| _version_ | 1866901266092785664 |
|---|---|
| author | Alaali, Hasan mohamed Husain Alaali, Hasan mohamed Husain |
| author_facet | Alaali, Hasan mohamed Husain Alaali, Hasan mohamed Husain |
| contents | <div class="flex flex-col text-sm pb-25"> <div class=""> <div class="text-base my-auto mx-auto pb-10 [--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-xs,calc(var(--spacing)*4))] @w-sm/main:[--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-sm,calc(var(--spacing)*6))] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-lg,calc(var(--spacing)*16))] px-(--thread-content-margin)"> <div class="[--thread-content-max-width:40rem] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-max-width:48rem] mx-auto max-w-(--thread-content-max-width) flex-1 group/turn-messages focus-visible:outline-hidden relative flex w-full min-w-0 flex-col agent-turn"> <div class="flex max-w-full flex-col gap-4 grow"> <div class="min-h-8 text-message relative flex w-full flex-col items-end gap-2 text-start break-words whitespace-normal outline-none keyboard-focused:focus-ring [.text-message+&]:mt-1"> <div class="flex w-full flex-col gap-1 empty:hidden"> <div class="markdown prose dark:prose-invert w-full wrap-break-word light markdown-new-styling"> <p>This paper examines an underexplored issue in scholarly publishing: the quality and legitimacy of editorial rejection decisions. While rejection is a necessary part of academic quality control, existing discussions often treat rejection as a binary outcome rather than a decision process that may vary in transparency, coherence, and procedural fairness.</p> <p>The study introduces the <strong>Editorial Decision Pathways Model (EDPM)</strong>, a conceptual framework that classifies rejection decisions into three categories: <strong>Legitimate Rejection (LR), Low Transparency Decision (LTD), and Governance Failure Decision (GFD)</strong>. Rather than focusing only on whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected, the framework evaluates how rejection decisions are reached, communicated, and structured.</p> <p>Five practical assessment dimensions are proposed: <strong>transparency, timeliness, typology recognition, procedural consistency, and constructive signal</strong>. Together, these dimensions offer a structured basis for evaluating editorial decision quality beyond publication outcomes alone.</p> <p>The paper contributes to debates on peer review governance, editorial accountability, research integrity, and trust in scholarly communication. It is relevant for journal editors, publishers, researchers, universities, and policy bodies seeking stronger legitimacy and clearer standards in academic publishing systems.</p> <p>This version is archived in Zenodo as Version 1.0 and serves as a permanent open-access scholarly record.</p> <div class="flex flex-col text-sm pb-25"> <div class=""> <div class="text-base my-auto mx-auto pb-10 [--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-xs,calc(var(--spacing)*4))] @w-sm/main:[--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-sm,calc(var(--spacing)*6))] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-lg,calc(var(--spacing)*16))] px-(--thread-content-margin)"> <div class="[--thread-content-max-width:40rem] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-max-width:48rem] mx-auto max-w-(--thread-content-max-width) flex-1 group/turn-messages focus-visible:outline-hidden relative flex w-full min-w-0 flex-col agent-turn"> <div class="flex max-w-full flex-col gap-4 grow"> <div class="min-h-8 text-message relative flex w-full flex-col items-end gap-2 text-start break-words whitespace-normal outline-none keyboard-focused:focus-ring [.text-message+&]:mt-1"> <div class="flex w-full flex-col gap-1 empty:hidden"> <div class="markdown prose dark:prose-invert w-full wrap-break-word light markdown-new-styling"> <p><strong>Hasan Mohamed Husain Alaali</strong><br>AIA, CPA, IPA Fellow Member<br>Founder of DFAS, AFMF, ASES & PostObjective Governance</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="mt-3 w-full empty:hidden"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_19654755 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | When Is Rejection Legitimate? Reframing Editorial Decision Quality in Academic Publishing Alaali, Hasan mohamed Husain Alaali, Hasan mohamed Husain Editorial rejection Research governance Academic gatekeeping Peer review ethics Journal governance Decision quality Editorial transparency Publishing ethics Scholarly communication