When Innovation Meets Editorial Gatekeeping: A Case for Reform
✍️ By Hasan Mohamed Husain Alaali (حسن محمد حسين العالي)
In July 2025, I submitted a manuscript titled “Capital Efficiency and Liquidity-Driven Valuation: Evaluating Alba and Alcoa Using AEVM v1.0” to the International Journal of Emerging Markets (IJOEM), managed by Emerald Publishing.
The paper introduced the Alaali Economic Value Model (AEVM) — a new financial valuation model designed to address the weaknesses of traditional methods like DCF, EVA, and FCF. AEVM integrates capital efficiency, liquidity risk, and adjusted cost of capital, providing a forward-looking and more realistic framework for company valuation.
But instead of being reviewed, the manuscript was rejected at the desk level.
The Rejection That Never Reached Review
The rejection email cited “insufficient contribution” and “writing deficiencies.” No examples were given, no feedback was offered, and no reviewers were ever assigned.
When I followed up, the Managing Editor confirmed the decision was based on internal pre-screening and that a standard template email had been used. This meant the paper was never evaluated on its scientific merit.
This type of editorial gatekeeping — rejecting research without review — represents more than just a personal setback. It reflects a wider problem in academic publishing: the lack of transparency, fairness, and accountability in editorial decisions.
Why This Matters
Desk rejections are common. But when they are issued with vague reasoning and without disclosing whether the decision was based on scope, policy, or scientific merit, they become a form of unethical rejection.
Get Hasan Mohamed Husain Alaali | حسن محمد حسين العالي’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Such practices:
- Suppress innovative research that challenges established models.
- Erode trust in the peer review process.
- Contradict international publishing ethics, such as the COPE Core Practices, which require clarity and fairness.
The AEVM manuscript was original, transparent, and aligned with governance protocols. Yet it was dismissed without review, undermining not only the work but also the principle of research integrity.
The Way Forward — DFAS–EEP as the Solution
This case demonstrates why we need structured governance in academic publishing. The DFAS–EEP (Editorial Ethics Protocol) provides a clear framework to prevent these failures:
- Transparency of Evaluation: Journals must state whether rejection is due to scope, merit, or policy.
- Constructive Feedback: Editors must avoid vague templates and provide actionable, specific guidance.
- Gatekeeping Safeguards: Desk rejection cannot be used to dismiss innovative, governance-compliant research without justification.
If adopted, DFAS–EEP would transform cases like this from opaque rejections into transparent, accountable editorial processes — protecting innovation rather than suppressing it.
The Bigger Picture
The rejection of AEVM v1.0 is not just about one manuscript. It highlights a systemic weakness in academic publishing ethics: a culture where pre-screening filters often replace real scientific review.
For researchers, especially those developing new models and frameworks, this creates a chilling effect. Innovation becomes harder, not because of weak science, but because of opaque gatekeeping.
By embedding governance protocols like DFAS–EEP, we can strengthen trust in peer review, protect authors from arbitrary rejection, and ensure that journals remain places where ideas are judged on their merit, not on convenience or orthodoxy.
Final Word
The AEVM case has been formally recorded as DFAS–EIR Case 002 to document this breach and to support reform in editorial ethics. Cases like this must not remain invisible. By making them public and linking them to structured solutions like DFAS–EEP, we can push for a publishing culture that values fairness, transparency, and innovation.
Read the full paper here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5375339
Storytelling version: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-innovation-meets-editorial-gatekeeping-aevm-rejection-alaali-lrgzf/
Alaali | Hasan Mohamed Husain Alaali | العالي | حسن محمد حسين العالي | Founder of ASES, DFAS, AFMF, DFAS-EEP, DFAS-FEP, DFAS-IFRS & PostObjective Governance.
#ResearchIntegrity #EditorialMisconduct #AcademicPublishing #AIEthics #DFASFEP #COPEStandards #AIAuthorship #TransparencyInPublishing #Governance #PeerReviewReform
