On Saturday, 9 March 2024, I received a rejection decision from a non-academic individual from the journal Sage Open for a paper (SO-20-3070) that I had submitted on 29 August 2020 and that had received three positive peer reviews suggesting acceptance on 7 September 2021, raising questions about the journal’s academic merits.

The story of that weird academic experience started at the end of August 2020 when I submitted a paper of mine (SO-20-3070) at Sage Open because it dealt with general social sciences as a thematic focus, and it was open access with a fee of 800USD. I got a fast decision (Major Revision) on the 1^st of December 2020, and reviews that were quite beneficial pointed out flaws in the paper and suggested how to correct them and strengthen the manuscript.

The first impression was positive, as I have several years of experience in peer-reviewing articles, as well as submitting papers in journals. The most important thing for me is to receive constructive reviews and make the paper better even if they reject it. Having that mindset, the decision to major revision was a great chance to fix all the paper’s flaws. I dealt with the reviews as best as I could and submitted the paper once again. The result was that on 7 September 2021 (after around 8 months, see figure 2), all the reviewers agreed to accept the paper, with Reviewer 1 asking for a few minor corrections. As a result, the journal gave me a few days to deal with these corrections, highlighting in the system that “no additional reviews required.”  

From that point on, the worst experience that I ever had with an academic publisher and an academic journal began. Usually, in these cases, a senior academic who serves as the Editor will give you a positive decision that might include even some further changes within a few days to months. However, that did not happen in my case, as the months (around 30 months) and the years (around 2.5 years) passed without the journal telling me what was happening with my submission. Wherever I emailed the journal, I received the following email (figure 1), making it questionable if I would receive a reply. As a result, I was forced to send a great number of emails (more than 40), throughout these years, to receive a response, and usually, the responses came after months from different non-academic editors telling me that they try to expedite and to be patient.

At last, after years, on 8-9 March 2023 (around 2.5 years of the “no additional reviews required” submission on 10 September 2021), I received a shocking rejection letter from a non-academic managing editor saying the following:

“Unfortunately, even after revisions, your manuscript has failed to meet our standard for publication. We appreciate the changes you have made during the extended amount of time your manuscript has been with Sage Open. There are remaining issues with the academic tone throughout the manuscript beyond the specific areas Reviewer 1 asked you to revise. Given the long time your manuscript has been with us and the additional changes needed, we are choosing to reject your manuscript.”

My frustration, disappointment, and confusion were beyond words, (1) as the decision went against the unanimous reviewers’ suggestions, (2) it was not taken by an academic individual, (3) and the journal rejected the paper because it was there for a long time, which is not my fault. At this point, it is worth reminding that the journal was keep on reminding – whenever there was a response to my emails – to be patient regarding the decision! I demanded the journal to provide a detailed explanation within a week about the rejected manuscript, highlighting the fact that if the paper was accepted due to the journal’s policy, the fee would only be 800USD as it was submitted years ago and not 1600USD, which is the current price.

Unfortunately, the journal did not respond, leaving no option but to publicize the case to raise awareness in the academic community about its questionable non-academic practices. Regarding the argument about the “academic tone,” indeed, there were a few changes that should have been made, as some events changed after three years of waiting for a decision. However, it was a task that would take no more than a few hours, and it would not have been necessary if the journal had not taken such a long time to decide.

I hope this article will save you from experiencing something as negative as what I experienced.

Update 21/03/2024

Yesterday I received an Invitation to Review for Sage Open. The email clearly argues that “Sage Open supports improving the accessibility of scholarly articles for non-specialist audiences by publishing plain language titles and plain language summaries. If you agree to review, you will be asked to review the plain language title and summary, if present.”

This statement challenges even the first argument of the decision’s rejection, which stated that “there are remaining issues with the academic tone throughout the manuscript beyond the specific areas Reviewer 1 asked you to revise.”