The metaverse has the potential to extend the physical world using augmented and virtual reality technologies allowing users to seamlessly interact within real and simulated environments using avatars and holograms. Virtual environments and immersive games (such as, Second Life, Fortnite, Roblox and VRChat) have been described as antecedents of the metaverse and offer some insight to the potential socio-economic impact of a fully functional persistent cross platform metaverse. Separating the hype and “meta…” rebranding from current reality is difficult, as “big tech” paints a picture of the transformative nature of the metaverse and how it will positively impact people in their work, leisure, and social interaction. The potential impact on the way we conduct business, interact with brands and others, and develop shared experiences is likely to be transformational as the distinct lines between physical and digital are likely to be somewhat blurred from current perceptions. However, although the technology and infrastructure does not yet exist to allow the development of new immersive virtual worlds at scale - one that our avatars could transcend across platforms, researchers are increasingly examining the transformative impact of the metaverse. Impacted sectors include marketing, education, healthcare as well as societal effects relating to social interaction factors from widespread adoption, and issues relating to trust, privacy, bias, disinformation, application of law as well as psychological aspects linked to addiction and impact on vulnerable people. This study examines these topics in detail by combining the informed narrative and multi-perspective approach from experts with varied disciplinary backgrounds on many aspects of the metaverse and its transformational impact. The paper concludes by proposing a future research agenda that is valuable for researchers, professionals and policy makers alike.

The desk rejection of submitted articles can be a hugely frustrating and demotivating process from the perspective of the researcher, but equally, a time-consuming and vital step in the process for the Editor, tasked with selecting appropriate articles that meet the required criteria for further review and scrutiny. The feedback from journal Editors within this editorial, highlights the significant gaps in understanding from many academics of the journal assessment process and acceptance criteria for progression to the review stage. This editorial offers a valuable “lived-in” perspective on the desk rejection process through the lens of the Editor, via the differing views of nine leading journal Editors. Each Editor articulates their own perspectives on the many reasons for desk rejection, offering key insight to researchers on how to align their submissions to the specific journal requirements and required quality criteria, whilst demonstrating relevance and contribution to theory and practice. This editorial develops a succinct summary of the key findings from the differing Editor perspectives, offering a timely contribution of significant value and benefit to academics and industry researchers alike.