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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ajao, O. G. (2005). Some reasons for manuscript rejection by peer-reviewed journals. Annals of Ibadan Postgraduate Medicine, 3(2), 9–12.
Alexandrov, A. V., Hennerici, M. G., & Norrving, B. (2009). Suggestions for reviewing manuscripts. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 28(3), 243–246. doi:10.1159/000228588.
Arikan, R. (2009). Tez hazirlama teknikleri: Arastirma tezlerinin reddedilmesi [Thesis preparation techniques: Rejection of research thesis (in Turkish)]. Ankara, Detay Yayincilik.
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.
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.
Belcher, W. L. (2009). Writing your journal article in 12 weeks: A guide to academic publishing and success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Chernick, V. (2008). How to get your paper rejected. Pediatric Pulmonology, 43(3), 220–223.
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.
Ehara, S., & Takahashi, K. (2007). Reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to AJR by international authors. American Journal of Roentgenology, 188(2), W113–W116.
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.
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.
Hess, D. R. (2004). How to write an effective discussion. Respiratory Care, 49(10), 1238–1241.
Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel Arastirma Yontemi [Research Methods]. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
Klingner, J. K., Scanlon, D., & Pressley, M. (2005). How to publish in scholarly journals. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 14–20.
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.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Pierson, D. J. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respiratory care, 49(10), 1246–1252.
Price, R. V., & Maushak, N. J. (2000). Publishing in the field of educational technology: Getting started. Educational Technology, 40(4), 47–52.
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.
Seckin, D. (2003). Bilimsel bir makale nasil yazilir? [How to write a scientific paper?]. Dermatose, 2, 90–94.
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.
Sonmez, V. (2005). Bilimsel arastırmalarda yapilan yanlisliklar [Methodological errors in scientific research]. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 5(18), 236–252.
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.
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.
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.
Ucak, O. N., & Birinci, H. G. (2008). Bilimsel etik ve intihal. [Scientific ethics and plagiarism]. Turk Kutuphaneciligi, 22(2), 187–204.
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.
Vinluan, L. R. (2012). Research productivity in education and psychology in the Philippines and comparison with ASEAN countries. Scientometrics, 91(1), 277–294.
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.
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.
Acknowledgments
We thank Res. Asst. Omer ARPACIK for his assistance with the transference of the questionnaire to the web environment.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Celik, E., Gedik, N., Karaman, G. et al. Mistakes encountered in manuscripts on education and their effects on journal rejections. Scientometrics 98, 1837–1853 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1137-y
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1137-y