论文被拒的11条原因（大家一起来翻译，非常不错）

David

Reasons Why Manuscripts are Rejected(转载)

Manuscripts submitted for peer review publication may be rejected for a number of different reasons, most of which are avoidable.
It should be noted that the reasons for accepting manuscripts are not the mirror image of the reasons for rejecting manuscripts.  The main reasons for accepting manuscripts are: their contribution and relevance to the field, excellence of writing, and quality of the study design.

Many journals expect reviewers to assess the scientific merits and validity of research in submitted manuscripts; however, reviewers can become critical of manuscripts containing numerous language errors, which are difficult to eliminate without careful editing.  Scientific writing demands both good science and well written manuscripts.
Following are the principal reasons why manuscripts are rejected.  They are all equally important because reviewers tend to focus on different issues depending on their individual concerns and the journal's requirements.

1.  Poor experimental design and/or inadequate investigation.  An inadequate sample size, a biased sample, a non-unique concept, and scientific flaws in the study are common faults.

2.  Failure to conform to the targeted journal.  This is a common mistake.  The focus of the manuscript is not within the scope of the journal and/or the guidelines of the targeted journal are not followed.  This can easily be avoided by reading the targeted journal and reviewing the author guidelines.
    3.  Poor English grammar, style, and syntax.  Though poor writing may not result in outright rejection of a manuscript, it may well influence the reviewer's and editor's overall impression of the manuscript.  It has been shown that a well written manuscript has a better chance of being accepted.

4.  Insufficient problem statement.  It is important to clearly define and appropriately frame the study's question.

5.  Methods not described in detail.  Details are insufficient to repeat the results.  The study design, apparatus used, and procedures followed must be made clear.  In some cases it might be better to put too much information into the methods section rather than to put too little; information deemed unnecessary can always be removed prior to publication.

6.  Overinterpretation of results.  Some reviewers have indicated that a clear and ''honest'' approach to the interpretation of the results is likely to increase the chances of a manuscript being accepted.  Identify possible biases and confounding variables, both during the design phase of the study and the interpretation of the results.  Describe experimental results concisely.

7.  Inappropriate or incomplete statistics.  Using inappropriate statistical methods and overstating the implications of the results is a common error. Use an appropriate test and do not make the statistics too complicated. Quantify and present findings with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals).

8.  Unsatisfactory or confusing presentation of data in tables or figures.  The tables or figures do not conform in style and quantity to the journal's guidelines and are cluttered with numbers.  Make tables and graphs easy to read.  Some editors may start by looking quickly at the tables, graphs, and figures to determine if the manuscript is worth considering.

9.  Conclusions not supported by data.  Make sure your conclusions are not overstated, are supported, and answer the study's questions.  Be sure to provide alternative explanations, and do not simply restate the results.

10.  Incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated review of the literature.  Be sure to conduct a complete literature search and only list references relevant to the study.  The reviewers of your manuscript will be experts in the field and will be aware of all the pertinent research conducted.

11.  Author unwilling to revise the manuscript to address reviewer's suggestions.  This can easily be resolved.  Taking the reviewers' suggestions into account when revising your manuscript will nearly always result in a better manuscript.  If the editor indicates willingness to evaluate a revision, it means the manuscript may be publishable if the reviewers' concerns could be addressed satisfactorily.

阿尔法狼

1．实验设计和/或不足调查。样本分析存在误差。
2．不符合期刊的要求。
3．？？
4．？？
5．方法阐述不详。
6．？？
7．指标测量误差或不确定性，统计资料不完整
8．数据表或数字的混淆。
9．结论不支持数据。
10．文献检索和参考资料不完整
11．作者不同意修改书稿。

拙凌

论文在审查中可能会因为各种原因而被拒，而其中大部分原因是可以避免的。
需要指出的是，接受论文的理由不是拒绝论文理由的反面。接受论文的主要原因是：他们在该领域的贡献和现实意义，优秀的写作和高质量的研究设计。
许多期刊期望评审去评估论文的科学价值和研究的有效性；但是，由于在编辑中不小心出现了大量的语言错误，评论家将会挑剔论文。科学写作既要求善于科学研究也要求擅于写作论文。
以下是论文被拒的主要原因。他们都同样重要，因为评审者往往取决于他们个人的关注和杂志的要求而侧重于不同的问题。
1、不完善的实验设计和/或不充分的调查。常见故障有：样本大小不足，有偏差的样本，非独特的观念和研究中的科学缺陷。
2、不符合杂志的定位。这是一个常见的错误。论文的重点不是杂志的范围和/或是没有遵循杂志定位的指导方针。这可以通过阅读杂志及其稿约就很容易地避免了。
3、较差的英语语法，体裁和句法。虽然差的写作不会导致论文被断然拒绝，但很可能影响评审和编辑对论文的整体印象。事实证明，好的写作会使论文更好的被接受。
4、不充分的问题阐述。重要的是要清晰地界定和恰当地设计研究的问题
5、方法没有详细说明。重复结果的细节不够。研究的设计，使用的仪器，遵循的程序必须明确写出。在某些情况下，方法一节中信息越多越好，而不是太少；出版之前随时删除不必要的信息。
6、过度引申解释的结果。有些评论家指出，一个明确和''诚实''的方法来解释结果很可能会增加论文被接受的机会。可以通过研究的设计步骤和结果的合理解释来鉴别可能的偏差和混杂的变量。简明扼要地说明实验结果。
7、不适当的或不完整的统计资料。使用不适当的统计方法和过分夸大了问题的结果是一种常见的错误。使用适当测验，并没有使统计数据过于复杂。通过适当的指标对测量误差或不确定性（如置信区间）量化并提出结论。
8、不合要求的或混乱的数据表或数字。这些表格或数字不符合杂志的风格和数量，并堆满数字。制作易于阅读的表格和图表。有些编辑可能一开始就迅速查找在表格，图表和数据，以确定论文是否值得考虑。
9、结论不被数据支持。请确认您的结论不是过高，而是支持并回答研究的问题。请务必提供替代的解释，而且不是简单地重复结果。
10、不完整，不准确，或已过时文献评论。一定要进行一次全面文献检索和只列出有关的研究。论文的评审将会是在该领域的专家，并且了解所有有关的研究。
11、作者不愿修改论文回复评审的建议。这可以很容易地得到解决。修改论文时采纳审稿人的建议几乎总会使论文更好。如果编辑表明愿意评估修订，这意味着论文可发表，如果审稿人的关注可以解决令人满意。

在云端

学习经验，增加命中率，谢谢同道分享

yezifjfz

要发表文章，确实很难，很多方面都要注意并兼顾到。