Why Research Paper Get Rejected? Avoid 4 Common Mistakes - DAAD Fully Funded Scholarships 2026

Getting a “rejected” email from a journal hurts. It is even more frustrating when the reason feels vague: “not suitable for this journal” or “poorly drafted manuscript.”

The good news? Those are actually two of the most fixable reasons for rejection. Your idea is probably not the problem; its home (journal choice) and packaging (writing and structure) are.

Let’s build a clear, logical roadmap to understand why papers get rejected and how you can upgrade yours so it has a far better chance next time.

1. Where most papers die: desk rejection vs peer-review rejection

Most journals filter submissions in two major steps:

Desk rejection – The editor skims your paper and decides whether it is worth sending to reviewers. No detailed feedback, often a short note like “outside scope” or “not suitable for our readership.”
Rejection after peer review – External reviewers examine your methods, data, and reasoning, and recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection.

You can think of it like this:

Desk stage tests:
Did you pick the right journal? Does the paper look professional and coherent? Does it seem novel and relevant enough?
Peer-review stage tests:
Is the science solid? Are the methods appropriate and well described? Do the results support the claims?

“Inappropriate journal” usually kills you at the desk stage.
“Poor drafting” can kill you at both stages.

So let’s tackle those head on.

2. Rejection Reason #1: Choosing an inappropriate journal

“Inappropriate journal” almost never means your work is worthless. It usually means it does not fit what that particular journal is designed to publish.

2.1 What “wrong journal” often means

When an editor says the journal is not the right place for your work, it may be because:

Out of scope
Your topic, method, or population does not match the journal’s official “Aims and Scope.”
Example: a local hospital survey sent to a journal focused on global health policy.
Mismatch in audience
The journal is written for a broad, general audience, but your paper is extremely narrow and technical, or the opposite.
Impact vs ambition mismatch
The journal expects big theoretical or methodological advances. Your work is solid but incremental and would fit better in a specialized or lower–impact outlet.
Wrong article type
You submit a case report to a journal that only accepts original research, or you send a narrative review to a journal that mainly publishes systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

2.2 How to pick the right journal (before you resubmit)

Think of journal selection as matching your paper’s personality to its ideal home.

A# Clarify what your paper actually is

- Type: original research, review, case study, methodological paper, short communication, etc.
- Audience: who benefits most? Clinicians, engineers, educators, policymakers, data scientists?

B# Look at where the papers you cite are published

- Which journals appear repeatedly in your reference list?
- Those journals clearly handle your topic area and methods.

C# Study the journal’s Aims & Scope and recent issues

- Does your topic clearly fall under their listed themes?
- Is the level of generality similar?
- Are your methods and sample size comparable to what they publish?

D# Check technical requirements before deciding

- Word limits, structure, reference style, open-access policy, types of articles accepted.
- If your paper would need drastic cutting or expanding, perhaps choose a journal that naturally matches your current length and depth.

E# Write a targeted cover letter

- Briefly explain how your paper fits the journal’s scope and relates to recent articles they have published.
- This signals that you chose the journal deliberately, not randomly.

A simple test: if your manuscript feels like it could sit comfortably among the last ten articles the journal published, your choice is likely appropriate. If it feels noticeably different in topic, scale, or method, keep searching.

3. Rejection Reason #2: Poor Drafting and Unclear Writeup

“Poor drafting” is rarely about minor grammar mistakes. Editors and reviewers usually mean:

- The story is not clear: they cannot easily see the problem, the gap, what you did, and what you found.
- The structure is confusing: introduction, methods, results, and discussion are not well aligned.
- The methods are vague: they cannot tell exactly what you did or whether it was appropriate.
- The language feels messy or imprecise, even if grammatically acceptable.
- The paper does not follow journal guidelines in layout, headings, or referencing.

Let’s walk through each section and see what “good drafting” looks like.

3.1 Title and abstract: your first impression

Title: A strong title tells the reader:

- What you studied
- In whom or where (population/setting)
- How (often implicitly through wording like “randomized trial”, “qualitative study”, “systematic review”)

Avoid overly vague titles. Be specific without being wordy.

Abstract: Your abstract should read like a compressed, complete story:

- Background – 1–2 sentences to set the context and gap.
- Objective – exactly what you aimed to find out.
- Methods – design, key sample details, and analysis approach.
- Results – the main findings, ideally with key numbers.
- Conclusion – what the results mean and why they matter.

If a reader can finish your abstract and still not explain what you did, what you found, and why it matters, revision is needed.

3.2 Introduction: from broad problem to sharp question

A strong introduction moves logically:

1. Describes the broader problem or context.
2. Summarizes what is known and what is missing in current literature.
3. Clearly states the gap your study addresses.
4. Ends with the aim or research question, sometimes with explicit hypotheses.

Avoid long, unfocused introductions that recite general facts but never define a precise research problem. Reviewers are looking for a clear answer to:

“What exact gap in knowledge does this paper fill?”

3.3 Methods: can someone replicate your work?

Methods are not a formality. They are the backbone of credibility. This section should allow another researcher to replicate your study. That means:

- Design – state clearly (cross-sectional, cohort, RCT, case-control, qualitative interviews, mixed methods, etc.).
- Participants/setting – who, where, when, inclusion/exclusion criteria, recruitment process.
- Measures/instruments – what you measured, how you measured it, and any information on reliability/validity if relevant.
- Procedures – step-by-step overview of what participants did or what process was followed.
- Analysis – which statistical tests or qualitative methods you used, which software, any adjustments (e.g., for confounding), and how you handled missing data.

