{"id":3622,"date":"2026-01-19T12:49:07","date_gmt":"2026-01-19T07:19:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/top-5-reasons-for-desk-rejection-and-simple-solutions-for-authors\/"},"modified":"2026-03-04T15:01:53","modified_gmt":"2026-03-04T09:31:53","slug":"top-5-reasons-for-desk-rejection-and-simple-solutions-for-authors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/top-5-reasons-for-desk-rejection-and-simple-solutions-for-authors","title":{"rendered":"Top 5 Reasons for Desk Rejection and Simple Solutions for Authors"},"content":{"rendered":"

While no one likes rejection,\u00a0almost every\u00a0author has\u00a0had\u00a0to deal with it at some point\u00a0in their academic publishing journey. Data collected by studying submissions from over 18 countries shows that rejection rates range from 22.6% to 73.4% across journals<\/span>1<\/sup><\/span>,\u00a0while top journals are known to routinely reject over 90% of the manuscripts submitted<\/span>2<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span>\u202f<\/span>Rejection, especially\u00a0<\/span>desk rejection<\/span><\/b><\/a>,<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>happens to the best of us.\u00a0But it is not the end of the road for researchers.\u00a0Small changes\u00a0in how\u00a0you\u00a0approach manuscripts and submission can alter your fate. In fact, American inventor Thomas Edison said, \u201c<\/span>Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time.<\/span><\/i>\u201d This belief is echoed by a heartening study that showed 62% of published papers had been rejected at least once by other journals before eventually being accepted<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

When it comes to scholarly publishing, the reasons\u00a0for\u00a0desk rejection\u00a0are\u00a0predominantly\u00a0within\u00a0your control\u00a0and can be easily avoided with\u00a0a comprehensive\u202f<\/span>manuscript submission readiness check<\/span>.\u00a0Take a look at some of the most common mistakes that lead to rejection, along with expert tips and smart solutions\u00a0to help\u00a0you\u00a0<\/span>avoid desk rejection<\/span><\/b><\/a>\u00a0and maximize chances of publication success.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

5 Problems That Lead to Desk Rejection \u2013 And How to Avoid it<\/h2>\n

Problem 1: Mismatch with journal\u2019s aims and scope<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Problem 2: Lack of clarity on the originality, novelty, or significance<\/span><\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Problem 3: Poor language and manuscript presentation<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Problem 4: Ethical issues like plagiarism and simultaneous submission<\/span><\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Problem 5: Flaws in research methodology or study design<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Problem 1: Mismatch with journal\u2019s aims and scope<\/h3>\n

Imagine\u00a0working extremely hard on conducting your research only to choose a wrong target journal!\u00a0It might sound silly, but you will be surprised how often researchers\u00a0fail to\u00a0identify\u00a0the\u00a0correct\u00a0target journal. This especially happens when the\u00a0<\/span>research topic involves overlapping subject areas<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0If your study does not align with the journal\u2019s aims, the editor is likely to reject your paper at desk without a peer review. So, what can you do to avoid this mistake?<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What You Should Do<\/span><\/i><\/b>
\nAlways read the journal\u2019s aims and scope on the website before shortlisting target journals. This section gives you\u00a0an overview of what the journal expects. Furthermore, read the abstracts of the articles published by the journal.\u00a0They will help you understand whether your study relates to the research topics\u00a0that have been published\u00a0by the journal\u00a0in the past.\u00a0Also,\u00a0determine\u00a0<\/span>your<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span>target audience<\/span><\/i>\u00a0and ask yourself whether the\u00a0<\/span>journal\u2019s audience<\/span><\/i>\u00a0match\u00a0your intended\u00a0readers.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Problem 2: Lack of\u00a0clarity on the\u00a0originality, novelty, or significance<\/h3>\n

As\u00a0researchers, you should always aim to contribute to enhancing existing knowledge in your research field. Any study that does not offer new\u00a0insights\u00a0or a novel perspective\u00a0is not likely to be accepted for publication. But\u00a0what authors\u00a0neglect is highlighting the significance of their work sufficiently in the abstract or cover letter.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What You Should Do<\/span><\/i><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Remember that journal editors receive thousands of submissions in a day, and it is not humanly possible to read\u00a0all\u00a0these papers in their entirety! Therefore,\u00a0editors simply focus on the cover letter and the abstract of a submission to\u00a0glean whether the paper is worth exploring. So, clearly\u00a0highlight\u00a0in\u00a0your cover letter as well as your abstract\u00a0regarding\u00a0the\u00a0knowledge gap or\u00a0shortfalls in existing\u00a0research\u00a0that were\u00a0investigated in your study. Be specific\u00a0about how your study addresses this gap, and why your research can offer the correct solutions for the problems\u00a0identified.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Problem 3: Poor language and manuscript presentation<\/h3>\n

