Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 1347–1365 | Cite as

Establishing Sensible and Practical Guidelines for Desk Rejections

  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
  • Aceil Al-Khatib
  • Vedran Katavić
  • Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti


Publishing has become, in several respects, more challenging in recent years. Academics are faced with evolving ethics that appear to be more stringent in a bid to reduce scientific fraud, the emergence of science watchdogs that are now scrutinizing the published literature with critical eyes to hold academics, editors and publishers more accountable, and a barrage of checks and balances that are required between when a paper is submitted and eventually accepted, to ensure quality control. Scientists are often under increasing pressure to produce papers in an increasingly stringent publishing environment. In such a climate, timing is everything, as is the efficiency of the process. Academics appreciate that rejections are part of the fabric of attempting to get a paper published, but they expect the reason to be clear, based on careful evaluation of their work, and not on superficial or unsubstantiated excuses. A desk rejection occurs when a paper gets rejected even before it has entered the peer review process. This paper examines the features of some desk rejections and offers some guidelines that would make desk rejections valid, fair and ethical. Academics who publish are under constant pressure to do so quickly, but effectively. They are dependent on the editors’ good judgment and the publisher’s procedures. Unfair, unsubstantiated, or tardy desk rejections disadvantage academics, and editors and publishers must be held accountable for wasting their time, resources, and patience.


Costs Formatting Peer review Quality control Wasted time and effort 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


