What are the Major Reasons for Scientific Manuscript Rejection?

The strategies are not clarified in enough detail

The strategies need to give each progression you have led during your research. Be sure that you have referenced all that you did, and all that you utilized for your research – insights about the gear you used, the time scales, information assortment and information investigation – indeed everything in Medical Writing in Clinical Trials. This part can’t be point by point enough.

Some unacceptable measurements are utilized

Usually, specialists are no prepared analysts, and regularly didn’t get a decent measurable preparing during their vocation, yet instead took in the methodology learning-by-doing. Subsequently, contingent upon the exploration zone, comparable factual tests are utilized as a norm, and regularly papers reproduce the tests used before contemplates – however, this doesn’t generally bode well. Be sure that you pick the right test for your investigation; your research is pretty much pointless in any case. For instance, ensure that you know whether it is fitting to utilize non-parametrical or parametrical tests for your dataset, and check for specific appropriation before directing further tests. Numerous colleges have divisions that can assist you with the insights, so ensure you utilize this choice on the off chance you are unsure what to do. Likewise, there are numerous accommodating on the web stages and recordings that may demonstrate helpfully in medical research companies.

The segments are stirred up

Try not to stir up outcomes and conversation – don’t decipher or talk about the results when you present them in the outcome segment, and sum up the works without further ado before examining them. It doesn’t matter for diaries that consolidate results and conversation, so make sure to check the writers’ rules before you compose your paper!

The writing is wrong

Analytical writing should be precise. Albeit usually in engaging manuscript, it isn’t encouraged to utilize a similar word twice in a sentence. It doesn’t make a difference to the logical manuscript, which should be on point. Check your content for fill words and ensure you have names in the range expected to comprehend your sentence. Try not to attempt to dazzle your pursuer by utilizing fascinating terms or convoluted organized sentences. Make a point to stay away from vague articulations; however, use quantitative depictions all things being equal. Become accustomed to consistently use the dynamic voice, as it is briefer and more transparent than the passive voice in clinical medicine research.

The references are poor

Be sure that you credit all the investigations whose outcomes you notice in your manuscript. Continuously monitor your references. If you reference the content (just creator and year), consistently ensure that you provide the full reference in your reference list. It requires some investment to gather them simultaneously and perhaps need to search for the complete reference after you have completed your paper. The styles you need to introduce the authorities continuously rely upon the manuscript you expect to distribute your manuscript in – so ensure that you mindful of the style design heretofore to dodge additional work.

You have not picked a manuscript before

Pick a manuscript you need to distribute your manuscript before you begin writing your paper – ensure that this manuscript covered comparative points to your research previously. To try not to need to change your manuscript’s style and arrangement, check the Instructions for creators just as papers that have been distributed in the picked manuscript. Writing your original copy in the right type of the picked manuscript saves you a great deal of designing time – be that as it may, frequently you choose the manuscript after your manuscript was at that point composed. It would help if you reformated it to hand it in for another document. In these cases, you need to reformat your paper after it is written in another style – this is time and nerve burning-through. Thus, if you can, attempt to dodge it.

The conclusion doesn’t coordinate the introduced results

Measurably, results are either massive, or they are most certainly not. Likewise, be sure that the ends are drawn from the information indeed are upheld by those in the conversation. Don’t over-decipher your information to allow them to coordinate your speculation. I know, now and again you genuinely need your information to coordinate your theories. Measurements should be exact, so have faith in it.

Conclusion

Pubrica states that “these are the couple of purposes behind a manuscript rejection in a journal”.

References

1. Hesterman, C. M., Szperka, C. L., & Turner, D. P. (2018). Reasons for manuscript rejection after peer review from the journal headache. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, 58(10), 1511-1518.
2. Ehara, S., & Takahashi, K. (2007). Reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to AJR by international authors. American journal of Roentgenology, 188(2), W113-W116.
3. Ali, J. (2010). Manuscript rejection: causes and remedies. Journal of Young Pharmacists: JYP, 2(1), 3