Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation: This is a multi-disciplinary business journal currently with a Finance background professor as EIC. Author will submit their manuscript specifying which section to submit (i.e., IS, Marketing, HRM...etc)

The phenomenon of my RQ is somewhat multi-dimensional. My RQ may not be interesting from a finance researcher's perspective, but not necessarily in other area researchers' perspective. I did not choose the finance sub-section for my submission, but he overwhelmingly accused that I did not justify the value of my research. He used his angle to judge, without passing it to section editor (head), and thus rejected my paper.

The truth is, I have already provided many related market statistics (which justify the value of my RQ), stated my RQ clearly, and have cited literature that tried to answer my RQ but did not provide very concrete answer.

He did not acknowledge the fact that a phenomenon related to finance can also be related to other areas. Studying a multi-dimensional phenomenon requires embracing diversity. Being the EIC of a multi-disciplinary business journal also requires embracing diversity. But the EIC of AJM did not.
23.9 weeks
25.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2020
Motivation: It was relatively slow for the first round review, but it is understandable because of COVID-19. Also, editor responded to us promptly regarding the issue.

The review quality was good, and I appreciated that the editor had done a reasonable job. The first 2 reviews was positive but relatively brief. The editor could have strictly accepted but he instead found a 3rd reviewer, who had offered more constructive and detailed comments. This is fair to all authors who submitted their work to this journal, would allow the authors to learn from mistakes, and would ensure the quality of the journal.