  1. Al-Khatib, A., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017a). What rights do authors have? Science and Engineering Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8. (in press).Google Scholar
  2. Al-Khatib, A., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017b). Threats to the survival of the author-pays-journal to publish model. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33, 64–70. doi: 10.1007/s12109-016-9486-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong, A. W., Idriss, S. Z., Kimball, A. B., & Bernhard, J. D. (2008). Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 58(4), 632–635. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2007.12.025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arvan, M. (2014). On desk rejections and rejections without comments. The Philosophers’ Cocoon Last accessed May 6, 2017.
  5. Australian Society of Philosophy (2017). Authors’ instructions concerning submissions—3. Minimum standards. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
  6. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: An investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Research Evaluation, 18, 262–272. doi: 10.3152/095820209X477520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). The validity of staff editors’ initial evaluations of manuscripts: A case study of Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Scientometrics, 85, 681–687. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0215-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Budd, J. (2017). Reformatting wastes public funds. Nature, 543(7643), 40. doi: 10.1038/543040e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calcagno, V., Demoinet, E., Gollner, K., Guidi, L., Ruths, D., & de Mazancourt, C. (2012). Flows of research manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns. Science, 338, 1065–1069. doi: 10.1126/science.1227833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Casnici, N., Grimaldo, F., Gilbert, N., Dondio, P., & Squazzoni, F. (2017). Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: The case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2241-1. (in press).Google Scholar
  11. Cawley, V. (2011). Is peer review unethical? An ethical analysis. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 1(3), 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooke, S. J., & Lapointe, N. W. R. (2012). Addressing editor(ial) malpractice in scientific journals. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 5, 84–92. doi: 10.4033/iee.2012.5b.17.f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dellavalle, R. P., & Harrison, C. (2008). Reinterpreting the fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 59(4), 723–724. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2008.05.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dobránszki, J., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Editorial responsibilities: Both sides of the coin. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 6(3), 9–10. doi: 10.5901/jesr.2016.v6n3p9.Google Scholar
  15. Dyer, O. (2004). Journal rejects article after objections from marketing department. British Medical Journal, 328(7434), 244. doi: 10.5901/jesr.2016.v6n3p9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Earnshaw, C. H., Edwin, C., Bhat, J., Krishnan, M., Mamais, C., Somashekar, S., et al. (2017). An analysis of the fate of 917 manuscripts rejected from Clinical Otolaryngology. Clinical Otolaryngology. doi: 10.1111/coa.12820. (in press).Google Scholar
  17. Elsevier (2015). 5 ways you can ensure your manuscript avoids the desk reject pile. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
  18. Evans, L., & Homer, M. (2014). Academic journal editors’ professionalism: Perceptions of power, proficiency and personal agendas. Society for Research into Higher Education, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, final report, 39 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Farji-Brener, A. G., & Kitzberger, T. (2014). Rejecting editorial rejections revisited: Are editors of ecological journals good oracles? The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 95, 238–242. doi: 10.1890/0012-9623-95.3.238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foxe, J. J., & Bolam, J. P. (2017). Open review and the quest for increased transparency in neuroscience publication. European Journal of Neuroscience. doi: 10.1111/ejn.13541. (in press).Google Scholar
  21. Garg, A., Das, S., & Jain, H. (2015). Why we say no! A look through the editor’s eye. Journal of Clinical & Diagnostic Research, 9(10), 1–5. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/17160.6699.Google Scholar
  22. Godlee, F. (2017). BMJ editor confirms that revenues from industry will be declared. British Medical Journal (response to 2015 editorial) Last accessed May 6, 2017.
  23. Goudsmit, E., & Stouten, B. (2005). Chronic fatigue syndrome: Editorial bias in the British Medical Journal. Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, 12(4), 47–59. doi: 10.1300/J092v12n04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grant, W. D., & Cone, D. C. (2015). If at first you don’t succeed: The fate of manuscripts rejected by Academic Emergency Medicine. Academic Emergency Medicine, 22(10), 1213–1217. doi: 10.1111/acem.12763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hall, S. A., & Wilcox, A. J. (2007). The fate of epidemiologic manuscripts: A study of papers submitted to Epidemiology. Epidemiology, 18(2), 262–265. doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000254668.63378.32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hartley, J., & Cabanac, G. (2017). The delights, discomforts, and downright furies of the manuscript submission process. Learned Publishing. doi: 10.1002/leap.1092. (in press).Google Scholar
  27. Horton, R. (1996). The Lancet’s ombudsman. The Lancet, 348(9019), 6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)64352-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huisman, J., & Smits, J. (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: The author’s perspective. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5. (in press).Google Scholar
  29. ICMJE (2017b). Responsibilities in the submission and peer-review process. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
  30. ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) (2017a). Last accessed May 6, 2017.
  31. Jefferson, T., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2786–2790. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kumar, M. (2009). A review of the review process: Manuscript peer-review in biomedical research. Biology and Medicine, 1(4), 1–16.Google Scholar
  33. Liesegang, T. J., Shaikh, M., & Crook, J. E. (2007). The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 143(4), 551–560. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Light, D., & Warburton, R. (2008). In focus: “ethical standards for healthcare journal editors: A case report and recommendations”. Harvard Health Policy Review, 9(1), 58–67.Google Scholar
  35. Lomangino, K. M. (2016). Countering cognitive bias: Tips for recognizing the impact of potential bias on research. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 116(2), 204–205. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2015.07.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Luty, J., Arokiadass, S. M., Easow, J. M., & Anapreddy, J. R. (2009). Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 200–202. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.026740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Malay, D. S. (2008). So, why peer review? The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 47(4), 265–266. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2008.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mallard, G., Lamont, M., & Guetzkow, J. (2009). Fairness as appropriateness: Negotiating epistemological differences in peer review. Science, Technology and Human Values, 34(5), 573–606. doi: 10.1177/0162243908329381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marusić, A., Katavić, V., & Marusić, M. (2007). Role of editors and journals in detecting and preventing scientific misconduct: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Medicine and Law, 26(3), 545–566.Google Scholar
  40. Marusić, M., & Marusić, A. (2001). Good editorial practice: Editors as educators. Croatian Medical Journal, 42(2), 113–120.Google Scholar
  41. Matthews, D. (2015). Journal impact factors ‘no longer credible’. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
