# Desk Rejection Decisions – Do Co-Editors-In-Chief of This Journal Agree?

## TL;DR

This study examines how much agreement exists among editors when deciding to reject manuscripts before peer review and finds that seeking second opinions improves consistency.

## Contribution

The study introduces a process of seeking second opinions to improve agreement and reduce inconsistency in pre-screen manuscript decisions.

## Key findings

- Only 43% agreement was observed among editors in initial pre-screen decisions.
- Agreement increased to 67% after editors considered each other's opinions.
- Disagreements were mainly due to subjective criteria like novelty and originality.

## Abstract

Given the growing demand for peer reviews, many public health journals face increasing reluctance from scientists to act as reviewers. The decisions made by pre-screening editors about whether to desk reject a submitted manuscript or initiate peer review are therefore of the utmost importance. The lower the specificity of this decision, the higher the post-peer-review rejection rate, increasing the “rejection cascade” of repeated submissions and peer review cycles. We conducted a two-stage comparison to understand the agreement of pre-screen decisions among the three Co-Editors-in-Chief of the International Journal of Public Health (IJPH), an independent journal of the Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+).

In total, the three Co-editors in chief made pre-screen decisions independently (stage 1) and then again after considering others’ views (stage 2).

Full Stage 1 agreement was observed for only 43% of the 30 manuscripts considered. Taking second opinions into account resulted in 67% agreement at stage 2. The main drivers of disagreement were the “soft” criteria that guide the pre-screen decisions, such as “novelty” and “originality”. Stage 1 pre-screen rejection rates of 47%, 80% and 60% for the three editors increased to 57%, 83% and 67% respectively at stage 2.

Based on these findings, IJPH editors will add a “second opinion” for manuscripts they are considering for peer review.