{"id":7008,"date":"2025-07-26T12:11:19","date_gmt":"2025-07-26T12:11:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/scholareditacademy.org\/?p=7008"},"modified":"2025-07-26T12:11:23","modified_gmt":"2025-07-26T12:11:23","slug":"rechazo-editorial-inmediato-articulo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/scholareditacademy.org\/en\/rechazo-editorial-inmediato-articulo\/","title":{"rendered":"How to avoid immediate editorial rejection: keys to passing the first review when submitting a scientific article"},"content":{"rendered":"

The immediate rejection of a scientific article is one of the most frustrating experiences for those starting on the path to scientific publication. Receiving an email with a brief notification stating that \u201cthe article has been rejected without peer review\u201d is not a pleasant experience. Known as desk rejection<\/em>this is sometimes perceived as an arbitrary decision, but in the vast majority of cases, it is based on clear criteria that can be avoided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From my experience as a scientific editor, there are three key dimensions reviewed at this initial stage: the ethical, technical, and content dimensions. Recognizing and addressing each of these can determine whether the process advances or is halted from the outset.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Editorial ethics: a non-negotiable condition<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first filter that every article submitted to a scientific journal undergoes is the ethical filter. Before assessing the relevance of the topic or the methodological quality, editors verify that the work complies with the principles of academic integrity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This involves verifying that there is no plagiarism or self-plagiarism, that the content does not include sensitive information without ethical approval, and that the images or figures used do not infringe copyright.\nKeep in mind that many journals utilize advanced software to detect these issues promptly. A growing trend is the increasing use of artificial intelligence to produce tex<\/a>. When a scientific article's language has rigid structures or lacks contextual flow, it can raise doubts that it was generated without enough human oversight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, all authors must be properly registered at the time of submission. Intentionally or unintentionally omitting a co-author<\/a>, or adding one later without a valid reason, can affect the transparency of the process. If the editor discovers that only one author submitted without including the others in the system metadata, the article is likely to be rejected on ethical grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Technical criteria: the art of respecting editorial standards<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once the ethical issue has been resolved, the next step is to ensure the article meets the journal's technical and formal requirements. Although this stage may seem purely administrative, it is one of the most common reasons for immediate rejection, even when the content is promising.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A common mistake is submitting the article to the wrong section. Many journals organize their content by subject area or type of contribution (original articles, reviews, short articles, etc.), and choosing the incorrect section damages the evaluation of the text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another common cause is the improper formatting of references. Although it may seem like a small detail, not adhering to the required citation style (APA, Vancouver, Chicago, among others) shows a lack of attention to basic standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The absence of key elements, such as the title, abstract, and keywords, in the additional language required is also frequently seen. For example, if the journal mainly publishes in Spanish or Portuguese, and the article is submitted in one of these languages, the title, abstract, and keywords are likely needed in well-written English. Skipping this step not only risks rejection but can also reduce the article's future visibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lack of anonymity in articles where double-blind review is required is another important factor. Including names, institutional affiliations, or references that reveal the author's identity is an apparent reason for rejection, as it compromises the unbiased review process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, some journals require additional documents during submission, such as statements of authorship, transfer of rights, or ethical certifications. If these files are not included, the submission is considered incomplete and is automatically rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Content and thematic relevance: knowing whether the article \u201cfits\u201d the journal<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The third dimension analyzed is the most academic of all: content. Here, the editor assesses whether the article is relevant to the journal's thematic focus and if its methodological and conceptual approach aligns with the standards it upholds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A common mistake is submitting work that is clearly outside the thematic scope. This happens, for example, when educational research is sent to a journal focused on bibliometrics or when a local case study is submitted to a publication with an international focus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is also common for authors to be unaware of specific methodological requirements. Some journals do not accept literature reviews, exploratory studies, or qualitative research; others, however, favor them. The problem occurs when authors \u201ctry their luck\u201d and hope that their approach will be accepted as an exception, which rarely happens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another important point is the quality of the abstract and references. Although many assume the editor will read the entire article before deciding, the reality is that the initial decision is often based on the abstract and the list of references. A poorly written, confusing, or overly technical abstract can cause the editor to reject the article without giving it a chance. The same applies when references are outdated, irrelevant, or not related to the field of study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When there is any doubt about the relevance of the article, it is perfectly valid and recommended to contact the journal with a preliminary query. This saves time and effort for both parties and shows the author's seriousness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First impressions count: the article is your cover letter<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A widely recognized principle in marketing states that \u201cthere is no second chance to make a good first impression.\u201d In the publishing world, this is an unavoidable truth. The article you submit to a journal is, in effect, your first introduction to the scientific community. It is not enough to have valuable content; it\u2019s essential that the content is well structured, follows the rules, and conveys professionalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using the templates that many journals provide is a great way to make sure you meet all important requirements. These templates not only show the format but also the section order, approximate length, and editorial details that help with evaluation. Likewise, carefully reviewing the instructions for authors before clicking \u201csubmit\u201d is not just bureaucratic but an important step to avoid immediate rejection by the editors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recommendations for authors<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n