Letter from the Editor: Why Are Papers Desk Rejected at European Accounting Review?

Abstract

The aim of this note is to present desk rejections made by EAR in 2016 and also to provide some suggestions to authors in order to avoid these desk rejections.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks his associate editors Michel Magnan, Beatriz García Osma and Thomas Jeanjean for sharing their views on desk rejection. Some of the ideas expressed in this letter are based on an Editorial the author wrote in 2010 (Nikitin, Stolowy, Pezet, & Piot, 2010). Of course, all errors and misunderstandings remain his own responsibility.

Notes

1 http://www.eaa-online.org/userfiles/file/EAA-Newsletter-Nr39-2012(3).pdf.

2 If a negative answer to the third question is not necessarily a cause of desk rejection, we know from experience that format, syntax and grammar are of great importance to reviewers (see developments on the writing style of the paper at the end of this text).

3 We know from some accounting scandals such as Enron that rules based on thresholds can be easily overcome.

4 https://gallery.mailchimp.com/ffab1869b934ebf881c40649e/files/News_from_EAR_NL_4_2015_Stolowy_Editors_letter.pdf.

5 We wish to recall that the publication in two different languages of the same text can also constitute a case of self-plagiarism (or plagiarism).

6 Citing and inserting quotes might reduce the problem but does not make the plagiarism disappear.

7 Please refer to http://www.eaa-online.org/userfiles/file/EAA-Newsletter-Nr39-2012(3).pdf. Billsberry (2014) provides a list of 10 ways to avoid a desk rejection.