This article presents the results of content analysis of 373 referees' reports of manuscripts submitted to 35 hospitality and tourism journals where rejection or major revision was recommended. Failed manuscripts had multiple shortcomings, with referees identifying an average of 6.2 deficiencies per article. The most common areas where referees found fault with manuscripts were methodology (74% of papers), failure to elucidate significance effectively (60%), poor writing style (58%) and a weak literature review (50%). The study concluded that communications' problems were more common than technical flaws.
Bonjean, C., & Hullum, J. (1978). Reasons for journal rejection: An analysis of 600 manuscripts. Political Science, 11(4), 480-483.
2.
Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: The strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 889-896.
3.
Borkowski, S.C., & Welsh, M.J. (1998). Ethics and the accounting publishing process: Author, reviewer, and editor issues. Journal of Business Ethics , 17(16), 1785-1803.
4.
Cassey, P., & Blackburn, T. (2003). Publication rejection among ecologists. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18(8), 375-376.
5.
Coelho, R.J. (2000, April). Manuscript characteristics affecting reviewers' decisions for rehabilitation counseling related journals. Journal of Rehabilitation. Retrieved August 13, 2001, from http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0825/2_66/62980223/print.jhtml
6.
Czyzewski, A.B., & Dickinson, H.D. (1990). Factors leading to the rejection of accountants' manuscripts. Journal of Accounting Education, 8(1), 93-104.
7.
Easterling, D. (2004). The residents' perspective in tourism research . Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 17(4), 45-62.
8.
Eden, D., & Rynes, S. (2003). Publishing across borders: Furthering the internationalisation of AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 679-683. Retrieved March 24, 2006, from http://aom.pace.edu/amjnew/editorials/eden.rynes.2003.pdf
9.
Glogoff, S. (1988). Reviewing the gatekeepers: A survey of referees of library journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(6), 400-407.
10.
Gorman, G. (2000). Authors and editors of library science journals: Reflections from an Asia/Pacific context. Libri, 50(2), 98-103.
11.
Hargens, L.L. (1988). Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates . American Sociological Review, 53(1), 139-151.
12.
Holschuh, J. (1998). Why manuscripts get rejected and what can be done about it?Journal of Literacy Research, 30(1), 1-7.
13.
Horrobin, D.F. (2001). Something rotten at the core of science?Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 22(2), 51-52.
14.
Jefferson, T., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. Journal of theAmerican Medical Association, 287(21), 2786-2790.
15.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. ( 2006). Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research: Aims & scope. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdAims.nav?prodId=Journa1200848
16.
Kassirer, J.P., & Campion, E.W. (1994). Peer review: Crude and understudied, but indispensable. Journal of theAmerican Medical Association, 272(2), 96-97.
17.
McConnell, E. (2000). Nursing publications outside the United States . Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 32(1), 87-92.
18.
McKercher, B. (2002). The privileges and responsibilities of being a referee. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 856-859.
19.
Neumann, W. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
20.
Pierson, D. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respiratory Care, 49(10), 1246-1252.
21.
Ransdell, L., Sedlacek, V., Kennedy, C., Gallegos, D., & Devoe, D. (1998). A comprehensive analysis of the publication process in selected health-related journals [Electronic version]. American Journal of HealthStudies, 14(3), 143-147.
22.
Robergs, G.A. (2003). A critical review of peer review: The need to scrutinize “gatekeepers” of research in exercise physiology. Journal of Exercise Physiology, 6(2), i-xiii. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:i1jzbP3WdeIJ:www.unm.edu/~rrobergs/Editorial%2520PeerReview.pdf+%22manuscript+rejection%22+editorial
23.
Seaton, A.V. (1996). Blowing the whistle on tourism referees. Tourism Management, 17(6), 397-399.
24.
Straub, D.W., Ang, S., & Evaristo, R. (1994). Normative standards in IS research. Database, 25(1), 21-34. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/190000/188429/p21-straub.pdf?key1=188429&key2=7607760511&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=78774807&CFTOKEN=45222180
25.
Summers, J. (2001). Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in marketing: From conceptualization through the review process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(4), 405-415. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:L9c95u2pboYJ:www.marcom.up.ac.za/postgrad_research/summers.pdf+manuscript+%22acceptance+rates%22
26.
Yuksel, A. (2003). Writing publishable papers. Tourism Management, 24(4), 437-446.
