Why Manuscripts Are Returned Before Peer Review

Understanding Early Editorial Decisions in Academic Publishing

For many researchers, receiving a manuscript return before peer review can be frustrating and confusing. After investing significant time in conducting research, analyzing data, and preparing a manuscript, authors often expect their work to proceed directly to external review. However, in modern scholarly publishing, every submission undergoes a series of preliminary evaluations before reaching peer reviewers.

These early assessments help journals maintain quality standards, improve editorial efficiency, and ensure that reviewer time is devoted to manuscripts with genuine publication potential. As a result, many submissions are returned to authors before peer review not necessarily because the research lacks value, but because certain requirements have not been adequately addressed.

Understanding the most common reasons manuscripts are returned can help researchers prepare stronger submissions and avoid unnecessary delays.

The Purpose of Pre-Peer Review Screening

Before inviting reviewers, journals typically conduct technical and editorial evaluations to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for further consideration.

These checks help editors:

• Verify compliance with submission guidelines.
• Assess journal scope alignment.
• Evaluate research quality.
• Identify ethical concerns.
• Ensure manuscript completeness.
• Protect reviewer resources.

Scope Mismatch: The Most Common Reason

One of the leading causes of early manuscript return is a mismatch between the manuscript and the journal’s aims and scope. Even a well-executed study may not proceed to review if it does not align with the journal’s focus areas.

Editors often ask:

• Does the manuscript address topics relevant to the journal?
• Will the journal’s audience benefit from the findings?
• Does the study contribute to the journal’s disciplinary focus?

For UTJ, submissions should clearly demonstrate relevance to areas such as:

• Artificial intelligence.
• Data science.
• Cybersecurity.
• Internet of Things (IoT).
• Software engineering.
• Cloud computing.
• Ubiquitous technologies.
• Emerging digital innovations.

Failure to Follow Author Guidelines

Many manuscripts are returned simply because authors have not followed the journal’s submission requirements. Common issues include incorrect manuscript formatting, missing sections, improper reference style, incomplete author information and missing declarations or disclosures. While these issues may appear minor, they can create substantial administrative challenges during editorial processing.

Limited Novelty or Contribution

Editors seek research that advances knowledge within a field. A manuscript may be returned if editors determine that:

• The research question lacks originality.
• Similar studies already exist.
• The contribution is unclear.
• Findings offer limited advancement.
• The significance of the study is not adequately demonstrated.

Authors should clearly communicate the research gap, novelty of the study, value of the findings and contribution to existing literature. A strong contribution statement can substantially improve editorial evaluation.

Weak Literature Review

A literature review demonstrates an author’s understanding of the research landscape. Editors may identify concerns when manuscripts rely heavily on outdated sources, omit key studies, lack scholarly depth, fail to engage with current developments and provide insufficient context for the research problem.

Methodological Concerns

Although editors do not conduct a full peer review at this stage, they often assess whether the research design appears sufficiently rigorous.

Potential concerns include:

Unclear Research Design

Editors should be able to understand how the study was conducted and why particular methods were chosen.

Insufficient Data Description

Data sources, collection procedures, and analytical methods should be clearly presented.

Unsupported Conclusions

Findings should logically support the conclusions being drawn.

Limited Reproducibility

Research methods should be described in sufficient detail to allow understanding and evaluation by experts. Methodological clarity increases confidence in the manuscript’s scientific quality.

Language and Presentation Problems

Strong research can be undermined by poor presentation.

Common issues include:

• Grammatical errors.
• Unclear writing.
• Inconsistent terminology.
• Poor organization.
• Ambiguous explanations.

Ethical and Integrity Concerns

Research integrity remains a central responsibility of journals. Editors may return manuscripts when ethical issues are identified, including:

• Missing conflict-of-interest statements.
• Unclear authorship contributions.
• Lack of ethical approval information.
• Duplicate submission concerns.
• Potential plagiarism issues.

Incomplete Submission Files

Sometimes the problem is not the manuscript itself but the submission package. Examples include missing figures, missing supplementary materials, incomplete metadata, absent author information and missing cover letter (when required).

How Authors Can Avoid Early Returns

A proactive approach can significantly improve submission outcomes. Before submission, authors should:

Review Journal Requirements Carefully

Ensure that every guideline has been followed.

Conduct a Final Technical Check

Verify formatting, references, figures, tables, and required documentation.

Evaluate Scope Alignment

Confirm that the manuscript fits the journal’s aims and readership.

Strengthen the Contribution Statement

Clearly explain why the research matters.

Review Ethics and Compliance Requirements

Ensure all disclosures and approvals are included.

Seek Independent Feedback

Colleagues or mentors can often identify weaknesses that authors may overlook.

Returning a Manuscript Is Not Necessarily a Rejection

Authors sometimes interpret a returned manuscript as a judgment on the quality of their research. In many cases, this interpretation is inaccurate. A return before peer review often indicates that improvements are needed before the manuscript can be evaluated fairly and efficiently.

Many successfully published papers undergo revisions following technical or editorial screening. Authors who respond constructively to editorial feedback frequently strengthen their manuscripts and improve their chances of publication.

Pre-peer review screening is an essential part of modern scholarly publishing. It helps journals maintain quality standards, streamline editorial workflows, and ensure that peer reviewers focus on manuscripts that are ready for detailed evaluation.

Conclusion

For researchers, understanding why manuscripts are returned before peer review provides an opportunity to improve preparation, strengthen compliance, and enhance overall manuscript quality. By paying close attention to scope alignment, originality, methodology, presentation, ethics, and journal guidelines, authors can significantly increase the likelihood of progressing successfully through the editorial process. The strongest submissions are not simply excellent pieces of research they are manuscripts that demonstrate readiness for scholarly evaluation from the very first editorial assessment.