Academic Rejection Letter Example

The key to writing a manuscript rejection letter or email, is the same as writing a job rejection toward a candidate: so important it is to be as kind as you can be. You are writing the letter to reject a manuscript, but always keep in mind that you are actual rejecting this manuscript for this journal – you are not rejecting the author, or the author's science in general, or even this manuscript for all time. As we all know often manuscript get rejected because the high volume of submissions and the constraints of space and time that forces us to limit the number of articles that can be published.

How do you politely reject an academic publication in a journal?

This is a good example of how to politely reject the publication in an academic journal of a manuscript:

• Dear {{name}},
• Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled “{{manuscript-title}}”.
• We regret to inform you that your manuscript will not be included for publication in our journal at this time.
• After careful consideration and extensive discussion among the editorial staff, we feel this paper would be more appropriate for publication in another journal.
• Although the reviews are not entirely negative, it is evident that the manuscript does not meet our criteria for novelty and impact.
• Although you could address these issues in a revised manuscript, we must decline without further review so that you may submit it elsewhere without delay.
• I am sorry our response could not be more positive.
• Our decision in no way reflects any criticism or doubt about the quality of the work submitted or your work in general.
• Due to the high volume of submissions we receive and the constraints of space, we must limit the number of articles we select for publication.
• We hope that you will continue to consider our journal for future manuscript submissions.
• Yours sincerely,

By pointing to some of the positives in the letter it will motivate the writer of the manuscript to keep submitting great work. Is the work novel? Is the system promising? Is the discussion thought-provoking? Does the study build appropriately on the author’s previous work, or tackle an obvious gap in our understanding?