You submitted your manuscript eight weeks ago. You checked the status daily. Finally, it changed—but to “Decision: Rejected.” The reason? “Poor quality English.”
Your manuscript was professionally edited. Your supervisor approved it. Native English-speaking colleagues reviewed it. Yet here you are, facing a desk rejection that feels arbitrary, vague, and devastating—especially after waiting so long.
If this describes your situation, you’re not alone. This specific scenario—delayed desk rejection citing “poor English”—happens frequently at high-tier journals, particularly at large publishers such as Elsevier, Springer, and Wiley. Understanding what editors actually mean by this decision, why it happens after weeks of waiting, and what you should do next can transform this rejection from a dead end into a strategic pivot.
This guide explains the real reasons behind “poor English” desk rejections, decodes what happens during those weeks of waiting, and provides a concrete action plan for revision and resubmission—including when it makes sense to stay within the same publisher and when it doesn’t.
In this guide, you’ll learn:
- What “poor quality English” actually means at different desk rejection stages
- Why Q1 journals take weeks to desk reject (and what that timeline reveals)
- Whether resubmitting to another Elsevier/Springer journal makes sense
- How to diagnose and fix the real issues before resubmission
- Strategic steps to avoid this rejection at your next submission
- When “poor English” genuinely means language vs. when it’s a proxy for other problems
What “Poor Quality English” Really Means at Desk Rejection
When editors cite “poor English” as the reason for desk rejection, they’re rarely talking about spelling mistakes or basic grammar errors—especially at reputable journals. The phrase “poor quality English” at the desk stage functions as editorial shorthand for several distinct problems, and understanding which one applies to your manuscript is critical for effective revision.
The Six Real Meanings of “Poor English” at the Desk Stage
1. Structural Clarity Issues (Most Common)
This is the most frequent actual meaning behind “poor English” rejections at Q1 journals. Your sentences may be grammatically perfect, but the argument structure is unclear or doesn’t follow disciplinary conventions.
What this looks like:
- The introduction doesn’t clearly state the research gap in the first 2-3 paragraphs
- Novelty/contribution is buried or implied rather than explicit
- Methods appear before the rationale is established
- Results are presented without sufficient context
- Discussion doesn’t clearly connect findings to broader significance
Why editors call this “poor English”: Structural problems make manuscripts cognitively demanding to read. Editors processing dozens of submissions weekly need to quickly identify the contribution. When they can’t extract the core argument in 3-4 minutes, they interpret this as a communication problem, which gets coded as “poor English” in rejection letters.
Editor perspective: A managing editor at a top Elsevier journal explains: “I usually read the abstract and conclusion first. If I can’t understand the main point or if the logic doesn’t flow, I classify it as a language issue even if the grammar is fine. The ‘language’ problem is actually that the ideas aren’t clearly organized.”
2. Discipline-Specific Discourse Conventions
Different fields have distinct conventions for how arguments are structured, claims are hedged, and evidence is presented. Violating these conventions reads as “non-native” writing even when grammar is flawless.
Examples by field:
- Natural sciences: Expected to use passive voice in methods, active voice in results, specific verb tenses for facts vs. new findings
- Social sciences: Require explicit theoretical framing upfront, careful hedging of causal claims, and extensive literature contextualization
- Medicine: Demand specific clinical terminology, standardized reporting formats (CONSORT, PRISMA), precise statistical presentation
- Humanities: Expect sophisticated argumentation with extensive scholarly dialogue, nuanced analysis, and conclusive claims
Why this gets called “poor English”: Editors native to your discipline recognize violations of field conventions immediately, even if they can’t articulate exactly what’s wrong. Rather than explaining disciplinary writing norms in rejection letters, they default to “language quality” as the explanation.
3. Abstract and Introduction Failures
Research shows that 70% of editorial decisions are heavily influenced by the abstract and first two pages. Oddly, these sections often exhibit worse clarity than the manuscript body—probably because they’re written first, revised inadequately, or composed hastily.
Common abstract/introduction problems:
- Abstract doesn’t follow the journal’s expected format (structured vs. narrative)
- Introduction takes too long to establish novelty (gets to “the gap” only in paragraphs 4-5)
- Key contribution is stated vaguely: “This research provides insights…” rather than “This study demonstrates X for the first time…”
- Background dominates rather than rationale and objectives
Why this matters disproportionately: When editors invite potential reviewers, they send only your title and abstract. If reviewers can’t understand the contribution from the abstract, they decline the invitation. Editors who anticipate reviewer recruitment problems based on unclear abstracts often desk reject to avoid wasting time.
An editor explains: “The abstract is the only thing besides the title that a potential reviewer receives when invited to review. If the abstract doesn’t clearly communicate the study’s value, I know I’ll struggle to find reviewers, so I desk reject.”
4. Excessive Cognitive Load
Your manuscript might be technically correct, but require too much effort to process. This happens when:
- Sentences regularly exceed 30-35 words with multiple subordinate clauses
- Complex ideas are presented without sufficient scaffolding
- Technical jargon appears without adequate introduction
- Paragraphs lack topic sentences that preview content
- Transitions between ideas are implicit rather than explicit
The 30-second test: Editors should be able to identify your main contribution within 30 seconds of reading the abstract and first paragraph of the introduction. If they can’t, the manuscript fails the clarity threshold.
Why journals reject on this basis: High-tier journals receive 500-1000 submissions monthly. Editors make initial triage decisions in 3-5 minutes per manuscript. Manuscripts requiring more cognitive effort than this threshold simply don’t advance, regardless of scientific merit.
