{"id":376,"date":"2026-07-30T06:52:57","date_gmt":"2026-07-30T06:52:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/?p=376"},"modified":"2026-07-30T06:54:17","modified_gmt":"2026-07-30T06:54:17","slug":"scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\/","title":{"rendered":"Scientific Manuscript Rejected? What to Do Next &#038; How to Get Published"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It feels like a personal setback when your scientific manuscript gets rejected, especially some months of consistent hard work like writing, revisions, and research. But, almost every individual faces rejections in life, as licensed researchers receive rejection letters in their entire career journey, making rejection a normal part of scientific publishing. Editors and reviewers reject papers for reasons that are frequently fixable, and most rejected manuscripts eventually find a home in a suitable journal once the right revisions are made.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If your scientific manuscript has been rejected, stop before you react, read the reviewer feedback carefully, and separate valid criticism from little stylistic notes. Revise your methodology, data presentation, and language once again, then either resubmit to a similar journal (if invited) or target a better-matched journal. Most rejected research papers are publishable with focused revision.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Why Do Scientific Manuscripts Get Rejected?<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Manuscript rejection can happen at nearly every stage of academic publishing, and even highly cited researchers regularly receive rejection letters. Getting to know the underlying causes helps you approach the next submission with a clearer strategy instead of frustration.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Major Manuscript Rejection Reasons<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Most <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">manuscript rejection reasons <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">fall into a handful of recurring categories:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Scope mismatch<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u2014 the study doesn&#8217;t align with the journal&#8217;s stated aims<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Weak novelty<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u2014 the findings don&#8217;t add enough new value to the existing literature<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Methodological flaws<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u2014 insufficient sample size, unclear controls, or unreplicable methods<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Poor data presentation<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u2014 confusing figures, incomplete statistics, or unclear tables<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Language and structure problems <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u2014 flow, grammar, or formatting problems that obscure the science<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Ethical or reporting gaps<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u2014 missing consent statements, incomplete conflict-of-interest disclosures, or unclear data availability<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Knowing these <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">manuscript rejection reasons<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> in advance allows authors to self-audit a paper before it ever reaches a reviewer&#8217;s desk.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Desk Rejection Vs. Rejection After Peer Review<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Not every rejection that you face is equal. A desk rejection occurs before your paper is even delivered for a revision, while a rejection after peer review means subject-matter experts evaluate it before the editor makes a final decision.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<table style=\"width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid #000;\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px; text-align: left;\"><strong>Aspect<\/strong><\/th>\n<th style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px; text-align: left;\"><strong>Desk Rejection<\/strong><\/th>\n<th style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px; text-align: left;\"><strong>Rejection After Peer Review<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\"><strong>Timing<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\">Days to 2 weeks<\/td>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\">6 weeks to several months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\"><strong>Who decides<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\">Handling editor only<\/td>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\">Editor, informed by reviewers<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\"><strong>Common cause<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\">Scope mismatch, poor fit, formatting issues<\/td>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\">Methodology, data interpretation, novelty<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\"><strong>Feedback detail<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\">Minimal, often generic<\/td>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\">Detailed, section-by-section<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\"><strong>Next step<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\">Choose a better-fit journal quickly<\/td>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\">Revise based on specific comments<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\"><strong>Resubmission odds<\/strong><\/td>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\">High, if journal choice improves<\/td>\n<td style=\"border: 1px solid #000; padding: 10px;\">Moderate to high, if concerns are addressed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Journal Editor Decision \u2014 How Editors Evaluate Submissions<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">journal editor decision <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">rarely depends on one factor. Editors consider the suggestions of the reviewer while also considering the journal&#8217;s editorial priorities, special error themes, and the entire fit with the readership. A paper can receive positive reviewer comments and still be rejected if the editor feels it doesn&#8217;t match journal audience criteria. That\u2019s the reason why a detailed learning regarding the editorial method, not just the reviewer feedback, matters whenever you decide your next move.