Why infectious disease manuscripts get desk-rejected
Infectious disease submissions often intersect public health urgency with methodological rigor. Desk rejects can reflect inadequate linkage between data and conclusions, or ethical/documentation gaps that editors spot quickly.
Typical desk-reject reasons
Outbreak reports lacking lineage context, sampling frame, or clear non-pharmaceutical intervention definitions. Diagnostic accuracy studies with spectrum bias, unblinded reference standards, or partial verification. AMR surveillance manuscripts that are purely descriptive without a clear analytic advance. Modeling papers with opaque assumptions or unreported sensitivity analyses. Patient privacy issues in small-n settings. Editors may desk-reject when methods cannot support the public health claims in the title.
This page is editorial guidance for authors, not medical advice. Desk-reject patterns vary by journal and editor; always read the target journal’s instructions and scope before submitting.
Pre-review angle
Structured feedback can highlight whether definitions (case, exposure, outcome) are consistent throughout, whether denominators are stable, and whether the discussion respects uncertainty. It can also prompt clearer reporting of ethics and data availability constraints.
This page is editorial guidance for authors, not medical advice. Desk-reject patterns vary by journal and editor; always read the target journal’s instructions and scope before submitting.
Checklist
Define case ascertainment and testing algorithms. Report dates and geography explicitly. Pre-register protocols when applicable. Provide sensitivity analyses for modeling. Confirm journal scope for outbreak vs laboratory science. Request a pre-submission review to reduce triage surprises.
This page is editorial guidance for authors, not medical advice. Desk-reject patterns vary by journal and editor; always read the target journal’s instructions and scope before submitting.