A publication that we have been working on for over 6 months on COVID-19 has been rejected by 2 journals. The objective of our research was to identify effective compounds against the COVID-19 virus by using Molecular Docking studies performed with AutoDock Vina. Which Journal should we submit our manuscript to? Following are the Rejection emails I received from them. What do you think is the reason for the rejection and what should I do to resolve the issue to get my manuscript successfully published.

Rejection Notification from International Journal of Molecular Sciences "We are writing to inform you that we will not be able to process your submission further. Submissions sent for peer-review are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in scholarly journals. Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your work."

Rejection Notification from International Journal of Biological Macromolecules "Thank you for submitting your manuscript to International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. I have reviewed your manuscript and I must regretfully inform you that your work presents information that is specific to a selective audience in its nature and interest and is more appropriate for a more specialized journal. The focus of your present work, a computational study, is unfortunately outside the scope of the journal, therefore, unsuitable for publication in IJBIOMAC. For IJBIOMAC publication, the computational analysis should be used only as a supporting tool to non-computational analysis. We appreciate you submitting your manuscript to International Journal of Biological Macromolecules and thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work."

Thank you for your time.

  • $\begingroup$ Sorry to hear this, clearly IJBIOMAC is looking for wet-lab work, rather than singly dry-lab analysis. $\endgroup$
    – M__
    Nov 25 '20 at 17:19

I cannot comment on your specific manuscript since I obviously cannot read it but in general the question is whether a study does add an interesting novelty.

The problem with pure in silico studies is that there is essentially no confirmation towards the in vivo relevance. Drug companies simulate and also test many thousands of compounds in a high-throughput fashion on a daily basis so it is often questionable to what extend individual pure in silico studies without in vivo confirmation do actually add to the bigger picture.

That might be the reason your work was rejected but as said this is a rather general comment and I can neither judge content nor quality of your work so please do not feel offended and read it with a grain of salt.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.