Professional Handling of Rejected Manuscripts

Base Decisions Solely on Merit: The decision to reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's stated scope and remit.

Clearly State Reasons for Rejection: Be transparent about the reasons for rejection. Common reasons for pre-peer review rejection listed in the sources include the manuscript being out of scope, poor quality or flawed methodology, misleading or dangerous conclusions, biased referencing, and violations of editorial or ethical policies. Rejecting based solely on arbitrary criteria such as an author's h-index, country, flagged hospital affiliation, or prior issues (unless the manuscript content or background warrants it) is discouraged.

Provide Constructive Feedback: While rejection is necessary for many submissions, the process should still be handled professionally. Ensure that authors receive feedback, which typically includes the reviewers' comments. If reviewer comments are non-constructive, hostile, or unprofessional, the handling editor can use the decision letter to advise the author on how to respond or express their own opinion about the paper.

Distinguish Types of Rejection and Address Resubmission Policies:

Journals should clearly state their policies regarding resubmission.
Manuscripts rejected during pre-check for minor issues may be resubmitted once fixed.
Papers withdrawn or rejected due to non-scientific issues (such as plagiarism or authorship problems) may be resubmitted once these issues have been resolved.
Journals may issue a "Reject and encourage resubmission" decision, indicating that a revised version would be considered.
Resubmission to the same journal after a "Reject and decline resubmission" decision is generally not allowed unless the title, authorship, and content are significantly revised. This process must involve the original editor.
When a resubmission is received, editors should verify the changes made, re-check authorship, and ensure plagiarism concerns are addressed. The original handling editor should ideally be reassigned.
For resubmissions that go back to review, consider re-inviting reviewers who provided constructive feedback. Do not re-invite reviewers who opted out, gave unclear/invalid feedback, or used inappropriate language.

Handle Ethical Concerns Promptly and Appropriately:

As an editor, you have a responsibility to pursue cases of suspected misconduct, even in submissions you have not, and do not, intend to publish.
Journals must have procedures in place to address allegations of misconduct. This might involve consulting with other editors, the publisher, or using resources like COPE flowcharts.
Be aware that cases of suspected misconduct could lead to complex situations, such as questions about whether to reject solely on scientific grounds or also ethical grounds, or whether to inform the author's institution.
COPE's policy generally does not encourage banning authors due to litigation risks. A notice of concern or notice of duplication might be appropriate if issues like data reuse or dual publication are confirmed.
If an editor provides a review themselves for a manuscript they are handling, even if it leads to rejection, this should be done transparently and not anonymously.

Establish a Clear Appeal Process: Have published procedures for authors to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals against a "Reject and decline resubmission" decision should follow a defined process, often involving an Appeal Form where the author addresses specific issues with supporting data. Appeals are typically reviewed by the academic editor involved in the initial decision or another senior board member, with senior editors making the final determination. Appeals must be made within a specified timeframe, such as within 3 months.

Maintain Professional Communication: Throughout the process, communicate politely, fairly, but firmly. Avoid disclosing internal journal targets or criteria used to rate reviews. For a new journal, focusing on consistent output with high quality is important, rather than linking decisions to internal targets.

By implementing clear policies and procedures for handling rejections, focusing on quality and ethical conduct, and maintaining professional communication, a small new academic journal can build trust and a strong reputation in the scholarly community.