1

I submitted a manuscript five months ago, today I received a rejection letter, completed reject. There are many comments from the reviewers and one sentence the reviewer said:

"It is a good idea to explore further the relationship between interactivity and map interpretation in the context of thematic mapping. The authors are right to say that these are commonly used representations and that we need to know more about how, when, and why they work. However,the article as presented has major issues in terms of its formation, execution, and interpretation that I do not believe can be resolved in a major revision".

I would like to know:

  1. is there any possibility I could send it to another journal, when I solve all the issues they have sent?
  2. does completed reject mean I cannot send it to that same journal again?
Buffy
  • 363,966
  • 84
  • 956
  • 1,406
sophie ooo
  • 21
  • 2
  • 1
    Of course. That's part of the publishing process. I.e., you get reviews, you take on board reasonable comments, and resubmit it to another journal. You are the expert (supposed to be) on the subject matter, and you judge whether you have made any contributions. If a reviewer says no contribution, and they are correct, then the paper dies. – Prof. Santa Claus Oct 15 '20 at 00:44
  • related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/157573/given-reviewer-comments-shall-i-resubmit-after-the-rejection – nonthevisor Oct 15 '20 at 11:24

1 Answers1

4

You can certainly submit to another journal. You don't even need to make any changes to address the reviewers' comments, though it would certainly be advisable (otherwise you're likely to get similar reviews again).

Whether or not you can re-submit a revised paper to the same journal will depend on the journal's policy. The journals I know tend to treat outright rejection (as opposed to 'revise & resubmit') to mean no resubmission will be accepted, but this may not be universal. Of course, there is a grey area: at what point does something become a new paper rather than a revised version of an old paper?

avid
  • 19,917
  • 5
  • 56
  • 83