{"id":27534,"date":"2026-05-18T13:00:24","date_gmt":"2026-05-18T10:00:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/a-articles.com\/?p=27534"},"modified":"2026-07-03T16:11:10","modified_gmt":"2026-07-03T13:11:10","slug":"prychyny-vidhylennya-statti-scopus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/a-articles.com\/en\/prychyny-vidhylennya-statti-scopus\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Articles Are Rejected by a Scopus Journal: Top Reasons and How to Avoid Them"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

You submitted your manuscript. A few weeks passed \u2014 and a letter from the editorial office appeared in your inbox. Not \"Your work has been accepted,\" but a brief \"We regret to inform you\u2026\"<\/p>

The first reaction is hurt. The second \u2014 confusion: what went wrong? The third \u2014 a desire to understand the rules of the game and never repeat the same mistake.<\/p>

That is exactly why this article was written. No vague generalities \u2014 only specific reasons for rejection, real statistics from Elsevier, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley, and clear steps on how to avoid them. If you are interested in the specific features of Q1\u2013Q2 journals, we also recommend reading: Main Reasons for Article Rejection in Scopus Q1\u2013Q2 and How to Avoid Them.<\/a><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Rejection Is the Norm, Not the Exception<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The first thing to understand: rejection is a standard part of the scientific process, not a verdict on your work.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

95\u201398% of manuscripts are rejected by Q1 Scopus journals<\/strong><\/p>

In Q2 journals, 85\u201395% of submitted manuscripts are rejected. In Q3 \u2014 70\u201385%. In Q4 \u2014 55\u201370%. Even in the most accessible publications, the majority of submitted works do not reach publication.<\/p>

But there is an important detail: 30 to 78% of all rejections occur before a single reviewer has seen the manuscript. This is known as \"desk rejection\" \u2014 an editor's decision made without proceeding to peer review.<\/p>

This means: most reasons for rejection are fixable, and they can be addressed before submission. Let us examine each one.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Part 1. Desk Rejection: Decisions Before Peer Review<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The editor rejects the manuscript unilaterally, without forwarding it to reviewers. This is not an assessment of research quality \u2014 it is a filter for compliance with basic requirements.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Reason 1. Mismatch with the Journal's Scope<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The most common reason for rejection \u2014 and, unfortunately, one of the easiest to avoid. An editor cannot assign a reviewer if none of the associate editors (AEs) has expertise in your topic. The result is an immediate rejection.<\/p>

An important nuance: <\/strong> the official \"Aims & Scope\"<\/strong> section is a static document. The journal's actual focus is determined by the current composition of the editorial board and what the journal has published over the past 12\u201318 months. For more on how Scopus evaluates journals during indexation: How Scopus Evaluates and Accepts Journals.<\/a><\/p>

It is also useful to understand the actual publication timelines in Scopus Q1\u2013Q4 journals<\/a> \u2014 publication lag is an indirect signal of a journal's selectivity.<\/p>

And of course, it is important not to fall into the trap of a predatory journal in Scopus<\/a> \u2014 some journals are formally indexed but practise questionable editorial processes.<\/p>

How to avoid:<\/strong><\/p>

1) Read the Aims & Scope \u2014 and check what the journal has actually published over the past 2 years;<\/p>

2) Review the profiles of associate editors: at least 2\u20133 of them should be specialists in your topic;<\/p>

3) If in doubt \u2014 send a pre-submission inquiry to the editor.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Reason 2. Failure to Meet Formatting Requirements<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Publishers such as Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley process thousands of manuscripts every month. Automated filters reject documents with technical violations before an editor even reads them.<\/p>

Common technical violations: incorrect citation style, image resolution below 300 DPI, absence of a conflict of interest statement, missing CRediT block (author contributions), incorrect author biography format.<\/p>

How to avoid:<\/strong><\/p>

1) Download the journal's official template and complete it from scratch. 2) Create a checklist from the Guide for Authors and go through every item before clicking \"Submit.\"<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Reason 3. Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

