What Editors Actually Decide, and On What

Authors frequently assume the reviews determine the decision, and that a paper with two positive reports should be accepted. Editors do not average reviews, and understanding what they are actually doing explains a great deal of otherwise puzzling correspondence.

Practices vary — handling editors, associate editors, editorial boards, editor-in-chief involvement. What follows describes the common shape. For a concrete operational example of how a workplace tool approaches a related coordination problem, see this page.

The two decisions

First: does this go out for review at all?

A substantial share of submissions are rejected here, without review. This is not a judgement of quality in most cases. It is fit, scope, and priority — whether the paper is the kind of thing this journal publishes and whether it is competitive for the space available.

A desk rejection is fast and it is information. It usually means the venue was wrong, not the work.

Second: what to do with the reviews.

Here the editor is deciding whether the objections raised are fatal, addressable, or matters of taste — and that requires reading the paper themselves, which good editors do.

What editors weigh

Whether the objections are substantive or preferential. A reviewer who wanted a different paper is weighted differently from one who identified a design problem.

Reviewer expertise and confidence. A reviewer who said they could not assess the method has told the editor to weight them accordingly on that point — which is exactly why saying so is valuable. See reviewing outside your area.

Whether the concerns are addressable within a revision. A paper needing new data is usually rejected even with sympathetic reviews, because the revision cannot be completed.

Fit with the journal. Good paper, wrong venue is a real and common outcome.

Their own reading. Editors read the paper. A report that mischaracterises it is discounted.

And, unavoidably, capacity. Journals have space and reviewer pools, and a paper that is fine but not compelling loses to one that is compelling.

Why two positive reviews can still be a rejection

The situation authors find hardest to interpret.

The reviews may be positive and thin. Two short reports saying the paper is interesting do not give the editor a reason to publish it over the alternatives.

The editor may disagree with the reviewers, having read it themselves. This is legitimate and it should be explained in the letter.

Priority. The paper is sound and the journal publishes a fraction of sound papers.

A concern nobody raised may be visible to the editor.

Conversely, a paper with one hostile review can be sent for revision if the editor judges the objections addressable or the review unfair.

Reading the editor's letter

More informative than the reviews, and frequently skimmed.

A form rejection without reviews: fit or priority. Very little information about the paper.

A short letter following the reviewers: the reports are the substance.

A letter with the editor's own reasoning: read closely. This tells you what the editor thought the paper needed, which is the most reliable signal you will get.

A letter that names which concerns matter most: this is an instruction. If the editor says the identification is the central issue, addressing everything else and not that will fail.

"We would consider a substantially revised version": an invitation with a low probability, and regularly misread as a rejection. Ask if it is ambiguous — editors answer.

See reading a rejection.

What this means for authors

Choose the venue before writing the cover letter, and be honest about fit. A large share of rejections are fit, and submitting to a venue where the paper does not belong wastes months.

Write the cover letter to the editor, not to the reviewers. One paragraph: what the paper does, why it suits this journal. Editors read it and it affects the desk decision.

In a revision, respond to the editor's priorities first. Their letter is the instruction; the reviews are the input to it. See responding to reviewers.

Flag disagreements with reviewers in the covering letter, up front. The editor is the person who adjudicates, and they can only do so if they know.

Ask when it is ambiguous. Editors are generally willing to clarify whether a resubmission would be welcome, or which concern is central. A short email is normal.

What this means for reviewers

Write for the editor, not only for the author. They are making a decision and your report is input to it.

Make the recommendation consistent with the comments. A report full of fundamental objections ending in "minor revision" is unusable.

Say where your expertise ends, in the confidential comments. This is one of the most useful things you can provide.

Prioritise your points explicitly. Which would change the conclusion, which would strengthen the paper. Without that the editor has to guess. See how to review a paper.

Say if you think another reviewer is wrong, if you see the other reports. Editors weigh this.

The part that is not visible

Editing is largely unpaid or minimally paid, done alongside a research career, and it involves a great deal of unglamorous work — finding reviewers who respond, chasing, adjudicating disagreements, handling appeals.

Reviewer scarcity shapes the process more than authors realise. Delays are usually reviewers not responding rather than editors sitting on things.

Which is a reason to review when asked, in rough proportion to what you submit. See declining academic requests.

The short version

Editors do not average reviews. They weigh whether objections are substantive, addressable and consistent with their own reading.

Desk rejection is usually fit, not quality, and it is fast information.

Read the editor's letter closely — it is more informative than the reports and it names the priorities.

In a revision, address the editor's stated concerns first, and flag any disagreement up front.

And ask when it is ambiguous. Editors answer.

For an independent authoritative reference, consult COPE guidance for publication-ethics guidance for editors and reviewers.