Every year, I am asked why manuscripts are rejected from the Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM ), often by wildlife students and early career professionals. And, whenever I see the statistics on rejection rates for JWM (>50%), my first reaction is to cringe. Rejecting more than half of the submitted manuscripts seems draconian; but then again, rejection rates for most major journals are high. And for good reason; the publication process is designed to accept manuscripts that advance science and our understanding of the natural world and to reject those that do not. One way to look at the process is to consider the editorial staff (i.e., editorial assistants, referees, Associate Editors, copy editors, Editors‐in‐Chief) as the jury for manuscripts that provide new information used to make sound conservation and management judgements. So why are >50% of the manuscripts submitted to JWM and other major journals rejected? Authors strive to publish in journals with high impact factors (>1.76) but also want their work published (Aarssen et al. 2008), not rejected. The purpose of this editorial is to provide some insight into why manuscripts are rejected in a variety of journals, including JWM .

Although there are rare instances where editors seem to look for reasons to reject manuscripts (Gernert 2008), editorial teams are conscientious and work hard to improve submitted manuscripts that advance science. Frivolous reasons for rejection described by Gernert (2008) include a title that does not describe the paper, claims of something missing at the beginning or end of the manuscript, incomplete references, incorrect use of terms, and when all else fails, Ultima ratio regum (i.e., editors can justify rejection because the paper has flaws with respect to English style and grammar). Each of these reasons could instead be addressed during revision.

Authors should recognize that everybody gets manuscripts rejected and it does not hurt careers (Cassey and Blackburn 2003). This should be encouragement for early career scientists. There are, however, numerous and valid reasons why manuscripts are rejected. I searched the literature for authors that reported why manuscripts were rejected and also kept a list of reasons why manuscripts were rejected in JWM from 3 September 2019 to 27 March 2020.

Pierson (2004) and Bordage (2001) listed the top reasons manuscripts were rejected in the health sciences including failure to revise after peer‐review, poor study design, inadequate methods, unclear results, going beyond the data, poor writing, not following journal guidelines, using the wrong format, inappropriate material for the journal, small sample size, inappropriate or incomplete statistics, insufficient problem statement, inappropriate or suboptimal instrumentation, poor literature review (i.e., inaccurate or outdated), insufficient data presentation, and poor tables and figures. Many of these reasons apply to rejection in JWM (Table 1).

Although authors have listed numerous reasons for rejection of manuscripts, from the frivolous (e.g., a title that does not describe the work; Bordage 2001) to fatal flaws, I grouped the varied reasons from the literature into 11 categories (Table 1). The first is numerous concerns and that is as stated: manuscripts that are rejected for poor writing, inaccurate terminology, unclear methodology, unsupported inferences, and even Ultima ratio regum . Many of these issues can be corrected with revision and are singly not the reason for rejection in JWM . Taken together, however, when numerous concerns arise, the manuscript simply has too many issues to be taken seriously and the writing reflects poorly on the author(s). To be acceptable, an entirely new submission would have to be prepared. This is the primary reason for rejection in many journals and the second most common for JWM (Table 1).

The most common reason articles are rejected in JWM is because of poor methods, which relate to methodology that is outdated, is not correct, violates assumptions, cannot be used to make the inferences stated, or cannot be duplicated. Methods should be clear and in enough detail so they can be repeated by others. All sources that I reviewed included poor methodology as a reason for manuscript rejection (Table 1).

When authors do not review the literature adequately and do not cite their sources correctly they are tossing up a huge red flag to referees and editors. If authors cannot be current with the literature and do not cite the appropriate works, manuscripts usually have other flaws. Not using the literature properly is a dead giveaway that serious attention has not been given to the manuscript.

A good number of manuscripts are not accepted because they do not offer anything novel to science. They may have elaborate experimental designs, be well written, and meet all the requirements of scientific reporting, but if they do not offer novel information, they are not of interest to readers. In the JWM sample, 20% of manuscripts were rejected because they were pedestrian.

Sample size and the rigor of studies is often the downfall of a manuscript. Trying to force inferences with a poor experimental design and small sample sizes will not lead to publication. The same is true for articles that are not appropriate for the journal where they are submitted. The data I present for JWM does not include articles that were transferred to the Wildlife Society Bulletin . Small sample size, lack of rigor, and topics not appropriate for a journal are easily recognized and many manuscripts are rejected by journal editors without review for these reasons.

When authors do not follow guidelines for the journal of submission, they are often rejected. When this happens with JWM authors, I ask them to revise the manuscript and advise them to make sure the revision follows the journal guidelines. Also, when manuscripts are returned for revision, with instructions for content revision from the Associate Editors and Editor‐in‐Chief, and authors do not follow those instructions, rejection is the usual outcome. No one likes to spend their time offering ways to improve manuscripts of others only to have their suggestions ignored without comment.

Dual publication and plagiarism are not tolerated (Merrill 2015) and will lead to definite rejection of manuscripts and could lead to author(s) being prohibited from submitting to the journal for a period of time. Although, dual publication and plagiarism were not identified in the current sample of JWM manuscripts, I have rejected manuscripts for both reasons in the past.

The last 3 reasons for rejection (incorrect figures and tables, no ties to management, and bias [e.g., blatant endorsement for a method without adequate support]) did not lead to many rejections and when they were the primary reason for rejection, there were other reasons that would not yield a publishable document including small sample size, poor methods, ineffective writing, and of little interest to readers. When a manuscript submitted to JWM does not have any ties to management, they should be submitted elsewhere. The manuscript is not rejected simply because the author(s) did not include management implications, but because there are not any.

All rejections should be supported and reported to the author(s) with concrete reasons; errors that do not distract from the data and results should be returned to authors for correction. If the decision for a revision outlines changes to be made and if they are made, the editor should accept the work and not stand behind formal regulations (e.g., some journals accept manuscripts only if they can be revised with a single revision).

Authors that are serious about publishing can avoid rejection by making sure that the study is designed properly with an adequate sample size, using correct methods that can be repeated, uses literature properly, and can add to the literature with novel data and clear management implications. The writing has to be appropriate and if the Editor‐in‐Chief returns the manuscript for revision, by all means follow the instructions provided in the editorial process. All of this begins with solid data that is used to test hypotheses. Without that bedrock, no matter how you dress up your manuscript, you will not be able to publish research articles in JWM . Do not let your good ideas that can serve wildlife fail because of limited data, poor experimental design, and sloppy writing. The resource, you, and your colleagues deserve the best. Happy writing.

每年，我被问到为什么野生动物专业学生和早期职业专家经常拒绝《野生动物管理杂志》（JWM）的手稿。而且，只要我看到JWM拒绝率的统计信息（> 50％），我的第一反应是畏缩。拒绝一半以上提交的手稿似乎太过苛刻了；但是话又说回来，大多数主要期刊的拒绝率很高。并且有充分的理由；出版过程的目的是接受能促进科学和我们对自然世界的理解的手稿，而拒绝那些不符合自然界的手稿。审视流程的一种方法是将编辑人员（即编辑助理，裁判，副编辑，复制编辑，总编辑）视为手稿评审委员会，以提供新的信息来进行合理的保存和管理判断。那么为什么有50％以上的手稿提交给JWM和其他主要期刊被拒绝？作者力求在期刊上的影响因子较高（> 1.76），但也将发布希望自己的作品发表（Aarssen等人 2008年），而不是拒绝。这篇社论的目的是提供一些见解，以了解为何在包括JWM在内的各种期刊中都拒绝稿件。

尽管在极少数情况下，编辑似乎会寻找拒绝稿件的原因（Gernert，2008年），但编辑团队仍会 尽职尽责，并努力改进提交的稿件，以促进科学发展。Gernert（2008）所描述的拒绝的轻率原因包括：标题未描述论文，声称稿件开头或末尾缺少某些内容，引用不完整，术语使用不当以及所有其他方法均失效时，Ultima ratio regum（即，编辑者可以证明拒绝的理由，因为该论文在英语风格和语法方面存在缺陷）。这些原因中的每一个都可以在修订期间解决。

作者应该认识到，每个人都会遭到手稿的拒绝，并且不会损害职业生涯（Cassey和Blackburn，  2003年）。这应该鼓励早期职业科学家。但是，有很多正当理由拒绝稿件。我在文献中搜索了报道为什么拒绝稿件的作者，并保留了2019年9月3日至2020年3月27日在JWM中拒绝稿件的原因清单。

Pierson（2004）和Bordage（2001）列出了卫生科学中拒绝稿件的主要原因，包括同行评审后未能修改稿件，研究设计差，方法不足，结果不清楚，超出数据范围，撰写不良，不遵循期刊准则，格式错误，期刊材料不适当，样本量小，统计数据不适当或不完整，问题陈述不足，仪器使用不当或不理想，文献综述不正确（即不准确或过时），数据表示不充分以及表格和表格不正确数字。这些原因中的许多都适用于JWM中的拒绝（表1）。

尽管作者列出了许多拒绝稿件的原因，从轻率的标题（例如，没有描述作品的标题； Bordage  2001）到致命的缺陷，我还是将文献中的各种原因归为11类（表1）。首先是许多关注点，并指出：稿件因写作不当，术语不准确，方法不明确，推论不支持甚至是《最高通缉令》规定而被拒绝。这些问题中的许多问题都可以通过修订得到纠正，并且它们并不是JWM中被拒绝的原因。但是，合计起来，当出现众多问题时，手稿只是有太多问题需要认真对待，并且著作对作者的反映很差。为使可接受，必须准备一个全新的呈件。这是许多期刊拒绝的主要原因，也是JWM的第二常见原因（表1）。

在JWM中拒绝文章的最常见原因是由于不良的方法，这些方法与过时，不正确，违反假设，不能用于进行陈述的推理或不能重复使用的方法有关。方法应清晰，足够详细，以便其他人可以重复使用。我查看过的所有资料都将不良的方法论作为拒绝稿件的原因（表1）。

如果作者没有充分地阅读文献，并且没有正确引用文献来源，那么他们就会向裁判和编辑抛出巨大的危险信号。如果作者不能及时了解文献，也没有引用适当的著作，那么手稿通常会有其他缺陷。没有正确使用文献是一种死路，那就是没有认真注意手稿。

许多手稿不被接受，因为它们没有提供任何新颖的科学知识。他们也许有精心设计的实验设计，写得很好，并且满足科学报道的所有要求，但是如果它们不提供新颖的信息，那么读者就不会感兴趣。在JWM样本中，有20％的手稿因为行人而被拒绝。

样本数量和研究的严格性通常是手稿的败笔。试图以较差的实验设计和较小的样本量来推论不会导致发表。对于不适用于其提交的期刊的文章也是如此。我为JWM提供的数据不包括已转移至Wildlife Society Bulletin的文章。由于这些原因，样本量小，缺乏严谨性以及不适合期刊的主题很容易被识别，许多稿件被期刊编辑拒绝而未经审阅。

如果作者不遵循投稿日志的准则，则通常会拒绝他们。当JWM作者遇到这种情况时，我请他们修改稿件，并建议他们确保该稿件遵循期刊指南。同样，当稿件退回修改，并由副编辑和主编提供内容修订说明时，如果作者不遵循这些说明，通常会遭到拒绝。没有人喜欢花时间提供改善他人手稿的方法，而只是在不加评论的情况下忽略了他们的建议。

不允许双重出版和窃（Merrill 2015），这将导致明确拒绝稿件，并可能导致一段时间内禁止作者投稿。尽管在当前的JWM手稿样本中没有发现双重出版和窃，但过去我出于两个原因都拒绝了手稿。

拒绝的最后三个原因（错误的表格和图表，与管理人员的联系以及偏见（例如，对没有充分支持的方法的公然认可））并没有导致很多拒绝，并且当它们是拒绝的主要原因时，无法产生可发布文档的其他原因包括样本量小，方法差，撰写效率低以及读者不感兴趣。如果提交给JWM的手稿与管理人员没有任何关系，则应将其提交到其他地方。不仅仅因为作者没有包含管理方面的含义就拒绝了该手稿，而是因为没有任何内容。

所有拒绝都应得到支持，并有具体理由向作者报告；不会干扰数据和结果的错误应退回给作者以进行更正。如果修订决定概述了要进行的更改，并且已做出更改，则编辑应接受工作，而不应服从正式规定（例如，某些期刊只有在可以进行单个修订的情况下才接受手稿）。

认真研究出版的作者可以通过确保研究设计合理，样本量足够大，使用可重复的正确方法，正确使用文献以及可以添加新颖数据和明确管理含义的文献来避免被拒绝。写作必须适当，如果总编辑将稿件退回修改，则务必遵循编辑过程中提供的说明。所有这些都是从用于检验假设的可靠数据开始的。没有这个基石，无论您如何修饰手稿，您都将无法在JWM中发表研究文章。。不要因为数据有限，不良的实验设计和草率的写作而使能够为野生动物服务的好主意失败。资源，您和您的同事都应得到最好的解决。写作愉快。