If a reviewer rejects your article, it’s not the end of the world. This is a standard step in the academic publishing process that every experienced researcher has gone through. Based on our experience at «Academy of Articles,» on average, every published article goes through 2–4 submission attempts before final acceptance. This means that rejection is not an exception, but a normal part of the process.
But for a Kazakhstani scholar who works under the strict requirements of the Committee on Science, Education, and Innovation of the Ministry of National Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan and is preparing to defend a PhD or confirm an academic title, a rejection is particularly painful. Every month lost poses a risk to the defense, especially if there is less than a year left until it takes place.
This article outlines a specific step-by-step process: what to do immediately after receiving a rejection letter, how to determine the type of rejection, how to write a well-crafted response to the reviewers, and how to choose the right journal next, taking into account the requirements for a PhD defense in Kazakhstan.
Step 1. Don't panic—first, determine the type of failure
The first and most important rule: if a reviewer has rejected your article, don’t reply to the email right away. Give yourself 24–48 hours. An emotional response to a reviewer is a professional mistake that cannot be undone.
Once your emotions have subsided, read the letter carefully and determine the type of rejection. Your entire strategy moving forward depends on this.
Types of Rejections and What They Mean
Rejection without review (Desk rejection)
The editor rejects a manuscript even before sending it to reviewers—based on their own assessment. This is the most common type of rejection: in leading international journals, it accounts for 60 to 90% of all submitted manuscripts. In mid-tier journals, the figure is 25–40%. These figures are recorded by the «Academy of Articles» team as part of their publication support services.
Common causes:
- The article does not fit the journal's scope;
- There is no obvious scientific novelty;
- Gross methodological errors that are apparent without peer review;
- The technical requirements for formatting have not been met;
- A weak, brief summary (abstract) — the editor didn't see the point in reading any further.
What to do: Look for a new, more suitable journal. Resubmitting to the same journal after such a rejection is usually pointless.
Outright rejection
The journal reviewed the reviewers' opinions and made the final decision not to publish the article. This is the editorial board's final decision.
The likelihood of a successful appeal is less than 10%. An appeal is justified only in cases of an obvious factual error by the reviewer or a violation of the peer-review procedure. Based on our team’s observations, such cases are rare—it is usually better to revise the article and submit it to another journal.
What to do: Treat the reviewers' comments as free expert advice, revise the article, and submit it to another journal.
Major revision
This is not a final rejection—it is an invitation to revise the manuscript. The journal is willing to consider the article provided that significant revisions are made. Based on the practice of the «Academy of Articles,» the probability of acceptance following a high-quality, substantial revision is 50–60%.
The typical timeframe that journals allow for revisions is 6–10 weeks.
Minor revisions
The journal is, in principle, willing to publish the article. Minor revisions are required: references, wording, and data presentation. The probability of acceptance after these revisions is over 90%. The response time is approximately 21 days.
This is the best possible sign. The key is to respond carefully, addressing each point and specifying the specific changes.
Scope mismatch
The editor or reviewers determine that the article does not fit the journal's scope—regardless of its quality. This can result in either an early or a late rejection.
Here's what it looks like in a rejection letter:
- «This manuscript falls outside the scope of our journal»;
- «The topic does not align with the publication's focus»;
- «Our readers will not benefit from this work.».
What to do: Find a more relevant journal. To do this, it’s helpful to use the Elsevier Journal Finder or the Scopus Sources database.
Summary Table: Failure Type — Response Strategy
| Failure Type | When does it happen? | "Chance" in the same magazine | Next step |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rejection without review | Before Review | Low | Search for a new magazine |
| Off-topic | Before or after the review | Low | A New Specialized Magazine |
| Final rejection | After the review | Less than 10% | Revisions + New Journal |
| Major revisions (extensive reworking) | After the review | About 50% | Reply Letter + Revisions |
| Minor edits | After the review | More than 90% | Minor edits + response |
Related: Read our in-depth article on the reasons why articles are rejected by Scopus Q1–Q2 journals:
The main reasons for article rejection in Scopus Q1–Q2 and how to avoid them
Step 2. Read the reviewers' comments carefully
A review is not a verdict. When a reviewer rejects an article and sends feedback, it is an analytical document that needs to be analyzed structurally. Our team recommends the following steps for handling a rejection letter:
- Read the entire thing without reacting right away. Give yourself time to calm down;
- Switch to analyst mode. Keep in mind that an editor is reading your response—and may forward it to reviewers;
- Copy all comments into a separate document and number each item (Reviewer 1 Comment 1, Reviewer 1 Comment 2, Reviewer 2 Comment 1, etc.);
- Prepare four documents for resubmission: a cover letter, a response to the reviewers, a version with marked-up revisions, and a final, clean version.
