A practical desk-review checklist for scholarly journals

Desk review is a decision process, not a quick rejection

The first editorial assessment should answer whether a manuscript is ready to consume reviewer time. It is not a substitute for peer review and it should not become an undocumented judgement based on title or reputation. A reliable desk review applies the journal’s published scope, article-type requirements and minimum research-integrity checks consistently. The editor records what was checked, which evidence informed the decision and what the author must do next.

Confirm identity, files and declarations first

Begin with submission completeness: author identities, affiliations, corresponding-author details, manuscript file, figures, tables, supplementary material and required declarations. Check that ethics approval, consent, funding, competing-interest and data-availability statements are present when relevant. Missing information does not always justify rejection; it may justify returning the submission for technical correction. The workflow should separate correctable omissions from substantive editorial concerns.

Evaluate scope and contribution with explicit questions

Editors need a short set of journal-specific questions. Does the manuscript address the readership named in the aims and scope? Is the article type supported? Is the research question identifiable, and does the submission explain what it adds to the existing record? Are the methods and evidence developed enough for a specialist to assess? Recording answers makes desk decisions more consistent across associate editors and easier to audit when an author asks for clarification.

Screen integrity without pretending automation is proof

Similarity reports, image checks and automated indicators can surface material that needs attention, but a score is not a finding. A qualified editor should inspect the underlying passages, references, figures or declarations and distinguish legitimate reuse from a possible problem. Confidential material must remain inside approved systems. If an integrity concern needs investigation, follow a defined escalation route rather than asking reviewers to solve it informally.

End with a traceable outcome

A complete desk review ends in one of a small number of outcomes: proceed to editor assignment or peer review, request technical corrections, request a clarified submission, redirect when policy permits, or reject with a reason tied to policy. Dijider’s structured workflow can require essential checks, preserve comments and assign ownership before the manuscript advances. This reduces avoidable reviewer invitations while giving authors a clear, timely and defensible response.