Most researchers have received reviewer feedback that explained a manuscript’s rejection without offering anything useful to take away. The concerns may have been vague, inconsistent, or buried in a long list that mixed fundamental problems with formatting preferences. The authors understood the outcome but not the reasoning behind it.
Constructive peer review comments can make even a rejection useful. They explain what the problems are, why they matter, and whether they can be addressed. A review that recommends rejection without this reasoning gives neither the authors nor the editor enough information to understand the assessment.
When is recommending rejection the right decision?
A peer review rejection can be appropriate when fundamental problems prevent a manuscript from meeting the requirements for publication. Recommending rejection is a legitimate outcome, and doing it well requires as much care as recommending revision.
Not every manuscript is ready for publication, and not every problem can be resolved through revision. A fundamental study design flaw, an unresolved ethical concern, or conclusions unsupported by the collected data may leave no realistic path to acceptance in the manuscript’s current form.
Being clear about these limitations is more useful than recommending major revisions when there is little reason to believe the underlying problems can be resolved.
What should constructive peer review comments include when recommending rejection?
Constructive peer review comments should identify specific concerns, explain their significance, and distinguish fundamental problems from secondary issues.
A useful rejection recommendation provides the same essential elements as any thorough manuscript review:
- Specific concerns: Identify the relevant section, method, finding, or conclusion.
- Clear reasoning: Explain how the concern affects the manuscript’s validity, reliability, or suitability.
- Prioritization: Separate problems that prevent publication from those that could be addressed through revision.
Editors need the reasoning behind a rejection recommendation because they are responsible for making and communicating the editorial decision.
For example, saying that a manuscript does not meet a journal’s standards offers little direction. Explaining that the study design cannot answer the stated research question gives the editor a specific concern to evaluate and the authors something they can understand.
Why should reviewers prioritize their concerns?
Prioritizing concerns helps authors and editors distinguish problems affecting the validity of the research from issues involving presentation or preference.
A manuscript review becomes difficult to act on when it accumulates concerns without evaluating their relative importance. Authors might receive twenty-three comments without knowing which three explain the rejection recommendation and which twenty are secondary. They may spend time improving the writing while leaving the fundamental problem unresolved.
A clearer approach is to explain which concerns prevent publication in the manuscript’s current form, followed by additional suggestions that could improve the work if revision were possible. This hierarchy makes reviewer feedback more useful, particularly when recommending rejection.
How can a rejection review still help authors?
A rejection review can help authors improve future research, understand methodological limitations, or identify a more suitable publication venue. Constructive peer review comments do not need to soften a rejection. They need to make the reasoning understandable and useful.
- If a study design cannot answer the research question, explaining the mismatch and suggesting what a more suitable design might involve gives the authors something to consider in future work.
- If a manuscript is unsuitable for a particular journal but has strengths that may be valued elsewhere, explaining that distinction can help authors make a better submission decision.
- Similarly, when conclusions extend beyond what the data support, a reviewer can identify the specific claims that lack sufficient evidence and explain the limitations.
For example, telling authors that their conclusions are unsupported may leave them uncertain about what went wrong. A more helpful comment could explain: “The conclusions suggest a causal relationship, but the observational study design does not establish causation. The findings would be more accurately represented as an association.”
This kind of reviewer feedback identifies the concern without dismissing the authors’ work. It also explains what they can learn from the assessment.
When is recommending revise-and-resubmit inappropriate?
Recommending revise-and-resubmit may be inappropriate when a reviewer believes the manuscript has fundamental problems that cannot realistically be resolved through revision. Professional courtesy should not come at the expense of an accurate assessment. Recommending major revisions simply because rejection feels harsh can give authors unrealistic expectations about the manuscript’s prospects.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ethical guidelines for peer reviewers emphasize objective reviewing and communicating concerns about a manuscript’s integrity to the journal. A revision recommendation that cannot realistically lead to a publishable manuscript may prolong the process, require additional reviewer effort, and delay authors from considering other appropriate options.
A clear rejection recommendation, supported by constructive peer review comments, allows the editor to assess the concerns and helps authors understand what can and cannot be improved.
Key takeaways
A useful peer review rejection is defined by the quality of its reasoning, not simply by the recommendation. Constructive peer review comments should explain the concerns, establish their relative importance, and help authors understand the limitations of their work. Reviewers do not need to recommend revision when rejection is warranted. They need to provide an objective, specific, and respectful assessment that supports the editor’s decision and gives authors something meaningful to take forward.
Try it live
Writing a useful review requires careful judgment and clear reasoning. ReviewerOne’s AI-assisted peer review platform supports reviewers with tools and resources that help them focus on meaningful manuscript evaluation while keeping human judgment central.
Sign up for ReviewerOne to explore AI-assisted peer review support.
