Using Similarity Measures to Identify Significant Rejection Risk Factors After Technical Screening of Research Articles

Using Similarity Measures to Identify Significant Rejection Risk Factors After Technical Screening of Research Articles

Priyanka Majumder, Florentin Smarandache
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7836-3.ch016
(Individual Chapters)
No Current Special Offers


Nobody enjoys being rejected. It hurts to have your most recent paper rejected after putting a lot of work and effort into it. A manuscript may be rejected for a variety of reasons, such as simple mistakes and oversights or just being unrelated to the journal's focus. One of the major risk factors is technical rejection. On other signs, the technical rejection gets worse. Thus, the goal of this chapter is to identify the key technical risk factors for paper rejection. The cosine similarity measure in the SVPNS environment was utilised in this study to determine this risk factor.
Chapter Preview


A study manuscript that has been accepted for publication in a reputable national or worldwide journal is essentially seen as a confirmation of the validity and dependability of the relevant research team's work. Scientific journals may publish manuscripts as research papers, reviews, quick communications, commentaries, proceedings, professional opinions, or editorials. Their “Research” and “Review” article kinds are the most significant and well-liked since they are frequently created, read, and disseminated. Each article, after the author(s) have invested a lot of time and effort into it, is forwarded to a journal for publishing, where it is chosen based on the topic of the paper and the broad reach of the magazine. It is the responsibility of the author(s) to comprehend the journal's focus before submitting the manuscript and to confirm that the paper's subject complies with the journal's standards. This will make it possible to prevent pointless delays.

In a meeting with the editorial staff, the editor-in-chief of the journal determines if the manuscript merits being forwarded to the relevant reviewers for review based on the potential of the topic and its suitability in the journal. Approximately 20–30% of the articles can be classified as inappropriate or outside the scope of the journal quite rapidly. The paper may be rejected by the Editor-in-Chief without being sent to the reviewers for a second opinion. One can sometimes make this determination based on the manuscript's obvious quality, but more frequently, the quality may be enough but it still does not fit the journal's profile and intended audience. The editor(s) believe that promptly informing authors of their choice is the most equitable approach they can provide. Therefore, they decide to reject the paper even before submitting it to the reviewer, or they may send it to just one reviewer to make sure.

After the review process, the article and manuscript with the most prominence, prominence, and excellence would frequently emerge as the winner among its contemporaries, with the other articles being rejected with reasons given (reviewers' remarks). A “stand out” manuscript is very infrequently approved as such (without any improvements). The reviewer will frequently request revisions from the authors of such articles through the Editor-in-Chief in order to make the article even more pertinent and deserving of publication.

A research article is a piece of writing that presents one or more findings from carefully thought-out scientific investigation. In order to communicate specific discoveries to the larger scientific community, a research article is prepared by and for researchers. Journals offer guidelines for the layout to be used while producing research articles.

Numerous causes could exist; the following are some of the most prevalent (non-exclusive) ones:

Lack of creativity, novelty, and presentation of out-of-date research The main characteristics that a scientific journal editor emphasises the most are novelty and originality. Unless the researcher shows something original, adding to the existing knowledge, a mouth-dissolving tablet preparation of a medicine using traditional procedures, technology, and/or recognised excipients does not represent an innovation to the state of the field as it currently exists. Furthermore, reporting an old study when newer approaches are already accessible has little to no scientific merit.

To underline with adequate arguments and factual support is the goal of research. On these basis alone, a controlled release formulation of a medication that is essentially water insoluble may be immediately rejected. The rationale, which should be the article's main point, should be the centre of the entire document. Typically, the final sentence of the introductory section should be the aim(s) and objective(s). Rejection is influenced by lack of concentration and adherence to the manuscript's theme. Many manuscripts stray from the goal, making references to topics outside the purview of the study, probably in an effort to produce a lengthy piece.

The purpose of peer-reviewed journal publications is to spread knowledge. Therefore, an article needs to have significant scientific value in order to be accepted for publication in a reputable, worldwide journal. Once more, the editor is looking for novel content that also satisfies the parameters of his journal's scope.

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book: