From Desk Rejection to Revision: What Editors Wish Authors Knew

Have you faced a desk rejection? After all the months of work on your paper, learning it never got past the editor’s desk can be disheartening!

Rejection is an almost universal experience in academic publishing. Even seasoned researchers with strong publication records receive desk rejections and critical reviewer comments.

For many authors, a desk rejection without any explanation “why” can be particularly frustrating. The truth is, many rejected papers are not “bad science.” Instead, they fall short in ways that editors notice quickly but authors often overlook.

Common Reasons Papers Get Rejected

Below are some of the most common reasons papers get rejected, and how authors can address them before submission.

1. Poor journal fit: the fastest route to desk rejection

One of the most common reasons for rejection happens before peer review even begins: the paper simply does not fit the journal.

From an editor’s point of view, “fit” is not just about topic. It includes:

• Whether the study speaks to the journal’s target audience

• Whether the methods and scope align with what the journal typically publishes

• Whether the manuscript engages with conversations already happening in that journal

Editors often decide within minutes whether a paper belongs in their journal.

How to avoid it:
Before submission, study the journal closely. Look beyond the aims and scope statement. Read recent editorials, examine the types of papers published in the last year or two, and note how authors frame their contributions. Adjust your introduction to clearly show how your work fits into that specific scholarly conversation.

2. An unclear research question or contribution

Editors regularly encounter papers that are methodologically solid but difficult to place. The research question may be vague, or the paper may fail to clearly articulate what is new, different, or important about the work.

Common red flags include:

• A broad or unfocused introduction

• A literature review that summarizes rather than synthesizes

• A contribution that only becomes apparent deep in the discussion

Editors are not looking to guess why a study matters. If the contribution is not clear early on, the manuscript risks rejection, even if the results are interesting.

How to avoid it:
State your research question and contribution explicitly and early. Ask yourself: What gap does this study address? Why does that gap matter now? Revisit your abstract and introduction after completing the manuscript to ensure they accurately reflect the paper’s core message.

3. Weak structure and lack of narrative flow

Academic papers are arguments, not data repositories. Yet many submissions read like collections of loosely connected sections rather than a coherent whole.

From an editor’s perspective, structural problems can include:

• Overlong introductions that delay the main point

• Results presented without clear links to the research question

• Discussions that repeat results rather than interpret them

Even high-quality data can lose impact if the paper’s structure does not guide the reader logically from question to conclusion.

How to avoid it:
Outline your manuscript as a narrative. Each section should have a clear purpose and connect directly to the central argument. Use signposting to help readers understand where they are and why each section matters.

Reading the manuscript from the perspective of a non-specialist editor rather than the study’s author can reveal gaps in logic and flow that are easy to miss.

4. Language and presentation issues that obscure meaning

Editors do not expect perfect English, but they do expect clarity. Language problems become a reason for rejection when they interfere with understanding or signal a lack of care.

Common issues include:

• Sentences that are grammatically correct but difficult to follow

• Inconsistent terminology

• Failure to follow journal formatting and reference guidelines

These issues often suggest to editors that the manuscript has not been thoroughly prepared for submission.

How to avoid it:
Treat language editing and formatting as integral parts of the publishing process, not final afterthoughts. Separate content revision from language polishing to ensure that the manuscript adheres strictly to the journal’s guidelines.

Clear presentation is not cosmetic! It reflects professionalism and respect for the editorial process.

Rejection as insight, not failure

While rejection can feel discouraging, it is often a diagnostic tool rather than a verdict on a researcher’s ability or ideas. Many rejected papers are eventually published after reframing, restructuring, or targeting a more appropriate journal.

Thinking like an editor early in the writing process can dramatically improve your chances of success. Strong papers do not just present good research; they communicate it clearly, position it thoughtfully, and respect the needs of their readers.

For further reading: learn more about what to do to avoid desk rejection from Editage Insights guest editor Michaela Lavender in her article on what to avoid when submitting your manuscript to a journal.

Remember, successful publishing is as much about perspective as it is about persistence.