1098240x, 2020, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nur.22016 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [27/12/2022].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DOI: 10.1002/nur.22016
EDITORIAL
Why and how to avoid a desk‐rejection
Eileen T. Lake
Department of Biobehavioral Health Sciences,
KEYWORDS
Research in Nursing & Health, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania peer review, publishing, writing for publication
Correspondence
Eileen T. Lake, Department of Biobehavioral
Health Sciences, Research in Nursing & Health,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
PA 19104‐6096.
Email: elake@nursing.upenn.edu
Journal editors are the gateway to publication. As a journal editor, a
major responsibility is deciding which papers advance to peer review
and which papers to “desk reject.” Precious few submitted papers
make their way to publication in our journal. Avoiding a desk rejec-
tion is the authors’ first hurdle. In this column, I describe why
avoiding a desk rejection is so important and I reveal clues to how to
increase the chance that your article will advance to peer review.
Although readers may imagine that journal editors devote
most of their time to reconciling discordant reviews and coaxing
papers toward publication, this is not true, at least in my case.
I swiftly learned upon becoming editor in January 2018 that, quite
like my professional email, the inbox of submitted papers is always
full. The cold reality is that more than one new paper arrives each
day. From the perspective of the journal's livelihood, a steady
stream of incoming papers offers the promise of published papers
some months later. From the editor's perspective, however, there
are often difficult decisions to be made about which papers merit
peer review.
Since my arrival, I have consistently desk‐rejected about two‐
thirds of submitted papers. This fraction surprised me in the early
days but now I have become accustomed to it. At first, I spent hours
detailing in the desk rejection letter the reasons for the rejection.
About 6 months into my tenure, an editor colleague shared that they
simply pressed the reject button, which generates a kindly‐worded
rejection template letter. This interaction prompted an a‐ha moment
for me. Why was I dedicating my time to provide feedback to authors
on papers that would never be published in our journal? Although it
was well‐intentioned and I may have suffered from a “mentor‐to‐all”
complex, it dawned on me that it was simply the wrong use of my
precious editor hours. I immediately stopped providing explanations.
Fairly often, however, I will remark that I respect the effort and
attention to a particular topic or population, or I will recommend
alternative journal types, such as public health or oncology nursing, in
Res Nurs Health. 2020;43:141–142. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nur
the rejection letter. These additions to a standard template are my
way of softening the blow of rejection and trying to be helpful, minus
the great time investment. These remarks are my genuine acknowl-
edgment that, by submitting a paper, all authors have made an effort
to advance science on a topic they are committed to and in an ap-
proach that they believe in.
I assert that avoiding desk rejection is the authors’ most urgent
job. While the bases for my assertion may seem obvious, some may
surprise you. Certainly, if your paper is desk‐rejected, it has no future
with our journal. Beyond that black‐and‐white fact are a few more
facts. About 40% of newly submitted papers that go through peer‐
review are ultimately accepted after one or more revisions. I find that
40% number to be eye‐popping. Who would not want to position
their paper for a 40% chance at eventual success? Even if your paper
is among the 60% of peer‐reviewed first submission papers that get
rejected following review, you receive a treasure trove of con-
structive feedback that is, in my opinion, priceless.
As an author myself, I have always trembled when the decision
following peer review of a new manuscript we have submitted
arrives in my email. Now, 2 years as an editor having no prior
experience in editor roles has filled my heart with the kindness and
dedication of peer reviewers. I truly believe that peer reviewers
are well‐intentioned, dedicated volunteers. Most peer reviews
provide even more feedback than we ask peer reviewers to pro-
vide. At our journal, an associate editor gives feedback in addition
to the peer reviews. The set of peer review and associate editor
feedback is the treasure trove to which I refer. Our journal's time‐
to‐decision given peer review is a mere 37 days. That is, on
average, 5 weeks from submission to decision. Making the effort to
submit a paper that warrants peer review is therefore both your
ticket to a 40% chance of having the paper advance towards
publication as well as a small time commitment in the publication
life cycle of your manuscript.
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 141

142 | EDITORIAL
Let's turn now to avoiding desk rejection. There are common
reasons why I desk reject a paper and techniques authors can use to
avoid each type of desk‐rejection. Many desk rejections are due to a
poor fit with our journal. There are two common variants of this type
of rejection. One variant is the topic is broader than our readership is
interested in. Such a paper may be better suited to a public health
journal, for example. The opposite variant is that the paper is too
narrow for our readership. In my rejection letter, I redirect such
papers to more appropriate journals.
