Why Referees Reject Manuscripts

This article presents the results of content analysis of 373 referees' reports of manuscripts submitted to 35 hospitality and tourism journals where rejection or major revision was recommended. Failed manuscripts had multiple shortcomings, with referees identifying an average of 6.2 deficiencies per article. The most common areas where referees found fault with manuscripts were methodology (74% of papers), failure to elucidate significance effectively (60%), poor writing style (58%) and a weak literature review (50%). The study concluded that communications' problems were more common than technical flaws.

[1]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Normative standards for IS research , 1994, DATB.

[2]  E. Mcconnell.  Nursing publications outside the United States. , 2000, Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing.

[3]  Tim M. Blackburn,et al.  Publication rejection among ecologists , 2003 .

[4]  D. Pierson,et al.  The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. , 2004, Respiratory care.

[5]  W. Neuman,et al.  Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches , 2002 .

[6]  Alan B. Czyzewski,et al.  Factors leading to the rejection of accountants' manuscripts , 1990 .

[7]  T. Jefferson,et al.  Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. , 2002, JAMA.

[8]  S. Borkowski,et al.  Ethics and the Accounting Publishing Process: Author, Reviewer, and Editor Issues , 1998 .

[9]  Lowell L. Hargens,et al.  Scholarly Consensus and Journal Rejection Rates. , 1988 .

[10]  Manuscript Characteristics Affecting Reviewers' Decisions for Rehabilitation Counseling Related Journals , 2000 .

[11]  D. Horrobin.  Something rotten at the core of science? , 2001, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[12]  Atìla Yüksel,et al.  Writing publishable papers. , 2003 .

[13]  H. Russell Bernard,et al.  Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches , 2000 .

[14]  Reasons for Journal Rejection: An Analysis of 600 Manuscripts * , 1978 .

[15]  J. Kassirer,et al.  Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. , 1994, JAMA.

[16]  D. Easterling.  The Residents' Perspective in Tourism Research , 2004 .

[17]  John O. Summers.  Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in marketing: From conceptualization through the review process , 2001, How to Get Published in the Best Marketing Journals.

[18]  G Bordage,et al.  Reasons Reviewers Reject and Accept Manuscripts: The Strengths and Weaknesses in Medical Education Reports , 2001, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[19]  R. Robergs.  Editorial: A critical review of peer review: The need to scrutinize the"gatekeepers" of research in exercise physiology , 2003 .

[20]  Dov Eden,et al.  From the Editors Publishing across Borders: Furthering the Internationalization of AMJ , 2003 .

[21]  G. E. Gorman.  Authors and Editors of Library Science Journals: Reflections from an Asia/Pacific Context , 2000 .

[22]  Stuart Glogoff.  Reviewing the gatekeepers: A survey of referees of library journals , 1988, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[23]  B. Mckercher.  The privileges and responsibilities of being a referee. , 2002 .