  42. Matthews, P. C. (2017). Fairness in scientific publishing (version 2). F1000Research, 5, 2816. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.10318.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McDonald, R. J., Cloft, H. J., & Kallmes, D. F. (2007). Fate of submitted manuscripts rejected from the American Journal of Neuroradiology: Outcomes and commentary. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 28(8), 1430–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McDonald, R. J., Cloft, H. J., & Kallmes, D. F. (2009). Fate of manuscripts previously rejected by the American Journal of Neuroradiology: A follow-up analysis. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 30(2), 253–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moustafa, K. (2017). Publishers: Save authors’ time. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9879-1. (in press).Google Scholar
  46. Nemery, B. (2001). What happens to the manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication in Occupational and Environmental Medicine? Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 58(9), 604–607. doi: 10.1136/oem.58.9.604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Opthof, T., Furstner, F., Van Geer, M., & Coronel, R. (2000). Regrets or no regrets? No regrets! The fate of rejected manuscripts. Cardiovascular Research, 45(1), 255–258. doi: 10.1016/S0008-6363(99)00339-9.
  48. Pinholster, G. (2016). Journals and funders confront implicit bias in peer review. Science, 352(6289), 1067–1068. doi: 10.1126/science.352.6289.1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pombo, C., & Ogliastri, E. (2015). Editorial note on desk rejection policy. Academia Revista Latinoamerica de Administración, 28(1), 9–13. doi: 10.1108/ARLA-01-2015-0007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pytynia, K. B. (2017). Why participate in peer review as a journal manuscript reviewer what’s in it for you? Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery. doi: 10.1177/0194599816669661. (in press).Google Scholar
  51. RSP (Revista de Sociologia e Política). (2015). Editorial. Revista de Sociologia e Política, 23(54), 3–8. doi: 10.1590/1678-987315235401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ruff, K. (2015). Scientific journals and conflict of interest disclosure: What progress has been made? Environmental Health, 14, 45. doi: 10.1186/s12940-015-0035-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sarigöl, E., Garcia, D., Scholtes, I., & Schweitzer, F. (2017). Quantifying the effect of editor–author relations on manuscript handling times. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2309-y. (in press).Google Scholar
  54. Schultz, D. M. (2010). Rejection rates for journals publishing [sic] in the atmospheric sciences. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91, 231–243. doi: 10.1175/2009BAMS2908.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shakiba, B., Salmasian, H., Yousefi-Nooraie, R., & Rohanizadegan, M. (2008). Factors influencing editors’ decision on acceptance or rejection of manuscripts: The authors’ perspective. Archives of Iranian Medicine, 11, 257–262.Google Scholar
  56. Teixeira, A. A. C., & da Costa, M. F. (2010). Who rules the ruler? On the misconduct of journal editors. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8(2), 111–128. doi: 10.1007/s10805-010-9107-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2015a). COPE code of conduct clause 3.1. under the microscope: A prelude to unfair rejections. Current Science, 109(1), 16–17.Google Scholar
  58. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2015b). Make the cover letter extinct. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 5(2), 11–12. doi: 10.5901/jesr.2015.v5n2p11.Google Scholar
  59. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016a). On the abuse of online submission systems, fake peer reviews and editor-created accounts. Persona y Bioética, 20(2), 151–158. doi: 10.5294/PEBI.2016.20.2.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016b). The militarization of science, and subsequent criminalization of scientists. Journal of Interdisciplinary Medicine, 1(2), 214–215. doi: 10.1515/jim-2016-0031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017a). COPE requires greater consistency and accountability. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1), 11–13. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2017.v8n1p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017b). The ethics of peer and editorial requests for self-citation of their work and journal. Medical Journal Armed Forces India, 73(2), 181–183. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.11.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017c). Fake peer reviews, fake identities, fake accounts, fake data: Beware! AME Medical Journal, 2, 28. doi: 10.21037/amj.2017.02.10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Al-Khatib, A. (2017a). How are editors selected, recruited and approved? Science and Engineering Ethics (in press). doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9821-y.Google Scholar
  65. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Al-Khatib, A. (2017b). Should authors be requested to suggest peer reviewers? Science and Engineering Ethics (in press). doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9842-6.Google Scholar
  66. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Bernès, S. (2017). Clarivate Analytics: Continued omnia vanitas impact factor culture. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9873-7. (in press).Google Scholar
  67. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2015). Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 22(1), 22–40. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.899909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2017). Excessively long editorial decisions and excessively long publication times by journals: Causes, risks, consequences, and proposed solutions. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33(1), 101–108. doi: 10.1007/s12109-016-9489-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Katavić, V. (2016). Free editors and peers: Squeezing the lemon dry. Ethics & Bioethics, 6(3–4), 203–209. doi: 10.1515/ebce-2016-0011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thrower, P. (2012). Eight reason I rejected your article. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
  71. Uckelman, S. L. (2014). The value and cost of desk rejections. In Letters from the editorsphilosophy journal editors’ perspectives on Academic Publishing. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
  72. van Deursen, A. (2012). Desk rejected. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
  73. Vogel, G. (1997). Editorial ethics questioned. Science, 275(5303), 1055.Google Scholar
  74. Wager, E., Fiack, S., Graf, C., Robinson, A., & Rowlands, I. (2009). Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: Results of an international survey. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 348–353. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.028324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Walter, G., & Bloch, S. (2001). Publishing ethics in psychiatry. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35(1), 28–35. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1614.2001.00838.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wardle, D. A. (2012). On plummeting manuscript acceptance rates by the main ecological journals and the progress of ecology. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 5, 13–15. doi: 10.4033/iee.2012.5.4.e.Google Scholar
  77. Ware, M. (2008). Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. PRC (publishing research consortium) summary papers 4, London, 20 pp.Google Scholar
  78. Weber, E. J., Katz, P. P., Waeckerle, J. F., & Callaham, M. L. (2002). Author perception of peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2790–2793. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wijnhoven, B. L., & Dejong, C. C. (2010). Fate of manuscripts declined by the British Journal of Surgery. The British Journal of Surgery, 97(3), 450–454. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Winker, M. A., & Ferris, L. E. (2015). Promoting global health: The World Association of Medical Editors position on editors’ responsibility. Last accessed May 6, 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
    • 1
  • Aceil Al-Khatib
    • 2
  • Vedran Katavić
    • 3
  • Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti
    • 4
  1. 1.IkenobeJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of DentistryJordan University of Science and TechnologyIrbidJordan
  3. 3.Department of AnatomyUniversity of Zagreb School of MedicineZagrebCroatia
  4. 4.Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care MedicineMedical University of GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations