Many young and enthusiastic researchers aspire to see their names on the pages of leading journals. They spend months, even years, conducting research, analyzing data, and writing up their findings, only to face an all-too-common and painful outcome: the desk rejection.
A desk rejection occurs when a manuscript is rejected by a journal editor without being sent out for peer review. It often comes swiftly, accompanied by the cold and disheartening phrase: "We regret to inform you that your manuscript is not suitable for our journal." For early-career researchers, this can be profoundly discouraging, shaking their confidence and motivation to pursue publication, especially since surveys show that 67% of early-career researchers did not receive feedback upon desk rejection.
This experience is more common than many realize. Estimates show that 30% to 70% of manuscripts submitted to major academic journals are desk rejected, depending on the field and journal. Understanding why desk rejections happen and how to prevent them is essential for anyone hoping to climb the ladder of academic publishing.
Why do desk rejections happen?
In my own experience, as an aspiring author, a reviewer, and journal editor, desk rejections usually stem from several main issues:
1. Weak Novelty or Contribution: Journals are flooded with manuscripts. If a study does not offer something fresh - be it a new method, a new population focus, or a novel interpretation - it risks being dismissed early. From an editorial standpoint, assessing novelty is less about mechanical scoring and more about professional judgment guided by clear yet evolving criteria. Editors “quantify” novelty by evaluating whether a manuscript poses a compelling research question, offers a distinct conceptual angle, or challenges prevailing assumptions in the field. They often ask: Does this paper move the conversation forward? Whether the manuscript addresses important issues, advances theoretical frameworks, and offers novel insights. Manuscripts that merely apply well-established theories to new contexts or countries, without introducing original contributions or deepening theoretical understanding, are unlikely to be sent out for peer review. Indeed, lack of novelty was cited in 51% of desk rejections in a recent survey.
Novelty can take the form of theoretical innovation, methodological advancement, or empirical discovery – especially when grounded in underexplored contexts or data. Many editors also cross-reference recent publications in their journal to avoid redundancy and ensure the submission adds something substantively new. While not always expressed numerically, this judgment is often swift and decisive: manuscripts lacking originality are desk-rejected within minutes. Editors, especially at high-impact journals, are under constant pressure to preserve the distinctiveness of their content, making novelty a non-negotiable editorial filter.
2. Out of Scope: The other most common immediate reason for desk rejection is submitting to a journal whose aims and readership do not align with your topic. For example, submitting a study focused on local nutritional problems to a global health system policy journal is almost certain to be rejected.
3. Poor Alignment with Journal Standards: Some studies, while valuable, are too localized, descriptive, or programmatic. High-impact journals seek manuscripts that not only describe what happened but also offer broader insights, innovations, or generalizable lessons. Studies that do not reach beyond their immediate context often fail to meet this threshold. According to Yogesh K. Dwivedi, a large proportion of authors whose papers were desk rejected admitted they had not carefully reviewed the journal’s recent articles or editorial expectations.
4. Methodological Weakness: Scientific rigor is the cornerstone of good research. If your study design, sampling approach, measurements, or analysis methods are flawed - or even poorly explained - editors will quickly move on. No journal wants to invest peer reviewers' time in manuscripts that cannot stand up to basic scientific scrutiny.
5. Poor Writing and Organization: No matter how strong your research is, if your writing is confusing, filled with grammatical errors, or poorly structured, editors may reject it simply because it is too time-consuming to fix. Many top journals receive over 500 submissions per month - for example, The Lancet receives around 800 to 1,000. Of these, only 40 to 50 are published monthly, yielding an acceptance rate of less than 5%. In such a competitive environment, clarity and conciseness are non-negotiable. Clear, professional writing is not a luxury; it is essential.
6. Ethical or Reporting Concerns: Lack of documented ethical approval, unclear conflict of interest declarations, or missing funding disclosures are serious issues. Reputable journals will not proceed without proper ethical standards in place.
7. Too Early Stage or Narrow Analysis: Some studies present baseline data, preliminary findings, or exploratory surveys without sufficient analysis. While useful internally, they may not yet be ready for journal publication. Journals seek complete, mature studies that tell a compelling scientific story.
How to Avoid Desk Rejection?: Practical Advice
1. Target Journals Carefully: Many authors make the mistake of submitting to journals that are either too ambitious or poorly matched to their study type. Before submission, spend time studying 2–3 potential journals:
- Read their "Aims and Scope" carefully.
