📽️ [Video] Editor's Desk Rejects

I have spent the past decade working on both sides of scientific publishing, as an author, reviewer, and journal editor. During that time, I have reviewed more than 450 scientific manuscripts and handled editorial decisions across several international journals. Sitting in the editor's chair fundamentally changed how I understand research publishing. Many assumptions researchers have about peer review, citations, journal decisions, and editorial behavior simply do not reflect what actually happens behind the scenes.

In this video, I share the lessons I wish someone had explained before I became an editor.

What I have learned from the editor's chair

Good editors protect science. Great editors shape it.

An editor's job extends far beyond accepting or rejecting papers. Editors select reviewers, interpret conflicting reviews, identify emerging research directions, balance journal priorities, and ultimately influence what knowledge enters the scientific record.

Every editorial decision affects future research.

Most editorial work is invisible

Authors usually see only three outcomes:

• Accept
• Revise
• Reject

What they never see are the hours spent:

• searching for qualified reviewers,
• evaluating contradictory recommendations,
• checking ethical concerns,
• assessing novelty,
• balancing journal priorities,
• deciding whether reviews are fair,
• and determining whether a manuscript deserves another chance.

The published decision letter represents only a tiny fraction of the editorial process.

Editors rarely reject papers because they dislike them

Contrary to popular belief, editors usually want manuscripts to succeed.

The difficulty is that editors must constantly ask:

Does this paper deserve the limited reviewing resources available?

With reviewer shortages increasing worldwide, sending the wrong manuscript for peer review wastes valuable time for everyone.

Editors read differently than authors write

Authors often expect editors to carefully appreciate every section.

That almost never happens.

During the first minutes an editor asks questions such as:

• What is genuinely new?
• Why should readers care?
• Does this fit the journal?
• Is the methodology credible?
• Can reviewers realistically evaluate this work?

If these questions are not answered quickly, the manuscript rarely proceeds further.

The editor manages uncertainty, not certainty

Editors almost never know whether a paper is objectively "correct."

Instead they evaluate risk.

Can the claims be trusted?

Are the methods transparent?

Will readers benefit?

Could publication damage the journal if the conclusions prove unreliable?

Editorial work is fundamentally an exercise in managing uncertainty.

Reviewer recommendations are advice, not votes

Many authors assume editors simply count reviewer recommendations.

They do not.

Editors frequently receive reports such as:

Reviewer A: Accept

Reviewer B: Major Revision

Reviewer C: Reject

The editor must interpret:

• reviewer expertise,
• quality of arguments,
• methodological validity,
• consistency,
• potential bias,
• and the broader importance of the work.

The final decision belongs to the editor, not the reviewers.

Publishing is a human system

Researchers often imagine publishing as a perfectly objective process.

It is not.

Editors are scientists working under:

• severe time pressure,
• reviewer shortages,
• publisher expectations,
• increasing submission volumes,
• journal performance metrics,
• and limited editorial resources.

Understanding these constraints helps explain why excellent papers are sometimes rejected.

Editorial integrity matters

Many editors dedicate enormous effort to protecting scientific quality.

However, editorial systems are not immune to incentives.

I have observed situations where:

• journals prioritize fashionable topics over important ones,
• editors become increasingly influenced by citation performance,
• unnecessary journal self-citations are encouraged,
• innovative but highly specialized research is considered "too niche,"
• and originality loses to trend alignment.

When editorial success becomes measured primarily through impact factors, visibility, and citation growth, editorial leadership can gradually become trend leadership.

Science advances by rewarding originality, not simply popularity.

Key takeaways

1. Editors are not simply gatekeepers. They are stewards of the scientific record.

2. Understanding how editors think allows authors to prepare stronger manuscripts long before submission.

3. Editorial decisions involve scientific judgment, practical constraints, reviewer management, ethics, and risk assessment simultaneously.

The core message

Publishing success is not only about producing excellent research.

It is about understanding the people responsible for evaluating it.

The better you understand the editor's role, the more effectively you can communicate your science, anticipate editorial concerns, respond to reviewer feedback, and navigate the publication process with confidence.

What surprised you most about the editorial process?

Have you ever had an editor make a decision that completely changed your view of scientific publishing?

📚 Part of the playlist: Reviewers & Editors: Roles and Responsibilities

🎥 Watch the video: 👉 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyWkxQaIzgU&t=4s

📚 Learn more about our research https://www.sbd.uliege.be/

💻 Subscribe to my newsletter https://www.shadyattia.org/#/portal/signup

🅱️ Bilibili: b23.tv/bzjL3bn
🎬 YouTube: https://lnkd.in/erHrfkNf

🌐 Explore previous posts and resources https://www.shadyattia.org

🔗 Follow all my professional links, including WeChat 🟩💬 微信 https://lnkd.in/eN3xZhhZ

#AcademicPublishing #JournalEditors #PeerReview #ScientificWriting #ResearchIntegrity #ResearchImpact #EditorialBoard #AcademicCareer #PhDLife #EarlyCareerResearchers #ScholarlyPublishing