10 tips for getting past desk screening and out to reviewers

Guerin, Cally

doi:10.1075/jerpp.00019.gue

Article In:

Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes
Vol. 5:1 (2024) ► pp.30–39

10 tips for getting past desk screening and out to reviewers

Cally Guerin | Australian National University

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
Author queries
References

This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.

References (22)

References

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. 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, 57 1, 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, 5 1, 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, 57 1, 100752.

Thomson, P., & Kamler, B. (2016). Detox your writing: Strategies for doctoral researchers. Routledge.

Yan, D. (2023). Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: An exploratory investigation. Education and Information Technologies, 28 1, 13943–13967.