889683

research-article2019
JMIXXX10.1177/1056492619889683Journal of Management InquiryGardner

Dialog

Journal of Management Inquiry

R & R Dialog: Why I Rejected Your R&R

1­–7
© The Author(s) 2019
Reprintsreuse
Article and permissions:
guidelines:
Submission and What You Could Have sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1056492619889683
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492619889683

Done to Secure an Acceptance jmi.sagepub.com

journals.sagepub.com/home/jmi

William L. Gardner1

Abstract
Richard Daft’s (1995) now classic chapter from Cummings and Frost’s edited volume, Publishing in the Organizational Sciences,
titled “Why I Recommended That Your Manuscript Be Rejected and What You Can Do About It?” highlights the many
reasons initial manuscripts are rejected. Daft presented the results of a content analysis he conducted on 111 manuscripts
reviewed for Administrative Science Quarterly and the Academy of Management Journal to identify common manuscript problems.
Following his lead, this manuscript includes a content analysis of manuscripts returned after a revise and resubmit decision
granted by Group & Organization Management (GOM) and ultimately issued reject decisions. In effect, this manuscript, as part
of the dialog on the revise and resubmit process, details “worst practices” that authors commit when returning a revision.

Keywords
careers, mentoring, management education

Introduction
The collective wisdom of the R&R PDW panelists regarding
“Do’s and Don’ts” distilled in Professor Lester’s opening
piece to this dialog (Lester, in press) provides valuable “best
practices” advice to scholars who receive an R&R and strive
to achieve a successful revision. But what about the “worst
practices”? What can we learn from authors who received an
R&R, but failed to seal the deal and ultimately had their
paper rejected? To help answer this question, I was inspired
by Richard Daft’s (1995) now classic chapter from Cummings
and Frost’s edited volume, Publishing in the Organizational
Sciences, titled “Why I Recommended That Your Manuscript
Be Rejected and What You Can Do About It?” In this chap-
ter, Daft presented the results of a content analysis he con-
ducted on 111 manuscripts that he reviewed for Administrative
Science Quarterly and the Academy of Management Journal
to identify common manuscript problems that lead to his
reject recommendations. Following his example, I conducted
a content analysis of revised manuscripts that were submitted
to Group & Organization Management (GOM) and ulti-
mately issued reject decisions.
Let me put this content analysis in context. Currently, I
serve as GOM’s Editor-in-Chief. My first three-year term
began in July of 2014, and I opted for a second term that will
conclude on December 31, 2020. For the purposes of this anal-
ysis, I will focus on R&Rs I issued as an action editor (AE)
that eventually received a reject decision. The time frame
begins with my appointment and extends through the 2018
calendar year. During this time period, GOM received 1,374
submissions. As editor, I decide if original submissions are
desk rejected or assigned to one of the AEs. Over the review
period, I desk rejected 647 of the new submissions (47%)—
providing the corresponding author with a detailed explana-
tion of my decision—and sent 727 manuscripts out for review;
the assigned AEs assumed responsibility for the final editorial
decisions. Of the reviewed manuscripts, I assigned 123 to
myself, based on the fit of my expertise with the focal topic.
Of the new submissions I was assigned, 60 were rejected and
63 received R&R decisions. Finally, of the 63 R&R decisions,
46 were ultimately accepted, and 17 were rejected—eleven
after one revision, five after two, and one after four.1 The con-
tent analysis focuses on the 17 manuscripts that received
R&Rs, but were subsequently rejected. The goal of this analy-
sis is to determine what went wrong in these cases and to iden-
tify some of the “worst practices” that lead to unsuccessful
revisions. To do so, I examined my editorial letters, plus all of
the reviews, to identify the types of concerns the reviewers and
I expressed.
Before I present the content analysis results, it is useful to
consider the recommendations made by the reviewers for the
1
Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
William L. Gardner, Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University,
Area of Management, 703 Flint, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA.
Email: william.gardner@ttu.edu
2 Journal of Management Inquiry 00(0)
rejected R&Rs to provide some context for my decisions. Note
that the default number of reviewers for manuscripts submit-
ted to GOM is three, but as a paper goes through the review
process, some of the reviewers may drop out (i.e., not submit
a review of the revision) or sign off (i.e., recommend accep-
tance) during a prior round, reducing the number of reviews.
For the rejected R&Rs, here is a breakdown of the frequency
of particular combinations of reviewer recommendations: (a)
two rejects and one revision (five manuscripts); (b) two revise
and one reject (three manuscripts); (c) two rejects (two manu-
scripts); (d) one reject and one revise (two manuscripts); (e)
one reject and one accept (one manuscript); (f) two revise (one
