Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 98, Issue 3, pp 1837–1853 | Cite as

Mistakes encountered in manuscripts on education and their effects on journal rejections

  • Embiya Celik
  • Nuray Gedik
  • Güler Karaman
  • Turgay Demirel
  • Yuksel GoktasEmail author
Article

Abstract

The goal of this study was to identify common mistakes made in research study manuscripts submitted to journals of Education and the effects of these mistakes on rejection by the journal editors and referees. An online questionnaire was developed for this purpose with 43 items and five open-ended questions. Common mistakes were identified by administering the 43 questions, which were to be answered in two stages: first by using 5-point Likert scale responses, and then by responses arranged according to semantic differential scale (for the effects of the mistakes on rejections). The online questionnaire was sent to the editors and referees of Turkish journals of Education indexed in SSCI and ULAKBIM. Data were then collected from 232 participants and examined. The quantitative data obtained from the questionnaire items were analyzed, and the mean and standard deviation scores were presented in tables. The qualitative data gathered from the open-ended questions were analyzed descriptively. The results show that researchers mostly make mistakes in the discussion, conclusion, and suggestions part of the manuscripts. However, mistakes made in the methods part are the most significant causes of manuscript rejection.

Keywords

Reasons for manuscript rejection Manuscript review Mistakes in education manuscripts Manuscript review process 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Res. Asst. Omer ARPACIK for his assistance with the transference of the questionnaire to the web environment.

References

  1. Ajao, O. G. (2005). Some reasons for manuscript rejection by peer-reviewed journals. Annals of Ibadan Postgraduate Medicine, 3(2), 9–12.Google Scholar
  2. Alexandrov, A. V., Hennerici, M. G., & Norrving, B. (2009). Suggestions for reviewing manuscripts. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 28(3), 243–246. doi: 10.1159/000228588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arikan, R. (2009). Tez hazirlama teknikleri: Arastirma tezlerinin reddedilmesi [Thesis preparation techniques: Rejection of research thesis (in Turkish)]. Ankara, Detay Yayincilik.Google Scholar
  4. Asan, A. (2006). Bilimsel dergilere yayin sunma ve yayin degerlendirme islemleri [Assessment and publication processes in scientific journals (in Turkish)]. Saglik Bilimlerinde Sureli Yayincilik, 101–106.Google Scholar
  5. Audisio, R. A., Stahel, R. A., Aapro, M. S., Costa, A., Pandey, M., & Pavlidis, N. (2009). Successful publishing: how to get your paper accepted. Surgical Oncology, 18(4), 350–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belcher, W. L. (2009). Writing your journal article in 12 weeks: A guide to academic publishing and success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 889–896. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200109000-00010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2010). The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review. Library and Information Science Research, 32(1), 5–12. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2009.07.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bornmann, L., Nast, I., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication. Scientometrics, 77(3), 415–432. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bornmann, L., Weymuth, C., & Daniel, H. D. (2010). A content analysis of referees’ comments: How do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ? Scientometrics, 83(2), 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chernick, V. (2008). How to get your paper rejected. Pediatric Pulmonology, 43(3), 220–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Day, R. A. (1997). Bilimsel bir makale nasil yazilir ve yayimlanir? [How to write and publish a scientific paper (translated to Turkish by Gülay Aşkar Altay)]. 2. Baskı. Ankara: TÜBİTAK.Google Scholar
  13. Ehara, S., & Takahashi, K. (2007). Reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to AJR by international authors. American Journal of Roentgenology, 188(2), W113–W116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer, C. C. (2004). Managing your research writing for success: Passing the “Gate Keepers.” http://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2004/gatekeepers.htm. Accessed 2 Feb 2007.
  15. Gupta, P., Kaur, G., Sharma, B., Shah, D., & Choudhury, P. (2006). What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: Analysis of submissions, review process, decision making and criteria for rejection. Indian Pediatrics, 43(6), 479.Google Scholar
  16. Hess, D. R. (2004). How to write an effective discussion. Respiratory Care, 49(10), 1238–1241.Google Scholar
  17. Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel Arastirma Yontemi [Research Methods]. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.Google Scholar
  18. Klingner, J. K., Scanlon, D., & Pressley, M. (2005). How to publish in scholarly journals. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McKercher, B., Law, R., Weber, K., Song, H., & Hsu, C. (2007). Why referees reject manuscripts. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 31(4), 455–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  21. Pierson, D. J. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respiratory care, 49(10), 1246–1252.Google Scholar
  22. Price, R. V., & Maushak, N. J. (2000). Publishing in the field of educational technology: Getting started. Educational Technology, 40(4), 47–52.Google Scholar
  23. Sayin, S. (2008). Bilimsel arastırmalarda bazi istatistiksel ve yontembilimsel hatalar-III: Guvenirlik kestirimlerine yonelik hatalar [Some of the statistical and methodological mistakes made in scientific researches-III: Mistakes made in reliability estimations]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 17(1), 53–69.Google Scholar
  24. Seckin, D. (2003). Bilimsel bir makale nasil yazilir? [How to write a scientific paper?]. Dermatose, 2, 90–94.Google Scholar
  25. Shakiba, B., Salmasian, H., Yousefi-Nooraie, R., & Rohanizadegan, M. (2008). Factors influencing editors’ decision on acceptance or rejection of manuscripts: the authors’ perspective. Archives of Iranian Medicine, 11(3), 257–262.Google Scholar
  26. Sonmez, V. (2005). Bilimsel arastırmalarda yapilan yanlisliklar [Methodological errors in scientific research]. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 5(18), 236–252.Google Scholar
  27. Summers, J. (2001). Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in marketing: From conceptualization through the review process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(4), 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tseng, Y., Chang, C., Tutwiler, M. S., Lin, M., & Barufaldi, J. P. (2013). A scientometric analysis of the effectiveness of Taiwan’s educational research projects. Scientometrics, 95(3), 1141–1166. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-0966-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Turcotte, C., Drolet, P., & Girard, M. (2004). Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie, 51(6), 549–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ucak, O. N., & Birinci, H. G. (2008). Bilimsel etik ve intihal. [Scientific ethics and plagiarism]. Turk Kutuphaneciligi, 22(2), 187–204.Google Scholar
  31. Uluoglu, C. (2010). Makalelerin reddedilme nedenleri ve reddedilen makalelerin gelecegi. [Reasons for the rejection of manuscripts and future of rejected manuscripts]. Saglik Bilimlerinde Sureli Yayincilik, 19–27.Google Scholar
  32. Vinluan, L. R. (2012). Research productivity in education and psychology in the Philippines and comparison with ASEAN countries. Scientometrics, 91(1), 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. WeiWei, G., Qi, H., XiaoYu, W., XiaPing, X., & JinYu, D. (2009). Analysis on reasons of manuscript rejection in Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine from 2006 to 2007. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 26(6), 620–622.Google Scholar
  34. Wijnhoven, B. P. L., & Dejong, C. H. C. (2010). Fate of manuscripts declined by the British Journal of Surgery. British Journal of Surgery, 97(3), 450–454. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Embiya Celik
    • 1
  • Nuray Gedik
    • 2
  • Güler Karaman
    • 1
  • Turgay Demirel
    • 1
  • Yuksel Goktas
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Computer Education and Instructional TechnologyAtaturk UniversityErzurumTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Computer Education and Instructional TechnologyAkdeniz UniversityAntalyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations