Article published In: Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes
Vol. 5:1/2 (2024) ► pp.83–92
Perspective
10 tips for getting past desk screening and out to reviewers
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Australian National University.
Published online: 17 January 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.00019.gue
https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.00019.gue
Abstract
Recently I took on the role of executive editor of a journal, after contributing as a reviewer and associate
editor for many years. As I’ve gradually come to see more and more of the “back end” of academic journals, it becomes clear that
authors are often unaware of how decisions are made regarding their submissions. This piece is thus written from the perspective
of an editor assessing submissions and making decisions on what to send out to review, and what to return to authors as unsuitable
for the particular journal (that is, desk rejecting). So, rather than writing about research into publication, this
Perspective piece comes from my own insider perspective as an academic journal editor. It’s conversational
rather than strictly academic.
My perspective on research publication is informed from multiple directions. I have a professional background in
teaching English for Academic Purposes to culturally and linguistically diverse international students and as an editor for
academic texts. These days I’m a researcher developer in an Australian university where I teach PhD candidates about research
writing; I review for academic journals; I edit an academic journal; I write about my own research – and I receive peer review
that is not always flattering! I’m a monolingual Anglo-Australian woman, with all of the baggage and privilege that entails.
Keywords: review processes, desk reject, editor perspective, research writing
Article outline
- 1.Why become a journal editor?
- 2.What are the troublesome issues at the point of receiving submissions?
- 3.Avoiding the desk reject
- 3.1Nothing new to add
- 3.2Unclear key message
- 3.3Unhelpful literature review
- 3.4Citing yourself too much
- 3.5Limited use of theory
- 3.6Out-of-date data
- 3.7Inappropriate research methods
- 3.8Minimal implications and significance
- 3.9Writing style that is hard to follow
- 3.9.1Titles and abstracts
- 3.9.2Feedback from readers
- 3.10Wrong journal
References
References (22)
Aitchison, C., & Guerin, C. (2014). Writing
groups, theory, pedagogy and practice: An introduction. In C. Aitchison & C. Guerin (Eds.), Writing
groups for doctoral education and beyond: Innovations in practice and
theory (pp. 4–17). Routledge.
Allen, K., Reardon, J., Lu, Y., Smith, D. V., Rainsford, E., & Walsh, L. (2022). Towards
improving peer review: Crowd-sourced insights from Twitter. Journal of University Teaching
& Learning Practice, 19(3). [URL].
Barbour, V. (2019). The
future of academic publishing: Disruption, opportunity and a new ecosystem. Medical Journal of
Australia, 211 (4), 151–152.e1.
Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using
ChatGPT for second language writing: Pitfalls and potentials. Assessing
Writing, 571, 100745.
Besnier, N. (2019). From
the editor: What I have learnt in the last four years. American Ethnologist: Journal of the
American Ethnological
Society, 46(4), 381–386.
Bessarab, D., & Ng’andu, B. (2010). Yarning
about yarning as a legitimate method in Indigenous research. International Journal of Critical
Indigenous
Studies, 3(1), 37–50.
Borrego, Á. (2023). Article
processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review. Learned
Publishing, 36(3), 359–378.
Cargill, M. (2006). Developing
skills for publishing research articles
internationally. In Proceedings of the second ESL teaching and
research international seminar, September
2004 (pp. 1–16). Northwestern Polytechnical University Press Xi’An, PR China.
Cargill, M., & O’Connor, P. (2021). Writing
scientific research articles: Strategy and steps (2nd ed). John Wiley & Sons.
Deem, R., & Brehony, K. J. (2005). Management
as ideology: The case of ‘new managerialism’ in higher education. Oxford Review of
Education, 31(2), 217–235.
Gagnon, J. (2021). Innovation
without limits: Imagining a possible inclusive future for researchers. Keynote for
Researcher Education and Development Scholarship (REDS)
Conference: Online 14th October.
Greussing, E., Kuballa, S., Taddicken, M., Schulze, M., Mielke, C., & Haux, R. (2020). Drivers
and obstacles of open access publishing. A qualitative investigation of individual and institutional
factors. Frontiers in
Communication, 51, 587465. [URL].
Heard, S. B., Cull, C. A., & White, E. R. (2023). If
this title is funny, will you cite me? Citation impacts of humour and other features of article titles in ecology and
evolution. FACETS, 8(1), 1–15.
Kuteeva, M. (2023). Knowledge
flows and languages of publication: English as a bridge and a fence in international knowledge
exchanges. Journal of English for Research Publication
Purposes, 4(1), 80–93.
Leahy, R. (1992). Twenty
titles for the writer. College Composition and
Communication 43(4), 516–519. [URL]
Marginson, S. (2016). High
participation systems of higher education. The Journal of Higher
Education, 87(2), 243–271.
Misra, D. P., & Chandwar, K. (2023). ChatGPT,
artificial intelligence and scientific writing: What authors, peer reviewers and editors should
know. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of
Edinburgh, 53(2), 90–93.
OECD. (2021). Reducing the
precarity of academic research careers. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy
Papers, No. 113, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Panda, P. K. (2022, 4 June). Academic
publishing: Don’t let the number crunchers win. University World News. [URL]
Su, Y., Lin, Y., & Lai, C. (2023). Collaborating
with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assessing
Writing, 571, 100752.