It is about the frustration of an author who submitted a journal paper and did not receive clear feedback.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
- Q: Why is the author frustrated?
A: The author is frustrated because their journal paper was rejected without clear or constructive feedback.
<li><strong>Q: What was the review process like?</strong><br>
A: The review process was delayed and lacked communication, leaving the author in limbo.</li>
<li><strong>Q: What was the editorial decision based on?</strong><br>
A: The editorial decision was based on concerns about the novelty of the research, which the author believes were understated.</li>
<li><strong>Q: What does the author request?</strong><br>
A: The author requests that the editors reconsider their decision and provide more detailed and specific reasons for rejection.</li>
<li><strong>Q: What is the main reason for the author's frustration?</strong><br>
A: The author's frustration stems from the lack of transparency and constructive feedback in the review process.</li>
Image: www.penguin.co.uk
Image: www.goodreads.com
On the Hidden Pain of V.C. Andrews, the Woman Behind The Flowers in the Attic ‹ Literary Hub From a Frustrated Author – Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. A frustrated author of a journal paper writes to the editor of the journal. “We have again rewritten the entire manuscript from start to (r)nish,” he writes. Reviewers are less interested in the details of scienti(r)c procedure, he says.