Vague phrases like “data were analyzed statistically” or “appropriate methods were used” are red flags. Reviewers want to be able to check your reasoning, not guess it.

3.4 Results: clear, logical, and not repetitive

Good results sections:

- Follow the same order as your objectives or hypotheses.
- Present descriptive statistics first, then inferential tests.
- Use tables and figures to organize complex data, with clear titles and legends.
- Mention important numbers in the text but avoid repeating every value from the table; instead, interpret.

Ask yourself: if someone only had my results section and tables, could they understand what happened without confusion?

3.5 Discussion and conclusion: interpret, do not exaggerate

The discussion should:

1. Restate the main findings in plain language.
2. Compare them with previous studies: where do you agree, differ, or extend the existing literature?
3. Offer plausible explanations for your findings.
4. Acknowledge limitations honestly and specifically.
5. End with implications for practice, policy, or future research.

Avoid overstating what you did. If your design does not support causal claims, do not use causal language. Reviewers quickly catch exaggeration and see it as a sign of weak scholarship.

3.6 Language, clarity, and formatting

Finally, polish the surface:

- Use clear, concise sentences. Break long sentences into shorter, easier ones.
- Remove filler phrases like “it is important to note that,” “in fact,” “basically,” and “it can be said that.”
- Keep terminology consistent: do not switch between different words for the same concept.
- Follow the journal’s formatting guidelines closely: headings, reference style, figure formats, word limits.
- Ask a colleague or supervisor to read the manuscript purely for clarity, not for content. If they get lost, so will a reviewer.

4. A Practical Recovery Plan for a Rejected Research Paper in 2026

You have a rejected paper with comments like “inappropriate journal” and “poor drafting.” Here is a concrete step-by-step plan to revive it.

Step 1: Decode the rejection letter

Carefully re-read the editor’s email and any reviewer comments. Highlight every phrase related to:

Scope and fit
Clarity and structure
Methods and analysis
Novelty and contribution

This tells you where to focus your revision energy.

Step 2: Fix the journal fit

Reassess your paper’s topic, audience, and level of contribution.
Identify journals that regularly publish similar work.
Check their aims, scope, article types, and recent issues.
Choose a new journal where your paper naturally “belongs.”

Step 3: Rewrite the abstract and introduction

These two sections shape the editor’s first impression. Make sure they:

Express a precise problem and gap.
State a clear objective.
Give a high-level view of methods and outcomes.
Make the value of your work obvious.

If your abstract and introduction are crisp, the rest of the paper will be easier to align.

Step 4: Strengthen methods and results

Add missing detail in the methods so the study is reproducible.
Check that each research question or hypothesis has a corresponding result.
Clean up tables and figures, and ensure the text leads the reader through them logically.

Step 5: Clean the language and formatting

Shorten long sentences; simplify where possible.
Ensure consistent terminology and tense usage.
Format everything according to the new journal’s guidelines.

Step 6: Get an informal peer review

Before resubmitting:

Ask one or two experienced colleagues to review the manuscript.
Request specific feedback on clarity, structure, and journal fit.
Incorporate their comments seriously, not superficially.

5. Final Thoughts: Rejection is a Draft, not a Verdict!

Rejection feels personal, but in most cases it is just a signal that something in the positioning or presentation needs upgrading. Wrong journal choice and poor drafting are not permanent flaws; they are skills you can improve with practice.

If you deliberately choose a journal that matches your paper and craft a clear, coherent, well-structured manuscript, you dramatically increase your chances that the next email from a journal starts with “We are pleased to inform you…” instead of “We regret to inform you…”.

Lets Play a Game to Check if You Can Avoid Research Paper Rejection by the Journal

Score yourself honestly:

Yes = 1 point
No = 0 points

Aim for at least 10/12 before hitting “Submit”.

Level 1: Journal Fit (Max 3 points)

Scope Match Check
I have read the journal’s Aims & Scope and my topic clearly fits.
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Similarity Check
I can point to at least two recent articles in this journal that are similar in topic or method to my paper.
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Article Type Check
My paper matches one of the journal’s accepted article types (original research, review, short communication, etc.).
[ ] Yes [ ] No

Level 2: Story Clarity (Max 3 points)

One-Sentence Aim Test
I can state my main research question or objective in one clear sentence.
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Abstract Clarity Test
Someone outside my subfield can read my abstract and explain what I did, what I found, and why it matters.
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Logical Flow Check
The paper clearly follows: Problem → Gap → Aim → Methods → Results → Discussion → Conclusion.
[ ] Yes [ ] No

Level 3: Methods and Results Strength (Max 3 points)

Replication Test
A colleague could replicate my study using only my Methods section.
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Method–Question Match
My design and analysis methods actually match my research question (no causal claims from purely descriptive data, etc.).
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Results Alignment
Every result I present clearly links back to a research question or hypothesis.
[ ] Yes [ ] No

Level 4: Drafting and Presentation (Max 3 points)

Guidelines Obedience
I have followed this journal’s formatting, word limit, and reference style exactly.
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Clarity Pass
I did at least one full pass only for language and clarity (shorter sentences, removed repetition, consistent terms).
[ ] Yes [ ] No
External Reader Check
At least one other person (supervisor/colleague) has read this version and did not flag any major confusion.
[ ] Yes [ ] No

Scoreboard

0–5: Not ready. Serious revision needed before choosing a journal.
6–9: Getting there. Fix weak areas before submitting.
10–12: Strong candidate. Choose your journal carefully and submit with confidence.

If you want, you can tell me your “No” answers and I can help you turn them into “Yes” one by one

Citations

Philip Morgan14 November 2025