Holding the Editorial Desk Accountable: Author-Based Desk Rejection, Prolific Researchers, and Procedural Fairness in Scholarly Publishing

Desk rejection is an essential editorial mechanism for managing journal scope, workload, and limited peer-review resources, but its legitimacy depends on decisions being grounded in the submitted manuscript rather than the author’s identity or publication history. This Opinion article examines author-based desk rejection as an issue of editorial accountability, with particular attention to prolific researchers. It distinguishes legitimate editorial discretion from potentially problematic reliance on reputation, publication rate, prior publication history, or journal metrics. Computational science and engineering is used as an illustrative case in which high productivity may arise legitimately from modular modeling, numerical methods, multiphysics formulations, and distinct applications. Rather than alleging unethical conduct by journals or publishers, the article treats possible author-based exclusion as an empirical and governance question requiring systematic study. It proposes an accountability framework comprising reason-giving, consistency, conflict management, reviewability, correctability, auditability, and insulation from inappropriate metric pressure. By addressing legitimate editorial constraints—including reviewer scarcity, novelty assessment, confidentiality, integrity screening, and appeals—the article argues that editorial independence can be strengthened, rather than weakened, by proportionate accountability. The framework aims to protect both authors from irrelevant identity-based judgments and editors from unsupported accusations by anchoring contested desk decisions in transparent policies, manuscript-level evidence, and reviewable procedures.