Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
68.1 weeks
68.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2024
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
quick desk rejection
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
As a multi-disciplinary business journal, they offer different sections and authors have to choose one. The EIC passed the manuscript to another section despite our existing choice, which was against our wills, but we respected their decisions given our manuscripts was, to some extent, at the boundary of sections.
I received two reviewers reports. Both reports suffered factual mistakes, which made me have no confidence in further submission to JBR. For example,
1. Reviewer 1 said "There is also no literature review section". However, we clearly had one, with an identical title "Literature Review".
2. Reviewer 2 said that we did not define the targeted phenomenon, suggesting that as a major flaw. While we did not use terms like "may be defined as" or "refers to", it does not mean we have not defined. Indeed, we prepared a fairly detailed description of the phenomenon.
3. Reviewer 2 opposed our argument, which highlighted relatively limited literature on the targeted phenomenon. He said that "is not as limited as the author suggest, quite the opposite". He had further offered a list of journal articles. But among the list, many of the articles are indeed irrelevant to the phenomenon that we explored. Even if we could have done a better job offering definition, we absolutely do not believe we made so unclear to the extent that he would offer an irrelevant journal list. Even if the list contained many articles from highly regarded journals, I feel the reviewer was only doing a random search based on the terms that we used and put into the list.
4. Reviewer 2 said "the article fails to offer any meaningful contribution". However, we have widely cited different journal articles that review. Based on our findings, we compared and contrasted the boundary conditions of previous theoretical arguments.
5. I am also disappointed that Reviewer 2 accused our tables in the literature review "look more like a student dissertation and lack meaningful, critical analysis on relevant studies". It is hugely shocking for us to read this. First, the adoption of tables is recommended by some top-tier UTD24 journals. Alternative preferences are acceptable, but using tables in literature reviews alone is absolutely not a habit as Reviewer 2 described. Second, we had synthesised on the previous literature after the table, or the table itself is already an outcome of the needed synthesis.
I received two reviewers reports. Both reports suffered factual mistakes, which made me have no confidence in further submission to JBR. For example,
1. Reviewer 1 said "There is also no literature review section". However, we clearly had one, with an identical title "Literature Review".
2. Reviewer 2 said that we did not define the targeted phenomenon, suggesting that as a major flaw. While we did not use terms like "may be defined as" or "refers to", it does not mean we have not defined. Indeed, we prepared a fairly detailed description of the phenomenon.
3. Reviewer 2 opposed our argument, which highlighted relatively limited literature on the targeted phenomenon. He said that "is not as limited as the author suggest, quite the opposite". He had further offered a list of journal articles. But among the list, many of the articles are indeed irrelevant to the phenomenon that we explored. Even if we could have done a better job offering definition, we absolutely do not believe we made so unclear to the extent that he would offer an irrelevant journal list. Even if the list contained many articles from highly regarded journals, I feel the reviewer was only doing a random search based on the terms that we used and put into the list.
4. Reviewer 2 said "the article fails to offer any meaningful contribution". However, we have widely cited different journal articles that review. Based on our findings, we compared and contrasted the boundary conditions of previous theoretical arguments.
5. I am also disappointed that Reviewer 2 accused our tables in the literature review "look more like a student dissertation and lack meaningful, critical analysis on relevant studies". It is hugely shocking for us to read this. First, the adoption of tables is recommended by some top-tier UTD24 journals. Alternative preferences are acceptable, but using tables in literature reviews alone is absolutely not a habit as Reviewer 2 described. Second, we had synthesised on the previous literature after the table, or the table itself is already an outcome of the needed synthesis.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
54.1 weeks
54.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
The submission was to a special issue. The guest editor commented that they have received a lot of submissions, and they can only choose the few best papers.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
26.0 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Quick review, the reviewers focused on important issues of the paper. Quick responses.
35.0 weeks
35.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016