Reflection on why papers got desk reject

I have had the opportunity to serve as Assistant Editor for Construction Innovation journal (IF: 3.1) by Emerald for almost a year. During this time, I have identified FOUR main reasons why manuscripts often fail to, or are delayed in, reaching the peer review stage (with approximate percentages):

1. Failure to strictly follow author guidelines. Issues such as improper wording, pagination, or formatting. These typically result in the manuscript being returned for resubmission. (30%)
2. Out of scope or outdated topics. Papers that either don’t fit the journal’s scope, cover topics that are over-researched, or have findings that only apply regionally without global relevance. These often lead to desk rejection. (20%)
3. Poorly written or incomplete drafts. Manuscripts that are not polished or read like unfinished drafts tend to face desk rejection. (20%)
4. Lack of significant contribution. Papers that fail to demonstrate a clear and meaningful contribution to the body of knowledge or practice are frequently rejected. (30%)

From my experience, editors would prefer manuscripts that:

1. follow the author guidelines.
2. are well-written in high-quality and in good English.
3. clearly contribute to theory or practical knowledge.