European Accounting Review

ISSN: 0963-8180 (Print) 1468-4497 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rear20

Letter from the Editor: Why Are Papers Desk

Rejected at European Accounting Review?

Hervé Stolowy

To cite this article: Hervé Stolowy (2017) Letter from the Editor: Why Are Papers Desk
Rejected at European Accounting Review?, European Accounting Review, 26:3, 411-418, DOI:
10.1080/09638180.2017.1347360

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2017.1347360

Published online: 19 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 143

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rear20

Download by: [Pepperdine University] Date: 25 July 2017, At: 04:17

European Accounting Review, 2017
Vol. 26, No. 3, 411–418, https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2017.1347360

Letter from the Editor: Why Are Papers

Desk Rejected at European Accounting
Review?
(Partial reproduction of the Letter published in the EAA Newsletter No. 57, March

2017)

HERVÉ STOLOWY
HEC Paris, Paris, France

Abstract The aim of this note is to present desk rejections made by EAR in 2016 and also to provide
some suggestions to authors in order to avoid these desk rejections.

Desk rejection is often feared by authors and generates a lot of disappointment. As explained
by Craig (2010, p. 306), ‘the stories of woe are commonplace in conference hotel bars, campus
coffee shops, and faculty photocopy room conversations, and reactions are shared in colorful
language in various post rejection emails and phone calls among disenchanted authors’.
In a previous newsletter,1 Salvador Carmona, Past Editor of EAR, had written a text on ‘Avoid-
ing desk rejections’. In the present text, I would like to extend my predecessor’s view by adding
some new insights, based on statistics drawn from my first year of editorship at EAR. These
statistics will also highlight the unfortunate development of ethical issues.
The aim of the present letter is not only to provide some suggestions to authors in order to
avoid these desk rejections but also to explain the functioning of our journal in full transparency.

Principle and Definition

The increase of submissions to our journal (more than 300 submissions per year since 2015) is of
course an excellent piece of news. However, given that reviewers represent a scarce resource, the
Editor must identify among submitted papers those which have little chance to pass the hurdle
of the first-round review and eventually move forward to acceptance.
To do so, the Editor answers the following questions which represent a first screening:
1. Does the topic fit within the journal’s scope?
2. Is the content (literature review, conceptual development, methodology, analysis, conclu-
sions) adequate (i.e. it does not reflect major flaws or gaps) and indicative of a potential
contribution to the literature?

Correspondence Address: Hervé Stolowy. Email: stolowy@hec.fr

1 http://www.eaa-online.org/userfiles/file/EAA-Newsletter-Nr39-2012(3).pdf.

© 2017 European Accounting Association

412 H. Stolowy

3. Are the format, syntax and grammar consistent with the journal’s policies and
expectations?
Such an exercise aims to minimize the use of reviewers’ time and to provide authors with a
quick turnaround when the potential for publication appears low or minimal.
The papers with at least one negative answer to the first two questions2 are ‘desk rejected’
by the Editor (or the Associate Editors – see below), i.e. they are rejected without being sent
to reviewers. The concept is called ‘desk rejection’ or ‘desk reject’. One reason for this choice
is that, because of a lower likelihood of eventual acceptance, it gives the author the chance to
pursue a more promising outlet for publication sooner.

Significance at EAR
In 2016, 107 papers have been desk rejected, representing 32% of the 334 papers which have
been submitted in 2016. Among the 107 papers, I have personally rejected 85 papers and my
Associated Editors have rejected 22 papers. As can be seen from these figures, in EAR’s organi-
zation, Associate Editors have the right to desk reject papers at their level, given their high level
of expertise.

Descriptive Statistics
The following table presents an analysis of the different causes of desk rejections, classified by
decreasing order of importance.

Causes of desk rejections Number of cases

Contribution 48
Length 34
Scope 19
Methodology 16
Self-plagiarism 10
Style 10
Age of the sample 7
Plagiarism 5
Resubmission of a paper previously rejected by EAR 5
No respect of a ban 1
Co-author not informed 1
Duplicate submission 1
Total 157
The total number is greater than 107, because several papers are desk rejected for
multiple causes.

Analysis of Desk Rejections

Several journal editors have written articles which explain the major causes of desk rejection
(e.g. Jones & Gatrell, 2014). It is interesting to note that the reasons for desk rejection are very
similar in fields different from management (and accounting) (see, e.g. Hierons, 2016; Volmer &

2 Ifa negative answer to the third question is not necessarily a cause of desk rejection, we know from experience that
format, syntax and grammar are of great importance to reviewers (see developments on the writing style of the paper at
the end of this text).
 Why Are Papers Desk Rejected? 413

Stokes, 2016). We analyze in this section the different reasons for desk rejection as identified in
the above table.