5. Proxy for Reviewer Recruitment Concerns
At selective journals, “poor English” sometimes functions as a diplomatic rejection code when the real issue is that editors doubt they can find willing reviewers.
This happens when:
- The topic is highly specialized, with very few qualified reviewers globally
- The manuscript is interdisciplinary, requiring reviewers from multiple fields
- Previous submissions in this area struggled to attract reviewers
- The journal recently had reviewer complaints about manuscript quality from this research area
Why editors use “language” as the reason: Saying “we can’t find reviewers” admits editorial limitations. Saying “language needs improvement” puts responsibility on authors and seems more constructive.
A journal editor candidly admits: “Occasionally, a paper I advance for peer review does not attract any reviewers, whereupon I desk reject the paper after 2 weeks of trying. Sometimes I preemptively desk reject manuscripts where I anticipate this problem, and ‘language quality’ is an acceptable reason that doesn’t reveal our reviewer recruitment challenges.”
6. Genuine Language Issues (Less Common at Top Journals)
Sometimes “poor English” actually means problematic grammar, syntax, or word choice—but this is rarer than authors assume at reputable journals.
When language is genuinely the problem:
- Systematic errors occur throughout (not just occasional typos)
- Sentences are frequently incomprehensible even with effort
- Technical terms are consistently used incorrectly
- The text reads as machine-translated or heavily AI-generated without editing
Important distinction: A few typos or awkward phrases rarely cause desk rejection at legitimate journals. Editors expect some polishing during production. Systematic language problems that obscure meaning—that’s when “poor English” genuinely describes the issue.
Why Your Manuscript Took 8 Weeks for Desk Rejection
The timeline itself provides clues about what happened during editorial processing. Understanding why rejection took so long helps you interpret the decision and plan your next move.
What Happens During 6-10 Week Desk Rejection Timelines
Week 1-2: Administrative Processing
- Manuscript enters the queue behind 50-200 other submissions
- Automated systems check formatting and completeness
- Editorial assistants perform initial technical screening
- Submission is routed to the appropriate editor (if the journal has specialized sections)
Week 2-4: Assignment to Handling Editor
- The editor-in-chief or the section editor reviews submissions
- Assignment to an associate editor with relevant expertise
- This stage extends when
: Editors are on leave, attending conferences, or overwhelmed with manuscript backlog
Week 4-6: Actual Editorial Evaluation
- Associate editor reads abstract, introduction, and methods
- Makes initial judgment: desk reject, request revisions to format/scope, or advance to peer review
- May consult with co-editors on borderline cases
- Prepares decision letter with specific feedback
Week 6-8: Decision Communication Delays
- Decision awaits editor-in-chief approval (required at some journals)
- Editorial board meeting schedules create delays (especially at society journals)
- Decision letters are drafted, reviewed, and quality-checked
- Administrative processing of rejection communication
Week 8+: Systems or Staffing Issues
- Editorial transitions (new editor taking over)
- Manuscript fell through administrative cracks
- Decision made, but communication delayed by staff shortages
What the 8-Week Timeline Tells You
Good news: The length of time suggests your manuscript wasn’t obviously wrong for the journal. Truly out-of-scope submissions get desk rejected in 3-10 days. Eight weeks indicates editorial consideration occurred—they attempted to evaluate it seriously.
Likely scenario: An associate editor struggled with the manuscript’s clarity for several weeks, possibly considered sending it for review, but ultimately concluded the language/structure issues made peer review unlikely to succeed.
Less likely: The manuscript sat ignored in someone’s inbox for weeks. While this happens occasionally, most journals have workflow systems that prevent extended neglect.
Why Q1 Journals Have Longer Desk Rejection Timelines
High-impact journals face unique pressures that extend decision timelines:
Reviewer scarcity at top tiers: Q1 journals must secure reviewers who are themselves highly published, extremely busy, and frequently declining review invitations. Editors spend more time evaluating whether manuscripts will attract willing reviewers before committing to peer review.
Higher editorial standards: Top journals examine manuscripts more carefully during triage because their acceptance rates are typically 5-15%, meaning 85-95% of submissions must be rejected somewhere in the process. Careful initial screening prevents wasting reviewer time on manuscripts unlikely to eventually be accepted.
Larger submission volumes: High-IF journals receive disproportionate submissions—a Q1 journal might receive 1000+ annual submissions while publishing only 80-120 articles. This volume creates processing backlogs.
Multiple-level editorial review: Prestigious journals often require that associate editor recommendations be approved by the editor-in-chief or the editorial board, adding approval layers that extend timelines.
Should You Resubmit to Another Journal in the Same Publisher Family?
This is one of the most common questions after Elsevier, Springer, or Wiley desk rejections: “Should I try another journal in their portfolio?” The answer depends on several specific factors.
Understanding Publisher Journal Families
Large publishers manage hundreds of journals within related fields. Elsevier, for example, publishes over 2,500 journals spanning all disciplines. Within single fields like medicine or engineering, they might have 50-100 related titles ranging from ultra-selective (Cell, The Lancet) to broad-scope (PLOS ONE-equivalent megajournals).
