Skip to content 
Rejected again? Congratulations—you’re officially a real researcher.
The road to publication is rarely smooth. You submit your paper, hopeful and excited, only to find yourself waiting for months—sometimes even longer. Revisions, rejections, and endless reviewer comments can make it feel like you’re stuck in a loop.
But here’s the thing: setbacks are part of the process. The most successful researchers aren’t the ones who never face obstacles. They’re the ones who persist despite them.
So how do you stay motivated while navigating the unpredictable timeline of academic publishing?
Here are 10 strategies to manage delays effectively and keep pushing forward.
1. Understand That Delays Are Normal—But Not Always Inevitable
Publishing takes time. Peer reviewers are busy. Editors juggle hundreds of submissions. Journals operate at different speeds.
Instead of feeling frustrated, set realistic expectations from the beginning. If your manuscript is with a top-tier journal, expect multiple rounds of revisions. If it’s a niche journal, the review process might take longer due to a smaller reviewer pool. Knowing this helps you stay patient.
📌 Action Tip:
Assess whether the delay is due to peer review, editorial processing, or unforeseen issues. If it exceeds the expected timeline, consider sending a polite follow-up email to the editor.
📝 Example:
One of my mentees had a manuscript under review for 4 months without updates. We drafted a concise, professional email to the editor, and within a week, she received the decision letter. The journal had simply forgotten to send it!
My rule or thumb is 3 months for good journals — if you don’t hear back, it’s fair game to reach out.
2. Diversify Your Writing Portfolio
Don’t put all your academic eggs in one basket. You should always have at least three projects in the pipeline—ideally at different stages. This way, you can work on another paper while waiting for feedback on one manuscript. This reduces the anxiety of delays and ensures a constant flow of submissions.
📌 Action Tip:
Start a review article, book chapter, or collaborative project while your main manuscript is under review.
📝 Example:
While waiting for a major paper to get accepted (after multiple rejections and resubmissions), we decided to write a related review paper. We wanted to make use of all the additional literature review that we had performed during revisions. That review paper got published before the original study, boosting credibility.
3. Track Your Submissions Like a Research Project
Treat manuscript submissions like clinical trial data—track every step.
I use Notion as my project management tool to track my submissions. Every paper has a status:
✅ Submitted
✅ Under Review
✅ Revise & Resubmit
✅ Accepted
📌 What to Track:
✅ Submission dates
✅ Expected decision timelines
✅ Reviewer comments and revision deadlines
✅ Backup journals (in case of rejection)
📝 Example:
One of my mentees missed a revise-and-resubmit deadline because she lost track of it in her inbox. Luckily, the journal was generous enough to allow her to resubmit despite the missed deadline. Now, she logs every submission with deadlines clearly marked—and she hasn’t missed one since. You don’t need elaborate systems—a simple Google Sheet or Trello board can prevent missed deadlines and forgotten follow-ups.
4. Master the Art of Follow-Up Without Being Annoying
If a journal is far past its stated review period, a polite follow-up email to the editor is completely acceptable.
📝 Example:
If a journal says reviews take 8 weeks and it’s been 12, send a concise and professional inquiry:
“Dear Dr. [Editor’s Name], I submitted my manuscript [Title] on [Date] and understand that review times can vary. I wanted to check if there are any updates on the status of my submission and if you would require anything else from us to help in the process. Thank you for your time and consideration.”
📌 Pro Tip:
Engage with researchers who have published in the same journal for insights into the review process.
You can also use site such as Scirev (https://scirev.org/)
This site provides an estimate of how long the review process might take from submission to publication. Beware that this is self reported by researchers and the more data points that you have for a particular journal, the more accurate it is.
For example, for JAMA, there are 5 reviews, and the total handling time is around 2 months, which is relatively fast.
5. Use Reviewer Comments as a Tool, Not a Setback
Early on, rejections felt like personal attacks. But with time (and some grey hair), I realized: Reviewer comments are free expert feedback.
I started treating them like a checklist, fixing one issue at a time. Eventually, my papers started getting accepted with fewer revisions.
