In the academic realm, it may often appear that a paper actually has everything there’s to be: the depth of analysis, the strength of the arguments, a creative theoretical approach. But as practice shows, even the greats can’t always be the best at everything. An academic paper is a significant piece of work that encompasses a spectrum of competencies that vary in each author. When one or a few of those competencies are lacking in a paper, it’s bound to end up in the ‘Rejected’ folder.

There can be many reasons to reject a paper, from basic technical flaws such as the length of the piece or grammatical errors to poor contribution to the field, insufficient arguments, paper’s inconsistency, etc.

When we talk about the editor’s role in assessing and rejecting a journal paper, it’s important to consider several factors that determine whether the paper is worth to be published in an academic journal. These criteria can differ from journal to journal but the most fundamental requirements go as follows:

Most Common Criteria That Papers Should Meet

• the paper has to fit the scope of a certain journal – it has to be of relevance to its audience
• the paper has to introduce new knowledge to the discipline or new knowledge application methods
• the paper can only be submitted to one journal at the time
• the paper has to be completely free of plagiarism
• there has to be a sufficient amount of the research data and proof of statements
• the research must be supported using trusted and recognized methodologies
• the references and proof must be valid and not outdated
• the author has to follow the specific guidelines provided by the journal
• the language must be clear and comprehensive
• the paper has to meet the ethical standards
• the paper has to be complete – it must feature a sufficient conclusion.

The Importance of Peer Review Process Management System

Although it’s crucial for editors to follow journal guidelines and criteria when reviewing a paper, let’s not forget that the paper assessment process also involves the input gathered during the peer-review stage. Editors’ and peer-reviewers’ work goes hand in hand in efficient management and evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Appropriately chosen review management tools can also significantly improve the quality of their efforts by increasing the efficiency of the peer-review process.

One such tool is PubliMill peer-review system – simple, convenient, time-saving, and adaptable solution for all types of publishers for efficient peer-review process management. It helps to track peer-review processes across one or more journals. PubliMill peer-review system do not require specific IT knowledge, all types of users can efficiently handle the processes themselves. Only short training will be needed to figure out the logic of the system.

Status reports, statistical reports and history keeping increase productivity and streamline the entire peer-review process at the same time. PubliMill peer-review system is designed for STM publishers and is an operable work system with minimal complexity and benefits all – publishers, editors, authors and referees – while being an excellent time-saving utility.