How journal families work:
- Journals within families sometimes share editorial boards or managing editors
- Manuscripts may be suggested for transfer to lower-tier journals
- Author submission histories may or may not be visible across journals (varies by publisher systems)
- Editorial standards vary dramatically even within families
The transfer option: Some publishers offer direct manuscript transfer to other journals in their portfolio, preserving your submission date and reducing resubmission work. This is typically offered when:
- Rejection is purely scope-based (your science is sound, but the topic doesn’t fit)
- Editors identify a better-fit journal within the family
- The journal wants to retain your submission within its publishing ecosystem
When transfer is offered: If your desk rejection letter explicitly mentions transfer to a specific journal or includes transfer as an option, this is generally positive. It suggests the rejection was purely scope-based rather than quality-based.
When Resubmission Within the Same Publisher Makes Sense
✅ The original journal was clearly too high-tier for your contribution level
If you submitted to a top-5 journal in your field (IF > 15) but your manuscript reports incremental findings, moving to a mid-tier journal (IF 3-6) within the same family is strategic.
Example: Rejected from Cell → Resubmit to Cell Reports
Example: Rejected from The Lancet → Resubmit to The Lancet Regional Health
✅ Rejection specifically mentioned scope mismatch alongside language concerns
If the decision letter said something like “While the English requires improvement, the primary issue is scope—this research is more suitable for a specialized journal,” then resubmission to a more targeted journal within the family makes sense.
What to check: Read 10-15 recent articles from the target journal. Does your manuscript genuinely fit their published scope, methodology, and contribution level?
✅ You can substantially improve clarity in 1-2 weeks
If you understand exactly what “poor English” meant (based on the diagnosis above) and can fix it quickly through structural revision, not complete rewriting, then rapid resubmission is feasible.
Litmus test: Ask a colleague in your exact subfield to read your revised introduction and abstract. If they can identify the main contribution in 30 seconds, you’ve fixed the clarity problem.
✅ The rejection letter was relatively encouraging despite the decision
Some desk rejection letters include language like:
- “We encourage resubmission after substantial revision.”
- “The research may be appropriate for [specific sister journal].”
- “While we cannot consider this manuscript, the topic is of interest to our readers.”
These suggest editorial receptiveness to future submissions after improvement.
When Resubmission Within the Same Publisher is Risky
❌ The rejection explicitly said “fundamental language issues” or “extensive editing required.”
This language signals that editors don’t think the manuscript is salvageable with minor fixes. They’re diplomatically saying the manuscript needs complete rewriting.
What this really means: The contribution isn’t clear, the argument structure needs rebuilding, or the science itself may have presentation problems that obscure whether it’s sound.
❌ Your manuscript genuinely needs major restructuring, not just polishing
If honest self-assessment reveals that:
- Your introduction doesn’t establish novelty until page 3
- Your methods precede your rationale
- Your discussion doesn’t clearly articulate implications
- Your abstract wouldn’t pass the 30-second clarity test
Then resubmission without substantial revision (2-4 weeks of work minimum) will likely yield identical results.
❌ You’re targeting another journal at the same tier, hoping for a different outcome
Submitting from one Q1 journal to another Q1 journal within the same family without meaningful improvement is essentially asking for the same rejection with a different letterhead.
Why this fails: Editorial standards within tier levels are relatively consistent. If Journal A (IF 12) rejected for “unclear contribution,” Journal B (IF 11) will likely reach the same conclusion unless you’ve clarified the contribution.
❌ The decision letter was perfunctory with no specific feedback
Generic rejection letters that provide zero guidance—just “does not meet our standards for publication”—suggest the manuscript had multiple problems or the editor didn’t invest time in evaluation.
What to do instead: Seek feedback from mentors or colleagues before resubmitting anywhere. Something fundamental needs addressing.
What to Do Immediately After This Rejection
Strategic next steps depend on an accurate diagnosis of the underlying problem and a realistic timeline for effective revision. Here’s a concrete action plan for the first week, the following 2-4 weeks, and long-term.
Week 1: Diagnosis and Initial Assessment
Day 1-2: Emotional Processing (Yes, Really)
Desk rejections hurt, especially after long waits. Give yourself permission to be disappointed for 24-48 hours, then shift to strategic thinking. Research shows emotional processing improves subsequent decision quality.
Don’t immediately resubmit anywhere. Rushed resubmissions driven by frustration rather than strategic revision rarely succeed.
Day 3: The 30-Second Clarity Test
Have someone in your field—not your co-authors, someone relatively unfamiliar with your project—read only your abstract and the first two paragraphs of your introduction.
Ask them:
- “What is the main contribution of this research?”
- “Why does this matter/who cares?”
- “What’s new compared to existing work?”
If they can’t answer these in 30 seconds, you’ve identified the problem. It’s not “poor English”—it’s an unclear contribution presentation.
Day 4: Decode the Rejection Letter
Re-read the decision letter, looking for clues beyond “poor English”:
Look for:
- Any mention of scope (“outside our aims,” “better suited to…”)
- Specific section mentions (“abstract needs clarity,” “methods unclear”)
- Phrases like “contribution not sufficiently significant” alongside language concerns
- Suggestions for alternative journals
- Whether reviewers were invited but declined (sometimes revealed in status history)
What this reveals: Scope problems = choose a different journal. Clarity problems = revise structure. Significant problems = may need more substantial work or a lower-tier target.
Day 5-7: Colleague Consultation
Share the rejection with mentors or trusted colleagues and ask specific questions:
Don’t ask: “Why did they reject this?”
Ask instead:
- “Does the introduction clearly establish what’s new?”
- “Can you identify the research gap on the first page?”
- “Does the abstract communicate the contribution effectively?”
- “Is this manuscript aimed at the right journal tier?”
