Why Referees Reject Manuscripts

Robert Douglas McKercher, Chun Hung Roberts Law, Karin Weber, Haiyan Song, Cathy Hui-chun Hsu

Research output: Journal article publicationJournal articleAcademic researchpeer-review

35 Citations (Scopus)


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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)455-470
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of Hospitality and Tourism Research
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2007


  • referee
  • rejection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management


Dive into the research topics of 'Why Referees Reject Manuscripts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this