📌 Action Tip:
Create a table to break down reviewer feedback:
- Column 1: Reviewer’s comment
- Column 2: Your planned revision
- Column 3: Response to reviewer
📝 Example:
One of my papers was rejected outright, with a brutal review. Instead of scrapping it, I took some distance and gave myself time before revisiting. I then used the feedback to restructure my arguments. When I resubmitted to a similar impact factor journal, the paper was accepted with only minor revisions.
6. Have a Backup Journal in Mind
Every submission should come with a Plan B and Plan C. If your paper gets rejected, knowing your next target journal prevents lost momentum.
📌 Action Tip:
Before submitting, I recommend listing your top 3 journals: A) A reach journal, B) A solid, confident choice, and C) A fallback option. List your potential alternatives ranked by:
✅ Impact factor
✅ Relevance to your field
✅ Acceptance likelihood
📝 Example:
I have a rheumatology journal pipeline—I almost always follow the same order. But I choose where to start in the list based on the significance, novelty, and impact of my paper. That way, when I get a rejection, I immediately submit the revised version within a week—instead of dwelling on rejection for months.
7. Create a Submission Pipeline
Top researchers don’t wait for one paper to get published before starting the next. They build a system where papers are continuously in different stages:
1️⃣ Drafting
2️⃣ Under Review
3️⃣ Revising based on feedback
4️⃣ In press
📌 Action Tip:
If your main paper is under review, start drafting a conference abstract on the study. This is fair game.
📝 Example:
We once had a paper under review for six months — it had to go through 2nd round of revisions. Instead of getting discouraged, we started working on a related commentary piece and a systematic review on a similar topic. By the time the original paper was accepted, we had two additional manuscripts ready for submission.
8. Find Ways to Share Your Work While Waiting
Your research doesn’t have to be “in press” to be useful.
📌 Action Tip:
- Present findings at conferences, webinars, or institutional seminars.
- Consider uploading a preprint to medRxiv, bioRxiv, or arXiv for early citations.
📝 Example:
One of my mentees presented at a conference while waiting for journal acceptance. That presentation led to a collaboration with another research group, which resulted in a new study that ultimately got published before the original one.
9. Learn from Others’ Journeys (Not Just Their Successes)
When you see people posting their “Paper accepted!” updates on Twitter and LinkedIn and yours having gone through several resubmissions, it can be disheartening.
But behind every accepted paper is a long history of rejections.
📌 Action Tip:
Talk to mentors. Read about rejection stories of established researchers. Resilience—not luck—gets papers published.
📝 Example:
Even Albert Einstein, one of the most celebrated scientists of all time, faced rejections and skepticism in his early career. In 1905, he submitted four groundbreaking papers (on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity, and mass-energy equivalence) to Annalen der Physik. These papers revolutionized physics—but before that, he struggled to get recognition.
- He was working as a patent clerk, not a university professor. The academic community largely ignored his work at first.
- His Ph.D. dissertation was initially rejected for being “too short.”
- One of his early papers, later considered foundational for quantum mechanics, was met with skepticism and rejection.
But Einstein kept submitting, refining, and pushing forward. Eventually, his work changed the course of physics and earned him the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics.
If Einstein faced rejection, so will you. The difference between those who succeed and those who don’t? They keep going.
10. Celebrate Small Wins Along the Way
The journey to publication is long. If you only celebrate final acceptance, you’ll burn out.
📌 Action Tip:
Acknowledge small victories:
✅ Submitting a manuscript
✅ Getting a revise-and-resubmit instead of a rejection
✅ Completing a major revision
✅ Seeing an increase in citations on a previous paper
📝 Example:
I reward myself every time I hit a milestone. After one of my toughest revisions, I treated myself and my lab to a coffee shop outing. These small celebrations keep motivation high and remind us that progress matters just as much as the final outcome.
Final Thoughts: Your Research Will Be Published—If You Keep Going
The biggest reason most research doesn’t get published isn’t rejection.
It’s giving up too soon.
Every researcher—no matter how senior—faces delays, rejections, and tough revisions. The difference between those who succeed and those who don’t?
👉 They keep submitting.
👉 They keep revising.
👉 They keep going.
The MASTER has failed > BEGINNER has tried.
Your work deserves to be out in the world.
Stay patient, stay persistent, and trust the process.
Your breakthrough is closer than you think.
What’s your best strategy for handling publication delays?
