DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.189360.2 ISSN: 2046-1402

Editorial Discretion and Procedural Fairness: A Framework for Accountable Desk-Rejection Decisions

Mohamed Abdelsabour Fahmy
Show PDF Cite
Desk rejection is a legitimate and necessary exercise of editorial discretion, but concerns arise when irrelevant author characteristics, rather than manuscript-level criteria or documented integrity risks, determine outcomes. This Opinion article examines the possible problem of author-based desk rejection, using prolific research activity in computational science and engineering as an illustrative—not evidentiary—case. It proposes seven principles: reason-giving, consistency, conflict management, reviewability, correctability, auditability and insulation from inappropriate metric pressure. The revised analysis emphasizes that these principles largely overlap with existing editorial standards; a new framework cannot by itself reveal concealed motives, eliminate good-faith disagreement among editors or guarantee compliance. Appeals and audits should be targeted, proportionate and adapted to journal governance, resources and disciplinary context, without creating an entitlement to peer review. Evidence on the prevalence of author-based desk rejection and the incremental effectiveness of formal safeguards remains insufficient. Finally, citation-driven pressures are shaped substantially by universities, funders and academic evaluation systems as well as publishers; this structural issue extends beyond the desk-rejection framework. The article presents a research and governance agenda for testing feasible safeguards while protecting editorial independence.

More from our Archive