When you work hard on a paper, it is often discouraging to receive the news that it has been rejected. However, it is important to remember that more papers are rejected than the number accepted. The questions and answers that follow in this article can help you decide what next steps to take with your paper.

Module 14 will provide you with tips for increasing your chances of publication. It takes you through why papers are typically rejected and how to increase your chances of publication - in the Pre-writing, Writing and Post-submission stage.

Tune in to our bitesize webinar to learn more.

A preprint is an article that has been published prior to peer review, typically on a preprint server. As you may guess, the authors are likely to want to publish the same work in a more traditional format in a peer-reviewed journal. This raises the question of what happens to the preprint once a definitive version of the manuscript is accepted by a traditional journal.

This module provides an overview of the process and significance of peer review.

This module describes the stages of peer review and outcomes after the initial peer review.

This module explains the selection of peer reviewers and the popular forms of peer review.

This module discusses ways to respond to the Revise-and-Resubmit and Reject decisions by academic journals.

There are a range of approaches to addressing reviewer comments appropriately. Here are the best practical tips that will help you maximise your success in publishing.

This article examines the need and prevalence of increased inclusion, diversity and transparency in the peer review process while exploring the theme of Peer Review Week 2021: Identity in Peer Review.

How does the work, specifically that of evaluating your submission, differ between journal editors and peer reviewers? At a high level, journal editors look at the macro view, coming from their journal and also the industry, while peer reviewers look at the micro view, specifically looking in the focus of your paper.

What makes for a good peer review? On the same lines, what makes for a good peer reviewer? This article discusses key characteristics of a sound peer review and constructive peer reviewers.

What happens when a journal requests "undesirable" revisions? This article discusses three scenarios and suggestions for how best to navigate them.

This article discusses the emerging relevance of Identity in Peer Review, the theme of Peer Review Week 2021. It talks about how factors such as identity, diversity and inclusion, which are much in discussion presently, also apply to the peer review process and all stakeholders.

This is a recording of our Ask the Experts webinar for Peer Review Week 2021: Identity in Peer Review.

The purpose of the revisions letter is to convince the editor that you have adequately revised the original manuscript to address all the comments made by its peer reviewers. This article shares pointers for writing an effective revisions letter after peer review.

There can be valid reasons for considering withdrawal of your submitted article. This article discusses the various factors to consider and subsequent actions to take once you have determined that you wish to withdraw your academic article.

This webinar, in the form of a panel discussion, provides insights and tips for avoiding article rejection by a journal.

In this webinar, hear our expert panel share strategies on how you can get published in high-impact journals.

The proofing stage is more or less your last chance to ensure that all the important details of your paper are correct. This article provides a checklist for ensuring that your final proof and the soon-to-be published article are error-free.

An embargo in the context of academic publishing typically means a temporary stop or ban on disclosing information contained in a research paper. This article discusses ways to deal with the embargo period both as an author and as a reader.