Contribution
The contribution of the paper to the existing literature is an important element in the success of
the submission/publication process. Contribution is consequently a major cause of desk rejection
(see also Bradbury, 2012). However, if the lack of contribution is often real, it can also be poorly
expressed. ‘It is unclear how this paper contributes to the prior literature’ is a comment often
made by editors at the time of desk rejection. It is often referred to as a lack of motivation.
Replications raise a specific concern. If we can acknowledge that it is important to repli-
cate prior literature in different settings to better understand accounting phenomena, the overall
findings rarely challenge the prior literature, which further limits the potential contribution.

Length of the Paper

Even if the length is not perfectly synonymous with quality and if it is difficult to define an
optimal length for a submitted paper,3 we can say that length raises concerns that the research
is not completed but is still at a preliminary stage and that important or critical aspects are
underdeveloped. For instance, a short introduction might not really develop arguments as to why
we need the paper and what is its potential contribution to the field. In a similar fashion, a short
analysis might look rather descriptive and might not expand on robustness issues or alternative
stories.

Scope
We desk reject several submissions as being out of the scope (or domain, as called by Billsberry
(2014)). The notion of scope is always delicate. EAR is by its very nature a journal with a very
broad scope. In a previous letter (Stolowy, 2016), I insisted on the respect of diversity in research
topics and methods and mentioned the different sub-fields: financial reporting, financial analy-
sis, auditing, governance, managerial accounting and control, taxation, social and environmental
reporting, accounting and information systems, public sector accounting, accounting education,
international accounting, empirical archival research, analytical research, experimental research,
behavioral accounting, critical and interdisciplinary accounting, online and XBRL reporting,
gender issues, etc.
However, every field has its limits. How do I know if an item is in the field or out of scope?
With my Associate Editors, we try to have a pragmatic approach based on a very simple idea:
does the article concern a problem of information (accounting, financial or even non-financial),
control (management, internal), auditing or taxation? If the answer is negative, the article is
generally considered out of scope.
In practice, we have considered as out of scope papers related to economics (e.g. wage inequal-
ity), banking industry with no accounting issue, finance with no accounting issue (e.g. dividend
expectations management), operational research, health-care industry with no accounting issue,
public sector with no accounting issue, corruption, etc.
To conclude on this topic, it should be noted that we measure how much the articles are ‘out
of scope’ when searching for qualified reviewers. Indeed, for all cases of desk rejection based on
this criterion, we found, at the time of our reflection on the decision to be taken, that even if we

3 We know from some accounting scandals such as Enron that rules based on thresholds can be easily overcome.
414 H. Stolowy

wanted to put the article in the reviewing process, we could not easily find competent reviewers
in the EAR/accounting community.

Methodology
Problems in methodology are often a cause for desk rejection. The methodology can be too
simple, e.g. purely descriptive with only simple correlations to test the hypotheses. This is not
sufficient especially if the sample size is reasonably large.
But methodology can also be flawed, for example, if the empirical model is poorly speci-
fied, because of a clear lack of control variables. There might also be a ‘classical’ problem of
endogeneity.
For case studies, we also had problems with the empirical material on which the study is
based which was rather thin. For a case study, we could expect that the researcher did participant
observation, examined documents over an extended period of time (i.e. longitudinally) or, at the
very least, conducted a significant number of interviews.
Sample size (i.e. a small sample) is also a problem which reduces the quality of the
methodology for empirical archival research.
Finally, although it is not a problem strictly related to methodology, some papers fail to provide
convincing conceptual argument to support their hypotheses.

Self-plagiarism
As announced in the EAA Newsletter4 and reproduced in Stolowy (2016), all papers submitted
to EAR are screened through Urkund, an anti-plagiarism system. In several cases, Urkund had
identified many similarities with articles authored by one or more authors and published in other
journals. This situation can be called ‘duplicate publication’ or ‘self-plagiarism’.5 It is very seri-
ous because it represents a severe violation of publication ethics and breaches the trust between
authors and journal staff.
May we remind the EAA community that the instructions for authors (http://www.tandfonline.
com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode = rear20&page = instructions) state the following:

Authors should submit, together with the paper being submitted for consideration, a copy of any other paper (pub-
lished or not) that shares data or a substantially similar research question with the submitted paper. The cover
letter accompanying the submission should clearly describe the unique contribution of the paper submitted for
consideration given the other paper(s).

So, as stated above, one way to avoid this situation to be considered as an ethical problem is
to clearly mention the other published paper as a ‘related’ paper in the cover letter at the time of
submission.
The cover letter should answer the following questions: Is there overlap in data? In analyses?
In findings? What are the distinctions between the papers? Of course, mentioning the related
paper in the cover letter, with some explanation, does not guarantee the absence of desk rejection
for lack of contribution but it will surely decrease the risk of sanction adopted by the Editor for
a lack of declaration of related papers.