All leading publishers \u2014 Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, IEEE \u2014 run every manuscript through iThenticate \/ CrossCheck. The system compares the text against a database of all published articles, conference proceedings, and books.<\/p>

Threshold values: most publishers consider an overall similarity score above 15\u201320% as grounds for review. It is especially critical if more than 15% of the text matches a single source \u2014 particularly your own previous work.<\/p>

It is also worth knowing: some journals indexed in Scopus deliberately manipulate the peer review process. For more \u2014 how Ukrainian researchers are deceived by journals indexed in Scopus.<\/a><\/p>

Important:<\/strong> Self-plagiarism \u2014 using your own previously published text without disclosing this fact \u2014 is a violation of publication ethics standards (COPE), even if you are the sole author.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>

How to avoid:<\/strong> Run the manuscript through iThenticate or an equivalent tool before submission. If you use material from your own dissertation \u2014 paraphrase it, cite the original source, and mention this in the cover letter.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Reason 4. Missing Research Ethics Documentation<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Studies involving humans or animals require confirmed ethics committee approval (IRB or equivalent). Without it \u2014 rejection in most Q1\u2013Q2 journals, with no exceptions.<\/p>

Required elements: the number and name of the approving body; a statement of informed consent from participants; a declaration of no conflict of interest; a Data Availability Statement.<\/p>

How to avoid:<\/strong> Obtain IRB approval before the study begins \u2014 not after. Include all required statements in the Methods section and as separate files upon submission.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Reason 5. A Weak Abstract<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The abstract is the first \u2014 and often the only \u2014 thing an editor reads during desk rejection. For reviewers, it is the first impression that shapes the entire subsequent evaluation.<\/p>

A weak abstract: opens with a general introduction rather than a specific problem, describes the method vaguely (\"quantitative study\"), presents a result without figures (\"a significant association was found\"), and fails to explain what this finding changes for the scientific field.<\/p>

A strong abstract of 200\u2013300 words follows a clear framework: problem \u2192 method (specific) \u2192 key result with figures \u2192 contribution and implications.<\/p>

How to avoid:<\/strong> Write the abstract LAST \u2014 after the entire article is complete. Rewrite it at least three times with a clear head. Never copy from the Introduction \u2014 the abstract must be a self-contained document.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Reason 6. No Research Gap Defined<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The introduction must perform four functions: contextualize the problem \u2192 show what is known \u2192 show what is NOT known (the gap) \u2192 formulate the research question. If the gap is not explicitly stated \u2014 the editor cannot assess why this research exists at all.<\/p>

Gap statement formula: \"Although [X has been studied in detail], [Y remains unexplored \/ Z is unresolved]. This article addresses this gap by\u2026\"<\/p>

How to avoid: The Introduction and Discussion must \"resonate\": the introduction poses the gap question, the Discussion explains how the results close it. Verify that these two sections correspond to each other logically.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

3,000+ Ukrainian researchers have already stopped searching for a journal manually.\n<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

LEO \u2014 Ukraine's first AI assistant for selecting scientific publications to match your topic and specialization in 2\u20133 minutes.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Scan the QR code or click the button below to launch LEO<\/strong><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTry LEO for free<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Part 2. Rejection After Peer Review<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

If the manuscript has passed desk rejection \u2014 that is already a good sign. But reviewers evaluate far more than topic and formatting. Here are the main reasons why they recommend rejection.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Reason 7. Lack of Novelty or Insufficient Contribution<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

A reviewer asks one key question: \"What new does this article offer that science has not seen before?\" The study does not have to be revolutionary \u2014 but it must offer something original: a new context, a new sample, a new methodology, or a new dataset.<\/p>

The problem arises when authors describe the work they have done but fail to explain why this work is needed by science.<\/p>

How to avoid: In the introduction, explicitly state the research gap \u2014 what is missing from the existing literature. In the Discussion, show how your results change or add to existing knowledge. Do not simply summarize \u2014 explain the significance.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Reason 8. A Superficial or Outdated Literature Review<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

