I have actively served in editorial boards since the mid-2000s.
Usually, to non-board members, Editors can be somewhat opaque about metrics.
You might, hear about the overall acceptance rate.
You might hear length of time to publication.
You almost never view full disclosure on accept and reject rates by round.
So today, I was pleased to attend a presentation by Professor Yogesh K Dwivedi who clearly and transparently offered metrics for performance.
Given the cycle times (90 days) and swift time to publication, it is no wonder that it’s submissions have gone up and the quality has improved the past four years.
Yogesh clearly explained reasons for desk rejection.
Reasons for rejection include:
(1) poor fit with the journal mission
(2) plagiarism or self plagiarism
(3) language issues
(4) lack of contribution
(5) lack of connection to published work in the journal.
(6) weak explanation to support hypotheses
(7) exceeded length requirements
(8) single shot cross-sectional data
(9) bibiometric analysis, meta-analysis & descriptive reviews that add little to theory
And more.
Notably, Yogesh offered the best explanation for citing papers in a journal - that you submit to - that I’ve heard to date.
He characterized submitting to a journal as joining a conversation - and that if you don’t cite relevant papers in the journal - you are just butting into the conversation.
Yogesh asked ‘if you butt in, how would you expect people to respond?’
I thought, a sharp elbow?
Where I’ve had these requests, to cite, often they are for gratuitous citation to the journal and to increase JIF scores.
This was the first editor - who explained the logic so clearly.
He went on to offer useful tips and tricks for avoiding errors that lead to desk rejection.
Many thanks to Yogesh for the transparency and the tips!
Comentarios