Question Text:
What were the reasons for the rejection(s)?
Instruction:
Answer Categories:
Lack of statistically significant results
Null results
Effect sizes too small
Methodological approach
Lack of statistical power due to study design/Sample size too small
Theoretical approach
Lack of novelty or added value to science
Flaws in the manuscript
Other
Not applicable (No reasons were given)
Recommendations:
Half of the test participants used the “Other” category to indicate that a lack of fit with the journal was cited as the reason for rejection. Therefore, we recommend adding an additional response option for this reason for rejection to the question (e.g., “Did not fit the scope of the journal”).
Process Probing, Specific Probing, General Probing
Findings for Question:
Information on the aim and purpose of the test:
Question 17 asks about the reasons why the publication of one or more of the research papers was rejected during the peer review process. This question is asked of all respondents who indicated in Question 16 that all or some of the papers related to the study were rejected.
The purpose of this test was to determine whether the list of response options is complete or whether additional options should be included.
Findings:
All ten participants stated during the cognitive interview that one or more of their research papers had been rejected at some point during the peer review process. Consequently, all participants were asked Question 17.
None of the participants had difficulty answering the question. Half of the participants used the “Other” category to indicate the reason for rejection as “Not a good fit for the journal.”
Question Topic:
Job and career/ Job situation & professional activity
Construct:
Reasons for rejecting research papers
