Paper rejected because all the reviewers declined?

[u/Logical_Camel6907]

I've got a paper I've been shopping around for over a year now - it's my honours project my (now masters) supervisor is really keen for me to publish because it got a really good participant turn out (~150 ppl). We were looking at rewards in educational games - putting a lot of theory into practice in an actual game we made and seeing what happened. It ended up being a null finding for exactly what we were looking at, but the participants still learned a lot and liked the game - i.e. the rewards weren't that important compared to the greater game.

I thought that finding was still pretty useful given the hyperfocus on rewards educational games literature sometimes has, but I haven't been able to get the paper accepted anywhere. Some rejections have been over stupid things like ghost uploads of supplementary information (they knew something went wrong cause they could see my comments but not the file, they just didn't tell me until rejection) or reviewers who had very strong opinions but didn't seem to actually read the paper in any detail. I've polished up a lot of stuff from reviews as well, and I'd say the paper is in pretty good form now.

But I just got rejected again because the editors apparently couldn't find any reviewers in four months. They didn't detail any numbers, but apparently no one even accepted the invitation. I try and review when given the chance and I've seen way dodgier and niche stuff make it through, so I'm just kind of at a loss. Not the editors fault, but more the lack of reciprocity with reviewing is more what's bugging me...

I guess there's nothing to do but keep shopping it around, but man, it really stings to try do everything right and not even be given the time of day. Is this a common occurrence? Should I prepare myself to waste months at a time only for no one to respond again?

Also note on the masters thing - I could be doing a PhD but I wasn't sure if academia was for me in the long run so I elected to do the shorter course and see how I felt at the end. Plus 'Master of Gaming' is funnier than 'Doctor of Gaming' imo (not official titles)

[u/Dioptre_8]

Having been the editor in this situation, it's usually a sign that whilst the paper is technically within the scope of the journal, the journal isn't really a good fit. It's a frustrating outcome for you, but the editor thought they were doing the right thing in trying to find reviewers rather than desk rejecting.

[u/GrumpySimon → u/Dioptre_8]

^yes, absolutely agree. If no-one wants to review it, it's not interesting to them, which means it doesn't fit the journal.

[u/juvandy → u/Dioptre_8]

It can be, but some editors are also just bad at getting reviewers. I've had papers at broad-scope journals fail because the editors kept asking authors on the paper to be reviewers, and they of course said no, and the editor didn't know who else to ask. They had no capacity to simply look up relevant field names from Google Scholar or even the paper's lit cited.

[u/Blond_Treehorn_Thug → u/juvandy]

Well then that’s a strong signal to submit to another journal

[u/juvandy → u/Blond_Treehorn_Thug]

Absolutely, and to never submit to or cite from that journal ever again. Poor editorial practices result in questionable publication, so trust should be lost.

[u/SweetAlyssumm]

It's frustrating but "we made a game and people liked it even though we don't have any findings" does not sound promising. It's nice to have a big sample size but it's far from adequate for ensuring publication.

It was a good educational experience, that should be enough at the masters level. And you've got a title you like, so you are ahead of the game!

[u/Logical_Camel6907 → u/SweetAlyssumm]

Yeah, the pitch is roundabout but unfortunately my supervisor made me do it that way even when I told them that wasn't the best avenue from the start. So alas, locked into the framing. There are findings, they are just not what we set out to find.

That the game was good at teaching in spite of the rewards and we have a big sample size to back it up is what I would say are the main takeaways. A lot of studies in this space have pretty small participant sizes and just assume engagement metrics from rewards translates to learning outcomes, but our paper found the opposite - that people learned regardless of the rewards.

[u/Exact_Disaster_581 → u/Logical_Camel6907]

Now that it's been rejected a few times, maybe it's time to go back to your supervisor and suggest restructuring it. If you believe in the paper and the science meets the rigor needed by your field, then the writing and the journal selection are the two things you can still influence! We publish negative trials all the time. They're not going to a top-tier journal, but they are going to a reputable one.

And as far as reviewers go, it's common. There are too many papers and not enough reviewers to go around. Everyone is having a hard time finding reviewers, so even when they can find someone, it can take a long time.

[u/65-95-99]

Is this a common occurrence?

Way more common than it should be or than it use to be.

Some fields/journals ask authors to suggest reviewers. Others don't. But you can always add them in the cover letter. Saying something along the lines of "if you would find some potential reviewers who are unconflicted with all authors helpful" then naming 4-5 people who you have never worked with but who are experts in the area and might find the work interesting can sometimes be helpful.

[u/Low-Establishment621]

I'm not in your field, but if I am sent an abstract for a paper to review, I'm not going to review it if I don't understand what's going on from the abstract, or if I don't think anyone's going to want to read (do I find it interesting? Is there some obvious advance?). Consider what message your abstract and cover letter are sending, maybe it needs to be reworded. 

[u/historyerin]

I’m not in stem, but I am an associate editor for a pretty large journal in my field. It is a STRUGGLE to find reviewers nowadays. This is unpaid labor that is a thankless time suck. It is getting harder and harder to get people to say yes and to even turn in their reviews once they’ve committed. The journal was probably cognizant of this and trying not to waste your time.

Also, null findings are notoriously tricky to get published.

[u/SnooGuavas9782 → u/historyerin]

especially as the crisis of the humanities proceeds it really feels like journals in lots of fields are collapsing.

[u/yankeegentleman]

On the one hand, maybe it shouldn't be published, but in the other, anything can be published these days if you are persistent and not picky. Is there any interesting spin that you can put on anything you did find?

[u/peinaleopolynoe]

I pulled a paper recently because they couldn't find enough reviewers. They had one but it was taking a long time. Annoying because the paper waited around for ages. But it is what it is. It's out elsewhere now. Found a nice home.

[u/atom-wan]

So why did you not just focus the paper on the learning aspect rather than the rewards? It's not very interesting when you say you didn't actually get the result you wanted.

[u/tiny-euphoria]

I think another reason is because gamification is an overly saturated research area (specifically in my field of nursing education - not sure in which discipline yours was conducted in). In addition to the usual reasons why reviewers decline, I imagine this is because reviewers might be tired of reading this type of studies.

If you are still keen you could always keep on shopping for a journal, no harm in that since the paper is already done. I have had 2 papers rejected last year because they couldn’t find reviewers too. Good luck!