I’ve been meaning to write this for a while, mostly out of mild frustration. As Editor in Chief of Political Geography, I genuinely wish I didn’t have to send out so many desk rejections. But the truth is, a significant number of submissions we receive are rejected before they even reach peer review. And many of those rejections could easily have been avoided. So, in the spirit of transparency, and hopefully, to help authors submit better work, I’ve put together a list of some common mistakes that too often lead to a quick “no.”
1. Cover letters addressed to the wrong journal
It may seem like a minor oversight, but it signals a lack of care and attention. A submission should reflect an understanding of the journal it is being sent to, starting with the cover letter.
2. Submitting without checking the aims and scope
Every journal has a clearly defined remit. At Political Geography, we expect contributions that fall within our aims and scope, which are publicly available here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/political-geography/about/aims-and-scope. Papers that do not align with this focus will not be considered for review.
3. Lack of engagement with recent literature
Submissions should engage with current debates in the field. This means being familiar with recent scholarship, not just citing foundational texts or well-known names, but entering into conversation with contemporary work (here is a piece I wrote on how to join a “conversation”).
4. Misuse or lack of disclosure regarding AI tools
Authors using generative AI tools must adhere to Elsevier’s guidelines:
https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/generative-ai-policies-for-journals
Transparency is essential. Failure to disclose the use of these tools can raise ethical concerns and result in immediate rejection.
5. Submitting work that is not ready for review
Peer review is not a substitute for revision. Papers that are clearly unfinished (be it conceptually, structurally, or in terms of language) are not ready for submission. Authors should only submit work that has been carefully prepared and is as strong as it can reasonably be.
6. Overreliance on case studies without a clear conceptual contribution
Empirical work is important, but we are looking for submissions that contribute to broader debates. A strong paper should not only present evidence but also offer insight and argument that speak to the subdiscipline.
7. Poor structure and unclear writing
Clarity matters. A clear structure and accessible writing help reviewers and editors understand your contribution. Submissions that are difficult to follow or inconsistently presented are at a disadvantage from the outset.
None of these points are intended to discourage. On the contrary, they are shared to support prospective authors and increase the chances that your work receives the attention it deserves. A well-prepared submission that fits the journal, engages with the literature, and is clearly written stands out immediately. So, if you’re preparing a submission, I hope this is useful.
Filippo Menga 