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">What is a Rejection Letter Called?<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A rejection letter contains more information than it first appears to. Learning to read it properly is often the difference between a wasted resubmission and a successful one.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Reading Between the Lines of Peer Review Comments<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Peer review comments<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> are usually written in academic shorthand, and authors sometimes misread constructive criticism as outright dismissal. Look for patterns across reviewers: if two independent reviewers raise a similar concern, treat it as a priority fix instead of making it a matter of opinion. Comments about &#8220;limited generalizability&#8221; or &#8220;insufficient controls&#8221; are rarely fatal, they&#8217;re usually asking for a particular, addressable revision.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Types of Rejection (Reject-and-Resubmit Vs. Outright Reject)<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Editors typically issue one of two types of rejection. Wondering what a reject-and-resubmit plan shows? It shows you that the editor looks at your work progress, and is open to a substantially revised version as the new submission. Outright rejection is usually defined as a paper that is not a match for that journal by any means, despite the quality of the revision. Getting the right information on which category your letter falls into, shapes whether you revise-and-return or start fresh elsewhere.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">What to Do Immediately After a Manuscript Rejection<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The actions you take during the beginning of initial days after knowing that your scientific manuscript was rejected often shows how fast, and successfully you can move toward publication elsewhere.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Step 1 \u2013 Take Time Before Reacting Emotionally\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">You should give yourself 24\u201348 hours before you reply to reviewers or plan for revisions. Your instant reaction, especially with a rebuttal written out of frustration, rarely helps, and can harm your standing with an editor if you do the resubmission.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Step 2 \u2013 Analyze Peer Review Comments Objectively\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Wait until the initial disappointment settles, read the <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">peer review comments<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> once again carefully. You need to create a simple chart, in which you mention each comment, whether it&#8217;s major or minor, and your planned response. This changes vague feedback into a concrete action list.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Step 3 \u2013 Decide Between Resubmission and a New Journal<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It is not required for every rejected paper to go back to the same journal. If the editor explicitly invites a revised resubmission, that\u2019s generally the correct way. If the rejection was outright, or scope-related, a<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> rejected research paper<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> is often served well by a fresh, better-matched journal.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Step 4 \u2013 Seek a Second Opinion from Co-authors or Mentors<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">You need to take this step of sharing the reviewer comments with co-authors or a mentor, whom you\u2019ve faith in, before you make a deal regarding a revision plan. A second, less emotionally invested viewpoint often spots blind spots and helps prioritize which criticisms genuinely need addressing.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">How to Revise a Rejected Research Paper<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter wp-image-377 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/manuscript-revision-work.webp\" alt=\"manuscript revision work\" width=\"936\" height=\"527\" srcset=\"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/manuscript-revision-work.webp 936w, https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/manuscript-revision-work-300x169.webp 300w, https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/manuscript-revision-work-768x432.webp 768w, https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/manuscript-revision-work-800x450.webp 800w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 936px) 100vw, 936px\" \/><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In such cases, where your scientific manuscript has been rejected and the decision consists of exclusive reviewer feedback, revising a <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">rejected research paper <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">than becomes a difficult task rather than a piece of cake, it is not a simple editing task. Treat the revision as a project with a clear checklist and a plan for resolving a reviewer\u2019s concern.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Addressing Reviewer Concerns Point-by-Point<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Create a response document that mentions every reviewer comment with the exact change you made (or your reasoning if you disagree). This document becomes the backbone of your rebuttal letter and indicates rigor to the next set of reviewers.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Strengthening Methodology and Data Presentation<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If reviewers flagged methodological gaps, this is the section to prioritize. Evaluate the size of the sample, add any leftover statistical analyses, and clarify any assumption. Design the figures again, and tables so outcomes are unambiguous at a glance. Reviewers frequently reject papers not because the information is weak but because the findings are presented unclearly. Clear figures and tables make your outcomes easier to interpret.