Most rejections happen before peer review. Across disciplines, editors often use a fast “fit + contribution + structure” check, and reviewers focus on whether the work delivers a clear, defensible contribution.

Below is a compact, editor–reviewer–author perspective (see the infographic).

1) What the editor checks first (desk screening)

Editors typically ask:

• Scope fit: Does the manuscript match the journal’s aims and audience?

• Clear contribution: Is the “what’s new and why it matters” obvious in the first page?

• Professional structure: Is the paper organized, readable, and journal-ready?

Common desk-reject triggers:

• Weak or unclear novelty

• Descriptive writing (summary without insight)

• Poor discussion (no interpretation, no comparison, no implications)

If any key step fails early, the outcome is often rejection—so the opening sections matter a lot.

2) The “Contribution Triangle”

A strong Q1/Q2 manuscript usually sits on three legs:

• Novelty (what’s genuinely new)

• Scientific value (what it advances conceptually/methodologically)

• Practical impact (why it matters in application/industry/society)

If one side is missing, the paper can feel incomplete—even if the work is technically correct.

3) Make the paper a story, not a report

A helpful way to think about the structure:

• Title/Abstract: your contribution in one glance

• Introduction/Literature Review: the gap and why it matters

• Methodology: credible and reproducible (not a black box)

• Results: clear evidence (not just raw output)

• Discussion: interpretation, comparison, mechanisms, limitations

• Conclusion: crisp takeaways + what changes because of your work

4) Practical checklist (what increases “accept / revise”)

✅ Strengthen acceptance odds by:

• Stating a clear research gap (not background dumping)

• Presenting strong, transparent methods (explain assumptions, validation, uncertainty)

• Showing meaningful results (insightful comparisons, trends, physics/logic)

• Keeping a logical structure (each section answers one question)

• Using clean graphics (readable axes, units, captions, consistent style)

• Writing a deep discussion (why it happens, so what, what’s next)

5) Remember the acceptance path

Submission → Editor screening → Peer review → Revision → Acceptance

In many Q1/Q2 journals, major revision is common. Treat revision as part of the process: respond point-by-point, show evidence, and make changes easy to verify.

If you’d like, share your field/journal type and I can tailor this checklist into a discipline-specific version (e.g., thermal/fluids, CFD/FEA, energy systems) with concrete examples for novelty, validation, and discussion.