This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1096348007302355v1 31/4/455    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by McKercher, B. Articles by Hsu, C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Why Referees Reject Manuscripts

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, hmbob{at}polyu.edu.hk

Rob Law

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, hmroblaw{at}polyu.edu.hk

Karin Weber

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, hmkweber{at}polyu.edu.hk

Haiyan Song

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, hmsong{at}polyu.edu.hk

Cathy Hsu

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, hmhsu{at}polyu.edu.hk

This article presents the results of content analysis of 373 referees' reports of manuscripts submitted to 35 hospitality and tourism journals where rejection or major revision was recommended. Failed manuscripts had multiple shortcomings, with referees identifying an average of 6.2 deficiencies per article. The most common areas where referees found fault with manuscripts were methodology (74% of papers), failure to elucidate significance effectively (60%), poor writing style (58%) and a weak literature review (50%). The study concluded that communications' problems were more common than technical flaws.

Key Words: referee • rejection

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?