The Nuts‐and‐Bolts of Publishing in the BJIR III: Reasons for Rejection and Concluding Words
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12196 |
| Date | 01 December 2016 |
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/bjir.12196
54:4 December 2016 0007–1080 pp. 681–684
Editorial
The Nuts-and-Bolts of Publishing
in the BJIR III: Reasons for Rejection
and Concluding Words
This is the third of three editorials on the nuts-and-bolts of publishing in
the BJIR. A major take away from the previous two should be that writing
a paper for publication in the BJIR is (as for other significant journals) not
only an uncertain process but also one that can too often be unsuccessful.
One “device” for avoiding such an outcome is to have a mental checklist of
not only what to do,but also what not to do. This check list would begin with
adaptations of the five general questions identified in the preceding editorial.
In this regard, the most common reasons for rejection are:
1) the paper is not within the journal’s purview, nor can it be readily
brought within this purview,
2) the paper is not suciently relevant, nor can it be readily made to be,
3) the analysis is of insucient quality, and cannot be readily “fixed”,
4) the paper’s contribution is too limited, and cannot be readily
strengthened,
5) the paper is not suciently compelling or convincing, nor can it be
readily made to be.
These reasons are very general, and often encompass more specific
problems commonly identified as reasons for rejection. The present editorial
identifies a number of these. It then concludes with general advice for new
scholars in particular.
Specific Reasons for Rejection
All or most of the followinghave been alluded to in the previous two editorials,
but it is always useful to state them more clearly. If a paper meets one or more
of them, its chances of making it past even the desk reject stage are likely to
be lessened substantially.
1) Poor or confused narrative, with poor grammar, spelling, or organization.
This can always, perhaps, be fixed at the revisions stage, but it does not instill
confidence in the author’s seriousness or ability, and the editor may consider
it an embarrassment to send the paper to referees. Inexperience or language
C
2016 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial