I recently have a paper rejected from a very good (but not the top) journal. The referee report said the result was good and certainly belong there, but he did not think I did enough to back up my claims (it was a rather long and harsh criticism at the exposition). Now I know for sure that my result is good and my proofs are correct, should I resubmit to the same journal after rewriting it.
-
8$\begingroup$ It seems these things with journals work like love affairs. If it is no, it is no, and the logic consistency is a minor point. Better not to insist, and try elsewhere (but, also, in publication too, there is no certain rule) $\endgroup$– Pietro MajerDec 23, 2011 at 7:48
2 Answers
A paper can be accepted (maybe subject to minor changes), rejected with a request for certain major changes, or rejected outright. If your paper fits into the middle category (which the editor will usually make clear), you should do some major surgery on it and send it again to the same journal. If it is in the last category, do some major surgery on it and send it to a different journal. In neither case should you send it anywhere without changes after receiving a long negative report. Even if you disagree with it, you should take the report as evidence of how other specialist readers will regard your paper, including misunderstandings.
yes you should resubmit it
-
5$\begingroup$ Only if you really have made significant improvements to the paper and have confirmed this by getting positive feedback from people who have read the new version and given you their honest opinion. Otherwise, you will only annoy the editor. $\endgroup$ Dec 23, 2011 at 6:14
-
4$\begingroup$ What Deane says is correct. If you submit to the same journal, the editor will send your paper to the same referee. And remember that same causes have same effect. $\endgroup$ Dec 23, 2011 at 6:42