manuscript); (g) one reject (one manuscript); (h) one revise
(one manuscript); and (i) three accepts, with a methods editor
reject recommendation (one manuscript).
This analysis reveals several insights. First, consensus
among the reviewers is rare, as noted in Lester (in press).
Indeed, for the manuscripts that received at least two reviews
for the final revision, only two reflected complete agreement,
with one set recommending rejection and another recom-
mending revision. Second, the most common combination
involved two reject and one revise recommendation, reflect-
ing consistency with my ultimate reject decision. Third, the
next most common combinations at two each involved either
two reject recommendations or an even split between reject
and revise recommendations. Fourth, for two manuscripts,
only a single review was provided in the final round, with
one reject and one revise recommendation. Finally, there was
one manuscript for which all three reviewers recommended
acceptance, but when the manuscript was sent to the methods
editor for a final methods check, a fatal flaw in the methods
was revealed that lead to a reject decision.
While this analysis is informative, keep in mind that my
job as editor is not to count the reviewers’ “votes”, but to
make a decision based on reviewer input and my own assess-
ment of the rigor and potential contribution of the manuscript
to the extant literature. Also, it is important to recognize that
not all reviewer recommendations are of equal quality. For
instance, one or more reviewers may have recommended
acceptance or revision, while another detailed serious sub-
stantive and methodological issues that would have been
extremely difficult for the authors to address. Under such
circumstances, I gave more weight to the reject recommen-
dation (coupled with my own assessment of manuscript
quality), because I considered it unfair to all concerned to
request an additional round of reviews, given the low prob-
ability that the ultimate decision would be favorable. As for
the manuscript that was rejected based on the methods
review, I communicated personally to the authors to express
my regret that the fatal flaw was not identified earlier in the
review process. However, I also noted that the methods
review had served its purpose in that it prevented publication
of a manuscript with methodological limitations that yielded
erroneous results from entering the literature. The authors
replied that they understood the basis for the reject decision,
and expressed gratitude that the manuscript was not pub-
lished, as doing so avoided a potential retraction.
Problems Identified in Unsuccessful R&Rs
A summary of the results of Daft’s (1995) content analysis
and my own is provided in Table 1. For comparative pur-
poses, I present Daft’s problem categories first and his results
in the initial three columns and my results in the final three
columns. For two of Daft’s problem categories—theoretical
issues and inadequate research design—I specify subcatego-
ries in my own results to provide a more fine-grained analysis
of the problems. Finally, I augmented Daft’s categories with
seven additional problem types that emerged in my analysis.
In the remainder of this manuscript, I present a compara-
tive discussion of the results from Daft’s and my content
analyses for his original problem categories, followed by a
discussion of the additional problem types I observed. One
caveat to keep in mind is that my sample of 17 R&R manu-
scripts is much smaller than Daft’s sample of 111 manu-
scripts, so the results are not necessarily representative of the
types of issues that would emerge from a more comprehen-
sive analysis of R&R reject decisions. Nonetheless, for our
purposes of identifying some of the “worst practices” to
avoid, they are informative and provide insights for scholars
seeking to turn their R&Rs into accept decisions.
Theoretical Issues
The most common problem Daft identified involved a lack
of theory, as it was found in over half of the manuscripts.
Here, when Daft refers to theory, it is useful to consider
Bacharach’s (1989, p. 498) definition of theory as:
A statement of relationships between units observed or
approximated in the empirical world. Approximated units mean
constructs, which by their very nature cannot be observed
directly (e.g., centralization, satisfaction, or culture). Observed
units mean variables, which are operationalized empirically by
measurement. The primary goal of a theory is to answer
questions of how, when, and why, unlike the goal of description,
which is to answer the question of what (italics in original).
In my analysis, theoretical issues were even more prevalent
than they were in Daft’s, as they were found in 88.2% of the
manuscripts. As Daft (1995, p. 166) explains, “[t]heory pro-
vides the story that gives data meaning.” So, for the vast
majority of the rejected R&R manuscripts, the authors failed
to provide a convincing story that reflects sound underlying
theory. More specific theoretical issues identified in my con-
tent analysis include, in decreasing order of occurrence: (a)
inadequate specification and/or rationale for the research
questions/hypotheses; (b) problems with the research model,
such as a lack of focus, precision, oversimplification, and
omitted variables; (c) omission and/or misrepresentation of
Gardner 3

