You are allowed to challenge the Editor's decision. Ask: Why? For example, your grammar may be so bad that the paper is unreadable, and the Editor will reveal that to you.

Thank you dear Dr. Mohamed Hssikou and Dr. Ian Kennedy for the useful answer. You are most welcome.

In the majority of cases, the reason that authors are not invited to question rejections is that the flow of papers through the editorial office is so high that handling even an assessment of the papers prior to review is a tremendously time-consuming process. The pressure to publish throughout the academic community has resulted in a torrent of low quality "salami-sliced" publications, with researchers seeking to publish a paper as soon as the minimum acceptable threshold has been reached rather than striving to produce work of higher quality. Regardless of whether a particular researcher is guilty of salami-slicing, the review process of his or her articles will be affected by the general decrease in standards of individual publications, putting more pressure on publishing house staff to push papers through the process as quickly as possible. If you wish your paper to be reviewed, aim high with the content, give a clear indication in a short submission letter of the value of the work, and suggest a few referees to facilitate the choice of reviewers (noting that an exhaustive list of referees will not serve you well as publishing houses are likely to use just one recommendation from authors and one independently chosen one).

A final word of advice – when a reviewer has taken the trouble to comment on your work, incorporate the suggestions in a revised version of your paper as it is not inconceivable that it will end up on the desk of the same reviewer for a second journal. I have seen many reports along the lines of: "I have seen this paper before when it was sent to me by [another journal], at that time, I recommended that the authors [xxx], however I see no effort...". When reviewers have given their time to review a paper, it seems to me that their remarks should be given more than a passing glance, and an effort made to determine whether the comments made could indeed improve the paper prior to submission elsewhere.

Thank you very Much Dr. Suzy Lidstrom for this fruitful discussion and your best advices.

According to me, too many papers were received in the journal. Even in a month. Each paper own writing method followed.Processing of all papers could not possible . Therefore it is not guarantee to expect some information from editor.

Ok, Dr. A. Tamilarasan that's a raison. It's for the huge number of received articles. Thank you for this frutful discussion.

Because of high quality standards of some peer reviewed scientific journals

That's an important reason. Thank you Dr.Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak.