From rejection to formative development: recalibrating decisions for under-resourced authors

Abstract

Peer review and editorial triage together are the cornerstones of scientific credibility yet their combined cracks are increasingly visible. As real-world data and digital health technologies have become increasingly important sources of evidence generation, many promising submissions from under-resourced settings receive terse desk rejections or nonspecialist reviews that obscure remediable methodological and reporting issues, limiting learning and career progression. We propose a compact, author-initiated, equity-centred remediation pathway—the mentorship escrow—that integrates upstream supports, a core remediation window, and a downstream pathway, converting borderline submissions into time-bounded and capacity-building interventions. We outline practical implementation steps, pilot design considerations, and measurable equity and quality metrics; discuss trade-offs across components; and address variable constraints including mentor availability, funding, potential selection bias, and risks of dependency, proposing mitigation strategies to ensure scalable, sustainable capacity building that preserves editorial standards while broadening the circulation of locally relevant evidence.