Weeks 2-4: Strategic Revision
The revision timeline depends on what diagnosis is revealed. Here’s how to prioritize.
Priority 1: Restructure Introduction for Clarity (If Needed – 3-5 days)
The introduction is where most “poor English” problems actually originate. Use this proven structure:
Paragraph 1: Broad context—why this general topic matters
Paragraph 2: Narrow to a specific problem—what’s known, what’s not known
Paragraph 3: The gap—explicitly state what’s missing in current knowledge
Paragraph 4: Your solution—what you did and why it addresses the gap
Paragraph 5: Preview of findings—brief statement of main results and significance
Explicitly state novelty: Include sentences like:
- “To our knowledge, this is the first study to…”
- “Previous research has not examined…”
- “This approach differs from prior work by…”
Avoid vague statements: Replace “provides insights into” with “demonstrates that” or “reveals for the first time.”
Priority 2: Rewrite Abstract for Impact (2-3 days)
Most journals want structured abstracts (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusions) or have specific requirements. Follow their format precisely.
Key principles:
- First sentence establishes topic importance
- The second sentence identifies the specific gap
- The method sentence is concise (one sentence summarizing approach)
- Results are specific with key numbers/findings
- Conclusion states broader significance, not just “more research needed.”
Test your revised abstract: Can a colleague identify the contribution in 15 seconds?
Priority 3: Add Explicit Signposting Throughout (1-2 days)
Academic writing requires more explicit transitions and previews than authors realize.
Add:
- Topic sentences that preview paragraph content
- Transition phrases between sections (“Having established X, we now turn to Y…”)
- Explicit statements of purpose (“This section presents…” / “We first describe…”)
- Summary sentences at section ends
Why this helps: Reduces cognitive load dramatically. Editors and reviewers shouldn’t have to work to understand your organization.
Priority 4: Simplify Sentence Structure (2-3 days)
Run your manuscript through readability analysis. Look for:
- Sentences over 30 words (break into two sentences)
- Paragraphs over 150 words (break or tighten)
- Passive voice where active is possible
- Unnecessary hedging (“it might be possible that perhaps”)
Use tools:
- Hemingway App (flags complex sentences)
- Grammarly (identifies passive voice, readability scores)
- Your field’s style guide for discipline-specific conventions
Priority 5: Professional Edit for Clarity, Not Just Grammar (If Budget Allows)
If you can afford it, hire an academic editor who specializes in your field—not just a proofreader.
What to request: “Developmental editing for clarity and argument structure,” not “copy editing for grammar.”
Important: Tell the editor your manuscript was rejected for “poor English” and ask them to focus on structural clarity, not just sentence-level fixes.
Good services:
- University writing center consultations (often free)
- Editors from professional organizations in your field
- Services that match you with editors holding PhDs in your discipline
Avoid: Generic editing services that don’t understand your field’s discourse conventions. You need someone who knows how arguments are structured in your specific discipline.
Weeks 4-6: Journal Selection and Resubmission
Now that the revision is complete, choose the right journal strategically.
If staying within the same publisher:
Research which journals in their family published similar work recently. Read 10 articles from your top 3 choices. Look for:
- Methodological similarity (similar study designs get published)
- Contribution level (incremental advances vs. groundbreaking)
- Geographic scope (some journals favor certain regions/populations)
- Impact factor match (target journals 20-30% below your original choice)
If moving to a different publisher:
Advantages:
- Fresh editorial eyes with no history of your submission
- Different review culture and standards
- Potentially faster timelines
Disadvantages:
- Lost time—starting submission process from scratch
- May require more extensive reformatting
- No institutional memory of your previous attempt
Consider these alternatives:
- PLOS ONE (multidisciplinary, evaluates on rigor, not impact, fast review)
- Scientific Reports (Nature family, broad scope, relatively fast)
- Frontiers in [Your Field] (fast publication, moderate selectivity)
- BMC journals (field-specific, open access, reasonable standards)
Preparing your cover letter:
Address the previous rejection strategically:
✅ Do mention: “This manuscript was previously submitted to [Journal X]. Based on editorial feedback regarding clarity, we have substantially revised the introduction and abstract to better communicate the novelty and significance of our findings.”
✅ Do emphasize fit: “We believe [Target Journal] is the ideal venue because recent publications [cite 2-3 specific articles] demonstrate your readership’s interest in [your topic].”
❌ Don’t complain: About the previous rejection, the timeline, or how you disagree with the decision.
❌ Don’t be defensive: About the “poor English” feedback—just state what you’ve improved.
How to Avoid “Poor English” Desk Rejection at Your Next Submission
Prevention is always better than recovery. Here’s how to avoid this rejection pattern in future submissions, drawing on insights from editors across multiple journals and publishers.
Before You Start Writing
1. Study the Target Journal Before Drafting
Don’t write first and choose a journal later. Select 2-3 target journals before you write, then:
Read 10-15 recent articles from your top choice journal, specifically focusing on:
- How do introductions establish novelty (where in paragraphs 1-5)?
- What structure do abstracts follow (narrative vs. structured)?
- How much theory/literature review appears before methods?
- What tone and voice do authors use (hedged vs. confident)?
- How are limitations discussed (separate section vs. integrated)?
Note patterns: Are sentences generally shorter or longer? Is passive voice common or rare in your field? Do authors explicitly preview findings in introductions or not?
2. Create an Argument Outline Before Writing
Before drafting, create a 1-2 page outline answering:
- What is already known about this topic?
