The usual hard failures
Over-length, resized columns, wrong fonts/spacing, unreadable figures—venues stop these before review. Chinese journals also reject missing pledges, missing bilingual abstracts, or the wrong Word/PDF package.
Under double-blind rules, names in the body, headers, acknowledgments, code links, or filenames are near-automatic rejects; first-person self-cites can count as leaks too.
- Format and length: compile with the official template—do not hand-edit the text block
- Anonymity: clean PDF, supplements, and filenames together
- Dual submission: substantially similar parallel archival submissions are usually forbidden
- Wrong venue: if readers do not match, editors need not send it out
Desk reject vs review reject
Desk rejects arrive fast and usually cite process or fit; review rejects argue contribution, experiments, and related work. Fix the checklist first, then decide whether to resubmit elsewhere or retell the story.
If the note says “out of scope,” do not only swap the cover—different readers often need a new first sentence and different baselines.
What to self-check before submit
Produce one PDF from the official template and walk the live CFP: length, anonymity, supplements, pledges. Download the portal preview immediately to catch missing pages or encoding issues.
If dual submission is unclear, withdraw first or follow the written CFP—do not rely on hallway lore.
FAQ
- Can I fix and resubmit after a desk reject?
- Many journals allow a format fix and resubmit; “out of scope” usually means change venue. After a conference deadline there is rarely a second window.
- No detailed reason from the editor?
- Self-check format, anonymity, and scope first. A polite ask for clarification is fine; arguing science at the desk rarely helps.