Skip to main content
Log in

Fate of articles rejected by Indian Pediatrics

  • From the Archives
  • Published:
Indian Pediatrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study was conducted to determine the fate of manuscripts rejected by Indian Pediatrics (IP), and to identify the factors facilitating publication of a rejected manuscript elsewhere. Database (PubMed, IndMed) and Google searches were performed to trace the manuscripts published elsewhere any time after rejection by Indian Pediatrics in the year 2002. Eighteen per cent of the rejected submissions (62 out of 347) were eventually (till July 2009) published elsewhere. These manuscripts subsequently appeared in 33 different journals; Indian Journal of Pediatrics published the maximum numbers (n=22). Seventy four per cent of the rejected papers were published in journals with a impact factor lesser than Indian Pediatrics. Rejection before initiating peer-review, and rejection on the grounds of overinterpretation of results or poor statistical analysis diminished the chances of subsequent publication, whereas manuscripts rejected on grounds of poor originality or poor language had greater chances of being published elsewhere. Rejection of a manuscript by IP does not preclude publication, but rejected manuscripts are published more often in non-pediatric journals or journals with a lower impact factor, although the occasional exception exists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rubin HR, Redelmeier DA, Wu AW, Steinberg EP. How reliable is peer review of scientific abstracts? J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:255–258.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Maddox J. Conflicts of interest declared. Nature. 1992; 360:205.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Scharschmidt BF, DeAmicis A, Bacchetti P, Held MJ. Chance, concurrence and clustering: analysis of reviewers’ recommendations on 1000 sub-missions to the Journal of Clinical Investigation. J Clin Invest. 1994; 94:1877–1880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yadollahie M, Roshanipoor M, Habibzadeh F. The agreement in reports of peer reviews in the Iranian Journal of Medical Science. Saudi Med J. 2004; 25:S44.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. The extent of type I and type II errors in editorial decisions: A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Journal of Informetrics. 2009;3:348–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gupta P, Kaur G, Sharma B, Shah D, Choudhury P. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria of rejection. Indian Pediatr. 2006;43:479–789.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Journal Citation Reports: Science edition 2008; Available from: http://jcrweb.com. Accessed: 25 February, 2010.

  8. Opthof T, Furstner F, van Geer M, Coronel R. Regrets or no regrets? No regrets! The fate of rejected manuscripts. Cadiovasc Res. 2000;45:255–258.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Silberzweig JE, Khorsandi AS. Outcomes of rejected Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology manuscripts. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19:1620–1623.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Liesegang TJ, Shaikh M, Crook JE. The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:551–560.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Green R, Del Mar C. The fate of papers rejected by Australian Family Physician. Aust Fam Physician. 2006; 35:655–656.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chew FS. Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR. Am J Roentgenol.1991;156:627–632.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mundy DJ. Time needed for publication of journal articles. Ann Intern Med. 1984;101:61–62.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Polk HC Jr. An editor’s perspective of the future for peerreviewed traditional surgical journals. Am J Surg. 1991; 161:309–311.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Additional information

Reproduced from: Indian Pediatrics. 2010; Volume 47.p 1031–5.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dewan, P., Gupta, P. & Shah, D. Fate of articles rejected by Indian Pediatrics . Indian Pediatr 50, 84–87 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-013-0002-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-013-0002-7

Key words

Navigation