- What specific gap exists in current knowledge?
- What did I do to address this gap?
- What did I find (in one sentence)?
- Why do these findings matter beyond my specific study?
This outline becomes your introduction structure. If you can’t articulate this clearly in outline form, your drafted introduction won’t be clear either.
During the Writing Process
3. Write Abstract and Introduction Last
Counterintuitive but effective: Write your Results and Discussion sections first (you know what you found), then write Introduction (now you know exactly what you need to preview), then write Abstract last (summarizing the complete paper).
Why this works: Your understanding of contribution evolves as you write. The abstract and introduction written first often don’t match the paper that emerges.
4. Use the “Explain to Non-Specialist” Test
After drafting each major section, explain it aloud to a colleague from a related but different field.
Can you explain in 2-3 sentences:
- Why this matters
- What you did
- What you found
- What it means
If you can’t articulate this verbally without jargon, your written version probably isn’t clear either.
5. Frontload Every Section with Purpose Statements
Start each major section with an explicit statement of what that section accomplishes:
Examples:
- “This section describes the methodological approach we developed to…”
- “The following results demonstrate that…”
- “This discussion interprets our findings in light of three key prior studies…”
Editors and reviewers should never wonder, “Why am I reading this section?”
6. Make Your Contribution Crystal Clear
Include explicit novelty statements in multiple places:
In Abstract: “To our knowledge, this is the first study to…”
In Introduction Paragraph 3-4: “Previous research has not examined… This study addresses this gap by…”
In Discussion: “These findings extend prior work by demonstrating…”
In Conclusion: “This research contributes to the field by…”
Don’t make editors infer your contribution. State it explicitly and repeatedly.
Before Submission
7. The Pre-Submission Clarity Checklist
Before clicking “submit,” verify these clarity markers:
Abstract:
- [ ] Can a non-specialist identify the research question in 10 seconds?
- [ ] Are the main findings stated with specific results, not vague language?
- [ ] Does the final sentence state broader significance?
Introduction:
- [ ] Is novelty/gap explicitly stated in paragraphs 2-4?
- [ ] Does paragraph 5 preview the main findings?
- [ ] Can someone identify “what’s new” in 60 seconds?
Throughout:
- [ ] Are sentences mostly under 30 words?
- [ ] Does each paragraph start with a topic sentence?
- [ ] Are section purposes explicitly stated?
Test: Give the abstract + first two pages to a colleague. If they can’t articulate your contribution in 30 seconds, revise before submission.
8. Professional Pre-Submission Review
Consider paying for pre-submission review if:
- English is not your first language
- You’re targeting a top-tier journal
- This is your first submission to this journal or field
- Your previous submission was rejected for “poor English.”
What to request: Ask the editor/reviewer to focus specifically on:
- Whether the contribution is immediately clear
- If the abstract effectively communicates novelty
- Whether the introduction follows field conventions
- If the structure facilitates quick comprehension
9. Use Journal-Specific Checklists
Most journals provide submission checklists. Actually use them.
Go beyond formatting: Many checklists include items like:
- [ ] “Does the abstract clearly state the study’s contribution?”
- [ ] “Is the rationale for the study clearly explained?”
- [ ] “Are limitations appropriately discussed?”
These aren’t just formalities—they’re signals of what editors prioritize.
10. Submit to Appropriate-Tier Journals
One of the most common mistakes leading to “poor English” rejections: submitting to journals where your contribution level doesn’t match their standards.
Honest self-assessment:
- Is this genuinely novel or confirmatory/incremental?
- Does this change how people think about the topic or provide one more data point?
- Would this be in the top 10-20% of articles this journal publishes?
If you answered “no” to these, target a lower-tier journal where your contribution is genuinely strong rather than a higher-tier journal where it’s marginal.
Why this matters: Marginal-fit manuscripts get scrutinized more carefully for any reason to reject, including language. Strong-fit manuscripts get more generous reads.
Special Case: When “Poor English” Genuinely Means Language Quality
In approximately 20-30% of “poor English” desk rejections, editors truly mean that systematic language issues obscure the science. Here’s how to identify and address genuine language problems.
Diagnosing Genuine Language Issues
You likely have genuine language problems if:
- Multiple native English speakers (not just one) have mentioned clarity issues
- Previous reviewers (from earlier submissions to other journals) specifically flagged language
- You regularly write sentences over 40 words with multiple subordinate clauses
- You frequently use complex grammatical structures (subjunctive mood, nested clauses) incorrectly
- Colleagues routinely ask you to clarify what you meant in written communications
- You composed the manuscript primarily using translation tools or AI without expert editing
Self-assessment test: Ask three native English-speaking colleagues from your field to each read one page of your manuscript (give different pages to each). If two or more report difficulty understanding, you have genuine language issues.
Solutions for Systematic Language Problems
Short-term (for this manuscript):
Hire a professional academic editor with these specific qualifications:
- Native English speaker
- PhD in your field or extensive editing experience in your discipline
- Offers “developmental editing” or “substantive editing,” not just proofreading
- Provides sample edits before full commitment
Cost: Expect $300-800 for a full manuscript edit (varies by length and service). This is less expensive than wasting another 6 months on rejected submissions.
Where to find quality editors:
- Professional organizations in your field (many maintain editor directories)
- University writing center recommendations
- Colleagues who have used editing services successfully
- Avoid cheap services on Fiverr or similar platforms—you get what you pay for
What to request specifically:
- “Please focus on clarity of argument structure and disciplinary writing conventions.”
