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.
This is a preview of subscription content,to check access.
Access this article
Similar content being viewed by others
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).
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.
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.
Arvan, M. (2014). On desk rejections and rejections without comments. The Philosophers’ Cocoon http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2014/02/on-desk-rejections-and-rejections-without-comments.html. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
Australian Society of Philosophy (2017). Authors’ instructions concerning submissions—3. Minimum standards. http://www.aap.org.au/submissions#Minimum. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
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.
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.
Budd, J. (2017). Reformatting wastes public funds. Nature, 543(7643), 40. doi:10.1038/543040e.
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.
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).
Cawley, V. (2011). Is peer review unethical? An ethical analysis. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 1(3), 205–213.
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.
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.
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.
Dyer, O. (2004). Journal rejects article after objections from marketing department. British Medical Journal, 328(7434), 244. doi:10.5901/jesr.2016.v6n3p9.
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).
Elsevier (2015). 5 ways you can ensure your manuscript avoids the desk reject pile. https://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/publishing-tips/5-ways-you-can-ensure-your-manuscript-avoids-the-desk-reject-pile. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Godlee, F. (2017). BMJ editor confirms that revenues from industry will be declared. British Medical Journal (response to 2015 editorial) http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3908/rr-16. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Horton, R. (1996). The Lancet’s ombudsman. The Lancet, 348(9019), 6. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)64352-8.
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).
ICMJE (2017b). Responsibilities in the submission and peer-review process. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) (2017a). http://icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
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.
Kumar, M. (2009). A review of the review process: Manuscript peer-review in biomedical research. Biology and Medicine, 1(4), 1–16.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Marusić, M., & Marusić, A. (2001). Good editorial practice: Editors as educators. Croatian Medical Journal, 42(2), 113–120.
Matthews, D. (2015). Journal impact factors ‘no longer credible’. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/journal-impact-factors-no-longer-credible. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
Matthews, P. C. (2017). Fairness in scientific publishing (version 2). F1000Research, 5, 2816. doi:10.12688/f1000research.10318.2.
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.
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.
Moustafa, K. (2017). Publishers: Save authors’ time. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9879-1. (in press).
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.
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.
Pinholster, G. (2016). Journals and funders confront implicit bias in peer review. Science, 352(6289), 1067–1068. doi:10.1126/science.352.6289.1067.
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.
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).
RSP (Revista de Sociologia e Política). (2015). Editorial. Revista de Sociologia e Política, 23(54), 3–8. doi:10.1590/1678-987315235401.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Thrower, P. (2012). Eight reason I rejected your article. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-rejected-your-article. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
Uckelman, S. L. (2014). The value and cost of desk rejections. In Letters from the editors—philosophy journal editors’ perspectives on Academic Publishing. https://fromtheeditors.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/the-value-and-cost-of-desk-rejections/. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
van Deursen, A. (2012). Desk rejected. https://avandeursen.com/2012/11/23/desk-rejected/. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
Vogel, G. (1997). Editorial ethics questioned. Science, 275(5303), 1055.
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.
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.
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.
Ware, M. (2008). Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. PRC (publishing research consortium) summary papers 4, London, 20 pp.
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.
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.
Winker, M. A., & Ferris, L. E. (2015). Promoting global health: The World Association of Medical Editors position on editors’ responsibility. http://www.wame.org/News/Details/15. Last accessed May 6, 2017.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Below is a desk rejection of a manuscript submitted on February 17, 2017 (Friday), by the first author of this paper to an Elsevier journal, Personality and Individual Differences, and rejected just three days after submission. How could the quality and content of the paper have been evaluated in such a short space of time by an individual who does not appear to have any qualifications in the subject matter, even more so over the weekend, between the Friday of submission and the Monday of rejection? The reader’s attention is drawn to the suggestion that the rejected paper might then be suitable for publication in an article processing fee-charging open access journal, Heliyon, through an Elsevier portable peer review service.
“On Monday, February 20, 2017 1:24 PM, Personality and Individual Differences [email redacted] wrote:
Ms. Ref. No.: [redacted]
Title: [email redacted]
Journal: Personality and Individual Differences
Dear Dr. [redacted],
Thank you for your interest and submission to “Personality and Individual Differences”. Unfortunately, after an initial evaluation, I feel your manuscript is not appropriate for this journal’s readership.
Please note: while the editors feel that “Personality and Individual Differences” is not the appropriate venue for your manuscript, it may be suitable for publication in http://www.heliyon.com/, an open access journal from Elsevier publishing quality research papers across all disciplines. Heliyon’s team of experts provides editorial excellence, fast publication, and high visibility for your paper. If you are interested in having your manuscript transferred to Heliyon, please follow this link:
“Please consider joining the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences (PAID), which offers benefits to you and your students—go to: http://www.issidorg.com/membership.html“
Personality and Individual Differences”
About this article
Cite this article
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Al-Khatib, A., Katavić, V. et al. Establishing Sensible and Practical Guidelines for Desk Rejections. Sci Eng Ethics 24, 1347–1365 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9921-3