|
Reasons for Rejection
Select the hyperlinked Journal Name for PDF of rejection Email.
| Journal # |
Journal Name |
Date Submitted |
Date Rejected |
Reasons for Rejection |
1 |
|
16 July 2013 |
16 Aug 2013 |
focus, content, and interest |
2 |
|
19 Aug 2013 |
19 Aug 2013 |
it would be better placed elsewhere |
3 |
|
27 Aug 2013 |
28 Aug 2013 |
we do not consider this type of research based solely on single clinical cases |
4 |
|
20 Aug 2013 |
21 Aug 2013 |
unlikely to succeed through stringent external review or whose subject matter does not meet our current editorial priorities |
5 |
|
28 Aug 2013 |
10 Sep 2013 |
In the present case, while all agree that this is a unique data set, the lowered priority reflects the fact that The AJCN must necessarily award a lower priority to "methods" papers than it does to manuscripts that help answer pathophysiological questions in human nutrition. Additionally, the Journal does not publish individual case reports. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition does not publish individual case reports. You might rightly argue that this policy would have prevented the Journal from publishing in 1963 the second of Victor Herbert's classic self-experiments on the essentiality of dietary folate and the consequences of its deficiency in man. This is surely the case, but The AJCN just does not have the capacity to deal with individual case reports. Additionally, as you know, most single clinical case reports are "anecdote" until confirmed by similar findings accumulated systematically in a large number of patients. It is extremely rare to receive controlled experimental case reports like Dr. Herbert's and yours, where more convincing conclusions can be drawn. Many of our editors, including me, knew Dr. Herbert personally and I am sure he would have been delighted to review your study. I do hope that you will get both papers published in another nutrition journal. |
6 |
|
9 Sep 2013 |
12 Sep 2013 |
likely to interest fewer readers compared with other submissions |
7 |
|
16 Sep 2013 |
30 Sep 2013 |
Your manuscripts posed an unusual situation for the Journal of Nutrition, which is the reason for the longer than usual time for our reply. Essentially, we recognize the scientific interest in the manuscripts (especially this one of the two), however the Journal of Nutrition has two policies that preclude our review. First, we do not review case studies, and secondly we require that all animal and human studies have received appropriate informed consent prior to study. While I realize that you are the subject, we still believe that there must be some level of institutional review. You have cited the interesting earlier reports by Victor Herbert, but times are different now and we cannot consider these manuscripts unless evidence of informed consent and review is provided. As to the second manuscript, it is likely better suited for review by a clinical chemistry-focused journal. |
8 |
|
01 Oct 2013 |
9 Oct 2013 |
outside the remit of our journal....The Journal does not publish case studies (any study of a single subject not necessary in a clinical context). There is no statement of ethical approval which is a requirement for publication in BJN. The laboratories that did the analysis are not disclosed and so it is difficult to evaluate the quality of the measurements. |
9 |
|
10 Oct 2013 |
22 Nov 2013 |
We sincerely apologize for the extreme delay in the consideration for your submissions, however your study has raised a number of grave concerns that the Editorial staff wanted to discuss in full. After careful consideration, and following discussion amongst several associate and senior Editors, we have decided that your manuscripts do not meet our criteria and must be rejected for publication. We understand that you designed and conducted this study, and that as the sole subject you willingly submitted yourself to these experiments. However, PLOS ONE requires that all human subjects research, including self-experimentation, be considered and approved by an independent ethical review board. One of the roles of this independent body is to consider whether such a study is scientifically justified, and appropriately designed to address the research question. Self-experimentation introduces a great deal of experimental bias, and with just a single participant may constitute a case study. The effects of folate deficiency are already well-documented. Thus, it is highly likely that an ethical review board would find that your personal experience of this condition is not justified by the extreme nature of these experiments. We have identified additional, secondary, issues that preclude your manuscripts from consideration. Namely, PLOS ONE does not consider case studies, and we note you have not sufficiently described the details of your design, data collection and analysis. |
10 |
|
25 Nov 2013 |
10 Feb 2014 |
it is outside of the scope for the journal....the reviewers' reactions were largely unfavorable and the clear consensus was that your manuscript should not be accepted for publication. We are concerned about the ethics of your study as written by the second reviewer. Furthermore, one person's personal experience doesn't quite constitute scientific proof. rejected MS.EC |
|
|
31 Mar 2014 |
02 Apr 2014 |
This manuscript (and part B) essentially report a case study. As a research journal BMJ Open looks to publish research studies - studies that can contribute generalisable results. |
12 |
|
3 May 2014 |
5 May 2014 |
Due to the editorial interests of our board and a recent change in our policy, the journal has decided to only accept papers that emphasize metabolism and/or mechanisms. For these reasons, although your paper is of obvious importance, it does not fit our current needs and I have withdrawn your paper. This is entirely based on our areas of interest rather than any judgment on the quality of the paper |
13 |
SpringerPlus |
5 May 2014 |
N/A |
N/A (accepted) |
|
|