Most paper rejections I see are not about “bad science.” They’re about a bad fit. The paper is solid. The data is fine. But the journal and the article were never meant for each other. Here is how to fix that. Step 1: Start with your reference list Before you open any ranking or metric, open your own paper. Look at the references: which journals appear again and again? Those journals are already publishing work like yours – same topic, similar methods, similar audience. That’s your first shortlist. If a journal shows up multiple times in your references, it’s worth checking: - Do they publish your type of article (original research, review, methods)? - Have they published something close to your niche in the last 1–2 years? Step 2: Read the “Aims and Scope” (for real this time) Every journal has an Aims and Scope page. Most authors skim it. Editors don’t – they use it. Ask yourself: - Does my paper clearly sit inside these topics? - Do my methods fit their usual style? - Can I honestly explain in one sentence why this journal’s readership should care? If you can’t answer “yes” to those, it’s probably not the right home. Step 3: Think about who you want to reach Not every paper needs to be published in a “top 1%” journal. Ask a different question: who needs to read this? Is it: - A specific discipline (e.g. chemical engineers)? - An interdisciplinary audience (e.g. energy + policy)? - Practitioners (e.g. industry, clinicians, policymakers)? Pick journals whose readership overlaps with the people you want to influence. A “lower IF” journal that your exact community reads is often more valuable than a fancy generalist title no one in your niche follows. Step 4: Use journal finder tools as a map, not a GPS Publisher platforms and journal finder tools can suggest venues based on your title and abstract. They’re useful for: - Discovering journals you’ve never heard of. - Checking whether your paper leans more disciplinary or interdisciplinary.

Tell me what support do you need to inform the activities in this community.

(Steps 4 and 5 are the ones nobody teaches.) Most researchers treat "major revisions" as a near-rejection. It isn't. It is an invitation to publish, with conditions. Here are the rules I use, and now teach my PhDs and postdocs. 1) Triage before you feel Open the decision letter and make three columns: factual errors to fix, reframing the reviewer wants, and objections you will push back on. No emotion on this pass. 2) Write a one-line summary of each reviewer "R1: wants a broader intro, sceptical of the sample size. R2: accepts the contribution, wants tighter results. R3: silent on methods, has issues with our writing." Knowing who each reviewer is before you write the response saves you from arguing with the wrong one. 3) Answer in their order, not yours Reviewers reread their own comments. If your response letter jumps around, they scan for their point and get annoyed when they can't find it. Mirror the structure of the original report. 4) Quote, then respond Paste each reviewer comment verbatim in a different colour or italics. Respond underneath. As journals are short of good reviewers, such an approach will lower their cognitive load, and they can approve your work in a single pass. 5) Thank, then push back When you disagree, open with one sentence that names the merit of the reviewer's point, and then lay out your counter-evidence. Never use flat "no". Use a specific "I hear the concern, and here is why the data point the other way". One paper. Cleaner response letter. Faster turnaround. Save this for your next major revisions letter.

If you want to have a look at how Octopus actually looks like, here's the link to my two recently published minute publications. https://www.octopus.ac/publications/yxks-sg07/versions/latest It is a piece of work I've been doing as part of the UKCCSRC project, and I am currently working on the full paper. I thought, let's use it as a template or example for the research community to kind of explore how the entire process works with micropublications. And I just want to test whether the journals will be keen on actually publishing my paper. So I'll be updating everyone as we go along. Here's the link. You can see it does have a DUI number. It links the two papers so you can clearly see how the output is shaping up. Let me know whether that is helpful.

For the next 48 hours, I will be answering any of your questions that you might have about publishing. So if you have any questions regarding manuscript preparation publication process, how to make sure your work is not rejected by reviewers or editors, how to handle rejection, how to handle peer review. Anything really that is related to writing academic papers, drop your question below in the comments and I’ll make sure I answer.