You are writing for multiple audiences so it becomes a bit of a balancing act:
editors,
reviewers,
readers in your field,
readers outside your field but in your discipline,
REF reveiwers (internal/external) - or similar,
You (you want a paper that clarifies your own work, ideas and helps build reputation).
Journal selection.
Speak to supervisors, mentors, peers, etc to get a sense of where your work might fit as a first focus for your paper.
Try to avoid salami slicing your work (in the UK context - fewer, stronger papers will do you better than lots of papers).
You will know which journals are relevant, have published similar work but also check against the aims and scope of the journal and orientate your work - don't just consider impact, go where you work best fits.
Usually a good idea to have someone read the work and comment before you submit to give you their views on the paper and fit to the journal.
Write for the journal - each journal is specific. Don't assume a paper can be sufficiently generic to fit multiple journals.
Lessons from desk rejections.
Basic reasons for a desk rejection: over the wordlimit, inappropriate fit by topic and wrong discipline.
Frequent "faults" - methods are underdeveloped, literature is too specific it doesn't speak to wider discipline and audience, or the literature lacks theoretical/conceptual engagement; analysis is weak (often in the presentation rather than the analysis per se).
Qualitative researcher warning - don't just say you analysed your data in NVIVO - or similar - that is a tool, not your analytical method.
Remember desk rejection is not an automatic sign you have a bad paper. It is likely not a fit for the journal or in rarer cases, the presentation isn't up to standard.
Getting through desk review.
Use the literature review to demonstrate your competence and engagement with the research. Make sure this speaks to wider issues that will resonate with the journal audience. This is especially important for East Asian papers where there is a risk that the study is so contextually specific that it will not speak to wider theories, concepts or ideas that can resonate with readers outside of that specific context.
For JSP ensure that the policy relevance is clear, weave this throughout the introduction, literature, discussion and conclusion - even in the abstract and key words. But don't just put it in the key words or have a tokenistic engagement.
Demonstrate the rigour of your work (see guidance documents on the resource page here) - especially the paper on how to structure conceptual papers - we are usually familiar enough with how to structure an empirical paper.
Process.
Processes will vary a little by journal but broadly the steps would be as follows:
Submit paper for editor review - outcome will be either to send for review or desk reject. This will likely be done within a week.
If sent for review, editors usually develop a medium sized list of potential reviewers who are gradually invited. Reviewers who do not accept invite will trigger asking the next reviewer on the list until the required number of reviewers have been secured. This can take a couple of months including time for the reviewer to carry out the review.
Reviews are returned with recommendations. Editors review comments and decision to make a decision to the author(s):
Minor revisions - rare but only small edits required.
Major revisions - more frequent which will require careful consideration and integration of reviewers comments.
Rejection - Fairly frequent and a rejection notice and feedback is returned to authors (see comments on feedback below).
Accept - it is rare that at a first review an accept will be suggested by reviewers, but it is possible.
If revisions, time is given to make revisions and the paper is sent out to review to check revisions. The feedback and suggested decisions will repeat step three until a submission is accepted.
Request for final versions to be used for typesetting and proofreading before the paper enters the publication line.
Editor Expectations.
Is there a relevance to the journal?
For JSP - is there a policy relevance?
Does the paper meet the journal style including word length, UK English spellings - check the guidance to authors.
As an Editor I ask if this is a paper I am happy to send out to reviewers to read. E.g. does it reflect the standards of the journal.
Does the paper advance knowledge in some way - empirically, theoretically, methodologically - so there is wider relevance for the readership.
Practical tips for crafting compelling manuscripts.
Clear abstract and introduction. This also relates to appropriate key words and providing a hook for the reader to want to engage with the paper.
Think about signposting and shaping your narrative to guide readers through your argument.
For UK based scholars do give some consideration to demonstrating REF criteria around originality, rigour and significance (but don't make this too blunt).
Keep language clear and accessible with a clear narrative. See resources especially Becker book here.
Get someone else to read and comment.
Look at published work in the journal to get a sense of its structure and typical style.
Empirical papers - will have the typical structure you are likely familiar with: Intro, Lit review (including theoretical framework), robust methods chapter (sampling, data collection, data analysis and ethics), well developed findings and well developed discussion and conclusion.
Conceptual/theoretical papers don't have such an obvious structure - but see resources for a useful paper.
Balance the specifics of your work with wider significance/integrate into wider debates.
Constantly think about the narrative you are developing to guide the reader. Remember readers are not inside your head so won't make the same connections.
It is not a mini thesis - you don't need to have EVERYTHING in the paper. Think carefully about what aspect you wish to discuss and do that well.
Dealing with feedback.
Regardless of the source of feedback - don't take it personally. Rejections for publications is part of the course and no academic has never received rejection or major feedback on their outputs.
Desk rejection - as already noted this is likely not a fit for the journal or not to standard for the journal. If it is not a fit - then you can try a more suitable journal. You likely won't get feedback with a desk rejection (but as a PGR/ECR don't be afraid to ask).
Peer review - reviewers will always have a mixed view on the work and their decisions never align. Editors navigate this and may give you a steer as to how to focus your response to reviewers. You can still get a reject at this stage, but you will have feedback you can use to review and revise to submit elsewhere. If it is revise and resubmit - do not rush this, you will have a timeframe but use that time to do a good job at revisions - as it will go to the reviewers to check.
Carefully read the feedback and decide how you will respond, keep track of where you respond (journals will vary if they want tracked changes or not - my recommendation is don't use track changes as this will just require a revised, clean version to be produced later, just incorporate a table with your listed corrections, by page, in the cover letter).
Be clear how you responded to feedback. If necessary, especially if there are differences in the reviewers comments then navigate these as best you can - or speak to editors for guidance.
Remember the comments are to encourage you to develop a robust paper - they are there to help not hinder.