How to Categorize Comments
Assign each numbered comment to one of the following three categories:
- Fundamental comments: These affect the scientific substance—the hypothesis, methodology, and interpretation of results. Address these first;
- Minor comments: do not affect the conclusions—wording, references, data descriptions;
- Formatting guidelines: structure, citation style, journal template.
Common Mistakes When Reading a Rejection Letter
According to observations by experts at the «Academy of Articles,» authors most often make the following mistakes:
- They only read the final word «rejected» and do not analyze the details of the comments;
- They respond the same day—on impulse;
- All comments are considered binding (though some may be politely disputed);
- They overlook the editor's comments, focusing only on the reviewers;
- They give vague responses: «fixed,» «noted»—without specifying exactly where;
- They skip certain points, considering them insignificant.
Step 3. Write a well-written response to the reviewers
A response letter to reviewers (also known as a “response to reviewers” or simply a “response letter”) is a distinct academic genre. It is just as important as the article itself. A well-written response can change the editor’s decision even in the face of serious concerns.
Structure of a Reply Letter
Part 1 — Introductory Paragraph
Thank the editor and reviewers. Mention that you have carefully addressed each comment. Example in Russian:
«The authors sincerely thank the reviewers for their thorough and insightful analysis of the manuscript. We have carefully considered each comment and made the necessary revisions. We are confident that these changes have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.» (English: The authors sincerely thank the reviewers for their thorough and insightful feedback. We have carefully considered each comment and made the necessary revisions. We believe these changes have significantly improved the manuscript.)
Part 2 — Responses to Each Comment
Please use the standard format: reviewer number → comment number → quote from the comment → your response → reference to the page or line numbers of the changes.
Example in Russian:
«Reviewer 1, Comment 1: [Quote from comment]"
Response: Thank you for this comment. We have revised the methodology section (page 5, lines 12–18) as follows: [updated text]»*** (English: Reviewer 1, Comment 1: [quote] — Response: Thank you for this comment. We have revised the methodology section (page 5, lines 12–18) as follows: [updated text])
Part 3 — Concluding Paragraph
«In conclusion: We have made substantial revisions to the manuscript based on the reviewers» comments. We are confident that these revisions have improved the quality and clarity of the work. Thank you for your constructive feedback, and we look forward to your favorable consideration of the updated version.’ (English: In conclusion, we have made substantial revisions based on the reviewers’ comments. We look forward to your favorable consideration of our revised manuscript.)
How to Politely Disagree with a Reviewer
It is acceptable and professional to disagree with a reviewer. The key is to do so politely and with well-reasoned arguments.
When is this appropriate:
- The reviewer made a factual error that can be corroborated by references to the literature;
- The reviewer misunderstood the research question;
- The request goes beyond the scope of the study's ethical guidelines or resources;
- Implementing this suggestion would undermine the article's key contribution.
A Practical Template for Polite Disagreement:
«We thank Reviewer 2 for the thorough analysis. However, we must respectfully disagree with the assertion that [X]. During our literature review, we identified [N] peer-reviewed studies that directly addressed this issue: [references]. We have revised the introduction (page 3, lines 45–50) to more clearly reflect these findings.» (English: We thank Reviewer 2 for their evaluation; however, we must respectfully disagree with the statement that [X]. Our literature search identified [N] peer-reviewed studies: [refs]. We have revised the introduction (p. 3, lines 45–50) accordingly.)
When NOT to Argue: Stylistic Preferences, Minor Methodological Comments, Requests for Additional Analysis. Based on our team’s experience: avoid disagreeing with more than 15–20% comments—otherwise, you’ll come across as a «difficult» author.
What You Should Never Do in a Reply Letter
- To ignore even a single comment—even one that seems insignificant;
- Writing vaguely: «fixed,» «noted»—without specifying what and where;
- Use a defensive, accusatory, or emotional tone;
- To rely on one's authority rather than on arguments;
- Do not follow the journal's instructions for resubmission.
Step 4. Decide: Should you respond to this magazine, or look for another one?
Stay in the same journal if:
- The journal explicitly invited the author to revise the manuscript and resubmit it;
- The comments pertain only to formatting or missing information;
- In the letter, the editor uses encouraging language;
- You can make the necessary changes promptly.
