Journal Review

Journal Review

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

  1. 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.

  2. The insight is useful to people who make decisions, particularly long-term organizational decisions or, in our particular field, family decisions.

  3. The insight is used to develop a framework or theory, either a new theory or advancing an existing one.

  4. The insight stimulates new, important questions.

  5. The methods used to explore the issue are appropriate (for example, data collection and analysis of data).

  6. The methods used are applied rigorously and explain why and how the data support the conclusions.

  7. Connections to prior work in the field or from other fields are made and serve to make the article's arguments clear.

  8. 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

  1. It fails the technical screening.

  2. It does not fall within the Aims and Scope.

  3. It's incomplete.

  4. The procedures and/or analysis of the data is seen to be defective.

  5. The conclusions cannot be justified on the basis of the rest of the paper.

  6. It's is simply a small extension of a different paper, often from the same authors.

  7. It's incomprehensible.

  8. It's boring.