EDITOR'S NOTES—CONTRIBUTION AND REJECTION
“Prepare your manuscripts with respect to the dynamics of the competition” (Bergh, 2003, p. 136).
Publishing research is one way of disseminating knowledge for a discipline and practice. Sponsored journals, such as Performance Improvement Quarterly (PIQ), sponsored by the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI), disseminate knowledge for members and practitioners to apply new knowledge in their place of work.
Several gatekeepers review this knowledge before it can be published. Not only must this knowledge meet the rigors of research, but it must also apply to the field of performance improvement and associated areas of study as highlighted in the journal's author guidelines (https://ispi.org/page/PIQuarterly).
The gatekeepers for PIQ relate to the editorial staff and the reviewers for PIQ. The evaluation of submitted journals includes several items based on the type of article, the theoretical foundation, the methodology used, the sample, and other empirical requirements for research. These guidelines are in the American Psychological Association's (APA) Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) at https://apastyle.apa.org/jars.
Additional criteria include assessing an article's contribution and value to the journal and ISPI. This editorial highlights what contribution is and provides some guidelines for determining an article's contribution. Next, I identify general reasons for articles to be rejected. These items are presented for authors to be aware of so they can assess their manuscript before submitting it to PIQ. Authors should be the first to evaluate their article's contribution and ensure that they meet the expected guidelines called for by the submitting journal. In this case, we follow APA guidelines.
CONTRIBUTION
Assessing an article's contribution to one's discipline is necessary when deciding whether to accept or reject an article. If an article provides little to no contribution to the field of study, in this case to performance improvement and human performance technology, then an article is likely to be rejected. Some general guidelines on what constitutes “low contribution” is provided in the following from Rynes (2002, p. 313):
-
Low incremental contribution is determined if the study results have been reported elsewhere. The question of “What's new?” remains in the minds of the reviewers and editorial staff.
-
Overly narrow contribution results when the study only contributes a small addition to an already published study. High contribution articles should be distinguishable from already published studies and provide new techniques, approaches, or theoretical perspectives.
-
Not very surprising occurs when an article is more of an opinion piece or presents dogmatic practices. Research articles must present theory and empirical literature while being objective, focusing on a real-world problem or issue.
-
Unclear importance begins when the problem statement is vague or completely missing from the study. Reviewers have difficulty grasping the study's purpose or cannot identify what procedures or techniques were followed and why.
EVALUATING CONTRIBUTION
Some general guidelines for determining an article's level of contribution are provided below by Bergh (2003, p. 136):
Is the Contribution of Value?
Does the article provide insight or new knowledge to the field of study? Articles that present new theories or modified frameworks are examples of articles that provide new knowledge. Other articles that test a theory using a new sample, which hasn't previously been used for the tested theory, offer new knowledge.
Is the Content of the Contribution Imitable?
Is the content of the study relevant to the content identified in the journal? Also, is the contribution “specific to the theory that it is trying to extend or revise” (Bergh, 2003, p. 136)? Are there alternate theories already explaining what the authors present in their article?
Rareness
Are the findings surprising and unexpected? If the results are similar to common knowledge, then the article's contribution would be questioned. The article's contribution would be favorable if the findings present novel and unique perspectives and insights.
These three items provided by Bergh (2003) allow authors, researchers, and reviewers to determine if an article offers enough contribution to a discipline to warrant publication. These guidelines are provided as an aid to remove some of the subjectivity from the process to help guide the decision-making process when assessing an article. This assessment should be made not only by the editorial staff and reviewers but also by the authors before they submit their article for publication. Only articles that provide a significant and noticeable contribution should be submitted. Additionally, I recommend authors identify how their article is valuable to the journal and discipline in the Introduction section: “I suggest that authors identify, explain, and argue for how their manuscripts' contributions are valuable, specific to the theory they advance, and original. Do more than just mention the contribution—articulate and defend it” (Bergh, 2003, p. 136).
REJECTION
General Reasons for Rejection Without Review – Desk Rejection
The editorial staff first reviews articles submitted to a journal to determine if the article meets the basic requirements for the journal. This initial review looks at several items (e.g., research focus, complete sections, theoretical foundation, formatting, number of pages) that vary from journal to journal and editor to editor. In general, the following summarizes five common reasons why an article is rejected without review:
-
The paper is not within the journal's purview, nor can it be readily brought within this purview.
