Posted by: oikosasa | November 15, 2012

How good isn’t a reject?

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote here about the close connection between failure and success. And associated it with improvement of a manuscript due to a reject. Now, I also found some scientific support for this. Vincent Calgno and his co-workers have tracked the history of more than 80 000 scientific papers, published between 2006 and 2008 within the bioscience area. They found that papers that had been rejected in one journal and submitted and accepted in another one, gathered significantly more citations than papers accepted on the first try. Even if they were published in the same journals. Despite that 75% of the papers were published in the jornal it was first submitted to, the proportion of papers that had been submitted elsewhere, was actually higher for high impact journals such as Nature and Science, than it was for low-imapct, specialized ones.

So no more tears over rejects! Things will only be better!

So how good will not this one be?:


  1. I agree papers can get better after rejection, but look at the figure of the paper… They get significantly more citations, but variance is huge, and the effect size is really small.

    Still, will be good news even if citations of rejected papers are just not lower!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: