Publishing research can often feel uncertain. You may spend months on a paper, only to face delays, mixed feedback, or rejection. It is easy to assume that success depends mainly on writing stronger papers. In reality, efficiency in publishing comes from how you manage the entire process. This article brings together practical insights from an experienced researcher, Prof. Cristian Randieri. It presents a more structured approach. Instead of treating each paper as a separate effort, it looks at how to improve decisions across key stages, from early visibility to submission and revision.
Think about visibility early
Once a stable workflow is in place, it is worth considering how and when your work should become visible. One option is to share your work as a preprint. It allows you to:
- Gain early visibility
- Receive feedback before journal review
- Establish a clear record of your contribution
In many cases, the work becomes known before formal publication, which can support recognition and citation. However, this is not always the best approach. In highly competitive areas, or when results are easy to replicate, sharing too early may reduce your advantage. The key is to make a deliberate decision based on your priorities, rather than treating preprints as a default step.
Position your paper for the right journal
After clarifying visibility and timing, the next step is to decide where to submit your paper. Many papers are rejected not because they are weak, but because they are difficult to evaluate in the chosen venue. In these cases, the issue is not the quality of the work itself, but how it is positioned. Journal selection is, therefore, more about identifying the right audience.
A more useful question to ask is not “Where does this paper fit?” but “Who will fully understand and value this work?” When a paper is read by reviewers who immediately recognize its contribution, the chances of a positive evaluation increase significantly. This becomes especially important for interdisciplinary research. When a paper sits between fields, reviewers may only see part of its value. As a result, the contribution can appear unclear or incomplete, even if the work itself is strong.
Improving positioning starts with understanding how journals operate in practice. Looking at recent publications can reveal what types of contributions are typically valued and how they are presented. For example, some journals prioritize strong empirical validation, while others focus on conceptual clarity or system design. A mismatch in expectations is a common reason for rejection.
In this sense, successful journal selection is not just about finding a suitable venue, but about ensuring that the paper is framed in a way that aligns with how that venue evaluates research.
Treat peer review as a persuasion process
Peer review can be challenging, but it is also an opportunity to improve your work.
A strong revision usually focuses on:
- Clarifying the main contribution
- Strengthening the positioning of the paper
- Making distinctions from prior work more explicit
Some comments should always be addressed, especially those related to clarity, missing references, or methodology should always be addressed. Some comments may be subjective. In such cases, it is reasonable to respond with a clear explanation and a professional tone. If reviewers provide conflicting feedback, try to identify the main issue behind their comments. Often, it points to something in the paper that is not being communicated clearly. Editors are usually looking for a coherent improvement, rather than a literal response to every point. A well-argued revision strategy is more effective than a checklist approach.
Use rejection as a diagnostic tool
Repeated rejection can be discouraging, especially when the feedback is generally positive. In many cases, this does not point to a lack of quality, but to a mismatch between the paper and its target venue. Instead of making broad changes, it is more effective to diagnose what may not be working:
- Is the contribution clearly visible?
- Is the paper aligned with the expectations of the journal?
- Is the validation convincing enough?
Reviewer comments are particularly valuable at this stage. They can be seen as external input that highlights where the paper is not fully convincing or where the message is unclear. By addressing these points systematically, each revision moves the paper closer to acceptance.
If a paper has been rejected multiple times, it may be necessary to adjust the overall approach. This could involve reframing the contribution, strengthening key sections, or targeting a different audience where the work is a better fit. Importantly, rejection should be viewed as a normal part of the publishing process, even for strong papers, rather than a final judgment on quality.
Conclusions
Improving publishing efficiency is not about working harder on individual papers. It is about building a system that supports consistent progress. By thinking carefully about visibility, maintaining a continuous workflow, choosing the right audience, and responding effectively to feedback, publishing becomes more manageable and consistent. Over time, this approach leads to better outcomes and a more sustainable way of working.
Disclaimer
The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article are based on discussions shared during the SciProfiles Ask Me Anything session and reflect the views of the respective participants. These views do not necessarily reflect the position or opinions of MDPI or its employees. MDPI takes no responsibility for the content or ideas expressed in this article.
Last updated on: July 25, 2026