Desk rejection of submitted articles can be a hugely frustrating and demotivating process for the researcher, but it is also a time-consuming and necessary step in the process for the Editor, who is tasked with selecting appropriate articles that meet the required criteria for further review and scrutiny. The response from journal editors included in this editorial demonstrates the huge gaps in many academics’ comprehension of the journal evaluation process and acceptance criteria for passage to the review stage.

Via the diverse perspectives of nine outstanding journal Editors, this editorial provides a useful “lived-in” perspective on the desk rejection process through the lens of the Editor. Each Editor expresses their own viewpoint on the many reasons for a desk rejection, providing crucial information to researchers on how to fit their submissions to the unique journal standards and needed quality criteria while demonstrating relevance and contribution to theory and practice. This editorial provides a concise review of the important results from the many Editor viewpoints, providing a timely contribution of substantial value and utility to academics as well as industry researchers.

Desk rejection refers to the process of determining that a submitted research paper does not correspond with the specific journal’s goals and scope or satisfies the requisite rigor and quality. This part of the review process is often handled by the journal Editor or a team of professional sub-Editors. Only papers that pass the first Editor screening will be sent to reviewers for a thorough peer-review evaluation of their appropriateness and uniqueness for publishing in the specified journal.

For academics who have received a desk rejection, it may be a difficult and upsetting experience, especially if the authors had high expectations for the submitted study. Similarly, the decision to reject can be a time-consuming and extremely disappointing process for the Editors, as a significant number of submissions are rejected at this stage, and authors may have failed to align their submissions to the scope, quality, and relevance of the journal, or have provided insufficient research contribution. A rise in the number of submissions to prominent journals, particularly from India, Brazil, and China, has worsened the problem, with a slew of poorer manuscripts entering the pipeline only to be desk rejected at this early stage.

The journal review and approval process need the assistance and experience of a limited number of academic topic specialists who give their time and skills to particular publications. In general, journals demand three or more reviewers, each of whom contributes their own insights and viewpoints on the submitted piece. Editors, on the other hand, generally need to approach between five and ten reviewers to achieve the requisite commitment, resulting in significant delays in the review process. As a result, editors are conscious of their costly reviewer resources and are typically inclined to desk reject a submission rather than sending out poor-quality manuscripts that would not justify the reviewers’ valuable time and would wind up being rejected further in the process.

The literature has highlighted the scarcity of studies on rejection, with extant studies positing views on the underlying factors and institutional processes that result in desk rejection rates ranging from 20% to 50%. What is obvious is that there is a substantial gap between writers’ goals and expectations and the criteria of journal editors. This commentary is motivated by the reality that the situation does not appear to be improving. This editorial seeks to fill this void by providing new insight and perspective from nine top journal Editors who have condensed their “lived-in” experiences on their reasons for desk rejection and provided their advice to writers on how to get through this important stage in the publishing process.

The viewpoints of the editors are provided in the next part, where each one reflects on his or her personal experiences from their own journals. It should be emphasized that the comments and recommendations from the nine Editors assembled in the following section are published in unedited form, as provided by the Editors. Although this technique has an inherent unevenness in the logical flow, it reflects the Editors’ individual views and recommendations connected to various areas of the desk screening and rejection process. Section three contains an overview review of the important themes from the Editor’s perspective and direction. The last part gives authors a handy summary of how to prevent desk rejections.

Editors’ perspectives

Most authors are quite disappointed and frustrated when they receive a desk-reject judgment. Thank you, Professor Dwivedi, for allowing me to share some views from my time as editor of Internet Research. Although the sharing is completely based on my own experiences with Internet research, the explanations I found are also regularly encountered in other peer-reviewed publications. I hope my observations may help authors better prepare their articles and speed their submission process.

Reason 1: Mismatch with journal aims and scope.

In Internet Research, this is the most common cause for a desk-reject judgment. Internet Research publishes articles on a wide range of information technology research issues (including the Internet). We are particularly interested in research that advances theoretical insights and understanding of topics and issues dealing with the potential social, ethical, economic, and political implications of widespread public access to information resources. We do, however, occasionally get comments that are exclusively concerned with technical difficulties, such as system development or IT architecture. The decision to reject a manuscript is exclusively based on its fitness for the journal’s readership.

Suggestions for authors:.

• Carefully read the goals and scope of the intended journal.
• Read the papers published in the most recent editions of the desired journal.
• Offer your services as a possible reviewer for the chosen journal.

Reason 2: Lack of novelty and significance.

Internet Research is looking for submissions with a strong theoretical basis. We are, however, searching for publications that address relevant topics, advance ideas, and provide new theoretical insights. Manuscripts that merely apply and test a well-established theory in a new environment (e.g., new technologies) or in specific nations without contributing fresh theoretical insights or highlighting its distinctive contributions are unlikely to be sent out for peer review.

Authors, here are some ideas:

• In the cover letter, emphasize the uniqueness and value of your work.
• Pay attention to the organized abstract and utilize it to emphasize the uniqueness and relevance of your study.

Reason 3: Poor preparation.

The initial impression is crucial. The effort done in preparation for a manuscript submission affects whether or not your document can be effectively sent out to reviewers. There are three types of difficulties that are frequently encountered: (1) sloppy language, (2) poor manuscript presentation, and (3) ethical concerns During the document preparation process, the writers should question themselves:

Inappropriate language: What is the readability of the manuscript? Have you proofread the document to ensure that there are no typos or grammatical errors?

Presentation of a manuscript: Have you followed the Authors’ Guidelines when preparing your manuscript? Have you included all of the citations in the work in the reference list, and have you followed the proper referencing style? Have you double-checked your manuscript’s format and length?

Ethical concerns: have you addressed the research’s essential ethical standards? Are you aware of any potential/unintentional plagiarism (for example, self-plagiarism)?

Authors, here are some ideas:

• When preparing your contribution, adhere to the writers’ rules.
• Use text similarity checking tools to help you spot any plagiarism.
• Make use of expert copyediting services.