So my situation…I submitted a journal paper to a well respected journal in my field. Review times are a little over 3 months, and acceptance rate is about 1/3.
I got an outright rejection. However, the reviews came back saying that it would easily be an “accept with minor changes” if I’d basically fix some of the methodology in how I took data…and revised some figures. The editor said he hoped this result would not discourage future “different” manuscript submissions. Basically the reviewers said I omitted crucial information else it would be accepted. I’m not going to give the journal name just so I don’t get in trouble, so I can’t be too horribly specific.
I’d have to take some new data, but it should honestly take ~3 weeks (max)…realistically ~1 1/2 weeks and I easily have access to my old Phd advisor’s lab. I was perfectly honest in the paper about how I took all of the data, the reviewers just had a problem with the method I used to take some of it. They did not think my method was correct in taking some of the data, so they said crucial data was omitted. On one hand I think the reviewers are splitting hairs, but on the other hand I understand that the reviewers may want all of the data taken in the most well understood and accepted way…which, I agree, some of the data in the manuscript was not…sadly
I’m kinda hitting myself over the head on this, but…oh well…the last journal paper I finally got accepted was initially hit with a “major revision” request (again because of a methodology issue where we also took some new data in revised versions).
Any advice? I’m inclined to just take the data in the way the reviewers want, include the new data, take out the data the reviewers had issues with, revise the figures, etc. and resubmit as a new manuscript to the same journal. The reviewers comments were very helpful. Am I reading the journal’s feedback correctly?
If you agree that the data needs to be taken in a more conventional way, then you should do that. It sounds to me from your post that you are not willing to argue for your methodology. The alternative is to go to a different journal but you might get the same response if you are really that far out of norm.
Another question, generally when you change the data and your methodology for taking the data, is that considered a “new manuscript” or a revision to a previous manuscript?
It’s probably going to be considered a revision. It sounds like the reviewers were more positive than the editor, which will likely make this an uphill climb to resubmit to this journal, even with the data and methods the reviewers are requesting. You can always make an appeal, but given the editor’s attitude toward the work, you may be better off taking the reviewers’ feedback into account, revising the manuscript, and submitting elsewhere.
Why don’t you talk to the editor? Explain your interpretation of the reviews and ask if the journal would be open to a new submission of a manuscript focused on the same problem, but with different data and methodology. Make it clear that the paper would be very similar but that the data will be processed and analyzed in the way that the reviewers recommended. The editor should be able to answer a question like this quite easily.
Especially if you are a postdoc, you know how valuable review time is. You don’t want to resubmit to this journal if they’re going to take another 3 months and then give you a rejection again, and then you have to resubmit. So I’d ask first to see if it would even be considered if you made the changes the reviewers suggested. But generally speaking, when I get an outright rejection (as opposed to a revise/resubmit) I usually go to another journal. And I’ve gotten articles rejected before not because they weren’t good, but just because they weren’t the right fit for the journal.
Seems like a simple and obvious answer, but it worked. After three weeks the editor replied with a “yes” you can resubmit, and new data and a revised methodology per the reviewer suggestions would go a long way in letting a new manuscript be considered again. If the editors don’t think the revisions are enough, the will give a quick editorial rejection without review. This will allow me to submit elsewhere quickly.
I never get many comments from my PhD advisor when I get a paper back whether it be major revisions, minor revisions, rejection, or acceptance… :-/