Note: This is a very brief overview of typical criteria that reviewers us in selecting or rejecting articles submitted for publication.
I. Eight Reasons I Accepted Your Article.
Dr. Torsten Pieper, Journal of Family Business Strategy
It provides insight into an important issue – for example, by explaining a wide variance when numbers are spread out from the mean or expected value, or by shedding light on an unsolved problem that affects a lot of people.
- The insight is useful to people who make decisions, particularly long-term organizational decisions or, in our particular field, family decisions.
- The insight is used to develop a framework or theory, either a new theory or advancing an existing one.
- The insight stimulates new, important questions.
- The methods used to explore the issue are appropriate (for example, data collection and analysis of data).
- The methods used are applied rigorously and explain why and how the data support the conclusions.
- Connections to prior work in the field or from other fields are made and serve to make the article's arguments clear.
- The article tells a good story, meaning it is well written and easy to understand, the arguments are logical and not internally contradictory.
II. Eight Reasons I Rejected Your Article.
By Peter Thrower, PhD Editor-in-Chief of Carbon
- It fails the technical screening.
It does not fall within the Aims and Scope.
- The article contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized, or it is currently under review at another journal. (Republishing articles or parts of articles, submitting to one or more journals at the same time or using text or images without permission is not allowed. See our ethical guidelines.)
- The manuscript is not complete; it may be lacking key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references, tables and figures).
- The English is not sufficient for the peer review process,
- The figures are not complete or are not clear enough to read.
- The article does not conform to the Guide for Authors for the journal it is submitted to.
- References are incomplete or very old.
- For the journal Carbon, the material studied may contain carbon, but is not carbon.
- The study uses a carbon material but the focus is on something different.
There is no new carbon science.
The procedures and/or analysis of the data is seen to be defective.
- The article contains observations but is not a full study.
- It discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work.
The conclusions cannot be justified on the basis of the rest of the paper.
- The study lacked clear control groups or other comparison metrics.
- The study did not conform to recognized procedures or methodology that can be repeated.
- The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field.
It's is simply a small extension of a different paper, often from the same authors.
- The arguments are illogical, unstructured or invalid.
- The data does not support the conclusions.
- The conclusions ignore large portions of the literature.
- Findings are incremental and do not advance the field.
- The work is clearly part of a larger study, chopped up to make as many articles as possible.
- The language, structure, or figures are so poor that the merit can't be assessed. Have a native English speaker read the paper. Even if you ARE a native English speaker. Need help? We offer language services.
- It is archival, incremental or of marginal interest to the field (see point 6).
The question behind the work is not of interest in the field.
- The work is not of interest to the readers of the specific journals.