How Should I Understand Referees' Response?

[inverse]

after the completion of PEER-REVIEW,I have taken a letter from administration of journal says;

 

--->> the paper does not make a significant contribution to the topic and it has to be rejected.

 

I have several questions on this

 

1) which topic has been  implied here? (the journal's topic or my manuscript's title,which one?)

2)should I submit to another journal ,I say this because after this rejection I submitted to another journal editor rejected but advised me to submit another journal.

3)I request advices from experienced colleagues.

 

Kind Regards

Edited December 29, 2018 by inverse

[A-wal]

I'm not in any position to know but "does not make a significant contribution to the topic" doesn't tell you anything about why it was rejected and sounds to me like they took one glance at it and didn't even bother to read it so maybe just change the presentation. There's a very specific format for scientific papers so if it didn't follow that format they'd just reject it out of hand.

 

If the science is wrong then at least if it's written in the right way you might get an actual reason why it was rejected.

[inverse]

this was peer review' result (not editor's notion) so are you really right in your interpretation?

and which format are you mentioning?

 

my structure or journal's presentation format (which is told in author guidelines)

Edited December 29, 2018 by inverse

[GAHD]

Hard to say without a look at an abstract at the very least...

Ask yourself: Are you actually making a useful and novel observation, or are you just restating something in your own words?

Journals are a dime a dozen, if you just want to say you've been published you can pay for that. Weather the Journal in question is respected is another matter. Usually that vetting process is to keep that respect in place, and because of that it's most like the Journal's "topic" mainly implied in the letter.

[inverse]

Ask yourself: Are you actually making a useful and novel observation, or are you just restating something in your own words?

 

 

sure!

 

 

  Usually that vetting process is to keep that respect in place, and because of that it's most like the Journal's "topic" mainly implied in the letter.   

 

 

I also understood so. but could not be sure.I forwarded to another journal now

[inverse]

Hard to say without a look at an abstract at the very least...

 

 

 

is not the process clear.in summary

 

1) editor reads the paper (including all parts) if she/he believes that the paper falls inside the scope ,then

2)she/he sends to peer review ..if not

2* she rejects.

 

after peer review

 

1) rejection outright (like mine)

2) rejection with major revision request

3)rejection with minor revision request

4)acceptance

 

 

this was peer review's result , so we can definitely say that chief editor  was already aware from all parts including abstract and methods

Edited December 29, 2018 by inverse