Table 1. Problems Found in Manuscripts Reviewed.

Daft Content Analysis Gardner Content Analysis

a b
Problem Types Identified by Daft N % of Problems % of Manuscripts N % of Problems %of Manuscripts

1. Theoretical issues 56 21.7 50.5 15 12.3 88.2

1a. Inadequate specification and/or rationale 11 9.0 64.7
for research questions/hypotheses
1b. Problems with research model (e.g., lack of 10 8.2 58.8
focus, precision, oversimplification, omitted
variables)
1c. Omission/misrepresentation of relevant 9 7.4 52.9
literature
1d. C onfusion regarding mediation and/or 6 4.9 35.3
moderation
1e. Level of analysis issues (theory) 3 2.5 17.6
1f. Lack of an overarching framework 1 .8 5.9
2. Concepts and operationalization not in 35 13.6 31.5 11 9.0 64.7
alignment
3. Insufficient definition—Theory 27 10.5 24.3 8 6.6 47.1
4. Insufficient rationale—Design 27 10.5 24.3 7 5.7 41.2
5. Macrostructure—Organization and flow 26 10.1 23.4 11 9.0 64.7
6. Amateur style and tone/writing quality 23 8.9 20.7 8 6.6 47.1
7. Inadequate research design 22 8.5 19.8 15 12.3 88.2
7a. Measurement issues (e.g., source of 13 10.7 76.5
measures, validity, reliability, CFA/EFA, etc.)
7b. Inappropriate and/or inadequate 5 4.1 29.4
explanation of analysis
7c. Levels of analysis issues (e.g., aggregation, 4 3.3 23.5
lack of attention to nested data)
7d. Control variable issues 3 2.5 17.6
7e. Construct/measure redundancy 2 1.6 11.8
7f. C
 ausality/temporal issues (e.g., ‘longitudinal’ 2 1.6 11.8
design is really time-lagged)
7g. C ommon method variance (inadequately 2 1.6 11.8
addressed)
7h. S ampling issues (e.g., sampling design, lack 2 1.6 11.8
of power)
8. Not relevant to the field 20 7.7 18.0 1 .8 5.9
9. Over-engineering 11 4.3 9.9 0 0.0 0.0
10. Conclusions not in alignment 6 2.3 5.4 10 8.2 58.8
11. Cutting up the data 5 1.9 4.5 0 0.0 0.0
Additional Problem Types
12. Lack of responsiveness/success in 12 9.8 70.6
addressing reviewer concerns
13. Inadequate contribution to literature 9 7.4 52.9
14. Inadequate articulation of research 8 6.6 47.1
purpose/contribution
15. New concerns that emerged through 7 5.7 41.2
revision process
16. Recommendation for additional data 1 .8 5.9
collection not followed
a
N=258 major problems in the 111 manuscripts.
b
N=129 major problems in the 17 manuscripts.
4 Journal of Management Inquiry 00(0)
the relevant literature; (d) confusion regarding mediation
and/or moderation processes; (e) levels of analysis issues
(e.g., unconvincing attempts to elevate individual level con-
structs to higher levels of analysis; inadequate theoretical
explication of posited multi-level relationships); and (f) a
lack of an overarching theoretical framework.
Concepts and Operationalization Not in
Alignment
The second most common problem type identified by Daft
(1995) was found in 31. 5% of the manuscripts, and involves
a disconnect between the focal concepts identified by the
authors and the operationalization of those concepts. This
problem was even more common in my analysis, as it was
identified in 64.7% of the rejected R&Rs. Most often, this
disconnect involved levels of analysis issues, as constructs
that were conceptualized at the group or higher levels of
analysis were too often operationalized using individual
level-measures without adequate justification for aggrega-
tion to the collective level. However, there were also
instances where the authors simply did not make a convinc-
ing case for the construct validity of the methods used to
operationalize focal constructs, be they measures or
manipulations.
Insufficient Definition: Theory
The next most common problem identified by Daft (1995, p.
168) occurred in a quarter of the manuscripts he reviewed
when “[a]uthors did not provide definition, explanation, or
reasoning for some of their variables.” As Bacharach’s defi-
nition of theory indicates, constructs (i.e., concepts) are a
fundamental component of theory. Insufficient definitions
violate one of the key criteria Bacharach specifies for theory
evaluation, falsifiability, as it is impossible to refute a theory
for which constructs are so ill-defined that they cannot be
operationalized. Here again, this problem was even more
common in the rejected R&R’s, as it was found in nearly half
of the manuscripts. Although a lack of concept definitions is
