نوع مقاله : دیدگاه
نویسنده
گروه مدیریت واقتصاد دانشکده علوم انسانی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس تهران ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Desk rejection has become a major bottleneck in the scientific publishing process, particularly in high-impact management and innovation journals. Although this stage determines whether a manuscript advances to peer review, many researchers—especially early-career scholars and non-native English speakers—remain uncertain about the implicit, multifaceted criteria editors use in making such decisions. Based on a systematic review of editorials, author guidelines, and empirical studies published in twelve leading journals, this article develops an evidence-based conceptual framework for explaining the principal causes of desk rejection. The findings indicate that initial rejection is shaped by six interrelated dimensions: strategic fit, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, rhetorical quality, procedural compliance, and expected impact. Among these, theoretical insufficiency, methodological weakness, and misalignment with journal scope and priorities emerge as the most influential determinants. Building on these insights, the article proposes a pre-submission self-assessment protocol composed of twelve diagnostic questions intended to help authors identify and address manuscript weaknesses before submission. By providing a practical and structured tool for manuscript evaluation, this study reframes academic writing as a strategic, iterative, and feedback-oriented process, thereby enhancing manuscript quality and increasing the likelihood of successful journal submission.
Keywords: Desk rejection, management and innovation journals, editorial decision-making, conceptual framework, pre-submission self-assessment
کلیدواژهها [English]
)