- Look at the types of studies they published in the last two years.
- Use free tools like the Jane Journal Finder by entering your title or abstract to suggest a journal, or the Elsevier Journal Finder.
- Consider the audience: Are you targeting a clinical, global health, nutrition-specific, or public health audience?
- If unsure, ask mentors, supervisors, or colleagues who have experience publishing in your field.
Practical Tip: Never submit blindly. Tailor each manuscript’s framing to fit the journal's language, interests, and expectations. By simply shooting and submitting a journal, there is no way to bypass the walls for desk rejection; rather, it is a waste of your time and stamina for research and publication.
2. Strengthen Your Research Design: Editors look at the study design immediately. To avoid methodological desk rejection:
- Pre-plan your sample size using proper power calculations.
- Use validated data collection instruments (not ad-hoc or poorly described tools).
- Apply recognized reporting standards like STROBE (for observational studies), CONSORT (for clinical trials), or PRISMA (for systematic reviews).
- Anticipate weaknesses reviewers might spot - and address them upfront in the Methods or Limitations sections.
Practical Tip: Include a clear paragraph explaining "Why this study design is appropriate for the research question" - it shows you have thought deeply.
3. Emphasize Novelty: Editors prioritize manuscripts that contribute something new:
- In your cover letter, explicitly highlight the study’s novelty – briefly state what makes your research original (e.g., first of its kind, new method, new context), and why it matters for advancing knowledge or informing policy. Use clear language to help editors quickly see the unique contribution.
- In your Introduction, end with a strong “gap statement” - what is missing in current knowledge and how your study addresses it. Use phrases like: "To our knowledge, no prior studies have examined...", "This study is the first to explore..."
- In the Discussion, highlight how your findings advance science, inform policy, or suggest new avenues of inquiry.
Practical Tip: Never assume editors will "see" the novelty - you must explicitly state it.
4. Polish Your Writing: Even excellent research can be rejected if it is poorly written.
- Use simple, direct English. Avoid overly complex or technical language unless necessary.
- Structure your manuscript carefully: clear Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD format).
- Run your manuscript through grammar and clarity checkers like Grammarly or Hemingway App.
- Ask colleagues for feedback before submission, or invest in professional academic editing services if needed.
Practical Tip: Prepare a one-page outline before writing - this ensures logical flow and helps avoid confusing arguments.
5. Address Ethical Standards Thoroughly: Journals have no tolerance for missing ethical documentation:
- State your Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethical Committee approval clearly, including reference numbers if available.
- Mention informed consent from participants (or from guardians if children were involved).
- Disclose all funding sources and conflict of interest declarations, even if none exist (write “The authors declare no conflict of interest” if true).
Practical Tip: Create a checklist for yourself before submission: ethics approval ✓ consent process ✓ funding ✓ conflicts of interest ✓.
6. Frame Your Study for Broader Relevance: Even if your data comes from a local or small population, editors want to see broader significance:
- Compare your findings to international literature, not just national studies.
- Discuss how your results might apply to other similar settings (e.g., "Findings from rural Ethiopia may have implications for similar resource-constrained regions in Sub-Saharan Africa.").
- Emphasize transferable lessons rather than just local facts.
Practical Tip: In your last paragraph of the discussion, explicitly connect your findings to bigger policy, practice, or research trends.
7. Be Persistent and Strategic: Finally, even with perfect preparation, desk rejections happen. What matters most is resilience.
- If rejected, read the rejection letter carefully. Even brief editor comments can hint at improvements.
- Consider submitting the manuscript to the next appropriate journal without major delays - momentum matters.
- Adjust framing or targeting based on the feedback (or lack of it).
Practical Tip: Keep a journal submission tracker spreadsheet with columns like: Journal Name, Scope Fit (High/Medium/Low), Status, Feedback Received, Next Steps.
Bonus Practical Resources:
- Cofactor AuthorAID's Resources for Publishing – free online publishing courses for researchers from LMICs
- Equator Network – reporting guidelines for various study types:
Closing Thoughts
Desk rejection feels personal-but it is rarely about you as a researcher. It is about whether your paper, at this moment, meets the complex and competitive demands of a specific journal in scientific publishing.
For young researchers, the key is not to fear rejection but to master it. Every desk rejection holds a hidden lesson about improving your science, your writing, and your judgment.
Photo by Antoni Shkraba Studio
