Most authors prepare for reviewers. The first decision on a paper is made earlier, by an editor deciding whether it should reach reviewers at all.
What desk rejection means
A desk rejection is a decision to decline your manuscript without sending it to external peer reviewers. An editor screens the submission, decides it will not go further at this journal, and the decision letter arrives without reviewer reports. If you are wondering what "desk rejected" means in practice, that is it: nobody assessed your paper in the depth a reviewer would.
Rejection without review is a normal, permitted part of editorial work. The ICMJE Recommendations state that a peer-reviewed journal is under no obligation to send submitted manuscripts for review, and that editorial decisions may be informed by issues unrelated to the quality of a manuscript, such as suitability for the journal. They also ask editors who have no intention of proceeding with a manuscript to reject it as soon as possible, so that authors can submit to a different journal.
Screening usually happens in layers. The BMJ Author Hub, for example, describes quality checks by editorial staff, followed by an editor who evaluates the article for scope, quality and fit, and rejects papers that do not meet those criteria.
One thing that is not a desk rejection: a request to supply a missing file, form or declaration before review. PLOS ONE, for instance, says submissions may be returned to authors for changes or clarifications at its initial checks. That is a request, not a decision, so answer it promptly and completely.
Why editors reject papers without review
Publishers' guidance lists broadly the same reasons. Springer Nature's editorial reasons for rejection include being out of scope, not enough of an advance for the journal, ignoring research ethics such as patient consent or ethics committee approval, and not following formatting requirements. Taylor & Francis reports that the top reasons its editors gave were similar regardless of discipline, and that most are within the author's control.
| Reason | What the editor sees | What you can check before submitting |
|---|---|---|
| Out of scope | A topic, population or readership the journal does not serve | The aims and scope page, and recent papers comparable to yours |
| Below the journal's priority threshold | A sound study that is too small, local or incremental for this journal | Whether the journal publishes studies of this design and size |
| Wrong article type | A condensed thesis chapter, or a review sent as original research | The journal's article types and their limits |
| Guidelines not followed | Wrong structure, missing sections, limits exceeded | The instructions for authors, line by line |
| Ethics missing or unclear | No approval statement, or no consent where it is needed | That the Methods names the approving body |
| A flaw no revision can repair | A design that cannot answer the question asked | A read by a colleague with methods expertise |
| Hard to evaluate | Unclear logic, or writing that obscures the findings | A read by someone outside the project |
| Publication ethics concerns | Duplicate submission, text overlap, authorship problems | Prior publications, similarity, and every author's approval |
Fit is the reason most within your control and the easiest to test in advance. How to Choose the Right Journal Without Getting Scammed sets out a shortlisting routine you can run once per paper.
Medical-journal checks that end submissions early
Medical journals add requirements that a screening editor can verify quickly. They vary by journal, so read the instructions for authors, but these are common among journals that follow the ICMJE Recommendations.
- Trial registration. The ICMJE recommends that editors require clinical trials to be registered in a public trials registry at or before the time of first patient consent for enrolment, as a condition of consideration for publication. It adds that retrospective registration, for example at the time of submission, meets none of the purposes of registration.
- Ethics approval. The Methods should state that the research was approved by an independent local, regional or national review body, such as an ethics committee or institutional review board.
- Reporting guidelines. The ICMJE encourages journals to ask authors to follow reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT for randomised trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and STARD for diagnostic accuracy studies. If your target journal requires the checklist, complete it against the final manuscript, not an earlier draft.
- Data sharing statement. Since 1 July 2018, manuscripts reporting the results of clinical trials submitted to ICMJE journals must contain a data sharing statement. Other journals may ask for one too.
- Disclosures. Competing interests and funding, on the form the journal specifies.
A missing statement or checklist can be added before your next submission. A registration problem cannot be repaired afterwards, so check each target journal's registration policy before you submit again.
What a desk rejection does and does not tell you
It tells you that one editor, at one journal, decided the paper should not use reviewers' time there. It does not tell you the science is invalid.
Screening depends partly on judgment. In a study at the International Journal of Public Health, the journal's three co-editors-in-chief made independent screening decisions on the same 30 submissions. They fully agreed on only 43% at first, and on 67% after considering second opinions. The main drivers of disagreement were "soft" criteria such as novelty and originality. The authors point out that the sample is small and not representative, but the finding supports a reasonable reading: a borderline screening call on priority could have gone the other way.
The exception is a letter that names a specific problem with design or analysis. Treat that seriously, because the next editor is likely to see it too.