4 https://gallery.mailchimp.com/ffab1869b934ebf881c40649e/files/News_from_EAR_NL_4_2015_Stolowy_

Editors_letter.pdf.
5 We wish to recall that the publication in two different languages of the same text can also constitute a case of self-
plagiarism (or plagiarism).
 Why Are Papers Desk Rejected? 415

Style
Reviewers often complain that the paper which they have to evaluate is extremely difficult
to read, sometimes with several sentences that are completely unintelligible. Authors should
not think that the writing problems can be solved in a later round. A poor style has several
consequences:

• It prevents reviewers from concentrating on the substance of the paper;

• It conveys an image of the authors’ lack of professionalism;
• It gives the impression to the reviewers and the editors that they are the ones who must ‘take
charge’ of the inability of the authors to express themselves correctly.

Authors should remember that the first impression given to reviewers is very important.
I can mention another point: some papers submitted give the impression that the authors have
actually never seen or read an article published in EAR with the result that the instructions given
to the authors are not respected.
To conclude on the style, I should say that a paper is rarely desk rejected for that sole reason.
However, a poor style contributes to the negative image the Editor will have of the paper.

Age of the Sample

It is difficult to define when the ‘age’ of a sample within a given paper is too ‘old’. I know from
experience that it takes a few years to do the research and present it at congresses/workshops.
However, some papers are submitted with a sample period that ended a long time ago (e.g. 10
years ago). Such a time lapse could lead reviewers to believe that the paper was prepared some
time ago and has not been updated since, although data were publicly available and could have
been updated.
However, an ‘old’ sample would be considered acceptable if the phenomenon studied is partic-
ularly ‘old’ or if the paper is based on private/specific/original data that date from several years
ago but for which the phenomenon being studied is still of current interest. Of course, papers
using an historical approach are not concerned by this cause for desk rejection.

Plagiarism
I have had to manage several cases of pure ‘plagiarism’ where Urkund found similarities with
the work of other authors, unpublished (working papers) or published. In most of cases, these
‘borrowings’ were not even acknowledged nor cited properly with references and quotes.6 I am
sorry to add that, in a few cases, the pattern of plagiarism was the same: a tenured/experienced
author copied the work of students’ master theses available on the internet.

Resubmission of Papers Previously Rejected by EAR

There have been several cases of submissions of papers previously rejected by EAR. Some of
these took place during a change of editorship, with certain authors apparently taking advan-
tage of this window of opportunity. Fortunately, with the use of Urkund, these cases can easily
be spotted, as the software can store all paper submissions and compare new ones to former
submissions.

6 Citing and inserting quotes might reduce the problem but does not make the plagiarism disappear.
416 H. Stolowy

Such resubmissions clearly violate the rule stating that a previously rejected paper cannot be
resubmitted without the explicit approval of the Editor (see http://www.eaa-online.org/r/default.
asp?iId = GJGMJM):
Unless the decision letter explicitly mentions differently, European Accounting Review does not accept resubmis-
sions of previously rejected papers. In some cases, a paper may have changed to such an extent that the manuscript is
substantively a new paper. In those circumstances, authors should inform the editor that their submission concerns
a previously rejected paper (and include that paper’s manuscript ID). As a general policy, the new paper will be
assigned to the same editor who rejected the original submission.

No Respect of a Ban
To underline the commitment of EAR to ethical standards and to clearly communicate how
much importance EAR attaches to an author’s conduct in this regard, I have decided in some
instances (e.g. plagiarism, self-plagiarism), following EAR’s past practice, not to accept any
papers from any member of the current author team for consideration at EAR for a given period
of time.
I had to desk reject a paper because the author was subject to this ban for self-plagiarism
and did not respect it by submitting the paper anyway. (I must add that, in the new submission,
Urkund also identified some instances of self-plagiarism.)

Co-author Not Informed

All co-authors must be included at the time of submission with valid e-mail addresses. In one
case of a submitted paper, one of the co-authors was not informed of the submission and dis-
covered it by receiving an e-mail generated by the ScholarOne submission system. The author
contacted me to explain the situation and told me that he fully disagreed with the submis-
sion because he thought the paper was absolutely not ready. (This did not come as a surprise
to me since I would have desk rejected this paper anyhow due to a lack of contribution and
development.)

Duplicate Submission
A paper has been submitted to EAR and, simultaneously, to another journal. We discovered
this case because the reviewer we solicited at EAR was also the reviewer solicited by the other
journal.

Simultaneity of Causes
It is rare for desk rejection to be based on a single cause and our experience shows that in many
cases several problems were found.

