Bipeta R. Journal instructions are not optional: yet authors still ignore them. Indian J Psychol Med. Epub ahead of print 11 June 2026. doi: 10.1177/02537176261455515.
The author would like to bring to your attention the following changes in the above-mentioned article.
-
In the first paragraph, the following sentences have been replaced:
Original: Authors often think that rejection means editors are biased, especially if it happens before peer review. In fact, many papers are rejected simply because they do not meet basic submission standards, not because of their scientific quality.
Updated: Many authors believe that early rejection means editors are biased. In reality, most manuscripts that are turned down before peer review are rejected for reasons that can be avoided, such as missing ethics statements, poor formatting, or not following submission instructions, instead of issues with the content.
-
In the second paragraph, the following sentences have been added after the sentence “….avoidable mistakes waste time and effort….”
A desk rejection occurs before peer review if a manuscript has technical or ethical issues, is not well formatted or written, or does not match the journal’s scope. Authors can avoid these preventable rejections by learning the submission process and following the guidelines.1
In the ninth paragraph, the sentence “Research clearly demonstrates that adherence to reporting frameworks remains inconsistent, even after many years of guidance.11” has been replaced with “Even after years of guidance, many researchers still do not consistently follow reporting frameworks. Systematic reviews show that almost 88% of studies are not fully compliant.11”
The following references have been updated:
Reference 1:
Original: Adebamowo CA. West African editors’ perspectives on biomedical journal publishing in low resource settings. West Afr J Med, 2005; 24(4): 275–279.
Updated: Goyal M, Santhanam S, Ravindran V. Desk rejections: why, how, and what next? In: Joshi PB, Churi PP, Pandey M, editors. Scientific Publishing Ecosystem. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2024. DOI:10.1007/978-981-97-4060-4_11.
Reference 11:
Original: Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. Mapping of reporting guidance for health research: A scoping review. BMJ Open, 2021; 11: e043339. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043339.
Updated: Jin Y, Sanger N, Shams I,’ et al. Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? A systematic review of reviews: an update. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2018; 11: 495-510. DOI:10.2147/JMDH.S155103.
Reference 13:
Original: Simera I, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: Reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med 2010; 8: 24. 10.1186/1741-7015-8-24.
Updated: Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, et al. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med. 2010; 8: 24. DOI:10.1186/1741-7015-8-24.
The online version of the article has been corrected.