Procedural justice Research integrity Editorial accountability Academic publishing Peer review governance Desk rejection <div class="flex flex-col text-sm pb-25"> <div class=""> <div class="text-base my-auto mx-auto pb-10 [--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-xs,calc(var(--spacing)*4))] @w-sm/main:[--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-sm,calc(var(--spacing)*6))] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-lg,calc(var(--spacing)*16))] px-(--thread-content-margin)"> <div class="[--thread-content-max-width:40rem] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-max-width:48rem] mx-auto max-w-(--thread-content-max-width) flex-1 group/turn-messages focus-visible:outline-hidden relative flex w-full min-w-0 flex-col agent-turn"> <div class="flex max-w-full flex-col gap-4 grow"> <div class="min-h-8 text-message relative flex w-full flex-col items-end gap-2 text-start break-words whitespace-normal outline-none keyboard-focused:focus-ring [.text-message+&]:mt-1"> <div class="flex w-full flex-col gap-1 empty:hidden"> <div class="markdown prose dark:prose-invert w-full wrap-break-word light markdown-new-styling"> <p>This paper examines an underexplored issue in scholarly publishing: the quality and legitimacy of editorial rejection decisions. While rejection is a necessary part of academic quality control, existing discussions often treat rejection as a binary outcome rather than a decision process that may vary in transparency, coherence, and procedural fairness.</p> <p>The study introduces the <strong>Editorial Decision Pathways Model (EDPM)</strong>, a conceptual framework that classifies rejection decisions into three categories: <strong>Legitimate Rejection (LR), Low Transparency Decision (LTD), and Governance Failure Decision (GFD)</strong>. Rather than focusing only on whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected, the framework evaluates how rejection decisions are reached, communicated, and structured.</p> <p>Five practical assessment dimensions are proposed: <strong>transparency, timeliness, typology recognition, procedural consistency, and constructive signal</strong>. Together, these dimensions offer a structured basis for evaluating editorial decision quality beyond publication outcomes alone.</p> <p>The paper contributes to debates on peer review governance, editorial accountability, research integrity, and trust in scholarly communication. It is relevant for journal editors, publishers, researchers, universities, and policy bodies seeking stronger legitimacy and clearer standards in academic publishing systems.</p> <p>This version is archived in Zenodo as Version 1.0 and serves as a permanent open-access scholarly record.</p> <div class="flex flex-col text-sm pb-25"> <div class=""> <div class="text-base my-auto mx-auto pb-10 [--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-xs,calc(var(--spacing)*4))] @w-sm/main:[--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-sm,calc(var(--spacing)*6))] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-lg,calc(var(--spacing)*16))] px-(--thread-content-margin)"> <div class="[--thread-content-max-width:40rem] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-max-width:48rem] mx-auto max-w-(--thread-content-max-width) flex-1 group/turn-messages focus-visible:outline-hidden relative flex w-full min-w-0 flex-col agent-turn"> <div class="flex max-w-full flex-col gap-4 grow"> <div class="min-h-8 text-message relative flex w-full flex-col items-end gap-2 text-start break-words whitespace-normal outline-none keyboard-focused:focus-ring [.text-message+&]:mt-1"> <div class="flex w-full flex-col gap-1 empty:hidden"> <div class="markdown prose dark:prose-invert w-full wrap-break-word light markdown-new-styling"> <p><strong>Hasan Mohamed Husain Alaali</strong><br>AIA, CPA, IPA Fellow Member<br>Founder of DFAS, AFMF, ASES & PostObjective Governance</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="mt-3 w-full empty:hidden"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> |
| title | When Is Rejection Legitimate? Reframing Editorial Decision Quality in Academic Publishing |
| topic | Editorial rejection Research governance Academic gatekeeping Peer review ethics Journal governance Decision quality Editorial transparency Publishing ethics Scholarly communication Procedural justice Research integrity Editorial accountability Academic publishing Peer review governance Desk rejection |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19654755 |