A research\u00a0paper\u00a0that is not easily\u00a0consumable\u00a0or\u00a0a manuscript that is haphazardly formatted can make reading\u00a0a\u00a0tedious experience.\u00a0Editors like to read manuscripts by\u00a0skimming\u00a0through\u00a0certain sections rather than\u00a0dive\u00a0deep into the complete\u00a0paper. So, if your language is not up to the mark,\u00a0if your writing has\u00a0many grammatical errors, or if the paper is not well-formatted,\u00a0it is likely to be desk rejected.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What You Should Do<\/span><\/i><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Scientific writing\u00a0warrants\u00a0a certain style, tone, and format. Follow this. But ensure that you do not include excessive jargon\u00a0in your paper and\u00a0present your content\u00a0in a way\u00a0that\u2019s\u00a0easy to consume.\u00a0Get your manuscript checked by professional editors or use\u00a0<\/span>English editing and proofreading services<\/span><\/a>\u00a0to\u00a0eliminate\u00a0critical grammar and syntax errors.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Also, read the submission guidelines or instructions for authors carefully before formatting your manuscript.\u00a0Present all major sections (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) with\u00a0content structured in\u00a0appropriate paragraphs\u00a0divided into well-defined sub-sections.\u00a0Convey\u00a0what each section covers with clear, well-defined sub-headings\u00a0as editors are most likely to read them first.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Problem 4: Ethical issues like plagiarism and simultaneous submission<\/h3>\n

Journals\u00a0follow strict ethical guidelines for publishing research papers, and not adhering to these guidelines could land you in trouble!\u00a0Plagiarized content gets flagged when journals run your submitted manuscript through plagiarism checkers. And a high similarity score\u00a0(more than 20% to 25%)\u00a0is often returned to authors for revision.\u00a0Other issues like\u00a0submitting\u00a0the same\u00a0manuscript simultaneously to two journals\u00a0is\u00a0also considered unethical behavior.\u00a0And with\u00a0the rampant application of artificial intelligence (AI) tools\u00a0in\u00a0the scientific field, non-disclosure of\u00a0AI\u00a0usage can also be\u00a0deemed\u00a0unethical.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What You Should Do<\/span><\/i><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Each journal has\u00a0their ethical guidelines outlined\u00a0on their website, be it\u00a0regarding\u00a0animal\/human trials, clinical registrations,\u00a0or AI usage guidelines. Always read them carefully and ensure that your study adheres\u00a0to all requirements.\u00a0If you have used content (e.g., figures or graphs) from other sources,\u00a0include copyright statements in the required format and\u00a0cite the original work\u00a0correctly in the reference list.\u00a0Disclose use of any AI tools during the preparation of your research paper.\u00a0Remember, using AI tools is\u00a0not unethical. But\u00a0failing to disclose\u00a0where and how these tools\u00a0assisted\u00a0you in manuscript preparation is!<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Another mistake that authors make is\u00a0submitting\u00a0to two journals at the same time in the hopes of increasing\u00a0their chance of acceptance. This could lead to\u00a0<\/span>duplicate submission problems<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0So,\u00a0once you\u00a0submit\u00a0to a journal, wait for\u00a0the editorial process to\u00a0complete,\u00a0or write to the editor querying about\u00a0the manuscript status\u00a0if\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0a substantial delay before\u00a0approaching\u00a0a different journal.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Problem 5: Flaws in research\u00a0methodology\u00a0or study design<\/h3>\n

One of\u00a0the key reasons for manuscript rejection is implementing a flawed study design to obtain research findings. These\u00a0incorrect research methodologies generate inaccurate results, which could mislead future research directions. Therefore,\u00a0journal editors and peer reviewers\u00a0check for\u00a0the accuracy of methods and steps in experimental analyses to ensure that no\u00a0incorrect research findings get published.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What You Should Do<\/span><\/i><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Do not make the mistake of\u00a0identifying\u00a0the wrong research\u00a0methodology\u00a0to perform your research. For instance, if you employ an outdated technique or method to evaluate your hypotheses while a more recent\u00a0and\u00a0highly\u00a0accurate\u00a0one exists, your research paper is likely to be rejected.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Another example is using\u00a0a mismatched approach.\u00a0If your research question can be better evaluated using a quantitative approach and you\u00a0follow a qualitative approach, reviewers\u00a0might highlight this\u00a0during manuscript assessment.\u00a0So, perform a thorough literature review of the works in your field and ensure that only\u00a0scientifically verified\u00a0state-of-the-art\u00a0methodologies\u00a0and\u00a0relevant approaches\u00a0are\u00a0employed for the analyses.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Bonus\u00a0Tip:<\/span><\/b>\u00a0Sometimes, authors overlook fundamental guidelines like the recommended length of the manuscript. Pay attention to any word count or page count limits suggested by the target journal.\u00a0If a formatting template is provided, do not\u00a0manipulate line spacing, fonts, or number of columns. Always\u00a0avoid minor flaws by\u00a0checking\u00a0your manuscript for any inconsistencies\u00a0between\u00a0figures, tables, text, and reference numbering.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

There could be other reasons for desk rejection, as highlighted in this video.<\/p>\n