Reviews for "European Management Review"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
n/a 2 3
Rejected 2020
n/a 2 4
(very good)
(very bad)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: The paper was conditionally accepted by the editor following a revise and resubmit process that involved two reviewers and one associate editor. We resubmitted the paper with the formal changes that were requested to move forward with publication. The paper was then handled by a new editor, who said that we should bring down the wordcount to a certain number and he would follow the Associate Editors accept decision. We shortened the paper and the editor came back to us rejecting the paper, referring to communication problems between him and the Associated Editor and to a fellow professors opinion on the manuscript. He attached some vague lines summarizing his colleagues unqualified impressions (in his notes the colleague even admits to only having read some parts of the paper), but did not even attempt to justify his rejection of a paper that had already been accepted on the condition of making some formal adjustments.
The editor's reversal of the previous editorial decision that had been based on a fair and serious peer review process undermines the integrity of the academic publishing process. The editor's behavior is a display of crude disrespect towards reviewers, who devote their time to the review process, as well as to authors who submit their manuscript to this journal.