common in manuscripts that I desk reject, I was surprised by
its frequency in the R&Rs. Over the past couple of years,
I’ve addressed this problem by referring authors to an article
by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff (2016) which pro-
vides recommendations for defining a new concept or revis-
ing an existing definition. In doing so, they make an important
distinction between two basic types of concept structures: (1)
necessary and sufficient; and (2) family resemblance. In the
former, the definition specifies the attributes that must be
present for a case to qualify as an example of the focal con-
struct. In the latter, cases that reflect most, but not all of the
attributes associated with the concept may nonetheless be
considered qualifying examples. So, I ask authors to first
identify the key elements of their focal concepts, and then
determine if these reflect necessary and sufficient criteria,
and if so, specify how they came to that conclusion.
Alternatively, do they conclude that these elements tend to be
present, but are not necessarily required? Hence, when I find
concepts are ill-defined in an original submission, I encour-
age authors to answer these questions, and then follow the
subsequent steps Podsakoff and associates describe for
advancing a concept definition. Unfortunately, when focal
concepts remain ill-defined following a revision, this often
leads to a reject decision.
Insufficient Design: Rationale
The next most common problem identified by Daft (1995)
also occurred in nearly a quarter of the manuscripts and
involved an insufficient explanation of study procedures. As
Daft explains, this included “[s]imple things, like describing
the sample, saying who completed the questionnaires, provid-
ing example questions from the questionnaire, and reporting
means and standard deviations” (1995, p. 169). This was also
a common problem with the rejected R&R manuscripts, as
over 40% failed to adequately explain basic elements of the
research design to the reviewers’ satisfaction. Further, as Daft
notes, this lack of transparency often contributed to the lack of
alignment between theory and methods, making it impossible
for the editorial team to determine if the method employed
provided an adequate test of the research questions or hypoth-
eses. Such transparency is essential because, without it,
researchers cannot replicate the research—a fundamental
requirement for science to advance (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000).
Macrostructure: Organization and Flow
“Macrostructure means whether the various parts of the
paper fit together into a coherent whole. Microstructure per-
tains to the individual sentences and paragraphs, which are
satisfactory in most papers” (Daft, 1995, p. 169). This prob-
lem occurred in 23.4% of the papers reviewed by Daft, and
in 64.7% of the rejected R&R papers. Examples include the
following: (a) a disconnect between the relationships
advanced in the theory section and the conclusions drawn in
the results section; (b) results that are intriguing but not
related to the hypotheses; (c) the ad hoc introduction of a
table or figure in the discussion section (when it belongs in
the results section); (d) the discussion of theories and vari-
ables in the conclusions section that have not heretofore been
presented; (e) an insufficient number of headings to help the
reader follow the authors’ arguments; (f) frequent and dis-
ruptive parenthetical statements or footnotes; and (g) dra-
matically exceeding page limits. Such lack of internal
alignment across sections is a major red flag for reviewers
and editors. Frequently, it is a focus of the feedback during
the initial round of reviews. Authors who succeed in correct-
ing such misalignments are much more likely to receive
favorable editorial decisions, whereas continuing misalign-
ment typically results in an R&R being rejected. Here again,
Gardner
Daft (1995) provides valuable advice to authors, noting that
“[s]cholars must make a special effort to visualize the entire
paper—especially the interconnections among the parts—
and be confident that they are effectively constructed before
submitting the paper for publication” (p. 169).
“Amateur Style and Tone”/Writing Quality
Daft (1995) labeled this problem as “amateur style and tone,”
