{"title":"Desk Rejection Report: Editorial Screening Map","version":"2026.09.15-screen1","reviewedOn":"2026-09-15","canonicalUrl":"https://manusights.com/resources/desk-rejection-report","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"scope":"A source synthesis of six editorial-screening decisions. It is not a rejection-rate dataset or acceptance predictor.","method":{"included":"Public first-party guidance that describes an initial editorial check, manuscript preparation standard, or journal-specific contribution model.","excluded":"Undocumented rejection-rate estimates, anonymous anecdotes, commercial acceptance predictions, and generalized rules presented as universal.","synthesis":"Manusights grouped the source-backed checks by the author decision they can change. The sequence is analytical, not a measured frequency distribution.","maintenance":"Sources are rechecked at least every 90 days. A changed policy or inaccessible controlling source blocks claims that depend on it until reviewed."},"decisions":[{"code":"01","title":"Scope and article type","editorQuestion":"Does this manuscript belong in this journal, in a type the journal accepts?","authorEvidence":"The exact aims and scope, accepted article type, and several recent articles that address a comparable audience.","action":"Retarget when the audience or article type is structurally wrong. Reframing cannot repair an ineligible submission type.","sources":["A","B","C"],"boundary":"Scope is journal-specific. Similar branding across a publisher portfolio does not imply the same scope."},{"code":"02","title":"Contribution standard","editorQuestion":"Does the paper meet this journal's stated model for contribution, relevance, or interest?","authorEvidence":"The journal's own editorial criteria and the manuscript's one-sentence contribution, compared without impact-factor shorthand.","action":"Retarget if the work cannot honestly meet the venue's contribution model. Revise only when the contribution is real but obscured.","sources":["A","B","D"],"boundary":"Novelty is not universal. PLOS ONE states that decisions are based on rigor regardless of novelty; selective journals may use other criteria."},{"code":"03","title":"Claims and evidence","editorQuestion":"Do the title, abstract, and conclusions stay inside what the design and results support?","authorEvidence":"A claim-to-result trace for every headline statement, with limitations and alternative explanations visible.","action":"Recalibrate the claims or strengthen the analysis. Do not use the cover letter to promise evidence that is absent from the manuscript.","sources":["A","C"],"boundary":"This screen cannot establish scientific validity. It identifies visible claim-evidence mismatches for expert review."},{"code":"04","title":"Methods and reporting","editorQuestion":"Is there enough detail and appropriate reporting for editors and reviewers to evaluate the work?","authorEvidence":"The applicable reporting guideline, reproducible methods, analysis details, and a clear account of study limitations.","action":"Complete missing reporting and analysis detail before submission. Escalate unresolved methodological concerns to a qualified expert.","sources":["A","C"],"boundary":"Completing a checklist does not prove that a study is well designed or its analysis is correct."},{"code":"05","title":"Ethics, integrity, and transparency","editorQuestion":"Are required approvals, disclosures, registrations, data statements, and integrity conditions addressed?","authorEvidence":"Project-specific approvals and records, plus the current journal policy for the exact study and article type.","action":"Stop and resolve any missing approval or integrity issue. Administrative polish is not a substitute for authorization.","sources":["A","B","C"],"boundary":"Only the responsible institution, journal, or oversight body can determine compliance for a specific project."},{"code":"06","title":"Submission package","editorQuestion":"Can the journal identify, evaluate, and process the submission without avoidable ambiguity or missing material?","authorEvidence":"The current author instructions, required files and statements, accurate metadata, readable figures, and complete coauthor sign-off.","action":"Complete the package and verify it in the live submission system. Treat a returned submission differently from a substantive rejection.","sources":["B","C"],"boundary":"Technical checks vary by journal and can change. Recheck immediately before upload."}],"editorialModels":[{"title":"Validity-focused","example":"PLOS ONE","rule":"Scientific rigor, ethics, technical quality, and scope are central; perceived novelty is not the decision standard.","source":"B"},{"title":"Journal-specific contribution","example":"Selective or specialist titles","rule":"The journal may add an explicit relevance, interest, importance, or field-specific contribution test to technical standards.","source":"A"},{"title":"Explicit methods contribution","example":"Nature Methods","rule":"A journal can publish its own editorial account of what constitutes an in-scope contribution. That source controls the comparison.","source":"D"}],"responseRoutes":[{"signal":"Scope, type, or contribution mismatch","decision":"Retarget","next":"Choose a venue whose published model matches the work as it exists."},{"signal":"Claims exceed the evidence","decision":"Recalibrate","next":"Align title, abstract, conclusions, and cover letter with the supported claim set."},{"signal":"Methods or reporting are incomplete","decision":"Revise","next":"Close the evaluability gap and obtain the needed expert review before resubmission."},{"signal":"Policy, ethics, or integrity issue","decision":"Resolve","next":"Pause submission and obtain the required project-specific determination or record."},{"signal":"Files, metadata, or declarations missing","decision":"Complete","next":"Repair the package and verify every item against the live journal instructions."}],"sources":[{"id":"A","owner":"PLOS","title":"Initial evaluation of manuscripts","url":"https://explore.plos.org/editor-resources/manuscript-evaluation","locator":"Evaluating manuscripts: key criteria to consider; proceed to peer review or reject","supports":"Scope, journal-specific criteria, technical standards, claim support, ethics, reporting, and possible editorial outcomes.","observedOn":"2026-09-15"},{"id":"B","owner":"PLOS ONE","title":"Editorial and Peer Review Process","url":"https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process","locator":"Initial Checks; Editorial Review","supports":"A validity-focused model in which novelty is not the decision standard, plus initial policy and technical checks.","observedOn":"2026-09-15"},{"id":"C","owner":"International Committee of Medical Journal Editors","title":"Preparing a Manuscript for Submission to a Medical Journal","url":"https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html","locator":"General Principles; Reporting Guidelines; Title Page; Abstract; Methods; Discussion","supports":"Study-design reporting, accurate abstracts, supported conclusions, ethics statements, disclosure, and journal-specific formatting checks.","observedOn":"2026-09-15"},{"id":"D","owner":"Nature Methods","title":"What makes a Nature Methods paper","url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-022-01558-4","locator":"Editorial, published July 8, 2022","supports":"An example of a venue publishing an explicit, field-specific editorial contribution model.","observedOn":"2026-09-15"}]}