Recently I've gotten a couple of higher tier rejections from a magazine I'd love to be published in. Was just wondering are higher tier rejection actually a thing or are they merely a courtesy? I wonder how many higher tier forms a semi pro magazine sends out per month? I'm guessing quite a few?
Higher tier rejection
- Thread starter something
- Start date
It's just a more politely worded form rejection. I suspect there's not two form-rejection buttons at an editor's desk, labelled "common" and "high-tier". Some publishers just polish up their form rejections more than others.
Of course, I could be wrong -- maybe some or many publishers do like to have a "more encouraging form no" to some submissions? There are people on this site who would know, and perhaps they'll weigh in. I'm just cynically assuming that the nicer wording is like "have a nice day" from a fast-food drive-through employee, in that it doesn't mean much.
Well it really depends on the wording. Some rejections are much more encouraging than others. I tend to think that "We really enjoyed reading your work but we didn't have room for it this time, please submit to us again" is not something you would say to someone just to be nice, especially if you hated their work. It'd be something more like "Not for us, thanks."
Take a browse through rejection wiki (if you haven't already). You'll see that rejection wording varies by publication, and you can also compare yours to a publication's usual.
https://www.rejectionwiki.com/index.php?title=Literary_Journals_and_Rejections
I recently took the plunge and starting submitting a story. (I'm the proud owner of three shiny new rejections! My first ever! Ooh, how they sparkle.)
I've decided to count the form I received with a "try again next time" as a win, considering that the rejection wiki listing for that pub had several that were... more abrupt. Of course they may have just re-written their standard form this year, but I'll take what I can get. Still have a long way to reach my ultimate writing goal -- an honest-to-goodness personalized rejection.
Last edited:
For clarification, the blog post you linked to shows common and higher tier form-rejection examples for each of two different publishers, supporting the idea that there's a difference between the two beyond polish (the equivalent of two form-rejection buttons). Personalized rejection is yet another level.
While some publishers might only have a single form rejection, the common/high-tier model does exist and matches my experience.
All the best,
Riv
Even the rejection I received when I was one of three finalists in a contest was not personalized. I have very little empirical data to go on, but it makes me think that personalized rejections - for short stories submitted to journals, at least - are very, very rare. After all, somewhere out there is a contest judge who thought that only I and one other person were this close to deserving the prize - and even she didn't take the time to personalize the letter telling me I didn't win.
Indeed, this particular story has had about a dozen rejections so far, none personalized; that includes one contest-finalist and one contest-quarterfinalist finish. (And yes, the near-misses are maddening; thanks for asking.)
I would say about half of those rejections included some "please submit to us again" sort of language, and the other half did not; into that I read exactly nothing. It's possible that editors put thought into whether or not to include such language, but I really don't feel comfortable assuming one way or the other. If it's a journal I would like to be in, I'll submit my next story, even if the rejection doesn't explicitly invite me to.
Indeed, this particular story has had about a dozen rejections so far, none personalized; that includes one contest-finalist and one contest-quarterfinalist finish. (And yes, the near-misses are maddening; thanks for asking.)
I would say about half of those rejections included some "please submit to us again" sort of language, and the other half did not; into that I read exactly nothing. It's possible that editors put thought into whether or not to include such language, but I really don't feel comfortable assuming one way or the other. If it's a journal I would like to be in, I'll submit my next story, even if the rejection doesn't explicitly invite me to.
Last edited:
The general impression I get from reading around the topic is that personalised rejections are rare.
But from my own limited records (about 35 rejections), I get the sense that some particular magazines give personalised rejections much more often than others.
With some magazines that I've submitted to a few times, they seem to give responses that are halfway between a personalised rejection and a form rejection.
For example:
"The beginning was good, but [form rejection]"
Or
"The prose was good, but [form rejection]"
So they're nothing truly specific to your story (such as "I liked how you brought out Sarah's hate for her mother in the beginning..."). But it's still more specific than "This isn't right for us."
That could mean they have a bunch of comments at the ready for common issues, and it saves them time to just paste them in.
Or it could be that these are individually written personalised rejections – but they're brief and vague because the poor editor has a thousand stories to read each week
I've had a string of identical rejections from one magazine – something like "Not for us, but good luck with it wherever you send it."
And then on one story, the message from that magazine changed to something like "Good job with this one, but it's not for us. Looking forward to your next attempt."
I'd call that a higher-tier form rejection.
Adding higher-tier rejections just "as a courtesy" wouldn't really help anyone – neither the magazine or the writers.
They're probably exactly what they say in the message: a small sign that your story wasn't rubbish, and a hint that you should keep trying with them.
I can't imagine that they have any set target or limit on the number of different types of rejections they send out. I don't see how that would benefit them.
I'm sure there's a natural limit to the number of personalised rejections (just due to being too busy).
What do you mean by "Are they a thing?". If you've got some – and you said you did – then they're a thing
If it doesn't refer to specific things in your work, it's a form rejection no matter how nicely it's worded.
I've spoken to a few agents and publishers about their rejection letters: most said they have a few form rejections that they use in rotation, to try to prevent people who submit more than once receiving exactly the same letter each time.
The literary journal I help run has three levels to the submission process; levels one and two both have form responses, but the one for level two tells them there was some aspect of their piece we enjoyed.
For those interested in "Rejectomancy" (the arcane practice of divining hidden meaning from rejection letters – and the name of one of my favorite blogs):
Tiered Form Rejections: Fact or Fiction?
Tiered Form Rejections: Fact or Fiction?