- “I need help making sure the contribution is immediately clear.”
- “The manuscript was rejected for ‘poor English’—please help me understand what needs fixing beyond grammar.”
- Medium-term (for future manuscripts):
- Invest in academic writing development:
- Online courses in scientific writing:
- Coursera: “Writing in the Sciences” (Stanford)
- edX: “Academic Writing” (Berkeley)
- Field-specific writing workshops at conferences
Read strategically:
- Choose 5 articles from your target journal
- Analyze sentence structure, paragraph organization, and how arguments are built
- Practice rewriting your own work in a similar style
Writing groups:
- Join or form a writing group with other researchers
- Exchange manuscripts for feedback, specifically on clarity
- Regular exposure to others’ writing improves your own
Get a writing mentor:
- A senior colleague who writes well in your field
- Ask for feedback specifically on argument clarity and structure
- Some departments offer formal writing mentorship programs
- Long-term (systematic improvement):
- If English is not your first language and you plan a research career in English-language publishing:
- Consider immersive English development:
- Postdoctoral positions in English-speaking countries
- Visiting scholar/research fellowships in your field
- Intensive academic English programs at universities
- Consistent practice in writing and receiving feedback
Work with a long-term writing coach:
- Some editors specialize in working with non-native English speakers over multiple manuscripts
- Investment pays off across your entire career
- Learn patterns that improve all future writing, not just one manuscript
Reality check: Developing native-like academic writing proficiency takes years when it’s not your first language. This isn’t a deficit—it’s simply a recognition that academic writing in any language requires sustained practice and feedback. Native speakers also struggle with this; they just struggle differently.
Understanding Elsevier, Springer, and Other Publisher Policies
Different publishers have different approaches to desk rejection, manuscript transfer, and resubmission. Understanding these policies helps you make strategic decisions after rejection.
Elsevier-Specific Considerations
Manuscript transfer system: Elsevier operates a “transfer desk” system where editors can suggest manuscripts be transferred to other Elsevier journals. If your rejection letter mentions this option:
Pros of accepting transfer:
- Original submission date is preserved (matters for priority claims)
- Your manuscript is forwarded with formatting intact
- Indicates editors saw merit in the science, just the wrong venue
- You receive a relatively rapid second evaluation
Cons of accepting transfer:
- Limited control over which journal receives it
- Some transfers go to lower-quality journals within the Elsevier family
- You’re locked into that journal until the decision
- Transfer doesn’t guarantee acceptance—still faces full review
Decision rule: Accept transfer if the suggested journal is legitimate (check its impact factor, editorial board, and indexing) and matches your work’s scope. Decline if it’s obscure or clearly lower quality than you’d target independently.
Elsevier editing services: Rejection letters often suggest Elsevier’s paid editing services. Be aware:
Pros:
- Editors familiar with Elsevier journal standards
- Relatively fast turnaround
- May improve your chances at Elsevier journals specifically
Cons:
- Relatively expensive compared to alternatives
- Does not guarantee acceptance (no editing service can)
- May not address structural clarity issues, only sentence-level language
Alternative: Seek independent academic editors who specialize in your field rather than publisher-affiliated services.
Springer Nature Policies
Transfer arrangements: Springer Nature operates “Research Submission Exchange,” allowing manuscript transfer between Springer and participating publishers.
Key difference from Elsevier: Transfers can go beyond Springer journals to other publishers’ journals in their network. This provides more options but also less predictable outcomes.
Editorial clustering: Some Springer journals share editorial boards, meaning your manuscript history may be visible if you resubmit within closely related journals. This isn’t necessarily negative—it can work in your favor if you substantially revise.
Wiley: Typically does not offer formal transfer systems. Desk rejection is final, and resubmission to another Wiley journal starts fresh.
Advantage: No submission history carries over, giving you a clean slate after revision.
Disadvantage: No preservation of submission date; must completely reformat and resubmit.
Taylor & Francis, SAGE, BMC: Similar to Wiley—desk rejections are final without formal transfer mechanisms, but some journals within families share editorial staff who may remember your manuscript if you resubmit quickly.
When to Persist vs. When to Pivot
Sometimes “poor English” desk rejection signals that more fundamental changes are needed—not just language revision but strategic pivots in framing, scope, or even target audience.
Signals That Revision Will Succeed
Persist with revision and resubmission if:
✅ You can clearly identify what “poor English” meant (using this guide’s diagnostic sections)
✅ Colleague feedback confirms the issue is fixable with a structural revision
✅ The science is sound, and the contribution is genuinely novel
✅ You’re willing to invest 2-4 weeks in substantial revision, not surface polishing
✅ You can target a more appropriate journal tier based on a realistic assessment
✅ Previous reviewers (if you’ve submitted elsewhere before) praised the science but mentioned clarity
Example success story: A postdoc’s manuscript was desk rejected from a Q1 journal for “poor English.” Diagnosis revealed that the introduction buried the contribution in paragraph 5. After restructuring the introduction to frontload novelty and rewriting the abstract for impact, the manuscript was accepted at a solid Q2 journal within 3 months with positive reviews praising clarity.
Signals That a Strategic Pivot Is Needed
Consider more substantial changes if:
❌ Multiple colleagues struggle to identify your contribution even after revision
❌ You’ve received 2-3 desk rejections from comparable journals with similar feedback
❌ Your manuscript has undergone multiple revisions, but still lacks a clear focus
❌ The rejection mentioned “limited significance” or “incremental contribution” alongside language issues
❌ Honest self-assessment reveals your framing doesn’t match your actual findings
Possible pivots:
- Reframe your contribution: Instead of claiming “this demonstrates X,” position as “this provides preliminary evidence for X” and target a different journal tier.