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Improving Language, Structure, and Formatting<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This is one of the most essential steps of your revision process, grammar, and structural errors are the easiest errors to correct in your manuscript, yet they are usually the biggest reason for your continuous rejection that you face. Tighten your abstract, ensure consistent terminology overall, and implement the target journal&#8217;s formatting guide exactly, consisting of citation style and figure specifications.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">For a deeper walkthrough of structuring reviewer responses, read our guide on <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/how-pre-submission-peer-review-increases-journal-acceptance\/\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">how pre-submission peer review increases journal acceptance.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">How to Resubmit a Rejected Manuscript<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Once revisions are complete, the resubmission process deserves careful attention. Rushing this stage can undermine the value of a strong revision.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Resubmitting to the Same Journal<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If invited, resubmission to the same journal usually means addressing the original reviewers directly. Keep your response document organized by reviewer and comment number so editors can verify each concern was handled.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Choosing a New Target Journal<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">When starting fresh, reformat the manuscript to match the new journal&#8217;s author guidelines, adjust the reference style, and revisit your cover letter to reflect why this particular journal is the right fit for the work.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Preparing a Fresh Cover Letter (and Rebuttal, if Applicable)<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A good cover letter briefly describes the paper&#8217;s contribution and, where the right, notes prior review history without dwelling on it. If you&#8217;re returning to the similar journal, combine it with a detailed rebuttal letter. Our <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/how-to-write-a-rebuttal-letter-that-convince-journal-editors\/\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">rebuttal letter guide<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> breaks down how to structure this document efficiently.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">When Should You Seek Professional Help With Your Manuscript<\/span><\/h2>\n<div style=\"max-width: 900px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 12px; background: #f5f6f7; border-radius: 12px; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; align-items: stretch; justify-content: space-between; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\">\n<p><!-- Left Content --><\/p>\n<div style=\"flex: 1 1 0; display: flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center;\">\n<p style=\"margin: 0; font-size: 24px; line-height: 1.4; color: #1a1a1a; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;\">Get your work recognized on global research platforms with our expert guidance <span style=\"color: #f59e0b; font-weight: bold;\">TODAY!<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><!-- Right Button --><\/p>\n<div style=\"min-width: 250px; display: flex; flex-direction: column; align-items: center; justify-content: center; gap: 0px;\">\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><a style=\"background: #005277; color: #fff; padding: 15px 40px; border: none; border-radius: 50px; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; cursor: pointer; transition: all 0.3s ease; box-shadow: 0 4px 15px rgba(0, 82, 119, 0.4); text-decoration: none; display: inline-block;\" href=\"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/contact\">Let&#8217;s Connect<\/a><\/p>\n<div style=\"font-size: 14px; color: #f59e0b; font-weight: 600;\">\ud83d\udd12 It\u2019s quick &amp; secure<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Not every revision has to be done entirely alone, and knowing when to bring in outside support can speed up the path to publication.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Some Obstacles Authors Face During Revision<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Early-career researchers and non-native English speakers often face greater difficulties with translating difficult reviewer feedback into simple language changes, restructuring the sections completely with making it scientifically correct, or formatting a manuscript accurately for a new journal&#8217;s submission system.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">When to Consider <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Scientific Manuscript Editing Services<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If you struggle on polishing the language, technical restructuring, or formatting requirements after various checks, it may be time to bring in outside expertise. Numerous researchers turn to licensed <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/scientific-editing\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">scientific manuscript editing services<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u00a0at this stage, particularly when English isn&#8217;t their first language or when a tight resubmission deadline leaves little room for the rechecks. These services typically include formatting compliance, language refinement, and sometimes methodological clarity verification, without changing the substance of the research itself.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Choosing the Right Journal for Resubmission<\/span><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Journal selection is one of the most overlooked factors in having your <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">scientific manuscript rejected <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">a second time, often for reasons that have nothing to do with the science itself.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Matching Journal Scope and Aim<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Read the journal&#8217;s aims and scope page closely and compare it against your paper&#8217;s core contribution. A well-written paper submitted to the wrong journal is still likely to be rejected.