Suggestions to Avoid (or Reduce the Probability of) Desk Rejections

Several suggestions can be made to help the authors.7 Sun and Linton (2014) even compare the
structure between highly cited articles and desk-rejected papers.

7 Please refer to http://www.eaa-online.org/userfiles/file/EAA-Newsletter-Nr39-2012(3).pdf. Billsberry (2014) provides

a list of 10 ways to avoid a desk rejection.
 Why Are Papers Desk Rejected? 417

Contribution
The paper, at least in the introduction, should answer the following questions:
• What is the research question?
• What is the paper’s incremental contribution?
• What are the gaps in the literature(s) that the paper is attempting to address?
• What explicit insights or additions to our existing knowledge does the paper bring?
• What is the relevant literature in the field of the paper?
In other words, the author must clearly delineate why and how the paper contributes to
accounting knowledge.
Many believe that the introduction is the most important section of the paper. In the intro-
duction it is important to discuss what problem or issue the manuscript will address, why that
problem or issue is important, how the authors are going to address that issue and what they
found.
Sometimes, the contribution may appear to be limited because of the existence of a competing
paper. It is very important to see this acknowledged in the paper, from the introduction which
must answer the following questions: How does the competing paper’s evidence fit with the
submitted paper? Can the authors show in their paper that it is their approach which is correct?

Methodology
Regarding the method, proxies used to measure some variables need significant discussion. What
do they measure? How are they expected to fluctuate? Why are these proxies chosen?

Improve the Style Before Submission

Non-native English speakers/writers should not hesitate to hire a professional language copy
editor. (The use of Google translate is not sufficient.) They should also respect the instructions
to authors when submitting their papers. Once again, if a paper will not be desk rejected because
it does not respect the instructions to authors, the issue at stake is the image of professionalism
given by authors and the first impression made on the editor.

Cover Letter
Authors should not hesitate to use the cover letter to convey some important messages, such as
the existence of related papers or explaining the real and main contribution of the paper. Simply
copying the abstract in the cover letter is not necessary. They should make sure that the cover
letter is addressed to EAR and not to another journal (real case I had some time ago).

Conclusion
I would like to conclude this letter by recalling the importance of the introduction of the article
submitted. In most cases, it must begin by highlighting a research question and then continue by
presenting the means used to respond to it.
The research question must be a real question, with a question mark at the end, if possible.
In addition, it is necessary that the authors justify the interest of such a question (theoretical
interest in management sciences, practice for managers, methodology for the social sciences,
epistemology for all sciences, etc.).
418 H. Stolowy

Authors must then ensure that they clearly present the means used to answer the research
question. First, it is necessary to present, even briefly, the methodology. For example, it will be
said that it was considered relevant to answer the research question, what other sources were
available (databases, archives, various second-hand documents, etc.), and how questionnaires
and readings were processed.
We hope that the implementation of these recommendations will make it much easier for
authors to prepare their submitted work, and for reviewers and editors to judge the relevance and
rigor of the authors’ scientific work. The quality of the articles, and therefore of the journal, will
greatly benefit from it.

Acknowledgements
The author thanks his associate editors Michel Magnan, Beatriz García Osma and Thomas Jeanjean for sharing their
views on desk rejection. Some of the ideas expressed in this letter are based on an Editorial the author wrote in 2010
(Nikitin, Stolowy, Pezet, & Piot, 2010). Of course, all errors and misunderstandings remain his own responsibility.

References
Billsberry, J. (2014). Desk-rejects: 10 top tips to avoid the cull. Journal of Management Education, 38(1), 3–9.
Bradbury, M. E. (2012). Why you don’t get published: An editor’s view. Accounting and Finance, 52(2), 343–358.
Craig, J. B. (2010). Desk rejection: How to avoid being hit by a returning boomerang. Family Business Review, 23,
306–309.
Hierons, R. M. (2016). The dreaded desk reject. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 26(1), 3.
Jones, O., & Gatrell, C. (2014). Editorial: The future of writing and reviewing for IJMR. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 16, 249–264.
Nikitin, M., Stolowy, H., Pezet, A., & Piot, C. (2010). Éditorial. Comptabilité Contrôle Audit, 16(1), 3–6.
Stolowy, H. (2016). Letter from the incoming editor of the European accounting review. European Accounting Review,
25(1), 1–5.
Sun, H., & Linton, J. D. (2014). Structuring papers for success: Making your paper more like a high impact publication
than a desk reject. Technovation, 34(10), 571–573.
Volmer, D. A., & Stokes, C. S. (2016). How to prepare a manuscript fit-for-purpose for submission and avoid getting a
‘desk-reject’. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, 30(24), 2573–2576.