- Narrow your scope: If you’re trying to make multiple arguments, split into multiple papers, each with one clear contribution.
- Target different audience: Some findings fit better in applied vs. basic science journals, or in interdisciplinary venues vs. discipline-specific ones.
- Seek co-author help: Adding a co-author who excels at writing/communication can transform manuscript clarity.
- Conference proceedings first: Some fields allow publishing in peer-reviewed conference proceedings before journal submission. This provides feedback and validates your contribution before investing in major journal submission.
When to Consider Moving On
Sometimes, the healthiest decision is to move on from a manuscript:
- You’ve invested 6+ months in revision cycles with no success
- The science no longer represents your current thinking (you’ve advanced your methods or understanding)
- The findings are becoming dated (in rapidly moving fields)
- The time investment is preventing progress on more promising projects
This isn’t failure—it’s strategic allocation of limited time and energy. Many successful researchers have 1-2 unpublished manuscripts that they eventually abandoned because the opportunity cost of continued revision exceeded potential benefits.
Real Stories: How Researchers Recovered from “Poor English” Desk Rejection
Learning from others’ experiences can inform your strategy. Here are real cases (details anonymized) showing different paths to success after this specific rejection pattern.
Case 1: The Structural Clarity Problem
Initial submission: Computational biology manuscript submitted to high-tier journal, desk rejected after 9 weeks for “insufficient English language quality.”
Author’s first reaction: Frustration—the manuscript had been edited by a professional service with native English speakers.
Diagnosis: The 30-second test with colleagues revealed nobody could identify the computational innovation from the introduction. The novelty was buried in paragraph 6, and the abstract was dense with technical details but lacked a clear contribution statement.
Solution:
- Completely restructured introduction following “funnel” model (broad → narrow → gap → solution)
- Rewrote abstract to lead with “This study introduces [specific innovation], enabling [specific advance]”
- Added explicit novelty statement: “Previous computational approaches required X; our method eliminates this requirement, allowing Y.”
- Simplified technical terminology in opening sections
Outcome: Resubmitted to a slightly lower-tier but well-respected journal in same field. Accepted after minor revisions within 4 months. Reviewers specifically praised the “clear presentation of contribution.”
Time investment: 3 weeks of revision focused entirely on clarity and structure, not adding new science.
Lesson: Sometimes “poor English” means “I can’t figure out what you’re claiming is new.”
Case 2: The Discipline Conventions Issue
Initial submission: Social science manuscript rejected for “poor quality English” after 7 weeks.
Author’s context: Non-native English speaker, but the manuscript was edited by native speaker colleagues.
Diagnosis: The manuscript followed natural science writing conventions (passive voice, minimal hedging, claims stated confidently) in a field (sociology) that expects extensive hedging, theoretical positioning, and literature dialogue. The writing was “grammatically perfect but disciplinarily wrong.”
Solution:
- Worked with a senior colleague in the exact subfield to identify convention violations
- Added a theoretical framing section, positioning the study within a specific paradigm
- Changed tone throughout to include appropriate hedging (“suggests,” “indicates,” “may reflect”)
- Expanded literature review showing engagement with key debates
- Modified claims to acknowledge limitations and alternative interpretations
Outcome: Resubmitted to a comparable journal in the same field. Sent for peer review (desk rejection avoided) and eventually accepted after major revisions addressing substantive concerns, not language.
Time investment: 5 weeks working closely with a senior colleague mentor to learn field-specific writing norms.
Lesson: “Good English” means different things in different disciplines. Grammar correctness ≠ and disciplinary appropriateness.
Case 3: The Genuine Language Problem
Initial submission: Medical research manuscript desk rejected for “extensive English editing required.”
Author’s context: Researcher from a non-English-speaking country, first submission to an international journal.
Diagnosis: Systematic language issues throughout—awkward phrasing, incorrect article usage, unclear pronoun references, non-idiomatic expressions. Previous editing was insufficient.
Solution:
- Hired a developmental editor specializing in medical manuscripts (cost: $600)
- The editor provided both corrections and explanations of patterns to avoid
- The author spent an additional 2 weeks implementing the editor’s feedback and learning
- Joined the university’s academic writing support group for long-term improvement
Outcome: Substantially revised manuscript submitted to a different journal (not within the Elsevier family to avoid history). Accepted after minor revisions. Subsequent manuscripts required less editing as the author’s writing improved.
Time investment: 4 weeks for this manuscript + ongoing writing development.
Cost investment: $600 for professional editing, but the improvement is transferred to future work.
Lesson: When language is genuinely the problem, investing in professional help and systematic improvement pays off long-term.
Case 4: The Strategic Journal Mismatch
Initial submission: Engineering manuscript to top-tier journal (IF 18), desk rejected for “poor English.”
Author’s context: Native English speaker, experienced publisher.
Diagnosis: The “poor English” feedback was puzzling, given the author’s background. Closer examination revealed the rejection was really about contribution level—the work was solid but incremental, not groundbreaking enough for that journal tier.
Solution:
- Recognized “poor English” was code for “not significant enough.”
- Made minor clarity improvements, but didn’t rewrite
- Targeted journal with IF 6-8, where the contribution level was a stronger fit
- Emphasized practical applications rather than theoretical advances
Outcome: Submitted to a mid-tier journal, accepted after minor revisions within 3 months. Reviewers made no mention of language issues.
