Article type
Abstract
Background: Publishing challenges persist despite the quality of evidence synthesis manuscripts. The ‘Appropriateness of Systemic oncological Treatments for Advanced Cancer’ (ASTAC) project, aimed to conduct high-quality evidence syntheses regarding the effects of anticancer drugs (ACDs) versus supportive care for advanced non-intestinal digestive cancers. However, our manuscripts faced several desk rejections (i.e. rejections made by the editor, without peer review).
Objectives: To describe the experience regarding desk rejections of evidence syntheses manuscripts within the ASTAC-Project.
Methods: We submitted three overviews, three evidence maps and three systematic reviews (following Cochrane methodological and PRISMA reporting standards) to 20 different medical journals. We describe our experience with desk rejections and their rationale.
Results: Out of nine manuscripts, seven have faced a total of 14 desk rejections from journals specialising in oncology and/or supportive care. Among these rejections, reasons were unspecified in eight cases (57.1%). In four cases (28.2%), editors considered the research to be ‘out of scope’ or ‘not appropriate for journal’s readership’, and in two (14.3%) the research did not achieve ‘enough priority’ (Table 1).
We have reached a total of 10 peer-review processes among journals that did not desk-rejected the manuscripts. Among these, only three rejections (30%) occurred after peer-review comments. Reasons for these rejections were not explicitly stated, but appeared to relate to 'lack of novelty' and 'overly broad research question'. Notably, none of the peer reviewers raised major concerns regarding the quality of our research. So far, seven manuscripts have successfully navigated the peer-review process and ultimately secured publication, and two are currently under revision in other journals.
Conclusions: The desk rejections encountered by the ASTAC-project were largely characterised by unclear rationales, which could have been tied to implicit editorial policies. These rejections, influenced by editors’ interests or perceptions of novelty and/or importance, may potentially introduce publication bias. A change in the editorial processing of manuscripts is needed, where external pressures (e.g. limited number of articles per year, journal metrics, profit-making, etc) are minimised. This change is essential to foster a more equitable and transparent editorial process in advanced cancer research.
Objectives: To describe the experience regarding desk rejections of evidence syntheses manuscripts within the ASTAC-Project.
Methods: We submitted three overviews, three evidence maps and three systematic reviews (following Cochrane methodological and PRISMA reporting standards) to 20 different medical journals. We describe our experience with desk rejections and their rationale.
Results: Out of nine manuscripts, seven have faced a total of 14 desk rejections from journals specialising in oncology and/or supportive care. Among these rejections, reasons were unspecified in eight cases (57.1%). In four cases (28.2%), editors considered the research to be ‘out of scope’ or ‘not appropriate for journal’s readership’, and in two (14.3%) the research did not achieve ‘enough priority’ (Table 1).
We have reached a total of 10 peer-review processes among journals that did not desk-rejected the manuscripts. Among these, only three rejections (30%) occurred after peer-review comments. Reasons for these rejections were not explicitly stated, but appeared to relate to 'lack of novelty' and 'overly broad research question'. Notably, none of the peer reviewers raised major concerns regarding the quality of our research. So far, seven manuscripts have successfully navigated the peer-review process and ultimately secured publication, and two are currently under revision in other journals.
Conclusions: The desk rejections encountered by the ASTAC-project were largely characterised by unclear rationales, which could have been tied to implicit editorial policies. These rejections, influenced by editors’ interests or perceptions of novelty and/or importance, may potentially introduce publication bias. A change in the editorial processing of manuscripts is needed, where external pressures (e.g. limited number of articles per year, journal metrics, profit-making, etc) are minimised. This change is essential to foster a more equitable and transparent editorial process in advanced cancer research.