How to develop a good research article

Editorial: How to Develop a Quality Research Article and Avoid a Journal Desk Rejection

ARTICLE INFO

• Keywords:

  • Desk rejection

  • Publishing

  • Article submission

  • Journal review

ABSTRACT

• Desk rejection is a frustrating process for researchers but is crucial for Editors in selecting appropriate articles for further review.

• Many academics misunderstand the journal assessment process and acceptance criteria.

• Insights are provided from nine leading journal Editors on desk rejection reasons, guiding researchers on aligning submissions with journal requirements to enhance their chances of acceptance.

• The editorial summarizes key findings from the Editor perspectives, contributing valuable insights for academics and industry researchers.

1. Introduction

• Desk rejection is defined as concluding that a submitted article does not meet the journal's aims, scope, or quality standards.

• This process is typically performed by the journal Editor or specialist sub-Editors.

• Desk rejection can be painful for authors, especially if they had high expectations for their submissions.

• Editors face disappointment themselves, as a significant number of submissions fail to align with journal quality and relevance.

• Notably, there's an influx of weaker submissions from countries like India, Brazil, and China leading to high desk rejection rates.

• The review process requires extensive reviewer resources, hence Editors prefer to desk reject unworthy submissions early to save time.

• Existing literature indicates a lack of research on desk rejection, suggesting rejection rates of 20-50% based on poor alignment with journal requirements and insufficient research contribution.

2. Editors’ Perspectives

• Insights from nine Editors highlight the common reasons for desk rejection across various journals, providing recommendations to avoid these pitfalls.

2.1. Professor Christy M K Cheung [Editor-in-Chief of Internet Research]

Main Reasons for Desk Rejection

• Mismatch with journal aims and scope:

  • Ensure submissions align with the focus on theoretical insights regarding social, ethical, and political implications rather than just technical issues.

• Lack of novelty and significance:

  • Submissions must advance theories and demonstrate unique contributions.

• Poor preparation:

  • Important questions include reading clarity, formatting according to guidelines, and adherence to ethical standards.

Recommendations to Authors

• Thoroughly read the journal's aims.

• Communicate novelty in cover letters and structured abstracts.

• Follow preparation and presentation guidelines rigorously.

2.2. Professor Kieran Conboy [Co-Editor-in-Chief of European Journal of Information Systems]

Key Insights

• Tell a single cohesive story:

  • Ensure that all sections of the manuscript logically connect and support a unified narrative.

• Target your audience:

  • Understand the journal's "tribe" and tailor the contribution accordingly.

• Aim for revolutionary insights:

  • While diverse studies are valuable, strive for significant contributions beyond incremental improvements.

2.3. Professor Yanqing Duan [Associate Editor of International Journal of Information Management]

Reasons for Desk Rejection

• Out of scope:

  • Ensure relevance to the targeted journal from the outset.

• Insufficient novelty:

  • Identify clear research gaps and substantiate novelty claims within theoretical advancements.

• Poor theoretical grounding:

  • Include relevant theories to enhance contributions.

• Lack of research rigour:

  • Maintain a high standard of research quality, including methodological soundness and data validity.

• Quality of writing:

  • Ensure clarity, coherence, and correctness in English.

2.4. Dr Rameshwar Dubey [Associate Editor of International Journal of Information Management]

Insights on Non-Empirical Research

• Distinction between acceptable categories of non-empirical research and the need for scientific rigour in empirical submissions.

• Rejects include articles lacking in conceptual clarity and those failing to address potential scientific errors.

2.5. Professor Yogesh K. Dwivedi [Editor-in-Chief of International Journal of Information Management]

Initial Screening Process

• Levels of desk screening:

  • Two-tier screening process to assess submissions, identifying duplicates or previously rejected submissions that lack originality.

2.6. Professor Marijn Janssen [Co-Editor-in-Chief of Government Information Quarterly]

Importance of Quality Assessment

• Emphasizes the need for a feasibility check to determine whether submissions have the potential for publication early in the review process.

• Avoid wasting reviewers' time on inadequate submissions.

2.7. Professor Paul Jones [Editor in Chief of International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research]

The 15-Minute Test

• Editors may take only 15 minutes to evaluate if a manuscript contains novel insights.

2.8. Professor Marianna Sigala [Editor-In-Chief of Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Management]

Desk Review Process

• Discusses the criteria for reputable submissions, focusing on theoretical contributions and methodological robustness.

2.9. Professor Giampaolo Viglia [Editor-in-Chief of Psychology & Marketing]

Core Assessment Criteria

• Poor readability, weak journal fit, and vagueness lead to desk rejection.

3. Discussions and Recommendations

• Commonly cited reasons for rejection include administrative issues, insufficient alignment with journal scope, and a lack of research contribution.

• Editors underscore the importance of addressing these issues before submission and following submission guidelines to avoid desk rejection.

• Emphasis is placed on producing manuscripts that present clear, substantial contributions relevant to contemporary research trends.

4. Concluding Remarks

• The editorial offers Editors' insights into desk rejection reasons and presents actionable recommendations for researchers to enhance their submissions.

• Close attention to the requirements and expectations of the target journal is crucial for successful publication.

References

• The editorial cites various studies reflecting on desk rejection rates and recommendations for quality submissions.