Why orthopedics manuscripts get desk-rejected
Orthopedic outcomes are often functional and device-dependent. Desk rejects may reflect inadequate patient-reported follow-up, unclear surgical indications, or comparisons that are not credible without randomisation.
Typical triage issues
Retrospective implant comparisons with surgeon and indication confounding. PRO missingness ignored or imputed without transparency. Radiographic outcomes without clinical correlation. Return-to-sport claims without validated timelines. Complication rates without denominator clarity. Editors desk-reject when the study cannot support comparative language in the title/abstract.
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
A structured review can prompt clearer indication criteria, time-to-event definitions, and PRO analysis plans. It can also flag when comparative language should be reframed as associative.
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 implants and revision rules explicitly. Report consecutive cases where possible. Handle PRO missingness transparently. Align abstract claims with design strength. Choose the correct subspecialty journal. Pre-review first.
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.