and it occurred in 20.7% of the manuscripts he reviewed. He
noted that “[s]tyle and tone can signal that authors do not
know what they are doing, that they are amateurs” (p. 170). In
my content analysis of rejected R&Rs, this problem occurred
much more frequently (47.1%); the issue was reflected at a
more basic level through the quality of the writing, or lack
thereof. Common reviewer complaints ranged from a high
number of typos and grammatical errors to turgid prose, to
omitted references to a lack of compliance with the APA style
guidelines (American Psychological Association, 2009) that
GOM follows. While such lack of professionalism was not
fatal in and of itself, it contributed to reviewer frustration with
the revision and brought into question the ability of the authors
to competently complete other components of the research.
Here the value of the “best practice” recommendation to attend
to final details is readily apparent, as such relatively minor but
annoying mistakes can sometimes sway reviewers who are on
the fence towards a reject recommendation.
Inadequate Research Design
Research design problems occurred in about 20% of the man-
uscripts Daft (1995) reviewed, but in a full 88.2% of the
rejected GOM revisions. In his chapter, Daft observed that
theory problems were far more likely to result in reject recom-
mendations than problems with the study design. In contrast,
theory and design problems surfaced at a very high and equiv-
alent rate in my analysis. Perhaps this is not surprising, given
that authors who receive R&Rs, many of which involve “high
risk revisions,” are nearly always challenged to address theo-
retical and/or methodological issues. Moreover, when design
problems become apparent, they are often fatal, particularly
during the initial round of reviews. In the case of R&Rs, how-
ever, the reviewers may have been initially unsure about the
severity of the design problems they observed, and hence, see-
ing promise in the manuscript, requested a revision.
Unfortunately, for the R&Rs I rejected, upon learning more
about the design, and/or seeing the authors’ attempts to fix it,
the reviewers and I frequently concluded the design flaws
could not be or had not been adequately addressed, and hence
the manuscript could not be salvaged.
In my content analysis, I drilled down further than Daft
(1995) to pinpoint more specific design issues. These included
the following: (a) validity and reliability concerns stemming
from measurement issues (e.g., a failure to accurately identify
5
the measure source; unjustified “adaptations” of established
scales that involved dropping or modifying items without jus-
tification and/or validity evidence; and problems with the
reporting of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses);
(b) statistical analyses that are either inappropriate for the
research questions or inadequately explained; (c) levels of
analysis issues (e.g., aggregation of individual level data to
collective levels without correctly conducting the requisite
tests; and a failure to account for nested data using multi-level
analysis); (d) control variable issues involving the omission,
absence of justification, or selection of the wrong or an
incomplete set of controls; (e) concerns about construct
redundancy arising from the introduction of new measures for
established constructs; (f) causality and temporal issues (e.g.,
making causal inferences from cross-sectional designs; and
describing time-lagged studies with two waves of data-col-
lection as longitudinal); (g) problems arising in the interpreta-
tion of findings as a result of common method variance; and
(h) sampling issues (e.g., potential non-response bias; and a
lack of power). This is a fairly representative, but incomplete,
list of “worst practices” arising from design and analytical
issues. The key takeaway is this: if reviewers and the AE
identify such issues as problematic, it behooves the authors to
make a concerted effort to address them. To do otherwise dra-
matically increases the risk of disappointment, as a promising
R&R turns into a frustrating reject decision.
Conclusions Not in Alignment
Daft (1995, p. 172) noted that this “problem occurs just often
enough to be worth mentioning.” While it was found in only
5.4% of the papers he reviewed, it arose in 58.8% of the
rejected revisions. There are a variety of manifestations of this
problem, including overgeneralizing the results beyond the
population sampled, introducing new theories and constructs
that were not including in the research model, failing to ade-
quately recognize limitations, and insufficient attention to
practical implications of the findings. While it is important to
consider future directions for research, the discussion section
should not be too far removed from what Daft (1995) describes
as the “operational base” of the manuscript—the underlying
theory and hypotheses and the methods used to test them. Too
often, this section is underdeveloped, as authors seem to be in
a hurry to wrap up the paper and leave it to the reader to figure
out the significance of the findings. As Daft notes, this is a
mistake because the “conclusion section deserves as much
attention as the theory, method, and results section, because
the conclusion section explains what it all means” (p. 173).
Lack of Relevance, Overengineering, and Cutting
up the Data
The final set of problems identified by Daft (1995)—“Not
relevant to the field” (18%) “Overengineering” (9.9%), and
6 Journal of Management Inquiry 00(0)
“Cutting up the data” (4.5%)—arose more often in the papers
he reviewed than in the rejected R&Rs, where there was only
one occurrence of a lack of relevance, and no instances of the
other problems. This finding makes sense, since I explicitly
screen for the former and the latter issues in deciding whether
to desk reject a manuscript. However, I was surprised that
there were not more instances of “overengineering,” where
authors strive to impress the reviewers with sophisticated
analytical techniques until the “methodology became an end
in itself” (Daft, 1995, p. 172). Perhaps overengineering
resulted in reject decisions during the initial round of reviews,
while the guidance provided by reviewers and me discour-
aged authors from pursuing this practice during the revision
phase. At any rate, Daft’s advice to avoid overengineering
remains timely, as it constitutes one of the “worst practices”
that is more likely to confuse, rather than impress, reviewers.
Additional Problem Types
Beyond the issues identified by Daft (1995), several addi-
tional types of problems emerged in my content analysis. Not
surprisingly, the most common problem that arose in 70.6%
of the revisions involved a perception by the reviewers that
the authors were either not responsive to their feedback, or
unable to successfully address the issues they raised. Clearly,
this is a problem that is unique to an R&R, since reviewer
feedback is not available during the initial submission pro-
cess. Such an inference by the reviewers is very hard to over-
come, as they often conclude that paper is a lost cause, given
the lack of improvement. Indeed, as an extreme example, I
encountered one revision for which the authors decided not
to submit a response letter, and instead provided an abstract
summary of the changes they made to the manuscript in their
cover letter to the editor. Needless to say, this decision was
not received well by the reviewers, who expressed confusion
and irritation, and unanimously responded with reject recom-
mendations. This example and the larger problem of a lack of
responsiveness makes it clear why it is so important for
authors to follow the “best practice” recommendations to
“absorb the critiques,” “appraise the comments,” and
“actively revise”, provided in Lester (in press), and to pay
particular attention to crafting a thorough response letter that
is attentive to reviewer and editor feedback. To do otherwise
almost guarantees a rejection.
Two additional and related problems involved an inade-
quate contribution to the literature and articulation of the
research purpose/contribution, which were found in 52.9%
and 47.1% of the rejected R&Rs, respectively. During the
initial review process, it is very common for reviewers and
editors to express concerns about the contribution of the
manuscript and/or the authors’ articulation of the purpose of
the research. However, the issuance of an R&R signals that
the editor concluded, based in part on reviewer feedback,
that the manuscript has promise, and hence the authors
should be given an opportunity to make a case for the paper’s
