An editor ought to be able to determine whether a manuscript presents research that is within the scope of a particular journal, however this verdict is one on that journal staff tend to fall back when they don't have a better 'verdict'. Suppose, for instance, the staff have asked an editorial board member or two to assess a paper, but these academics have responded that the work is outside their expertise. The staff might then have chosen several potential reviewers to review the manuscript, but if no response has been forthcoming, the people handling the manuscript will need to decide what to do next. The manuscript can sit in a queue awaiting further requests to editorial board members who are increasingly less likely to respond that the paper is within their area of expertise, or the staff can return the paper to the author on the assumption that if the board members have declined to review the paper, the manuscript is probably outside the reviewing capabilities of the journal.

I would suggest providing a cover letter when resubmitting the paper elsewhere in which you (1) specify the general subject area for the journal staff, (2) give the name of the editorial board member who is best qualified to oversee the eventual review, and (3) choose different people as the proposed referees, possibly including a remark like "Any of the authors of reference 16 would be suitable referees for this work, as would Professor...", thereby giving the staff many names to choose from. Note that you should avoid suggesting close collaborators, or if they are indisputably the best qualified reviewers, explain why they are suitable as referees and how your relationship with them has changed if, for example, you suggest someone with whom you published in the last year or two.

The journal may have problem finding a referee that understands the paper, while it is an unpaid and tiresome work to function as a referee. However, if they come to the conclusion that the paper falls outside their scope you would expect them to reach this decision within some days.

An editor ought to be able to determine whether a manuscript presents research that is within the scope of a particular journal, however this verdict is one on that journal staff tend to fall back when they don't have a better 'verdict'. Suppose, for instance, the staff have asked an editorial board member or two to assess a paper, but these academics have responded that the work is outside their expertise. The staff might then have chosen several potential reviewers to review the manuscript, but if no response has been forthcoming, the people handling the manuscript will need to decide what to do next. The manuscript can sit in a queue awaiting further requests to editorial board members who are increasingly less likely to respond that the paper is within their area of expertise, or the staff can return the paper to the author on the assumption that if the board members have declined to review the paper, the manuscript is probably outside the reviewing capabilities of the journal.

I would suggest providing a cover letter when resubmitting the paper elsewhere in which you (1) specify the general subject area for the journal staff, (2) give the name of the editorial board member who is best qualified to oversee the eventual review, and (3) choose different people as the proposed referees, possibly including a remark like "Any of the authors of reference 16 would be suitable referees for this work, as would Professor...", thereby giving the staff many names to choose from. Note that you should avoid suggesting close collaborators, or if they are indisputably the best qualified reviewers, explain why they are suitable as referees and how your relationship with them has changed if, for example, you suggest someone with whom you published in the last year or two.

The handling editorial staff can have a decision within a week, maximum. But to keep it hidden for a long time without any decision is purely malicios and unprofessional

If the MS do not fits at all the aims and scope of the journal. I believe that it is unethical behavior to hold the MS for a longer time. The editor will be able to make a decision in few days.

Dear Aparna Sathya Murthy , I thank you for your comments, and we do not disagree, but most often, it is intended that the editor retains the manuscript for months (not days) and then gives the decision (ٌReject) for not being in the scope or has no priority among the manuscripts submitted for publication. Otherwise, the editor has an area of excuse

For some bad experience in this aspect that I have had, I add the fact that not only is there a delay in the editor's response period, but after the long wait, one finds the editor's response that his document is out of scope of publication, without even going through the peer review process. When you decide to send the document to that particular publication, it is because you have verified that your document is in line with the articles published in that scientific journal! This behavior of certain publishers is completely incomprehensible.

Of course, the delay in such a case is absolutely unjustified, and rejection due to lack of research in this field or has no priority among the manuscripts submitted for publication is illogical and does not require all this time to decide to refuse. The ideal solution, in my opinion, is to publish the manuscript in another journal as long as you are confident in the strength and sobriety of your research

Because they have lazy secretaries, not paid enough and overcharged with work. Once, at some of the greatest publisher in France, the more reknown, the best-seller maker, a studies-less secretary showed me how she was selecting the manuscripts to be read by the publisher. She did it by counting: 1,2,3,4,5,6... hop, to the trash box, just keeping the 7th, without reading a single line. I kept voiceless and promised myself to self-publish. Nowadays publishers don't deserve 90% of our rights.

Active editorial staff respond usually very promptly, giving authors a chance to direct their manuscript to an alternative more suitable journal.

The good editor give his or her decision with as fast as possible whether the manuscript in line with the scope of the journal or not.

I believe it is an ethical to delay the author(s) for long time and then telling them your manuscript is not in line with the scope of our journal, because of the time is cost.

I personally am perturbed by some journals. I submitted work last year in July 2019, they only acknowledged receipt and nothing else. Maybe they just take their time always