Why Desk Rejections Happen So Fast Desk rejection is an editorial screening decision. It happens before peer review. Editors ask one core question first:Can this manuscript be reviewed efficiently and ethically? Journal guidelines act as a risk filter. They signal whether authors can follow instructions, respect standards, and reduce editorial burden. Multiple editorial studies confirm … Read more
Academic publishing is competitive. Researchers feel pressure to produce frequent outputs to secure promotions, funding, and prestige. This pressure often drives a risky shortcut known as salami-slicing—splitting one meaningful study into several “minimum publishable units.” It may appear productive, but journals increasingly see it as redundant publication and questionable ethics. The consequences are far greater … Read more
Many researchers assume public secondary datasets are automatically “safe” because they did not collect the data themselves. Journal reviewers, ethics boards, and leading publishers now disagree. Ethical blind spots in secondary data use increasingly trigger desk rejections, major revision demands, compliance investigations, and reputational damage. This guide explains the most overlooked ethical risks, why they … Read more
A DOI is not impact. Publishing a paper does not ensure it reaches policymakers, practitioners, industry leaders, or affected communities. Without intentional dissemination, research becomes static—discoverable to a tiny group of academics and invisible to the people who need it most. The global research ecosystem now produces over 2.5 million papers annually, yet evidence use … Read more
Most rejected manuscripts fail not because the study is “weak,” but because the claims are not licensed by the paradigm the author claims to use. Reviewers today are trained to identify mismatch between a researcher’s worldview and their methodological choices. A research paradigm combines four elements: If these elements do not logically align, your findings … Read more
Many researchers still treat Journal Impact Factor (IF) as the ultimate indicator of journal quality. However, relying solely on this metric leads to misinformed decisions, wasted submission cycles, and a disconnect between research goals and journal expectations. Modern publishing ecosystems demand a more strategic and evidence-driven evaluation method. This article explains why IF is no … Read more
In quantitative research, justifying sample size is a fundamental requirement. Yet, one of the most misused tools in this process is G*Power — a free and powerful program that helps estimate sample sizes based on power analysis.While G*Power is valuable, it’s often misapplied or overly relied upon, leading to flawed research designs, underpowered studies, and … Read more
