Manuscript Rejection on the Pretext of "Limited Space": An Ethical and Economic Dilemma.

In the digital age, where physical space constraints in scholarly publishing have largely diminished, the recurring editorial justification of "limited space" for manuscript rejection appears increasingly indefensible. This commentary critically examines the ethical and economic dimensions of this rationale, particularly when it results in redirection to fee-based open access (OA) sister journals. While peer-reviewed publication decisions are ideally grounded in scientific merit, novelty, and methodological rigor, the authors argue that the space limitation rationale may function as a pretext to curate journal branding or steer submissions toward revenue-generating platforms. The expansion of OA publishing, though intended to democratize knowledge dissemination, has in some cases evolved into a profit-driven model that imposes article processing charges on authors. Such practices risk compromising editorial transparency, fairness, and academic equity. The authors advocate for clearer editorial policies, increased transparency in decision-making, and the adoption of mechanisms such as dynamic submission dashboards to inform authors of real-time publication capacity. Rejections should be based on scholarly merit rather than logistical or commercial interests. This article calls for reinforcing the ethical foundations of academic publishing to ensure that decisions reflect genuine scholarly standards and not economic expediency.