A desk rejection is not the end of a paper’s journey. For most researchers, the immediate reaction is to find the next journal and resubmit as quickly as possible. The problem is that resubmitting without first diagnosing why the paper was rejected is how the same outcome gets repeated at journal after journal.

This guide covers two things: how to read a desk rejection letter and identify what type of rejection it is, and five mistakes researchers commonly make in the hours and days that follow.

Reading the Rejection Letter: Three Types of Desk Rejection

Before deciding what to do next, identify which type of desk rejection you received. Each type calls for a different response.

Type A: Scope Mismatch

Signal phrases:

“Your manuscript does not fall within the scope of our journal.”

“This work would be better suited to a more specialist journal.”

“The aims of this manuscript do not align with the current priorities of [Journal].”

What this means: The paper itself may be sound. The editor believes it belongs in a different publication venue. This type of rejection typically requires a change of journal rather than substantive revision of the manuscript.

Type B: Quality or Presentation Problem

Signal phrases:

“The manuscript does not meet the standards required for publication in [Journal].”

“The study design is not sufficiently robust for our journal.”

“The manuscript requires substantial revision before it can be considered for publication.”

“The English language requires significant editing.”

What this means: The manuscript has problems that would lead to the same outcome at the next journal. Resubmitting without addressing these issues is a reliable way to collect more rejections.

Type C: Competition or Priority

Signal phrases:

“We receive far more manuscripts than we can publish, and this submission does not represent a sufficient advance for our journal at this time.”

“While the work is interesting, we do not feel it rises to the level required for [Journal].”

What this means: An ambiguous signal. It may mean the paper is scientifically sound but not exceptional enough for this journal’s tier, or it may mean the novelty argument in the abstract or cover letter was not strong enough. Better framing is often what is needed, not structural revision.

A note on overlap: When a rejection letter mentions scope and then adds a comment about language, methodology, or study design, the actual reason is likely Type B. Editors sometimes lead with scope as a softer framing. If any quality-related language appears in the letter, treat the rejection as Type B before treating it as Type A.

Five Mistakes After a Desk Rejection

1. Not Reading the Rest of the Rejection Letter

Most researchers read the first sentence of a rejection email and close it. The opening (“we regret to inform you”) is the same across every journal, and the instinct to close the email is understandable. The problem is that the remaining sentences are often the only feedback the journal will provide. Missing them means losing the only information available for diagnosing what went wrong.

What to do instead: Read the entire letter. Copy every sentence that refers to the manuscript’s content, design, or language into a separate document. Use those sentences to identify which of the three types above applies.

2. Treating Every Desk Rejection as a Scope Problem

Scope is the most common framing for a desk rejection letter. It is also, sometimes, a polite way to decline a paper that has quality problems. Researchers who interpret every mention of scope as a signal that the paper is fine but the journal was not the right fit end up resubmitting an unchanged manuscript and receiving the same result.

What to do instead: If the letter mentions only scope, with no reference to study design, language, or methodology, a scope-only interpretation is reasonable. If any quality language appears alongside scope, treat it as Type B and revise before resubmitting.

3. Resubmitting the Unchanged Manuscript to a Lower-Tier Journal

Submitting to a lower-ranked journal is a reasonable strategy when the rejection reflects a tier mismatch rather than quality issues. It does not work when the problem is the manuscript itself. A paper rejected for weak methodology at a high-impact journal will face the same editorial response at a mid-tier journal. The rejection will simply take longer to arrive.

What to do instead: Confirm the rejection type before deciding whether to revise. If the rejection is Type A or Type C with no quality indicators, resubmitting with minor adjustments may be appropriate. If the rejection is Type B, complete the revision first, regardless of where you plan to submit next.

4. Emailing the Editor to Ask for Reasons or to Appeal

Desk rejections are almost never reversed. Editors process large submission volumes and typically cannot provide detailed explanations for decisions made before peer review. An appeal email rarely produces useful information and occasionally creates a negative impression that carries into future submissions from the same research group.

What to do instead: Do not send an appeal. The one narrow exception is a verifiable administrative error: if the wrong version of the manuscript was submitted, or if the submission was clearly misdirected, a brief and factual note pointing out the specific error is reasonable. Everything else is not.

5. Resubmitting Without Rereading the Manuscript

The urgency to resubmit immediately after a rejection is understandable, but acting on it tends to produce worse outcomes. Even when the rejection is clearly Type A and the manuscript needs no substantive revision, submitting while the paper has not been reread is an opportunity missed. Rereading a manuscript after a period of distance is one of the most reliable ways to catch problems that were invisible during the original submission.

What to do instead: After completing the diagnostic step above, set the manuscript aside for at least two days before rereading it end to end. Use that reading to check whether the abstract, cover letter, and novelty argument are as clear as they can be for the next journal. Then submit.

Before You Resubmit: Checklist

  • Have you read the complete rejection letter, including every sentence after the opening?
  • Have you identified whether the rejection is Type A, B, or C?
  • If any quality language appears in the letter, have you addressed those issues before resubmitting?
  • Have you avoided sending an appeal email to the editor?
  • Have you waited at least two days and reread the full manuscript before submitting to the next journal?

A desk rejection that is read carefully can be more actionable than a peer review whose recommendations go unaddressed. The five mistakes above are not about the quality of the science. They are about how quickly researchers move from receiving a rejection to submitting elsewhere, and what they skip in between.

ScholarMemory provides professional academic manuscript editing for researchers submitting to international journals. If you would like a review of your manuscript or cover letter before resubmission, send it to contact@scholarmemory.com. I will provide a free sample edit so you can assess whether the revision is sufficient before submitting to the next journal.