contribution. For many of the rejected R&R’s, the authors
were unsuccessful in doing so. Given that this problem was
identified as a key reason for rejection in over half of the
unsuccessful revisions, it behooves authors to pay special
attention to this feedback and make as compelling a case as
possible that their research is consequential and should be
part of the extant literature.
Another broad category of concerns involved new issues
that emerged as part of the revision process. Indeed, for 41.2%
of the rejected R&Rs, the reviewers and/or I explicitly stated
that the reject decision was at least in part attributable to new
issues that were not apparent in the original submission. Such
issues are hardly surprising, in that there is always a risk that
the authors’ efforts to address issues raised about the original
submission, will raise new concerns that may be as serious or
even more serious. Here again, the importance of the best
practice advice to actively revise the manuscript while at the
same time using the response letter to explain the rationale for
the changes and anticipate new issues is apparent. In many
cases, such anticipation may serve to mitigate reviewer con-
cerns, and at a minimum, give the authors a chance to address
the emergent issues in a subsequent revision.
Finally, there was one manuscript for which the authors
were advised to collect additional data to address the short-
comings of the original submission, but they declined to do so;
a reject decision ensued. Here again, the wisdom of the best
practice advice to always collect additional data, if possible,
when such a recommendation is issued is readily apparent.
The basis for such a recommendation is to give the authors an
opportunity to address a serious limitation which the review-
ers and editor conclude cannot be rectified with the existing
research design and/or data. Not surprisingly, squandering this
opportunity typically contributes to adverse reactions from the
review team and in predictable reject decisions.
Conclusion
My content analysis revealed that most of the problems that
Daft (1995) identified were present and, in many cases, even
more prevalent in the rejected GOM R&Rs. At the same
time, some additional reasons for a reject decision were iden-
tified, including a perceived lack of responsiveness to
reviewer concerns, inadequate contributions to the extant lit-
erature and/or articulation thereof, new concerns that
emerged during the revision process, as well as a decision to
ignore a request to collect additional data. Together, these
content analyses revealed some of the “worst practices” that
contribute to reject decisions, including those issued to
authors whose initial submissions were deemed to be prom-
ising and worthy of a revision opportunity. Hopefully, aware-
ness of what not to do in an R&R will help authors who are
Gardner
fortunate enough to receive one avoid the pitfalls of the pro-
cess and secure the ultimate goal—an acceptance and an
opportunity to make a value-added contribution to the body
of knowledge in one’s discipline.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
William L. Gardner https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4694-9951
Note
1. Yes, this does happen – fortunately not very often!
7
References
American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication
Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for
evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496–515.
Daft, R. L. (1995). Why I recommended that your manuscript be
rejected and what you can do about it. In L. L. Cummings & P.
J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sciences (pp.
164–182). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral
research (4th ed.): Wadsworth-Thomson Learning.
Lester, G. (in press). R & R dialog: Congratulations, you got a
revise and resubmit! Now what? The impetus behind and les-
sons learned from a successful years-long PDW focused on the
peer review revision process. Journal of Management Inquiry.
doi:10.1177/1056492619882508.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2016).
Recommendations for creating better concept definitions in the
organizational, behavioral, and social sciences. Organizational
Research Methods, 19, 159–203.