As an academic, the experience of manuscript rejection is a familiar and often disheartening part of the journey.
The editorial published by Russo and Wong (2024), EIC for IJPDLM, titled "Navigating Excellence: Understanding and Overcoming Common Causes of Manuscript Rejections in Logistics and Supply Chain Management Research," sheds light on the primary reasons manuscripts get rejected and offers valuable guidance for authors aiming to publish in top-tier journals like IJPDLM.
The editorial published by Russo and Wong (2024), EIC for IJPDLM, titled "Navigating Excellence: Understanding and Overcoming Common Causes of Manuscript Rejections in Logistics and Supply Chain Management Research," sheds light on the primary reasons manuscripts get rejected and offers valuable guidance for authors aiming to publish in top-tier journals like IJPDLM.
They identify five primary reasons for manuscript rejection in the review process:
Superficial or Inappropriate Use of Theory: Many manuscripts suffer from a superficial application of theory. Authors often symbolically refer to well-known theories without providing a deep explanation of the underlying mechanisms. For example, merely mentioning the resource-based view or dynamic capability theories without fully integrating them into the study's conceptual framework is insufficient. Theoretical contributions require clear assumptions, appropriate concepts, and logical explanations.
Descriptive Analysis Lacking Theoretical Insights:Some manuscripts provide descriptive information without developing genuine theoretical insights. Theoretical development requires more than just categorizing data into broad topics; it involves linking findings with existing literature and offering new theoretical contributions. Authors should aim to move beyond descriptive analysis to provide deeper theoretical insights.
Lack of Novelty: A significant issue leading to rejection is the lack of novelty. Authors sometimes use known concepts, theories, and models with minor modifications, failing to offer significant advances in theoretical knowledge or new information with substantial research or practice implications. Novelty comes from providing new explanations or insights, not just presenting new evidence that aligns with existing conclusions.
Data, Rigor, and Measurement Issues: Manuscripts often fall short in their methodological rigor and transparency. Authors must ensure that their data collection and measurement practices are robust and clearly explained. This includes providing detailed descriptions of the case, sampling processes, and the validity of measurement items. Ensuring methodological transparency and rigor is crucial for the credibility of the research.
Descriptive Literature Review Lacking New Knowledge Generation and Theoretical Advancements: Purely descriptive literature reviews, including bibliometric studies, often fall short of the journal's standards. A valuable literature review should critically assess theoretical concepts and empirical findings, proposing new conceptualizations and offering significant advancements in knowledge. Authors should aim to contribute to theoretical advancements and practical applications within the field.
Improving Manuscript Quality
To increase the likelihood of acceptance, authors should:
- Deepen Theoretical Contributions: Ensure that the theoretical framework is well-developed and integrated into the study. Avoid superficial references to theories and focus on providing clear explanations and assumptions.
- Enhance Novelty: Critically assess existing literature to identify genuine gaps and offer new insights or explanations that advance theoretical understanding.
- Ensure Methodological Rigor: Provide detailed descriptions of data collection, measurement items, and sampling processes. Ensure that methodological practices are transparent and rigorous.
- Develop Theoretical Insights: Move beyond descriptive analysis by linking findings with existing literature and offering new theoretical contributions.
- Advance Knowledge in Literature Reviews: Aim for literature reviews that propose new conceptualizations and critically assess theoretical concepts and empirical findings.
By addressing these key points, authors can navigate the submission process more effectively, ensuring their contributions meet the high-quality standards set by several journals in the LSCM field. This proactive approach not only streamlines the review process but also positions the journal as a catalyst for advancing the field of LSCM.
If you want to read the full editorial, please visit the following link:
Russo, I. and Wong, C.Y. (2024), "Editorial: Navigating excellence: understanding and overcoming common causes of manuscript rejections in logistics and supply chain management research", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 211-228.
Another relevant piece I suggest to consider as reference is the editorial published in the Journal of Business Logistics regarding what constitutes a fatal flaws in LSCM manuscripts:
Richey, R. G., & Davis- Sramek, B. (2021). What is a fatal flaw? A guide for authors & reviewers. Journal of Business Logistics, 42(2), 194-199.
Russo, I. and Wong, C.Y. (2024), "Editorial: Navigating excellence: understanding and overcoming common causes of manuscript rejections in logistics and supply chain management research", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 211-228.
Another relevant piece I suggest to consider as reference is the editorial published in the Journal of Business Logistics regarding what constitutes a fatal flaws in LSCM manuscripts:
Richey, R. G., & Davis- Sramek, B. (2021). What is a fatal flaw? A guide for authors & reviewers. Journal of Business Logistics, 42(2), 194-199.