-
The paper is not sufficiently relevant, nor can it be readily made to be.
-
The analysis is of insufficient quality and cannot be readily ‘fixed.’
-
The paper's contribution is too limited and cannot be readily strengthened.
-
The paper is not sufficiently compelling or convincing, nor can it be readily made to be (Godard, 2016, p. 681).
General Reasons for Rejection After Review
Once an article is sent to reviewers, it is submitted to reviewers for comments. We typically try to get three reviewers for every submission. Once the reviews are complete, the associate editor assigned to the article will assess the reviewer's comments and make their recommendation. This recommendation is based on the reviewer's recommendations and the associate editor's comments after reviewing the article. This recommendation is sent to the editor, who then makes the final decision.
Typical reasons for an article to be rejected after being reviewed can be summarized in the following:
-
Poor or confused narrative, with poor grammar, spelling, or organization.
-
Weak data and analysis.
-
Results that do not seem to be grounded in the author's actual research.
-
Pure (abstract) theory or theory for theory's sake.
-
Descriptive literature reviews.
-
Analyses that seem to have no real purpose.
-
Unduly descriptive analysis.
-
Unduly technical papers.
-
Unduly micro or managerial orientation.
-
More suited to a discipline-based journal (Godard, 2016, pp. 681–682).
While the above items are generalized for most research studies, some unique reasons for the rejection of qualitative articles include the following:
-
Your article adds nothing new to the literature.
-
There is an imbalance in the proportion of pages allocated to each section of your article.
-
Quotations have not been edited.
-
Your article is much too long.
-
Ethical violations (Morse, 2007, p. 1163–1164).
Again, it is up to the authors to assess their manuscript before submitting it to PIQ. Authors should determine not only if their study contributes new knowledge to the discipline but also assess if it meets the minimal requirements called for by APA guidelines. Authors should review the above reasons for rejection to ensure that their article does not fall into any of the above categories. The authors are responsible for the article's content, assuring that the study submitted meets all requirements for the research and its parameters. The authors should ensure that a submitted article provides a valuable contribution and is comprehensive in its reporting. The editorial staff and reviewers only help to guide the authors to finalize their manuscript.
SUPPORT PIQ
One of the editors' goals is the continued growth and advancement of the journal's reach to various disciplines, industries, and markets. However, to accomplish this goal, the journal needs continued support from existing reviewers and the addition of new reviewers to the peer review team. If you are interested in participating in peer review for PIQ submissions, please create an account and sign up as a reviewer at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/piq.
New submissions from the performance improvement communities that meet the minimum requirements, as highlighted in previous editorials in this journal (Allen, 2018; Turner, 2018a, 2018b, 2019a, 2019b), are encouraged to submit their research. If you are interested in having your manuscript considered for publication in PIQ, submit your research study after reviewing the minimal requirements highlighted in the previously mentioned editorials as well as reviewing the author guidelines at https://ispi.org/page/PIQuarterly.
The editor and associate editors are here to help you with your publication. Do you have an idea for a research article and wonder if it is suitable for PIQ? Contact the editorial team for feedback. The editorial staff at PIQ works with submitting authors to move their articles toward publication. The editorial staff is active in the review process and continues to work with authors through rounds of revisions, if needed, to prepare their manuscripts for publication. If you have a performance improvement-related research article you would like to submit; please do so at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/piq. Be sure that the manuscript is related to performance improvement and meets the minimal guidelines presented in this and other editorials at PIQ.
REVIEWERS
Peer review is necessary for a journal's success and reputation. We thank our current reviewers for their time and dedication to PIQ. We need continual support from our reviewers to increase the number of active reviewers for the journal. As mentioned in previous editorials, additional reviewers must provide critical and informative reviews for manuscripts in the publication pipeline and future submissions. If you are interested in becoming a reviewer, please contact any member of the editorial team: John Turner (john.turner@unt.edu), Rose Baker (rose.baker@unt.edu), or Hamett Brown (hamett.brown@usm.edu).
