Publication in journals indexed by Scopus or Web of Science is a significant step for a scholar, particularly when preparing a candidate's or doctoral dissertation. At the same time, rejection remains a frequent outcome even for well-prepared work. Most authors are familiar with the obvious reasons for refusal: a failure to meet formatting requirements or a mismatch with the subject area. However, there are also less visible factors that influence the editorial decision and are far from always stated in rejection letters.
Journal scope as a reason for article rejection in Scopus
A mismatch with the journal's subject scope is one of the most common reasons for refusal (desk rejection) – that is, the rejection of a manuscript without sending it for peer review. The error often lies not in a complete thematic mismatch, but in an insufficiently precise fit with the narrow specialisation of a particular journal. Journals indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, especially those in the higher quartiles, are frequently oriented towards particular approaches, methodological traditions or types of study – not simply a broad field of knowledge.
When choosing a journal for submission, it is useful to examine not only its official description but also the subject matter of the material published in its two or three most recent issues: it is these that reflect the journal's actual editorial policy at the present time.
How important is scientific novelty for publication in Scopus or WoS?
The editorial boards of international journals expect manuscripts to offer not merely relevance or practical usefulness, but a specific contribution to the theoretical or methodological foundations of the discipline. An article that describes results without taking a clear position in relation to existing concepts is perceived by reviewers as insufficiently developed.
A common mistake is to assert scientific novelty in the introduction yet fail to develop it substantively in the discussion of the results (Discussion). Reviewers pay deliberate attention to this: the Discussion section should demonstrate how the results obtained relate to what is already known in the field.
The literature review during article peer review
A literature review serves a purpose beyond a mere formal list of sources. Reviewers assess whether the author is familiar with the current state of the field, whether the key works of recent years are included in the analysis, and whether a substantive dialogue is maintained with them. A superficial or outdated review is one of the reasons an article may be rejected even when the core content is of a sufficient standard.
Typical shortcomings of a literature review that reviewers pay attention to:
- a predominance of sources more than ten years old when current publications on the topic exist
- the absence of references to works published in related Q1-Q2 journals
- citation without an analytical stance – a simple enumeration with no critical assessment
- the disregard of English-language literature despite a substantial body of sources on the topic
How do language quality and formatting affect the likelihood of rejection?
A weak command of academic English rarely becomes, in itself, the sole grounds for a desk rejection, yet it considerably reduces the likelihood of a favourable decision. Reviewers assess not only spelling accuracy but also the structure of the exposition, the precision of terminology and the logical coherence of the sections. A text that is difficult to read increases the burden on reviewers and is often perceived as a sign that the material has not been sufficiently developed.
Formatting requirements are mandatory. The violations that may lead to a manuscript being returned or rejected include the following:
- Failure to follow the citation style adopted by the particular journal.
- The absence of mandatory structural elements – an abstract in English, keywords and the author's ORCID.
- Exceeding or falling short of the permitted manuscript length.
- Improper formatting of tables, figures and their captions.
- The absence of a conflict-of-interest declaration or funding information where the journal's policy requires it.
Publication ethics and AI content: additional selection criteria in Scopus
Questions of publication ethics occupy an increasingly significant place in the editorial policy of Scopus and WoS journals. In addition to plagiarism and self-plagiarism, for which editorial boards apply automated checking systems, a number of journals have begun to detect signs of the undisclosed use of generative AI tools. Where a journal requires the use of such tools to be declared, the absence of such disclosure is regarded as a breach of editorial policy and may serve as grounds for rejecting a manuscript.
Editorial boards also pay attention to the accuracy of authorship information: a discrepancy between the declared contribution of the authors and the actual content of the article may raise additional questions as early as the initial screening stage.
Rejection by Scopus and WoS journals is frequently the result not of a single factor but of a combination of them. An understanding of the criteria by which editorial boards are guided when assessing manuscripts makes it possible, as early as the stage of preparing an article, to address the weaknesses that lie beyond the scope of the official author guidelines.
Are you planning a publication in a Scopus or Web of Science journal and wish to avoid the typical mistakes at the submission stage? The specialists at Scientific Publications will help you select a suitable journal and check your manuscript against the editorial requirements. To arrange a free consultation, fill in the form below and our manager will be in touch with you shortly. Onwards to a successful publication!
