Desk rejection is an editor's decision to decline a manuscript before it reaches external peer reviewers. The editor checks scope fit, article type, reporting guideline match, ethics and consent statements, similarity screening results, completeness, language clarity and basic formatting. Each check can be run by the author first, so a problem is found while it can still be fixed.
Reviewers give their time to assess the science. An editor's first task is to decide whether a manuscript is ready for that assessment at this journal. The screen asks a narrower question than peer review does: can this paper be reviewed here, and is anything missing that no reviewer could supply?
This guide covers the stage before you press send. If a decision has already arrived, read what to do after a rejection letter instead.
The desk rejection self-check: what editors screen and how to fix it
The table below lists each screen, the evidence an editor looks for, and the repair an author can make before submitting. Copy it and tick each row against the target journal's author guidelines.
| Check | What the editor looks for | How to fix before submitting |
|---|---|---|
| Scope fit | A topic and readership that match the journal's stated aims and scope | Read the aims and scope and recent issues; name the fit in one sentence of your cover letter, or choose another journal |
| Article type | A manuscript that matches one of the journal's listed article types, including its word limit and structure | Pick the type that describes your design; trim or restructure to its limits and headings |
| Reporting guideline match | A report whose content matches the checklist for the design actually used | Find the checklist on EQUATOR; confirm each item appears in the text; complete the checklist if the journal asks for it |
| Ethics approval | A statement naming the approving committee, reference number and date, or a documented waiver | Copy the details from the approval letter itself; never paraphrase a waiver as an approval |
| Consent | Participant consent for the study, or a committee waiver of it, and, for a case report or any identifiable patient, written consent for publication | State which consent was obtained, by whom and in what form; keep the signed form ready if the journal asks for it |
| Trial registration | For a clinical trial, a registry name, number and a registration date at or before the first participant consented to enrolment | Quote the number in the abstract and methods; check the date against enrolment |
| Similarity screening | Long matched passages, unattributed text and overlap with your own earlier work | Quote and cite borrowed wording; rewrite recycled text; disclose any preprint, thesis or conference abstract |
| Completeness | Every required file and declaration present: title page, figures, tables, funding, conflicts, data availability | Work through the journal's file list; check every figure and table cited in the text is attached |
| Anonymisation | For double-blind review, no author names or institutions in the reviewed file | Move identifying details to the title page; check file properties and acknowledgements |
| Language clarity | Text a reviewer can follow without guessing what was done or found | Ask a colleague outside the project to read the abstract and methods; fix every sentence they stumble on |
| Formatting basics | Numbered pages, a consistent reference style, legible figures and the requested file format | Apply the journal's style once, then check references and figure numbering end to end |
| Cover letter | A letter addressed to this journal that says what the study adds and confirms no parallel submission | Rewrite the letter for each journal; remove any wording left from a previous submission |
Scope and article type decide whether reviewers exist for the paper
Scope fit is the match between your topic and the journal's stated aims and readership. An editor screens it first because the answer decides whether suitable reviewers can be found at all. A strong surgical study sent to a journal for laboratory scientists fails this screen on fit, not on quality.
Article type is a separate check. Journals publish a fixed list of types, each with its own structure and length. A case series presented as an original research article, or a narrative review labelled systematic, tells the editor the design and the label disagree. The fix is to describe the design you used, then choose the type that fits it. Our guide to matching a journal's scope and audience covers the fit check in more depth.
A reporting guideline match shows the design can be assessed
A reporting guideline is a checklist of what a report of a given study design should contain. It governs reporting, not the design itself. CONSORT covers randomised trials, STROBE observational studies, PRISMA systematic reviews and CARE case reports. The EQUATOR Network lists them and links each to its current version.
An editor uses the match as a quick test of completeness. If a cohort study has no description of how participants were selected, reviewers cannot judge bias. Our author guidelines ask authors to match the manuscript to the relevant EQUATOR checklist. Choose the checklist for the design you actually ran, not the most rigorous-sounding one, then confirm each item is present in the text.
Ethics, consent and registration cannot be added afterwards
A failed row about wording or files can be repaired by editing. Ethics approval, consent and trial registration are different, because each records a step that had to happen at the time of the study. Consent is not one document: consent to treatment, consent to take part in a study and consent for publication are separate, and a journal asks about the last two.
- Ethics approval. Report the committee, reference number and date. A retrospective study of existing records still needs approval or a documented waiver.
- Consent for publication. A case report needs written consent from the patient, or from next of kin or a legal representative. Removing the name alone does not make a patient unidentifiable.
- Trial registration. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) expects a clinical trial to be registered at or before the time the first participant consents to enrolment.
If one of these is missing, do not word around the gap. State plainly what exists, and ask the ethics committee what can still be done. The submission checklist of documents that must already exist sorts these items from the ones you can produce now.
Similarity screening is read as matched passages, not a score
Similarity screening compares a submission with published and web text and reports the passages that match. Directive Publications runs similarity screening on submissions. An editor reading the report looks at where matches sit, how long they are and whether they are attributed.
The fix is attribution or rewriting, never synonym swapping. Quote and cite wording you borrowed. Rewrite text recycled from your own earlier paper, and cite that paper. Disclose a preprint or thesis in the cover letter so an expected match is explained before the editor sees it. For reading a report line by line, see how a similarity report is read.
Completeness, clarity and formatting show the paper is ready
These checks are smaller, but they carry a signal. A figure cited in the text but not attached, or a missing funding statement, tells the editor the package was not finished. A reviewer asked to assess an incomplete file will return questions instead of a review.
Language clarity is judged on meaning, not accent. Reviewers need to follow what was done, to whom, and what was found. Short sentences and defined abbreviations help more than polished vocabulary. Formatting basics work the same way: page numbers, one reference style and legible figures let the editor read quickly.
Anonymisation belongs here too. Directive uses double-blind peer review, so the reviewed file should not name the authors or their institutions. Check the running header, acknowledgements, file properties and self-citations written in the first person.
Run the desk-check in the order that protects your time
Work from the checks that need a decision to those that need an edit. That way a missing approval is found before you spend a day on reference formatting.
- Confirm ethics approval, consent and, for a trial, registration exist, with numbers and dates.
- Confirm the journal's scope and article types fit the design you used.
- Match the manuscript to its reporting checklist and fill any gaps in the text.
- Resolve borrowed or recycled text and list anything already public.
- Assemble every required file and declaration, then anonymise the reviewed file.
- Read for clarity, apply the journal's formatting, and write a cover letter for this journal.
Passing every row does not promise review. At Directive, the handling editor decides what happens to a manuscript, and fit is a judgement as well as a checklist. What the self-check removes is the avoidable rejection: the one caused by a missing file or a mismatched label rather than by the science.
If a desk rejection still arrives
Read the letter for the check that failed. If it states something untrue, such as calling a statement missing when it is in the file, the grounds that support an appeal explain how to reply. Otherwise, fix the failed row and choose the next journal deliberately. If you spot an error in this guide, please report a problem to us.