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Checking Impact Factor and Turnaround Time<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Balance ambition with realism. Targeting journals slightly below your first-choice journal&#8217;s impact factor, while analyzing published turnaround times, can ease your way to successful <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">scientific paper publication.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Avoiding Predatory Journals\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Be cautious of journals promising unusually quick acceptance or charging high fees with minor editorial scrutiny. Cross-check any unfamiliar journal against your institution&#8217;s library resources or the Directory of Open Access Journals before submitting. Look at our <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/how-to-choose-the-right-journal-for-your-research-paper\/\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">journal selection guide<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> for a more detailed evaluation checklist.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Mistakes Authors Make After Rejection<\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Resubmitting without making any real changes<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ignoring or dismissing minor reviewer comments<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Choosing a mismatched or predatory journal<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Rushing the resubmission without proofreading<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Losing motivation and delaying revision indefinitely<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Tips to Increase Your Chances of Getting Published\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Fix every reviewer comment, including minor ones, in the response document you made.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Have a colleague outside your current field read the revised draft for clarification.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Double-check formatting against the new journal&#8217;s author guidelines before submission<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Set a realistic timeline, most revisions often take longer than expected.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Track your<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> manuscript resubmission <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">history so you don&#8217;t repeat the same journal-fit errors.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Conclusion<\/span><\/h2>\n<p>A rejected research paper<span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> is rarely the end of the road. With an objective read of the reviewer feedback, an innovative revision strategy, and a well-matched next journal, multiple papers are eventually published successfully. Take rejection as part of the publication method instead of a final judgment on your research.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Frequently Asked Questions<\/span><\/h2>\n<h3><b>1. Can a rejected manuscript be published in another journal?<\/b><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yes. All the rejected manuscripts are generally submitted and revised to a completely new, better-matched journal, and multiple of them go on to be published successfully after handling reviewer feedback.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><b>2. How long does it take to resubmit a rejected manuscript?<\/b><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Timelines vary, but the <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">manuscript resubmission<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> can take anywhere from a few weeks to some months, depending on how broad the required revisions are and how fast co-authors reply.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><b>3. Does manuscript rejection affect future submissions to the same journal?<\/b><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Generally no. Editors evaluate each submission on its own merits, and a well-revised paper is often welcomed back, especially if you receive resubmit revision.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><b>4. What makes a major revision request different from a rejection?<\/b><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A major revision request is defined if the editor sees a publishable path and wants specific changes before reconsidering, while a rejection means the paper won&#8217;t be reconsidered in its current or resubmitted form at that journal.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><b>5. How many journals should I try before considering the manuscript unpublishable?<\/b><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">There&#8217;s no fixed figure, but after three or four well-matched attempts with standardized, addressed revisions, it&#8217;s worth reassessing the paper&#8217;s core framing with a mentor or editing expert instead of the target journal.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">For all-inclusive guidance on ethical resubmission practices, refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on manuscript resubmission, and rejection.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>It feels like a personal setback when your scientific manuscript gets rejected, especially some months of consistent hard work like writing, revisions, and research. But, almost every individual faces rejections in life, as licensed researchers receive rejection letters in their entire career journey, making rejection a normal part of scientific publishing. Editors and reviewers reject papers for reasons that are frequently fixable, and most rejected manuscripts eventually find a home in a suitable journal once the right revisions are made. If your scientific manuscript has been rejected, stop before you react, read the reviewer feedback carefully, and separate valid criticism from little stylistic notes. Revise your methodology, data presentation, and language once again, then either resubmit to a similar journal (if invited) or target a better-matched journal. Most rejected research papers are publishable with focused revision.