That is worth knowing, because desk rejections are almost entirely avoidable and have little to do with whether the research is good.
Desk rejection: the avoidable half
- Out of scope. The single most common reason. Fixed by reading the aims and scope and the last two issues — see how to choose the right journal.
- Wrong article type. The journal does not publish case reports, or systematic reviews, or whatever you have written.
- Guidelines ignored. Over the word limit, wrong reference style, missing declarations, figures in the wrong format.
- Poor English. Editors will not send out a manuscript reviewers would struggle to read.
- Missing ethics approval. No approval reference for human or animal research is an immediate return.
Rejection after review: methodological
- Sample size unjustified. No power calculation, or a sample too small to support the claim.
- Design cannot answer the question. Cross-sectional data used to argue causation.
- Uncontrolled confounding. Obvious confounders neither measured nor discussed.
- Wrong statistical test. Assumptions unmet or untested — see selecting the right test.
- Missing data unexplained. Numbers that do not reconcile between tables.
Rejection after review: reporting
Sound research reported poorly is still rejected. Reviewers cannot approve what they cannot verify.
- Effect sizes and confidence intervals absent
- Methods insufficiently detailed to replicate
- Reporting guideline not followed — see which guideline applies
- Conclusions stronger than the results support
- Limitations omitted or minimised
The one that stings
“Insufficient novelty or impact for this journal.” Often genuine, sometimes a polite way of declining a sound but unremarkable paper. It is not a judgement that the work is wrong, and the usual answer is a well-chosen journal further down your shortlist.
What to do with a rejection
- Read it properly, after a day away from it.
- Separate fixable criticism from disagreement about scope.
- Fix everything fixable before resubmitting anywhere.
- Choose the next journal deliberately, not reflexively downward.
- If reviewers raised points, address them — the next journal may use the same reviewers.
If a decision is genuinely mistaken, an appeal is possible but rarely succeeds. Our publication support service includes advice on whether an appeal is worth making.