“we as a discipline (and especially editors) should actively consider which types of research we consider to be valuable and worthy of a spot in a generalist journal, and what led to the construction of those beliefs in the first place.” https://duckofminerva.com/2020/09/visualizing-the-gender-publication-gap-1999-2019.html

This has been on my mind as an author and as editor of @ISQ_Jrnl. What determines how reviewers judge research as substantial or a great contribution to the field? In so many reviews I read, it's clearly a subjective opinion and not at all clear how such views are determined.

Some of my own research has been rejected from top journals for this reason, only to see very similar research - topic, theory, methods - published in the same journals. Same with reviews I see as an editor. One review could praise to the moon, the other reject to hell.

When criticized for using a certain variables or method, other scholars have used the same exact variables or methods in well cited published studies on the same topics. It's very frustrating as a scholar and editor, and the only hope is for editors to have a more objective view.

The fact that the same manuscript gets rejected from one journal and published in another says something. This means it's not necessarily just the quality of the work, but the views of the reviewers that hold so much sway. It's the editor's job to see through this.

The job of the reviewer is to assess the quality of the theory, methods, results, etc., but not really to decide whether the research deserves to be published in this or that top journal. At @ISQ_Jrnl, we ask reviewers NOT to make a recommendation, but review the quality.

Reviewer recommendations are all over the map and not really helpful since they are so subjective. A good editor will assess the review itself for the assessment of a scholar's research. It is not a reviewer's job to make the editorial decision, but help assess the quality.

Thank you reviewers and editors for all you do for the field! We can improve the system from submissions, reviews, publication rates, gendered issues, norms of citations, etc. if we all make an effort.