Scholarly manuscript assessment: Scientific journal editor desk evaluation
Main Article Content
Abstract
Rejection of submitted articles during the editorial review process can be discouraging for authors.
This study investigates the factors affecting manuscript acceptance and rejection by journal editors
and proposes targeted training to enhance acceptance rates at the editorial review stage. Data were
collected through online questionnaires from 42 international journal editors, interviews with five
editors, and focus group discussions with graduate students. The findings reveal that editors
consider six key criteria when deciding whether to accept manuscripts for peer review: originality,
uniqueness, scope, appropriateness, relevance, and significance. Commonly rejected sections include
the abstract, methods, and results. Insights from editor interviews and focus groups with early-career
researchers shed light on the reasons for manuscript rejection and highlight specific sections
with higher rejection rates. The study recommends that new researchers undertake courses in
scientific writing to better understand editors' evaluation criteria and improve their chances of
acceptance.
Downloads
Article Details
It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to the journal have not been published, accepted for publication, nor simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere. By submitting a manuscript, the author(s) agree that copyright for the article is transferred to the publisher, if and when the manuscript is accepted for publication.
References
Aitchison, C. (2009). Writing groups for doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(8), 905–916. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902785580.
Alam, S., & Wilson, L. (2023). Perspectives from a publishing ethics and research integrity team for required improvements. Journal of Data and Information Science, 8(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2478/JDIS-2023-0018.
Alvesson, M. (2003). Methodology for close-up studies - Struggling with closeness and closure. Higher Education, 46(2), 167–193. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024716513774.
Argilés-Bosch, J. M., Garcia-Blandon, J., & Ravenda, D. (2023). A critical approach to the evaluation of the quality of accounting research in the Spanish university system and its implications. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.6018/rcsar.439921.
Attia, M., & Edge, J. (2017). Be(com)ing a reflexive researcher: a developmental approach to research methodology. Open Review of Educational Research, 4(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2017.1300068.
Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing Writing, 57, 100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASW.2023.100745.
Biagioli, M., Kenney, M., Martin, B. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2019). Academic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming: A reassessment. Research Policy, 48(2), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.025.
Björk, B. C., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 914–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001.
Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Boscolo, P., Arfé, B., & Quarisa, M. (2007). Improving the quality of students’ academic writing: an intervention study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701476092.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023). Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com) becoming a knowing researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health, 24(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597.
Burkhardt, H. (2013). Methodological issues in research and development. Proficiency and Beliefs in Learning and Teaching Mathematics, 203–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-299-0_13.
Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032009003.
Clarke, E., & Visser, J. (2019). Pragmatic research methodology in education: possibilities and pitfalls. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 42(5), 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2018.1524866.
Corneille, O., Havemann, J., Henderson, E. L., Ijzerman, H., Hussey, I., De Xivry, J. J. O., Jussim, L., Holmes, N. P., Pilacinski, A., Beffara, B., Carroll, H., Outa, N. O., Lush, P., & Lotter, L. D. (2023). Point of view: Beware ‘persuasive communication devices’ when writing and reading scientific articles. ELife, 12. https://doi.org/10.7554/ELIFE.88654.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, D. J. (2017). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Foster, C. (2024). Methodological pragmatism in educational research: from qualitative-quantitative to exploratory-confirmatory distinctions. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 47(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2023.2210063.
Haleem, A., Javaid, M., & Singh, R. P. (2022). An era of ChatGPT as a significant futuristic support tool: A study on features, abilities, and challenges. BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations, 2(4), 100089. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TBENCH.2023.100089.
Hartley, J. (2008). Academic Writing and Publishing: A Practical Handbook. New York: Routledge.
Hosseini, M., Rasmussen, L. M., & Resnik, D. B. (2023). Using AI to write scholarly publications. Accountability in Research, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2168535.
Jusslin, S., & Widlund, A. (2021). Academic writing workshop-ing to support students writing bachelor’s and master’s theses: a more-than-human approach. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(1), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1973409.
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LINDIF.2023.102274.
Kondaveeti, H. K., Kumaravelu, N. K., Vanambathina, S. D., Mathe, S. E., & Vappangi, S. (2021). A systematic literature review on prototyping with Arduino: Applications, challenges, advantages, and limitations. Computer Science Review, 40, 100364. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSREV.2021.100364.
