No editor that I know feels good about rejecting a paper.
Editors send papers out for review with optimism. The topic is novel & method sound. The authors are established & familiar. The authors are new & need a hand.
Then the paper comes back. The reviews are not what was hoped for.
While the topic is novel to the editor, #reviewerone notes a paper that is too close for comfort.
While the method was sound years ago, #reviewertwo notes it is not up to current standards.
Whether established or new, the authors submit a sloppy paper - evoking concern in #reviewerthree that even a revision won’t improve the paper.
Editors then have the onerous task of reading the paper, the reviews, & assessing the comments’ veracity.
At this point, the real work begins.
In every review package, editors find bits & pieces that they disagree with. Be it questions on theory, measures, implications for practice, or theory.
Editors step back, triangulate across the paper & the reviews, & ask three questions.
First, is this interesting? Or potentially interesting? This speaks to the #contribution comment. An amazing number of papers make modest contributions. At a #topjournal, you need something more. At a regular journal, that’s ok.
The editor then reframes the question, is this interesting enough for my journal.
If the answer is no, the editor rejects it.
Second, is the analysis accurate? Keep in mind. Every author team is composed of skilled professionals. However, every review team is composed of skilled assassins. If there is a problem, they will surface it,
The editor asks whether the authors can fix the analysis. Is it a real or imagined problem?
If the paper can not be fixed & has real problems, the decision is obvious.
Third, at an aggregate level, can the #problems be fixed? Has the author team evoked confidence that they can make the changes?
This is the most painful question to answer. It’s a pure judgment call. Editors look at the quality of the #writing, the thoroughness of the #analysis, and the author's #trackrecord.
They ask an ancillary question, do I take a chance? Some editors won’t. Some only take risks on established authors. Some cut a rookie a break.
If the answers are negative on any of these questions, editors come to a simple, painful conclusion to terminate the review process.
Frankly, it doesn’t feel good.
On the one hand, #editors rationally know it is necessary. On the other hand, they are volunteers who want to publish papers.
Writing a rejection is miserable.
No matter how many #rejectionletters I pen, I hate it.
I read comments by authors, who make it sound like their paper was rejected with glee. That’s never the case for your editor.
Know that rejections are written by #volunteers who want to accept your paper.
Knowing this, I pen #thankyou notes for #rejections.
I appreciate the editor’s work & I hope that now you will too!
Comments