Table of Contents  
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 551-552  

Comments on “dear editor: why did you reject my paper?”

Department of Otorhinolaryngology, K S Hegde Medical Academy, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

Date of Web Publication12-Jul-2016

Correspondence Address:
Vadisha Srinivas Bhat
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, K S Hegde Medical Academy, Deralakatte, Mangalore - 575 018, Karnataka
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0975-2870.186081

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Bhat VS. Comments on “dear editor: why did you reject my paper?”. Med J DY Patil Univ 2016;9:551-2

How to cite this URL:
Bhat VS. Comments on “dear editor: why did you reject my paper?”. Med J DY Patil Univ [serial online] 2016 [cited 2022 Oct 5];9:551-2. Available from:


The editorial “dear editor: why did you reject my paper?” is an eye opener in many ways.[1]

All efforts have been made by the author to highlight the difficulties faced by the editor and the editorial team in assessing the content and the quality of the submitted manuscript. With the MCI guidelines for the qualification of promotion of medical teachers, many authors are in a hurry to get their article published in a journal.[2] This has made the life of editorial board of medical journals difficult. Review process of an article is not without hurdles. Even though the editorial review can be completed faster, peer review is more time consuming. Peer review is considered as the first step in checking the authenticity of scientific information provided by the author, which is also considered as the best review process.[3] Time taken for finding a suitable reviewer, requesting the reviewer, and if the reviewer accepts for review, the time taken by him/her for review process is less under the control of the editor, and the efforts of the editor can be known only by him.

The compulsion of the medical teacher for publication, the formalities and the time taken by the journals for publication, has made them to search for easier alternatives. As pointed by the author, predator journals with “international” tags are taking advantage of this situation, and publish the articles without a proper review process, after charging certain variable amount. There is no doubt that these predator journals have diluted the quality of research papers in the field of medicine. The number of such predator journals is increasing rapidly in the past few years. It is remarkable that 27% of publishers of these journals and 35% of authors are from India.[4] These predator journals act as service providers to the authors, rather than as content providers to readers. Peer review practices are often so deficient in these journals, that any sort of paper could be accepted for publishing without revisions.[4]

The information on the internet about the journals is often misleading, and the publishers spam academics all over the globe with requests for submissions and reviews.[4] Difficulty of getting published in “Western” journals, while at the same time, statutory bodies and the universities demanding “international” publication, are the strong drivers for “predatory” publishing.[4] Beall has defined a list of criteria for identifying such journals and produces a continuously updated index of publishers as well as individual journals fulfilling such criteria.[5]

With increasing number of predator journals, it is more difficult for serious open access journals to get good articles and get accepted to indexes such as Web of Science. To encourage the authors from developing countries, even good journals waive the article processing charges for authors from developing countries.[4] Time and money should not be wasted in trying to re invent what is proved already. A researcher should search the literature to have an idea on what is already known and how their research will add to existing knowledge.[6] Universities, institutions and regulatory bodies need to have a system to distinguish genuine from fake publications of academic faculty so that honest and illustrious faculty are rewarded.[7]

In conclusion, medical teachers need to be aware of the predator journals and should not be the prey of such journals. Peer reviewed journals not only prevent one from publishing an erroneous manuscript, but also gives the satisfaction of a genuine publication. Institutions should distinguish a genuine publication from a fake publication to reward the genuine.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

  References Top

Banerjee A. Dear editor: Why did you reject my paper? Med J DY Patil Univ 2016;9:157-60.  Back to cited text no. 1
  Medknow Journal  
Medical Council of India. Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations; 1998 [Amended up to 2015 May]. Available from:  Back to cited text no. 2
Banerjee A. Peer review: A system full of problems but the least worst we have. Med J DY Patil Univ 2014;7:117-8.  Back to cited text no. 3
  Medknow Journal  
Shen C, Björk BC. 'Predatory' open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med 2015;13:230.  Back to cited text no. 4
Beall J. Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. 2nd ed. Denver, CO: Scholarly Open Access; 2012. Available from:  Back to cited text no. 5
Sukhlecha A. Research publications: Should they be mandatory for promotions of medical teachers? J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2011;2:221-4.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
Banerjee A. The publication rat race: Who will bell the cat? Med J DY Patil Univ 2013;6:219-20.  Back to cited text no. 7
  Medknow Journal  


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded161    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal