The manuscript does not reach the required quality standard of this journal I just received the following comment from an Elsevier editor &quot;The manuscript does not reach the required quality standard of this journal.&quot;. To my mind say just that or nothing is pretty much the same considering the minimum requirements for data openness and transparency.
there is already a good explanation of the submission process here:
what does the typical workflow of a journal look like
However, as an automated process, is prone to flaws as well as to improvements.
And does not explain in detail the received comment stated above.
Any thoughts on deciphering the comment stated above are greatly appreciated.
thank you
EDIT:
When I posted this question I forgot to add an essential and relevant fact to this conversion, which is: many and many scientific researchers don't have the opportunity to develop their research works in a team or even do it collaboratively. They have to rely on themselves to present their findings and defend their thesis. And everyone here is acquainted with the syndrome of  &quot;tunnel effect&quot; when writing. So having someone, that can give a small contribution to unlocking someone else research writing, I see as a welcoming behavior that can only benefit the scientific community at the individual level.
The answer you received indicates that your paper was a &quot;desk rejection&quot;. The editor did not send out your paper for review as she/he believes that your paper has no chance of getting accepted.
Journals accept some papers and reject others. To save the time of reviewers, editors of a journal often have a look at a paper and gauge its chance of acceptance before sending it out for a review. A few aspects that they look for are:

Is the grammar/spelling sufficiently good? It does not have to be perfect for the submitted version, but reasonably good. Papers for which the grammar obstructs the understandability of the content should be fixed first before doing a proper review.
Is the contribution as stated in the paper substantial enough for paper acceptance in this journal even it the reviewers find that the paper is 100% correct and publishable? If the claimed contribution is not perceived to be on par with the other published papers in the journal, the paper won't make it in, and hence there is - again - no reason to send this out for review.
Does the paper overall appear to have substantial flaws? For instance, are non-trivial claims not accompanied by proofs, does the paper structure follow the conventions of the field, etc.?
Does the appearance of the paper match one of a paper from an established author? Do the figures look roughly professional, is there a change in font in the middle of the text, etc.?

If your paper falls short on one of these aspects (and a few others that I most likely have forgotten), you are likely to get a desk rejection. Note that it ultimately saves you time, as you get the answer earlier in this way. However, the editor could have been a bit more precise w.r.t. what exactly was wrong. The normal course of action in such a case is to ask your advisor for advice if you have one.