Read the letter, then choose your next move
Most desk rejection letters are short. Look for the one sentence that gives a reason, and match it to a next step.
| If the letter says | It usually means | Do this |
|---|---|---|
| Outside the journal's scope or readership | A fit problem | Choose a better-matched journal; do not rewrite the science |
| Not a priority, or insufficient novelty for the journal | A threshold judgment | Target journals whose recent papers resemble yours in design and size |
| A named item is missing | A readiness problem | Add it before you submit anywhere |
| A named design or analysis problem | A substantive concern | Address it, or report it plainly as a limitation |
| An offer to transfer to another journal | The editor sees a better home | Check that journal's scope and fees as you would any other |
| No specific reason | Little information | Recheck fit and readiness yourself |
Appeals and resubmitting elsewhere
The ICMJE says journals should clearly state their appeals process, and policies differ on whether desk rejections qualify. Elsevier's appeals policy considers appeals only for manuscripts that have been peer reviewed, not for those rejected outright by the editorial team, and it excludes appeals based on a difference of opinion about interest, novelty or suitability. Springer Nature's author guidance, by contrast, refers to appeals at both the editorial review and peer review stages, and says that generally only one letter defending a submission is accepted at each.
A useful decision rule: contact the journal only if the decision rests on a factual error you can point to. If the letter says the paper lacks an ethics approval statement and the statement is in your Methods, a brief, polite message quoting the manuscript number and the location is reasonable, where the journal's policy allows it. Disagreement about fit or priority is not a factual error, and policies such as Elsevier's exclude it.
If you move on instead:
- Confirm the submission is closed. Do not send it to another journal while an appeal or query is still open. The ICMJE says authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously.
- Fix anything the letter named.
- Reformat everything to the new journal's instructions, including references, word limits and article type.
- Remove any trace of the previous journal from the files.
- Write a new cover letter. If the editor's comments were substantive, the ICMJE says it is helpful to include previous editors' and reviewers' comments with the new submission, along with your responses.
Avoiding desk rejection: a check before you submit
Run this check against the journal you are about to submit to, not the one you submitted to last.
- You can name three recent papers in this journal that resemble yours in topic or design
- The article type exists at this journal, and you are within its limits
- For a trial, the registry and registration number are given where the journal asks, and registration took place at or before first participant consent
- The Methods names the body that approved the research
- Any required reporting checklist is complete against the final manuscript
- Data sharing, funding and competing interest statements are present in the journal's wording
- Someone outside the project can state your question and main finding after reading the abstract
- The cover letter explains why this paper suits this journal
For the administrative steps, Your First Manuscript Submission: A Step-by-Step Checklist works through each one. The fit argument belongs in your cover letter, and How to Write a Journal Cover Letter shows how to make it in one sentence.
A desk rejection costs time, but many of its causes can be found and fixed before you submit. Directive Publications describes each stage of its peer review process, including the editor desk assessment that comes before reviewers are invited, and its author guidelines cover what to prepare before you submit.
Frequently asked questions
How quickly do desk rejections usually happen?
Usually faster than a decision after peer review, because no reviewers need to be invited or given time to report. The ICMJE Recommendations ask editors to reject manuscripts they do not intend to pursue as soon as possible, so that authors can submit elsewhere. Actual times depend on the journal's screening steps and workload, so if a journal publishes a time to first decision, check whether that figure includes decisions made without review.
Can I appeal a desk rejection?
It depends on the journal's appeals policy, which the ICMJE says journals should state clearly. Some publishers exclude desk rejections altogether: Elsevier's policy considers appeals only for manuscripts that have been peer reviewed. Where an appeal or query is possible, it is for a checkable factual error, such as a letter saying an ethics statement is missing when it is in your Methods, not for disagreement about scope or novelty.
Can a desk-rejected paper be sent to another journal straight away?
Yes. A rejection ends that submission, so you are free to submit elsewhere, as long as the paper is never under consideration at two journals at once. Straight away is rarely the best choice, though. Fix anything the letter named, reformat the manuscript to the new journal's instructions, and write a new cover letter for that journal first.
Does a desk rejection mean my research is weak?
Not necessarily. Many desk rejections are judgments about scope, readership or priority, and the ICMJE notes that editorial decisions may be informed by suitability for the journal rather than quality. Screening criteria such as novelty are also partly subjective: in one small study, three editors-in-chief screening the same 30 submissions fully agreed on only 43 percent at first. If the letter names a specific design or analysis problem, however, treat it seriously.
Why don't editors give detailed feedback with a desk rejection?
A desk decision is a screening judgment about whether a paper should go to reviewers, not a review, so the editor has not assessed it in the depth a detailed critique needs. Editors are also asked to return decisions on unsuitable manuscripts quickly so authors can move on, and full written comments on every declined paper would slow that down. When the letter is brief, recheck journal fit and basic readiness yourself before choosing the next journal.