Rejection in academia is structural not personal
“Rejection in academia is structural not personal” by Tara-Lyn Camilleri & Ed Ivimey-Cook, originally published on LSE Blogs, licensed under CC BY 4.0. No changes made.
Field guides, editorial perspectives, industry updates, and perspectives from the team and the wider reviewer community.
AI tools are now used to screen manuscripts, suggest reviewers, check methods, and support review writing. Reviewers need a clear line between helpful assistance and problematic shortcuts.
Reviewers are rarely in a position to resolve authorship disputes, but they may notice manuscript-level signals that warrant clarification.
Preprints are now a major part of scholarly communication. Reviewers need to understand how preprint review differs from journal peer review and how to approach it effectively.
A round-up of recent conversations on AI in peer review, high-quality review reports, responsible GenAI use, and the rise of hallucinated citations.
Some legitimate research can carry genuine potential for harmful misuse. Reviewers are not expected to decide alone, but they should know when to flag concerns.
Major revisions and rejection both mean a manuscript is not ready, but they signal very different things. This guide helps reviewers frame the recommendation clearly.
One curated essay, one product change, one resource — written for people who actually do the work.