Time investment: 1 week of minor revisions + strategic journal selection.
Lesson: Sometimes “poor English” is diplomatic code for “wrong journal tier.” Strategic targeting solves the problem better than extensive revision.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Should I mention the previous rejection in my cover letter to the new journal?
Yes, but frame it positively. Include one sentence: “This manuscript was previously submitted to [Journal X]. Based on editorial feedback regarding clarity, we have substantially revised the presentation to better communicate our contribution.” Don’t elaborate or complain—just acknowledge and move forward.
Q: How long should I wait before resubmitting after making revisions?
There’s no mandatory waiting period. Resubmit when revision is complete—whether that’s 2 weeks or 2 months. Quality of revision matters infinitely more than elapsed time. However, avoid rushing to resubmit within days without genuine improvement.
Q: Will editors at other Elsevier journals see my rejection history?
Generally no. Most publisher systems don’t share submission history across journals, even within the same family. The exception is when you’re offered manuscript transfer—then editors at the receiving journal will know about the previous rejection. Otherwise, your resubmission is treated as a fresh submission.
Q: Is it better to use professional editing services or work with colleagues for revision?
Both have value. Colleagues in your field can diagnose whether the contribution is clear and whether you’re following disciplinary conventions. Professional editors can fix sentence-level issues and overall organization. Ideally, use colleagues for diagnosis, then professional editors for implementation if language is genuinely problematic.
Q: Should I respond to the desk rejection letter asking for more specific feedback?
You can, but expect a limited response. Editors processing hundreds of submissions monthly rarely provide detailed feedback on desk rejections. A polite, brief email asking “Could you provide any additional guidance on specific sections needing improvement?” might occasionally yield a helpful response, but don’t expect it. If you receive no response after one week, move forward with your own diagnosis and revision.
Q: How do I know if my revised manuscript is actually better or just different?
Test it. Use the 30-second clarity test with fresh readers (people who haven’t seen previous versions). If they can identify your contribution in 30 seconds and explain why it matters, your revision improved clarity. If they still struggle, keep revising. You need external validation, not just your own sense of improvement.
Q: What if I disagree that my English is poor—should I appeal?
Appeals rarely succeed with desk rejections, and “poor English” rejections especially. Even if your English is objectively fine, something about your presentation didn’t work for that editor. Channel that energy into strategic revision and appropriate journal targeting rather than appealing. Your time is better spent improving the manuscript and moving forward.
Q: Can I cite the same research in a resubmission to another journal, or do I need to change everything?
You can and should cite the same research—your literature review doesn’t need to change unless there’s new relevant work published. What needs to change is how you frame your contribution relative to that literature and how clearly you articulate your advancement beyond existing work. Understanding how to respond to reviewers can also help you prepare for future rounds.
Q: Is paying for fast-track review at another journal worth it to save time?
Only if you’ve genuinely fixed the underlying problems. Fast-track review (typically $500-1500 at journals that offer it) gets you a decision faster but doesn’t change editorial standards. If you’re resubmitting without substantial revision, fast-track just gets you rejected faster. Use fast-track only after you’re confident the manuscript is genuinely improved and appropriately targeted.
Conclusion: Turn This Rejection Into Strategic Advantage
Receiving a desk rejection for “poor English” after weeks of waiting feels discouraging—especially when your English is objectively fine. But understanding what editors actually mean by this decision transforms rejection from a dead end into actionable feedback.
Remember these key principles:
“Poor English” rarely means grammar. At reputable journals, it typically signals unclear contribution presentation, structural problems, or discipline-inappropriate discourse conventions.
The 8-week timeline isn’t meaningless. It suggests your manuscript was seriously considered, not immediately dismissed. The rejection came after evaluation, not before.
Strategic targeting matters as much as revision. The clearest manuscript will be rejected if submitted to the wrong journal tier or scope.
Revision means restructuring, not just polishing. Surface-level editing won’t solve structural clarity problems. Focus on making your contribution immediately obvious.
This rejection likely saved you time. Desk rejection is faster than negative peer review. You can now revise strategically and resubmit in weeks rather than enduring months of review only to face rejection.
Your Next Steps
- Diagnose what “poor English” actually meant using the framework in this guide
- Take 1 week for a strategic assessment before rushing to resubmit anywhere
- Revise for clarity and structure, not just grammar
- Target journals where your contribution is strong, not marginal
- Learn from this experience to strengthen future submissions
Understanding different types of journal decisions and rejection reasons helps you build resilience and a strategy for your entire academic career.
Most importantly: This rejection doesn’t define your research value. It reflects a mismatch between how you presented your work and what that particular journal’s editors expected. With strategic revision and appropriate targeting, your research will find its audience.
Your contribution matters. Now make sure your presentation matches its value.
About the Author
This guide was written by Dr. James Richardson, a research engineer with first-hand experience navigating high-impact journal submissions and editorial decision processes. Over the course of his career, he has submitted to and reviewed for international journals, experienced desk rejections for non-technical reasons, and worked with colleagues to diagnose and resolve issues related to language, scope fit, and editorial expectations. His perspective combines the realities of author frustration, reviewer standards, and practical resubmission strategy—especially for early-career researchers facing unexpected rejections.
Last Updated: January 2026
Have questions about your specific rejection situation? The comment section below includes responses to common scenarios. Share your experience to help other researchers navigate similar challenges