\u00a0 Why Do Scientific Manuscripts Get Rejected? Manuscript rejection can happen at nearly every stage of academic publishing, and even highly cited researchers regularly receive rejection letters. Getting to know the underlying causes helps you approach the next submission with a clearer strategy instead of frustration. Major Manuscript Rejection Reasons Most manuscript rejection reasons fall into a handful of recurring categories: Scope mismatch \u2014 the study doesn&#8217;t align with the journal&#8217;s stated aims Weak novelty \u2014 the findings don&#8217;t add enough new value to the existing literature Methodological flaws \u2014 insufficient sample size, unclear controls, or unreplicable methods Poor data presentation \u2014 confusing figures, incomplete statistics, or unclear tables Language and structure problems \u2014 flow, grammar, or formatting problems that obscure the science Ethical or reporting gaps \u2014 missing consent statements, incomplete conflict-of-interest disclosures, or unclear data availability Knowing these manuscript rejection reasons in advance allows authors to self-audit a paper before it ever reaches a reviewer&#8217;s desk. Desk Rejection Vs. Rejection After Peer Review Not every rejection that you face is equal. A desk rejection occurs before your paper is even delivered for a revision, while a rejection after peer review means subject-matter experts evaluate it before the editor makes a final decision.\u00a0 Aspect Desk Rejection Rejection After Peer Review Timing Days to 2 weeks 6 weeks to several months Who decides Handling editor only Editor, informed by reviewers Common cause Scope mismatch, poor fit, formatting issues Methodology, data interpretation, novelty Feedback detail Minimal, often generic Detailed, section-by-section Next step Choose a better-fit journal quickly Revise based on specific comments Resubmission odds High, if journal choice improves Moderate to high, if concerns are addressed Journal Editor Decision \u2014 How Editors Evaluate Submissions The journal editor decision rarely depends on one factor. Editors consider the suggestions of the reviewer while also considering the journal&#8217;s editorial priorities, special error themes, and the entire fit with the readership. A paper can receive positive reviewer comments and still be rejected if the editor feels it doesn&#8217;t match journal audience criteria. That\u2019s the reason why a detailed learning regarding the editorial method, not just the reviewer feedback, matters whenever you decide your next move. What is a Rejection Letter Called? A rejection letter contains more information than it first appears to. Learning to read it properly is often the difference between a wasted resubmission and a successful one. Reading Between the Lines of Peer Review Comments Peer review comments are usually written in academic shorthand, and authors sometimes misread constructive criticism as outright dismissal. Look for patterns across reviewers: if two independent reviewers raise a similar concern, treat it as a priority fix instead of making it a matter of opinion. Comments about &#8220;limited generalizability&#8221; or &#8220;insufficient controls&#8221; are rarely fatal, they&#8217;re usually asking for a particular, addressable revision. Types of Rejection (Reject-and-Resubmit Vs. Outright Reject) Editors typically issue one of two types of rejection. Wondering what a reject-and-resubmit plan shows? It shows you that the editor looks at your work progress, and is open to a substantially revised version as the new submission. Outright rejection is usually defined as a paper that is not a match for that journal by any means, despite the quality of the revision. Getting the right information on which category your letter falls into, shapes whether you revise-and-return or start fresh elsewhere. What to Do Immediately After a Manuscript Rejection The actions you take during the beginning of initial days after knowing that your scientific manuscript was rejected often shows how fast, and successfully you can move toward publication elsewhere.\u00a0 Step 1 \u2013 Take Time Before Reacting Emotionally\u00a0 You should give yourself 24\u201348 hours before you reply to reviewers or plan for revisions. Your instant reaction, especially with a rebuttal written out of frustration, rarely helps, and can harm your standing with an editor if you do the resubmission. Step 2 \u2013 Analyze Peer Review Comments Objectively\u00a0 Wait until the initial disappointment settles, read the peer review comments once again carefully. You need to create a simple chart, in which you mention each comment, whether it&#8217;s major or minor, and your planned response. This changes vague feedback into a concrete action list. Step 3 \u2013 Decide Between Resubmission and a New Journal It is not required for every rejected paper to go back to the same journal. If the editor explicitly invites a revised resubmission, that\u2019s generally the correct way. If the rejection was outright, or scope-related, a rejected research paper is often served well by a fresh, better-matched journal. Step 4 \u2013 Seek a Second Opinion from Co-authors or Mentors You need to take this step of sharing the reviewer comments with co-authors or a mentor, whom you\u2019ve faith in, before you make a deal regarding a revision plan. A second, less emotionally invested viewpoint often spots blind spots and helps prioritize which criticisms genuinely need addressing. How to Revise a Rejected Research Paper In such cases, where your scientific manuscript has been rejected and the decision consists of exclusive reviewer feedback, revising a rejected research paper than becomes a difficult task rather than a piece of cake, it is not a simple editing task. Treat the revision as a project<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":378,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","entry","has-media"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Scientific Manuscript Rejected? What to Do Next<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Scientific manuscript rejected? Learn why papers get rejected, how to revise effectively, and improve your chances of journal publication.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Scientific Manuscript Rejected? What to Do Next\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Scientific manuscript rejected? Learn why papers get rejected, how to revise effectively, and improve your chances of journal publication.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Harvard Publication Hub\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-30T06:52:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-30T06:54:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/\u2022-scientific-manuscript-rejected.