Some papers are desk rejected due to poor English language.
Most (~70%) new submissions are from non‐English speaking
countries. Our editorial assistant requires editing of some papers
before they advance to me. Even so, there are papers for which the
English language still does not pass muster. Poor English language
reflects negatively on a research team. It signals that the team
does not recognize how poor the English is or simply does not have
sufficient resources to improve the English for submission. In ei-
ther case, the paper is a weak prospect for successful peer review.
Rather than weak science, which often cannot be remedied at the
point of manuscript submission, weak English is very easy to re-
medy. It is incumbent upon authors to find a native U.S. English
language speaker to edit the paper. For this purpose, our publisher
provides editing resources on our manuscript submission site. An
alternative is to invite a U.S. colleague to become a coauthor,
ideally much earlier in the manuscript preparation.
I often vacillate between advancing a paper with some degree of
poor English language versus desk rejection with an offer to consider
the same paper following professional editing. In the case I advance a
such a paper to peer review, I always warn reviewers that the language
is not top notch, but I believe the science can be discerned sufficiently
to embark upon peer review. I am quite comfortable requiring profes-
sional editing of papers for English language, even for authors whose
first language is English. I tell reviewers so they can feel confident that
they can focus on science and leave language to me.
Oddly enough, the abstract of some papers exhibits worse English
language than the paper itself does. I suppose that the abstract was
written hastily or earlier and is then forgotten as the paper itself
progresses to submission. This is quite a costly mistake to make
because the abstract is the only thing besides the title that a po-
tential reviewer receives when invited to review. Reviewers are
turned off by poor English language, for the reasons I mentioned
above: how it reflects negatively on the team and presents a likely
low return on the reviewer's investment. Occasionally, a paper I
advance for peer review does not attract any reviewers, whereupon I
desk reject the paper after 2 weeks of trying. This is a frustrating,
disappointing, and potentially avoidable outcome for the authors.
Another common culprit of desk rejection is weak methodology.
Perhaps the researchers used nonvalidated instruments or con-
ducted a quasi‐experiment when an experiment was warranted.
1098240x, 2020, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nur.22016 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [27/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Heed my words: seek study design and methods advice from experts
before you begin your study! A weak methodology is a particularly
disheartening shortcoming. It wastes the investment of the research
participants, the research team, and the research sponsor (if any) to
carry out a study with weak methods. Although at the point of
submission it is too late to change inappropriate methods, one way to
prevent a desk rejection based on your methods is to write the
methods section clearly and completely.
A minimal advance in knowledge is one basis for desk rejection.
Low significance of a paper is another. To avoid these bases for desk
rejection, describe the problem your paper addresses with clear
statistics and arguments supported by position statements or prio-
rities from authoritative bodies and recent literature. Identify the gap
in the literature that your study addresses, and how filling that gap
will advance practice and science. State any and all innovations in
your work (aims, theoretical model, sample, design, measures,
methods, analyses) and how they will advance knowledge.
The last reason for desk rejection involves my personal judgment.
Some papers have what I consider to be an inappropriate or unethical
focus. An example is a paper on nurse burnout that focuses on nur-
ses’ personality traits, with the implication that burnout is the result
of insufficient nurse resilience, rather than due principally to mod-
ifiable organizational factors. Other studies exploit nursing students
to study an extraneous question, like their attitudes towards kidney
donation, which would also be a bad idea because nursing students
would not be a relevant representative sample for this question.
Here again, better planning can result in greater success. Think about
how sound questions and methods can best advance science and
practice as you plan your study.
These tips for improving your paper's access to peer review mask my
secret motive. When authors address significance, knowledge advance,
sound methodology, and language, they will submit higher quality papers,
which should convert into a higher quantity of published papers in our
journal's pages. This is the editor's dream scenario.
In summary, to generate nursing knowledge from your research
effort: plan a study with clear significance and good methods, select a
journal carefully, and prepare a paper that avoids the pitfall of desk
rejection. Finally, give careful attention to the abstract! The abstract
is the emissary of your paper in the land of peer review.
ORCI D
Eileen T. Lake http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8823-3436
How to cite this article: Lake ET. Why and how to avoid a
desk‐rejection. Res Nurs Health. 2020;43:141–142.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22016