Revisions/Rejections

---

Typically, articles that are granted consideration are not immediately accepted after an initial reading by reviewers. Authors are usually asked to make certain revisions at various stages in the review process.

However, in certain cases, a reviewer might reject the work outright, in which case the chief and associate editors will determine if such rejection is truly merited, and, if so, construct a clear and concise response to the author communicating the rejection and the reasons given for it.

Where a paper can be improved, either slightly or significantly, such will be communicated to the author by the editors in charge of the paper in a timely manner. After revisions, the editors will determine if the referee's comments have been adequately addressed, or if further review is warranted (in which case another round of referee work will be initiated).

In all circumstances, Limina reserves the right to reject any submission at any stage of the review process should the relevant revisions be addressed poorly or otherwise inadequately. Again, the final determination for publication decisions rests with the Editor-In-Chief and the Associate Editor.

Common reasons for rejection include but are not limited to:

• the argument of the paper is not presented in a sensible or logical order, or is otherwise unclear
• the argument of the paper is simply, on its own merits, not cogent or it has not been properly supported by the relevant evidence
• there is a lack of sound theoretical basis for the paper's argument(s), and/or the evidence and facts presented in the paper are done so without proper argumentation or analysis

It should also be noted that papers submitted to Limina should not require major editing in terms of the basics like spelling, grammar, style, etc., and so it is conceivable that a paper might be rejected just because of these factors alone, irrespective of the content of the paper.

The Editor-in-Chief of Limina reserves the right and is indeed responsible to potentially overrule the consensus of reviewers if we believe there to be strong editorial justification. Such a decision, though unusual, should always be transparent, well-reasoned, and aligned with best practices in academic publishing more generally. Below, we outline key considerations and a structured approach for this (unusual) decision.

1. Editorial Discretion & Responsibility

• We take it that all Editors – and most especially the Editor-in-Chief – are ultimately responsible for maintaining the scholarly integrity of their journal.
• While peer review is essential, it is not infallible, and all editors are expected to exercise judgment beyond reviewer recommendations.

2. Reasons to Overrule Reviewers’ Recommendation

• If competent reviewers declined due to concerns about the scientific quality, it raises a red flag.
• If the manuscript lacks methodological rigor, valid data, or strong theoretical grounding, an acceptance could damage the journal’s reputation.
• Reviewers who accepted a review assignment may not have had the specific expertise necessary to properly evaluate the paper. The task of the managing editors is to search out and find competent reviewers; but for some papers in some areas (especially those not as well developed as UAP Studies is – with its various divisions not yet worked out in terms of best practices, scholarly standards, standards of evidence, and so on), reviewers can be found but whose expertise ultimately proves to be insufficient.

3. Transparency & Ethical Considerations

• Overruling reviewers should not be arbitrary but should follow clear editorial standards.
• It is not unethical if your decision is based on valid concerns about scientific integrity and rigor.
• Committee Consultation: In some cases, the Editorial Board as a whole is consulted for their input before finalizing the journal’s decision (publish/reject).

4. Best Practices in the Publishing World

• COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Guidelines state that editors should prioritize scientific merit, transparency, and credibility over ease of acceptance. Limina adheres to these basic principles.
• Many top-tier journals (e.g., Nature, Science, The Lancet) reserve the right for editors to override reviewers when necessary. Limina likewise follows suit.
• If overruling, editors should clearly justify their decision and maintain professional communication with authors.