Do editors hold rejections against authors?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

Do journal editors hold an author's past history of rejections at a journal against them?

The worry that motivates this question is that one might think that when editors decide to reject, offer an opportunity to revise and resubmit or accept a piece, they may look to the author's history of rejections at the journal or the features of rejected papers.

I realize that in most cases editors are likely too busy to do this, but I can imagine, even if falsely, that this happens.

Interesting question! I'm hoping the answer is 'no', but think it could be good to hear from editors and others who are in the know (such as authors who have had multiple pieces rejected from a journal but later got an acceptance). What's your experience?

Comments

[JR]

I don't know what the editors think, but as an author, I have managed to get my papers published in the journals that have rejected my previous submissions (sometimes desk-rejected).

One thing I have noticed though. I have a feeling it is a bit easier to get a paper in a journal if you have already published in that journal.

So while previous rejections might not indicate future rejections, previous acceptances might get you past the desk rejection stage somewhat easier!

[Douglas W. Portmore]

Many journals are triple-blind such that the editor learns of the identity of the author only if (and only after) the submission is accepted. All the journals that I've been an associate editor for have practiced triple-blind review. So, in my experience, this doesn't happen and couldn't happen.

[Dan Weiskopf]

My hope is that no editor would think that what the reader describes is even remotely appropriate. At BJPS submissions are triply anonymized, so I as an Associate Editor don't know who the authors are of papers that I am handling. This system removes the opportunity for editors to take out their grievances on authors. All journals should adopt similar practices.

[Overseas Tenured]

In my experience it's more what the first comment describes. Certain journals just seem to "like" me more than other journals of similar prestige. Perhaps it has to do with editorial taste, the referees usually being used for a topic, or something like that.

[Peter Furlong]

Douglas Portmore's comment makes me curious: is there any database that collects the editorial practices of journals, such as whether they are triple-blind reviewed? I have seen other information collected on journals (usually submitter-reported data on time to decision and rejection rates), but I don't recall seeing this.

[ehz]

Peter Furlong: there is the crowdsourced philosophy journals Google Docs spreadsheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zkgDH25GkItRpXE65XSsce0S2Mf4wzp_XxJE4r8az0g/edit#gid=0

[Joona Räsänen]

Peter:

I have collected such info (among other relevant things regarding journals). The file that can be read and downloaded at my academia.edu page.
https://www.academia.edu/40348800/Where_to_publish_in_Philosophy_Ethics_and_Bioethics

[Andrew]

I've had an editor at a leading journal make it quite explicit he could see past rejections: having "looked at your recent pattern of submissions over the last twelve months... It may be time for you to consider setting your sights lower and giving...[Journal Name Redacted] a rest."

This wasn't a particularly nice message to receive: but still useful to know!

[Assistant Professor]

@Andrew - that is a striking remark from an editor, and must have been disappointing to receive. It makes me wonder about the pace at which one submits to a given journal. I can't think of many instances where I have multiple polished new works to keep submitting to the same journal within any given 12 month period. It makes me wonder about a more general questions about the time it takes to get any single article ready for submission, and being responsive to the fit of an article with a journal's mission, topical interests, style, etc.