The goal of the peer-review process of journals is to make well-founded and consistent decisions and publish high-quality science. The scientific community assumes the publication process is reliable and fair, with the best papers being published only after rigorous review. Scientific editors act as “gatekeepers” in this publishing process, deciding whether a paper is even sent out for peer review, or alternatively “desk rejected”, that is returned to the author without peer review.
We recently assessed the consistency of editors’ desk decisions and published our findings in Biological Conservation. Ten editors of Biological Conservation evaluated forty manuscripts that had been previously submitted to the journal.
Overall, we found that editors are reasonably consistent in their decisions to send a paper out for review, or to desk reject it, and that they agreed with past decisions. However, disparities in agreement with decisions reveal the unsurprising subjectivity editors bring to the process.