How to avoid having your manuscript rejected: Perspectives from the Editors-in-Chief of Soil Biology and Biogeochemistry
In this editorial piece the editors in chief of SBB explain to what authors should pay attention before submitting papers in general, and to SBB in particular.
1. Introduction
- papers are for the readers, not the authors (which in fact is not true): do readers gain novel insights and new knowledge?
Checklist
- journal’s target audience
- methods and analyses support interpretations and conclusions
- conclusions well-grounded in the data and conclusive
- speculation is clearly identified as such
- clear writing
2. SBB’s criteria are based on our aims and scope
Soil Biology & Biochemistry publishes scientific research articles of international significance which describe and explain fundamental biological and biochemical features and processes occurring in soil systems.
- Audience
- what does the reader already know: leave it out and take it for granted
- Questions
- no case studies, only broadly relevant questions
- Focus and scale
- drivers of processes of soil biochemistry, not just soil as a “brown box”
- Novelty and importance
- well-studied processes in new circumstances or with new methods
- incremental science: larger synthesis, new insights, deeper understanding
- show why and how the work is novel
- Language
- English: AE tends to shorter sentences (laconic authors such as Mark Twain and Ernest Hemmingway), BE tends to longer and more elaborate prose (Jane Austen and Thomas Hardy)
3. An Editor’s approach: How we apply these standards when we get a manuscript
- first check for: international relevance, fundemantality, soil systems
- language check: title, highlights, opening paragraphs
- first impressions matter
- first check happens in short blocks of free time, if there are problems the paper is put on the backburner
Common issues that lead to a “Desk Reject”
- Telling the wrong story
- message must meet the journal’s scope
- opening paragraph defines a problem to solve
- conclusions will come back to this problem
- opening problem defines target audience
- for SBB: be general here!
- No real question or hypothesis
- define specific objectives at end of introduction: What question will you answer?
- identify a knowledge gap
- be as precise as possible
- Poor presentation
- read the *Guide to Authors**
- use little color, good palettes, large font sizes, line numbers
- Weak conclusions
- show what the work has contributed and has it has advanced understanding
- avoid “more research is needed…”: point out what you have done, not what you have not done
- discuss limitations earlier
- be precise, what are the exact implications?
- “Show, don’t tell”.
- first and last words are most powerful
4. Conclusions
- check journal’s scope
- read as an editor/reviewer/reader
- ironically, typo “concecus” in last words of the paper