Abstract

As gatekeepers, editors and reviewers play a central role in identifying reliable and valuable scientific works for preservation and dissemination, contributing to subsequent knowledge production and public use. Despite its benefits, the rejection mechanism often carries significant emotional and career consequences for researchers. The analysis of 304 rejection letters since 2022 indicates that over 97% of rejections were attributed solely to authors’ shortcomings or the journal’s rigorous evaluation standards, while less than 3% cited journal-side limitations. This pattern suggests a prevailing tendency where journals position themselves as the standard of quality, implicitly framing rejected research as inherently unqualified and placing an undue burden on authors—the primary producers of knowledge. Given the fallibility of journals, we propose a shift from viewing them as gatekeepers to recognizing them as facilitators of knowledge production. This transition would require embracing intellectual humility, thereby alleviating the rejection-induced burdens on researchers and fostering a more constructive scholarly environment.