A review that merely lists previous works (\"Smith (2020) found X; Jones (2021) found Y\") is not scientific analysis. Reviewers expect critical synthesis: identifying contradictions, gaps, and the theoretical evolution of the field.\nSpringer Nature explicitly states in its editorial requirements that \"outdated literature or excessive self-citation\" is an independent ground for rejection.<\/p>

How to avoid:<\/strong> The core of the literature should consist of publications from the past 3\u20135 years. Cite seminal older works for context, but not as the foundation. Build the review as an argument leading to your research gap \u2014 not as a chronological list.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Reason 9. A Methodology That Cannot Be Reproduced<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Reproducibility is one of the fundamental criteria of scientific validity. A reviewer must be able to imagine how to replicate your study. If the methods are described vaguely \u2014 that is grounds for rejection.<\/p>

It is not enough to write: \"Data were analyzed using appropriate statistical methods.\" Correct: \"312 students from three universities completed a validated 20-item questionnaire. Multiple regression (p < 0.05); normality verified using the Shapiro-Wilk test."<\/p>

An important note from Springer Nature: \"A p-value alone is not sufficient\" \u2014 confidence intervals and effect sizes must always be reported.<\/p>

How to avoid:<\/strong> Justify every methodological choice. Follow reporting standards: CONSORT for RCTs, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Reason 10. Poor Quality of English<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Publishers Springer Nature, Elsevier, Wiley, and Taylor & Francis explicitly include language quality in the list of grounds for rejection. Research shows that non-native authors receive language-related rejections 2.5 times more often than native speakers. \u0443 2,5 \u0440\u0430\u0437\u0438 \u0447\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0456\u0448\u0435<\/strong> \u043e\u0442\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0443\u044e\u0442\u044c \u043c\u043e\u0432\u043d\u0456 \u0432\u0456\u0434\u043c\u043e\u0432\u0438, \u043d\u0456\u0436 \u043d\u043e\u0441\u0456\u0457 \u043c\u043e\u0432\u0438.<\/p>

An editor cannot send a manuscript out for review if a reviewer will be unable to understand what is written. Language errors that alter the meaning of a sentence are critical even for strong research.<\/p>

How to avoid:<\/strong> Use academic AI editors (Writefull, Paperpal) as a first pass. Ask a colleague with academic-level English to read the text. For Q1 journals, consider a certified language editing service \u2014 Elsevier, Springer, AJE, or Editage.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Summary Table: 10 Reasons for Rejection and How to Avoid Them<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
No.<\/th>\r\n Reason for Rejection<\/th>\r\n Stage<\/th>\r\n How to Avoid<\/th>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/thead>\r\n
1<\/td>\r\n Mismatch with the journal's scope<\/td>\r\n Desk rejection<\/td>\r\n Check AE profiles and recent journal issues<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
2<\/td>\r\n Failure to meet formatting requirements<\/td>\r\n Desk rejection<\/td>\r\n Official template + checklist from Guide for Authors<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
3<\/td>\r\n Plagiarism and self-plagiarism<\/td>\r\n Desk rejection<\/td>\r\n iThenticate before submission; disclose overlap in the cover letter<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
4<\/td>\r\n Missing research ethics documentation<\/td>\r\n Desk rejection<\/td>\r\n Obtain IRB approval before the study begins<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
5<\/td>\r\n Weak abstract<\/td>\r\n Desk rejection<\/td>\r\n Write it last; specific figures are mandatory<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
6<\/td>\r\n No research gap defined<\/td>\r\n Desk rejection<\/td>\r\n Gap statement formula + resonance with Discussion<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
7<\/td>\r\n Lack of novelty or contribution<\/td>\r\n Peer review<\/td>\r\n Explicitly state the gap; demonstrate contribution in Discussion<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
8<\/td>\r\n Superficial or outdated literature review<\/td>\r\n Peer review<\/td>\r\n Synthesize, do not list; cite literature from the past 3\u20135 years<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
9<\/td>\r\n Methodology cannot be reproduced<\/td>\r\n Peer review<\/td>\r\n Justify every choice; report effect size, not just p-value<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
10<\/td>\r\n Poor quality of English<\/td>\r\n Desk rejection<\/td>\r\n Certified language editing service or Writefull\/Paperpal<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Conclusions<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Rejection by a Scopus journal is not a verdict on the research. It is, as a rule, a symptom of a specific, correctable error: an incorrectly chosen journal, a poorly formulated gap, an insufficiently described methodology, or a technical violation of requirements.\nMost reasons for rejection can be addressed before submission \u2014 if you know what to look for. Three key principles:<\/p>