Look for another magazine if:
- A final rejection has been received;
- The reason is that it does not fit the theme;
- Finalizing the project will require 6–12 months of new data collection;
- Criticism reflects the reviewer's personal tastes, not actual flaws;
- The journal's standards did not initially meet the requirements of your work.
Important: Do not resubmit to the same journal without an invitation. The editorial board will remember this.
Related: How to Choose a Scopus Journal for Your First Submission and Avoid Mistakes:
Step 5. Select the correct next log
Once a reviewer has rejected your article, it’s important not to submit it just anywhere, but to make a strategic choice. This is especially true if you’re working under the requirements of the Ministry of Science, Higher Education, and Research of the Republic of Kazakhstan and value your time.
Algorithm for Choosing a New Journal
- The "step down" strategy: If you've been rejected by a Q1 site, look for the best Q2 site in your niche. If you're already with a Q2 site, look for a high-quality Q2 or Q3 site with a strong CiteScore percentile;
- Check the journal's focus: review the 5–10 most recently published articles. The methodology, scope, and style should all align with your work;
- Useful tools: Elsevier Journal Finder, Springer Journal Suggester, the Scopus Sources database (scopus.com > Sources), SCImago Journal Rank — to check a journal’s CiteScore quartile and percentile;
- Mandatory pre-submission check: the journal is currently indexed; the CiteScore percentile meets the requirements for the year of planned publication; the article's topic matches your field code.
Requirements of the Committee on Higher Education and Scientific Research of the Ministry of National Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan: What Is Required to Defend a PhD Thesis
Before choosing a new journal, make sure it meets your mandatory requirements. For detailed information on eligibility for the defense, required percentiles, and current rules, click here: Publication Strategy for PhD Students in Kazakhstan.
It is critically important: if the journal loses its Scopus indexing before your defense, the article will not count—even if it was accepted earlier. The percentile is based on the year of publication or the year of the defense. You must monitor this constantly.
What needs to be changed in the article before resubmission
- Address all valid comments from the reviewers—reviewers at other journals often raise the same issues;
- Adapt the abstract, keywords, and cover letter for the new journal;
- Update the cover letter: make sure it is addressed to the new editor (a common mistake is to send a letter with the name of the previous journal);
- Reformat the links to match the style of the new edition;
- Review the scope and structure to ensure they meet the requirements of the new journal.
How to Protect Yourself from Predatory Publishers When Choosing a New Journal:
How to Avoid Being Published in a Predatory Journal on Scopus: A Guide for Researchers
A Real-Life Example: How a Rejection Helped Me Get Published in a More Prestigious Journal
From the «Article Academy» in practice:
The author submitted an article on engineering to a Q1-level journal. The reviewer rejected the article, providing detailed comments on the methodology and interpretation of the data.
Instead of just submitting the paper anywhere, the author systematically addressed all the comments: he conducted additional analysis, rewrote the discussion of the results, and revised the wording describing the paper’s scientific contribution.
The revised manuscript was submitted to a Q2 journal—and accepted after one round of minor revisions.
Conclusion: The harsh comments from reviewers at a prestigious journal actually improved the quality of the article. The rejection served as a tool for improvement, rather than a final rejection.
Here’s another telling example from our experience: an author received four consecutive rejections from different journals. After each rejection, he revised the article. Ultimately, the manuscript was accepted by the very journal required by the KOKSNVO, and within the required timeframe. Each cycle of «rejection—revision» made the work stronger.
How long does it actually take from submission to publication in Scopus:
Summary: A Brief Overview of the Procedure to Follow in the Event of a Failure
If you've received a rejection letter, here are the complete steps to follow:
- Don't reply right away. Give yourself 24–48 hours;
- Identify the type of rejection: early (without review), final, major revisions, minor revisions, or off-topic;
- Read the comments systematically. Make a numbered list of categories;
- Decide whether to respond to this magazine or look for another one—based on the criteria from step 4;
- If you are responding, write a complete reply following the structure outlined in Step 3. Address each point, citing the corresponding page numbers;
- If you are resubmitting, choose a journal strategically, taking into account the requirements of the Committee on Science, Education, and Innovation of the Ministry of National Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the current CiteScore percentile;
- Before submission: Update the cover letter, and adapt the abstract and references to the new journal.
If a reviewer rejects an article, it’s not the end. It’s just part of the process. Researchers who know how to navigate this process end up getting published in higher-impact journals than those who give up at the first rejection.
