Initial Assessment

Navigation: Resources > For Editors > Initial Assessment

Initial assessment is the editorial and administrative review that occurs before a manuscript is sent for external peer review, where peer review applies. It helps editors decide whether a submission is complete, suitable for the journal, ethically ready, and appropriate for the next workflow stage.

Initial assessment is not a guarantee of peer review, acceptance, or publication. It should be conducted fairly, consistently, and in accordance with the journal's published scope, submission requirements, and CorayNova publisher-level policies.

· Purpose of Initial Assessment

The purpose of initial assessment is to identify submissions that are clearly outside scope, incomplete, ethically unready, procedurally unsuitable, or not prepared well enough for responsible review. It also helps ensure that reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts only when the submission is sufficiently complete and relevant.

Editors should distinguish between correctable administrative issues and substantive scholarly or ethical concerns. Administrative correction requests should be clear and proportionate. Substantive concerns should be handled through editorial assessment, specialist input, peer review, or ethical escalation as appropriate.

CorayNova allows decline without external review, often called desk rejection, when a manuscript is clearly outside the journal's scope, submitted under an unsuitable article type, missing essential ethics or policy materials, not ready for responsible external review, duplicative, concurrently submitted elsewhere, or affected by obvious integrity or procedural problems.

· Initial Assessment Checklist

Area



What Editors Should Check



Possible Action



Scope fit

Does the manuscript fit the journal's Aims and Scope, readership, article type, and scholarly contribution expectations?

Proceed, request clarification, transfer suggestion where available, or decline as out of scope.



Article type

Is the selected article type appropriate for the manuscript structure, evidence, length, and review route?

Ask the author to revise article type or move to the correct section if supported.



File completeness

Are main manuscript files, figures, tables, supplementary materials, cover letter, anonymized files, declarations, and permissions complete where required?

Request technical correction before editorial review proceeds.

Metadata accuracy

Do title, authors, affiliations, abstract, keywords, funding, ORCID iDs where used, and manuscript files align?

Request correction of inconsistent or missing metadata.

Ethics and consent

Are ethics approval, consent, animal research, personal data, questionnaire, interview, fieldwork, or sensitive information statements present where applicable?

Request missing information or escalate if the issue appears serious.

Originality and overlap

Is there evidence of plagiarism, duplicate submission, redundant publication, undisclosed prior dissemination, or excessive text reuse?

Investigate, request explanation, decline, or escalate according to policy.

Data and reporting

Are data availability, code, protocol, reporting guideline, registration, or transparency statements present where relevant?

Request statements or supporting documents before review.

Basic scholarly readiness

Is the manuscript coherent enough for review, with identifiable research question, evidence, method, argument, or contribution?

Proceed, request preliminary correction, or decline if not suitable for review.

Language readability

Can editors and reviewers understand the manuscript sufficiently to assess the work?

Suggest language improvement before review if clarity prevents assessment.

Competing interests

Are author disclosures present, and does the handling editor have any conflict requiring reassignment?

Request author disclosure or reassign editorial handling.

Desk rejection suitability

Is the manuscript clearly outside scope, ethically unready, procedurally unsuitable, duplicative, or not sufficiently prepared for responsible review?

Decline without external review where appropriate, with a respectful and proportionate decision reason.

· Possible Initial Outcomes

· Proceed to editorial screening or reviewer invitation.

· Request administrative or technical corrections before assessment continues.

· Request missing statements, files, permissions, or metadata.

· Consult another editor, specialist, or publisher contact for a complex issue.

· Decline without external review when the manuscript is clearly outside scope, unsuitable for the journal, incomplete after reasonable requests, or ethically unready.

· Escalate suspected research or publication ethics issues through the relevant policy route.

· Authority and Transfer Suggestions

Academic decline decisions at the initial assessment stage should be made by the Editor-in-Chief, an Associate or Section Editor, or another responsible editor authorized by the journal. The Editorial Office may request missing files, declarations, metadata, permissions, or technical corrections, but it should not independently make scholarly rejection decisions.

Editors may suggest that authors consider another CorayNova journal where the manuscript appears better aligned with a different journal's scope. A transfer or resubmission suggestion is advisory only and does not guarantee external review, acceptance, or publication by another journal.

· Communication with Authors

Initial assessment communications should be clear, respectful, and specific. If a submission is declined without external review, the decision letter should avoid unnecessary criticism and should explain the main editorial reason where appropriate.

Editors should not promise that correction of administrative issues will lead to peer review, acceptance, or publication. A corrected submission may still be declined after editorial assessment.