Lindgreen, A., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2021). How authors really frame a top manuscript. Industrial Marketing Management, 94, A11–A17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.04.004.
Lindgren, B. M., Lundman, B., & Graneheim, U. H. (2020). Abstraction and interpretation during the qualitative content analysis process. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 108, 103632. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJNURSTU.2020.103632.
Malik, A. R., Pratiwi, Y., Andajani, K., Numertayasa, I. W., Suharti, S., Darwis, A., & Marzuki. (2023). Exploring Artificial Intelligence in Academic Essay: Higher Education Student’s Perspective. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 5, 100296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100296.
Mallett, R., Hagen-Zanker, J., Slater, R., & Duvendack, M. (2012). The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4(3), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2012.711342.
Martin, B. R. (2016). Editors’ JIF-boosting stratagems - Which are appropriate and which are not? Research Policy, 45(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.001.
Merga, M. K., Mason, S., & Morris, J. E. (2020). ‘What do I even call this?’ Challenges and possibilities of undertaking a thesis by publication. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(9), 1245–1261. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1671964.
Mulyono, H., Suryoputro, G., & Jamil, S. R. (2021). The application of WhatsApp to support online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Heliyon, 7(8). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07853.
Nazim, M., & Ali, A. (2023). Open Access Publishing and its Academic, Economic, and Societal Impact: An Indian Perspective. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 43(1). https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.43.01.18621.
Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. London: Routledge.
Parmaxi, A. (2023). Virtual reality in language learning: a systematic review and implications for research and practice. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(1), 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1765392.
Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021). Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12695.
Regan, Á. (2021). Exploring the readiness of publicly funded researchers to practice responsible research and innovation in digital agriculture. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 8(1), 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.1904755.
Rezaei, S., & Naghibian, M. (2018). Developing intercultural communicative competence through short stories: A qualitative inquiry. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(2), 77–96. http://ijltr.urmia.ac.ir.
Ridley, D. (2012). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Saragih, E., Zein, T. T., & Sumbayak, D. M. (2023). Contextualizing corrective feedback in scientific writing through online learning platforms. Studies in English Language and Education, 10(3), 1216-1235. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i3.25867.
Saragih, E., & Yannuar, N. (2024). Review of the book Teaching Communication, Skills, and Competencies for the International Workplace: A Resource for Teachers of English, by J. Gimenez]. System, 123, 103298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103298.
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Adler, N., Aharon-Peretz, J., Perry, D., & Mayseless, N. (2011). The origins of originality: The neural bases of creative thinking and originality. Neuropsychologia, 49(2), 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/ J.NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.2010.11.020.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2009). Abstracts and the Writing of Abstracts. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Toroser, D., Carlson, J., Robinson, M., Gegner, J., Girard, V., Smette, L., Nilsen, J., & O’Kelly, J. (2017). Factors impacting time to acceptance and publication for peer-reviewed publications. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 33(7), 1183–1189. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2016.1271778.
Tort, A. B. L., Targino, Z. H., & Amaral, O. B. (2012). Rising publication delays inflate Journal Impact Factors. PLoS ONE, 7(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0053374.
Wilhite, A., Fong, E. A., & Wilhite, S. (2019). The influence of editorial decisions and the academic network on self-citations and journal impact factors. Research Policy, 48(6), 1513–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.003.
Wischgoll, A. (2017). Improving undergraduates’ and postgraduates’ academic writing skills with strategy training and feedback. Frontiers in Education, 2, 33. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2017.00033.
Wu, Y., Zhang, Z., Kou, G., Zhang, H., Chao, X., Li, C. C., Dong, Y., & Herrera, F. (2021). Distributed linguistic representations in decision making: Taxonomy, key elements and applications, and challenges in data science and explainable artificial intelligence. Information Fusion, 65, 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INFFUS.2020.08.018.
Xu, H., Ding, Y., Zhang, C., & Tan, B. C. Y. (2023). Too official to be effective: An empirical examination of unofficial information channel and continued use of retracted articles. Research Policy, 52(7), 104815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104815.
Zou, D., Luo, S., Xie, H., & Hwang, G. J. (2022). A systematic review of research on flipped language classrooms: theoretical foundations, learning activities, tools, research topics and findings. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(8), 1811–1837. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1839502.