I still remember the first time I hesitated before clicking “submit.” I had spent months crafting my manuscript, but the fear of rejection held me back. What if the reviewers tore it apart? What if it wasn’t good enough?
If you’ve ever felt that way, you’re not alone. Publishing qualitative research comes with unique challenges. Unlike quantitative studies, which often follow standardized reporting norms, qualitative research must balance methodological flexibility, theoretical rigor, and clear storytelling. Editors and reviewers expect well-structured manuscripts that justify methodological choices and articulate meaningful contributions.
This guide will help you strengthen your manuscript, align it with journal expectations, and avoid common pitfalls that lead to desk rejections—so you can submit your work with confidence.
1️. What You Need to Get Your Paper Published
Before submitting your manuscript, ensure that it meets the following key criteria:
✅ Clarity & Structure – Your research question, methodology, and findings should be clearly articulated and logically organised. Align your research design, philosophical framework, and reporting style for consistency.
✅ Originality & Contribution – Address a gap in qualitative research – your study should offer new insights, challenge existing assumptions, or apply innovative methodologies. Resisting pressure to conform to quantitative expectations.
✅ Journal Fit – Choosing the right journal is just as important as having a strong paper. Target journals that explicitly support qualitative research and align with your methodology. Avoid journals with a history of rejecting qualitative research.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid:
❌ Submitting to journals that do not prioritize qualitative research.
❌ Failing to justify methodological choices, leading to reviewer misunderstandings.
❌ Over-relying on reporting checklists (e.g., COREQ) without deeper engagement.
❌ Writing that is unclear, disorganised, or lacks a strong narrative.
2️. Choosing the Right Journal
I once had a paper rejected four times before finally landing in the right journal. Those rejections weren’t just about journal fit—my paper had issues that needed to be addressed. Each rejection and round of feedback helped me refine my arguments, strengthen my methodology, and ultimately produce a stronger paper.
Rejections can be frustrating, but they’re also opportunities to improve. If your paper is rejected outright, take the time to assess the feedback, make necessary revisions, and submit it to a better-aligned journal.
💡 Use the structured checklist below to evaluate potential journals before submitting your paper
Journal Selection Checklist
Key Factors to Consider
✔ Does the journal regularly publish qualitative research? Some prioritize quantitative methods—check past publications to ensure a good fit.
✔ Is the impact factor and audience aligned with your goals? Higher impact factors can mean more visibility but may also mean longer review times.
✔ What is the acceptance rate and review timeline? Some journals have high desk-rejection rates or long peer-review periods—consider if this aligns with your deadlines.
✔ Are the submission guidelines clear and feasible? Check word limits, formatting, and reference style to avoid unnecessary rejections.
✔ Does the journal have a history of publishing methodologically coherent peer reviews? Avoid journals where qualitative studies frequently receive inappropriate quantitative critiques.
💡 Need help finding the right journal?
Use journal finder tools like:
Taylor & Francis Journal Suggester
https://journal-recommender.sagepub.com
Journal Evaluation Table
Use this table to compare journals before submission:
| Journal Name | Qualitative-Friendly? | Impact Factor | Peer Review Type | Desk-Rejection Rate | Submission Guidelines |
| [Journal 1] | Yes / No | [Score] | Double-blind / Open / Single-blind | [%] | Word Count: [X], Format: [APA/Harvard] |
| [Journal 2] | Yes / No | [Score] | Double-blind / Open / Single-blind | [%] | Word Count: [X], Format: [APA/Harvard] |
| [Journal 3] | Yes / No | [Score] | Double-blind / Open / Single-blind | [%] | Word Count: [X], Format: [APA/Harvard] |
💡 Pro Tip: Before submission, read at least two recently published qualitative articles from the journal to assess fit.
3. What Editors Are Looking For
Editors screen submissions before sending them for peer review. This means your paper must immediately demonstrate its relevance, clarity, and rigor.
Common Reasons for Desk Rejection
❌ Misalignment with Journal Scope – If your methodology, topic, or theoretical framework does not fit the journal’s aims, your manuscript will likely be rejected before reaching peer review. (I once had a paper rejected within 8 hours because the journal simply didn’t support my qualitative approach!)
❌ Weak Theoretical Framework – A qualitative study must be grounded in theory. In addition, failing to engage with existing literature or clearly defining key concepts weakens your paper’s impact.
❌ Lack of Methodological Clarity – Editors look for transparency. If your sampling strategy, data collection, or analysis process is unclear, reviewers may reject it due to perceived flaws.
❌ Poor Writing & Structure – A well-organised, engaging narrative is crucial. If your manuscript is difficult to follow, even strong research can be dismissed.
4️. Making a Strong First Impression
Editors often decide within the first few pages whether your paper will proceed to peer review.
✔ Craft a compelling abstract that summarizes your research question, methodology, and key contributions.
✔ Ensure coherence between your research question, methods, and findings. Any inconsistencies will raise red flags.
✔ Follow submission guidelines precisely—incorrect formatting can lead to immediate rejection. (I learned this the hard way when a journal returned my paper unread because my reference list wasn’t in APA 7!)
Final Thoughts: Overcoming the Fear of Submission
If you’re feeling nervous about submitting—I get it. The fear of rejection is real. But every researcher, no matter how experienced, faces rejection at some point.
🔹 One of my papers was under review for 1.5 years—the waiting felt endless.
🔹 Another required major revisions that meant completely reanalsing my dataset.
🔹 And then, there were times when I received minor revisions with glowing feedback—we can also be pleasantly surprised by the peer review process 😊
But here’s what I’ve learned: Every submission is a step forward. Rejections, revisions, and delays are all part of the process. The most important thing is to keep going.
Next Up: Part 2 – Navigating Peer Review Like a Pro
Now that you know how to set yourself up for success, the next challenge is navigating peer review. In Part 2, we’ll cover:
📌 What peer reviewers actually look for in qualitative research.
📌 The biggest biases qualitative researchers face in peer review.
📌 How to defend your methodology when reviewers misunderstand it.
📌 The key to writing a response letter that leads to acceptance.
💬 Have you ever hesitated to submit a paper because you feared rejection? How did you push through? I’d love to hear from you in the comments! 😊
References
Clarke, V., Braun, V., Adams, J., Callaghan, J. E. M., LaMarre, A., & Semlyen, J. (2025). “Being really confidently wrong”: Qualitative researchers’ experiences of methodologically incongruent peer review feedback.Qualitative Psychology, 12(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000322
Stephen, D. (2022). Peer reviewers equally critique theory, method, and writing, with limited effect on the final content of accepted manuscripts. Scientometrics, 127(6), 3413-3435.
Taylor & Francis Author Services. (n.d.). 10 factors to consider while choosing the best journal for your research. Retrieved from https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/blog/get-published/3-great-tools-and-resources-to-help-you-choose-a-journal/
Walshe C, Beernaert K, Chong PH, Lowe S, Martins Pereira S, Yardley S. Peer review and Palliative Medicine: Guiding reviewers’ contributions to ensuring high quality publications. Palliative Medicine. 2025;0(0). doi:10.1177/02692163251321082
0 Comments