Interviews with Associate Editors
Our Associate Editors offer some Advice
At RSC Advances we have a team of seventy hard working Associate Editors who handle your manuscript, from initial assessment to their final decision.
To gain more insight into the world of peer-review, we have asked our Associate Editors two questions:
- What are your most common reasons for rejecting a manuscript without review?
- What would be your best piece of advice to a submitting author?
Here are what some of our Associate Editors had to say:
Professor Brenno A.D. Neto, Universidade de Brasília, Brazil
1. What are your most common reasons for rejecting a manuscript without review?
I see two main reasons to deny an article for publication without peer-review. The first reason is because it actually lacks the expected advance/impact in the subject of the submitted work; and it is not rare to see these manuscripts. The second reason is even more common in those rejected manuscripts I handle as an Editor, that is, when the expected characterizations of the claimed structures are missing or are incomplete. Several mistakes could be avoided with proper characterizations.
2. What would be your best piece of advice to a submitting author?
Be clear and objective when you write the cover letter. Always check if you are presenting/submitting a well-composed manuscript. This is indeed very important! Also, remember that Science should speak by itself, thus the use of self-promoting words (or buzzwords) in general only backfires on authors.
Dr. Donna Arnold, University of Kent, UK
1. What are your most common reasons for rejecting a manuscript without review?
One of the most common reasons I reject manuscripts at prescreen (reject without peer review) is for lack of novelty and impact. This is often that there is no cover letter stating what the novelty and impact of the work is. The second reason is usually due to scope. It is important to consider if RSC Advances is the right place for the work. Again this is something which can be addressed in a good cover letter!
2. What is the best piece of advice you could give a submitting author?
A couple of pieces of advice beyond a good cover letter. Authors need to consider if RSC is the right place for the work they want to share. With any manuscript the most important thing for the research is for the manuscript to reach the right audience. Sometimes it is tempting to make these decisions based on metrics rather than where the work might reach the best audience. RSC Advances has a wide readership, a good question to ask yourself is, is the work of wide interest or would the work be better in a more focussed journal. Also remember, Associate Editors do look up the work/materials in Web of Science to see what has been done previously in the area. This give the context for the work and we are looking to see if the work extends the current state-of-the-art, has impact, or if it is incremental. Again, it is good to ask yourself this question before you submit. These are questions I ask about my own manuscripts and information, which I include in the cover letter to help convince the editors to consider my work.
Professor Nestor Mariano Correa, Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto, Argentina
1. What are your most common reasons for rejecting a manuscript without review?
When a manuscript arrives at my desk the first thing that I do is see how different from what is already known in this subject. I expect to read it in the cover letter but, this does not always happen. Thus, in my case, this is the main reason for rejecting without review: the lack of originality of the work.
2. What is the best piece of advice you could give a submitting author?
My advice to all the authors that want to send a manuscript to RSC Advances is to take the time to prepare a good cover letter, indicating the advances in the field that the work will do and, to clearly stress the novelties from works already published. A good (short) abstract, introduction that clearly highlights the goals of the work, and concise and convincing conclusions are always welcome.
We want to thank Brenno, Donna and Nestor for providing such informative answers, and we hope you find them useful in your next submission to RSC Advances!
Don’t miss out on our previous tips on how to publish and not perish below:
Advancing with Advances – Part 1
Advancing with Advances – Part 2
Tune in next week for more interviews with our Associate Editors where they discuss their most common reasons for rejecting manuscripts and reveal more publishing tips!
If there is something you would like covered in our next article, please send in any questions you have about peer-review or publishing to advances-rsc@rsc.org or post them on Twitter @RSCAdvances #AdvancingWithAdvances.
