Different Rejection Reasons Everytime, for the Same Article

[Youssef]

Hello there everyone,

I honestly got really frustrated and thought about leaving Constant-Content.com altogether; but I noticed that we have a very active and supportive community here, so I thought why not give it a try and see what others think about my experience, I won't lose anything.

So I submitted an article for a public request entitled "CoQ10". The first time, I got this editorial message:

==== Editorial Information for Your Article: ====

Short summaries must be free of errors upon submission. Yours has unclear writing, grammatical problems, and missing commas. // Other problems with the article include This article is missing commas necessary for clarity or includes commas that are misplaced.

Please observe rules for comma usage and apply these rules consistently.

Comma Use: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/01/

Commas and Subordinate Clauses: http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subordinateclause.htm

PowerPoint Presentation for Comma Use: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/692/1

==== End Editorial Information for Your Article ====

They were quite right because I had written the summary directly on the Constant-Content.com form and had forgotten to revise it. So, I did that. I also consulted two English language teachers with regards to the missing commas and they pointed them out. I revised the article and the summary a couple more times and submitted them.

Less than 24 hours later, I got this:

==== Editorial Information for Your Article: ====

We do not consider content with grammar errors, punctuation errors, or other errors.

==== End Editorial Information for Your Article ====

Although generalized, the first reply was a lot more helpful. At least it said it's something to do with the commas and pointed out where the problems were, roughly (in summary? in article itself?). My optimism after the second submission changed to complete frustration after the second reply. For me, it's basically telling me "give up, we don't want you". It's actually as if the reply was meant to paralyze you, though I think that probably isn't the purpose. It would have taken the editor 3 more seconds to just specify a paragraph, or a specific type of error just like the first reply did.

I'd like to know what you guys think, and how you fix the problems with your articles when you receive such extremely broad editorial comments. I'd also appreciate it if an editor could tell me more about the rejection reasons if they have some time.

Thanks a lot and sorry for the pretty long post.

[Lysis]

The editors don't post here anymore.

My personal experience is that if the editor gives a really generalized rejection like your second one, then I really need to go through the whole article. Usually, there are multiple bad sentences or awkward sentences. If the editor gives me 1-2 lines in the rejection pointing out where I went wrong, I find that I just had a couple of problems, and generally the rest of the article was OK.

This is just my personal rule of thumb after dealing with rejections and noticing a pattern. My personal preference with CC articles is turning off the music or TV and reading the article out loud before submitting. You'll probably find your awkward sentences.

[Youssef]

Lysis,

Thanks a lot for the reply. Well, what you said was exactly what confuses me. Let me elaborate:

If the editor gives me 1-2 lines in the rejection pointing out where I went wrong, I find that I just had a couple of problems, and generally the rest of the article was OK.

They did this the first time and I fixed the problems then I read it loudly, couldn't find anything

if the editor gives a really generalized rejection like your second one, then I really need to go through the whole article.

They did this the second time.

Very frustrating

[Lysis]

Well, the first rejection is for your short summary, so I assume the editor looked at your summary and rejected without looking at the article (no point reading the rest when you already need to reject for the beginning section). Do you see what I mean? The second one is general, but it addresses the article. Read the article out loud to yourself to find the grammar errors.

[Youssef]

Well you might be right but they did include a comment about the article in the first review:

// Other problems with the article include This article is missing commas necessary for clarity or includes commas that are misplaced.

Pretty specific, so I don't understand how it suddenly turned to a super-generalized review in the second reply which, as you said probably means the whole article needs revision because it has lot of mistakes. Nothing about that was pointed out earlier.

Is it possible to contact the editors for more information?

[Lysis]

The second rejection is typical. That's the norm.

Commas are an icky rejection. I'm probably the wrong person to ask about commas, but if there is a sentence that they pointed out or if you have an idea of which sentences they are talking about, what I do is just rewrite the whole sentence or eliminate it. Usually, even if I think a sentence is ok but I have this inkling that it might not be, then it's the sentence the editor didn't like.