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1536\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"864\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"seo team\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"seo team\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"seo team\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/5a1128e1b1090b1bc187b0ae389d6dc4\"},\"headline\":\"Scientific Manuscript Rejected? What to Do Next &#038; How to Get Published\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-30T06:52:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-30T06:54:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2107,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/\u2022-scientific-manuscript-rejected.webp\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\\\/\",\"name\":\"Scientific Manuscript Rejected? What to Do Next\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/\u2022-scientific-manuscript-rejected.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-30T06:52:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-30T06:54:17+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/5a1128e1b1090b1bc187b0ae389d6dc4\"},\"description\":\"Scientific manuscript rejected? Learn why papers get rejected, how to revise effectively, and improve your chances of journal publication.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/\u2022-scientific-manuscript-rejected.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/\u2022-scientific-manuscript-rejected.webp\",\"width\":1536,\"height\":864,\"caption\":\"scientific manuscript rejected\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Scientific Manuscript Rejected? What to Do Next &#038; How to Get Published\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/\",\"name\":\"Harvard Publication Hub\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/5a1128e1b1090b1bc187b0ae389d6dc4\",\"name\":\"seo team\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1063df6f5efff4af3ec71a129dc7c9fe9539d1e0bd13cfa57d569f5791122c64?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1063df6f5efff4af3ec71a129dc7c9fe9539d1e0bd13cfa57d569f5791122c64?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1063df6f5efff4af3ec71a129dc7c9fe9539d1e0bd13cfa57d569f5791122c64?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"seo team\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/)(#@AuthorSeo312$.harvardpublicationhub\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/harvardpublicationhub.com\\\/blogs\\\/author\\\/author\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Scientific Manuscript Rejected? What to Do Next","description":"Scientific manuscript rejected? Learn why papers get rejected, how to revise effectively, and improve your chances of journal publication.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Scientific Manuscript Rejected? What to Do Next","og_description":"Scientific manuscript rejected? Learn why papers get rejected, how to revise effectively, and improve your chances of journal publication.","og_url":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\/","og_site_name":"Harvard Publication Hub","article_published_time":"2026-07-30T06:52:57+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-30T06:54:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1536,"height":864,"url":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/\u2022-scientific-manuscript-rejected.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"seo team","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"seo team","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\/"},"author":{"name":"seo team","@id":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/#\/schema\/person\/5a1128e1b1090b1bc187b0ae389d6dc4"},"headline":"Scientific Manuscript Rejected? What to Do Next &#038; How to Get Published","datePublished":"2026-07-30T06:52:57+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-30T06:54:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\/"},"wordCount":2107,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/\u2022-scientific-manuscript-rejected.webp","inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\/","url":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\/","name":"Scientific Manuscript Rejected? What to Do Next","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/\u2022-scientific-manuscript-rejected.webp","datePublished":"2026-07-30T06:52:57+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-30T06:54:17+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/#\/schema\/person\/5a1128e1b1090b1bc187b0ae389d6dc4"},"description":"Scientific manuscript rejected? Learn why papers get rejected, how to revise effectively, and improve your chances of journal publication.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/\u2022-scientific-manuscript-rejected.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/\u2022-scientific-manuscript-rejected.webp","width":1536,"height":864,"caption":"scientific manuscript rejected"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/scientific-manuscript-rejected-what-to-do-next\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Scientific Manuscript Rejected? What to Do Next &#038; How to Get Published"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/#website","url":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/","name":"Harvard Publication Hub","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/#\/schema\/person\/5a1128e1b1090b1bc187b0ae389d6dc4","name":"seo team","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1063df6f5efff4af3ec71a129dc7c9fe9539d1e0bd13cfa57d569f5791122c64?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1063df6f5efff4af3ec71a129dc7c9fe9539d1e0bd13cfa57d569f5791122c64?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1063df6f5efff4af3ec71a129dc7c9fe9539d1e0bd13cfa57d569f5791122c64?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"seo team"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/)(#@AuthorSeo312$.harvardpublicationhub"],"url":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/author\/author\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/376","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=376"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/376\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":381,"href":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/376\/revisions\/381"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/378"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/harvardpublicationhub.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}