1. Journal fit<\/strong> \u2014 check not only the Aims & Scope, but also AE profiles and recent issues.<\/p>

2. Specificity in everything<\/strong> \u2014 from the abstract to the methodology: figures, justifications, reporting standards.<\/p>

3. An explicit research gap<\/strong> \u2014 if the reader does not understand why this research was conducted, the reviewer will recommend rejection.<\/p>

Rejection is not the end. It is often feedback that makes the article stronger. And a successful publication in Scopus positively impacts your h-index and scientometric indicators<\/a> \u2014 which is especially important for dissertation defence and an academic career.<\/p>

If you want to be confident that your manuscript meets all submission requirements \u2014 find out how Articles Academy verifies journals before collaboration.<\/a><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Would You Like to Publish in a Scopus Journal Without Unnecessary Mistakes?<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Articles Academy provides comprehensive support for publishing scientific articles in Scopus-indexed journals \u2014 from selecting the appropriate journal to receiving editorial confirmation. Your research deserves to be published in full compliance with all editorial requirements.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFind out about the Scopus publication service<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u0412\u0438 \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0430\u043b\u0438 \u0440\u0443\u043a\u043e\u043f\u0438\u0441. \u041c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u043b\u043e \u043a\u0456\u043b\u044c\u043a\u0430 \u0442\u0438\u0436\u043d\u0456\u0432 \u2014 \u0456 \u0432 \u043f\u043e\u0448\u0442\u043e\u0432\u0456\u0439 \u0441\u043a\u0440\u0438\u043d\u044c\u0446\u0456 \u0437’\u044f\u0432\u0438\u0432\u0441\u044f \u043b\u0438\u0441\u0442 \u0432\u0456\u0434 \u0440\u0435\u0434\u0430\u043a\u0446\u0456\u0457. \u041d\u0435 \u00ab\u0412\u0430\u0448\u0443 \u0440\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0442\u0443 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0439\u043d\u044f\u0442\u043e\u00bb, \u0430 \u043a\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0442\u043a\u0435 \u00abWe regret to inform you\u2026\u00bb. \u041f\u0435\u0440\u0448\u0430 \u0440\u0435\u0430\u043a\u0446\u0456\u044f \u2014 \u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u0437\u0430. \u0414\u0440\u0443\u0433\u0430 \u2014 \u0440\u043e\u0437\u0433\u0443\u0431\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0456\u0441\u0442\u044c: \u0449\u043e \u043f\u0456\u0448\u043b\u043e \u043d\u0435 \u0442\u0430\u043a? \u0422\u0440\u0435\u0442\u044f \u2014 \u0431\u0430\u0436\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f \u0437\u0440\u043e\u0437\u0443\u043c\u0456\u0442\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0438\u043b\u0430 \u0433\u0440\u0438 \u0456 \u0431\u0456\u043b\u044c\u0448\u0435 \u043d\u0435 \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0442\u043e\u0440\u044e\u0432\u0430\u0442\u0438 \u0442\u0443 \u0441\u0430\u043c\u0443 \u043f\u043e\u043c\u0438\u043b\u043a\u0443. \u0421\u0430\u043c\u0435 \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0446\u044c\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0456 \u043d\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0441\u0430\u043d\u0430 […]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":27536,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27534","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-stati-o-skopus"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/a-articles.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27534","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/a-articles.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/a-articles.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/a-articles.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/a-articles.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27534"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/a-articles.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27534\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28551,"href":"https:\/\/a-articles.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27534\/revisions\/28551"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/a-articles.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/27536"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/a-articles.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27534"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/a-articles.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27534"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/a-articles.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27534"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}