Abstract

Rejection is an essential part of the scholarly publishing process, acting as a filter to distinguish between robust and less credible scientific works. This study examines the advantages and limitations of the rejection mechanism through the lens of Shannon’s information theory and the theory of granular interactions thinking. We argue that while rejection helps reduce entropy and increase the likelihood of disseminating useful knowledge, the process is not devoid of subjectivity. We propose two recommendations to improve the rejection mechanism: providing more informative rejection letters to guide authors and encouraging humility among editors and reviewers to minimize bias against novel ideas. These steps could enhance the efficiency of knowledge production by ensuring that valuable scientific contributions are not overlooked.