A literature review that reads like an annotated bibliography — paper after paper summarized in isolation — is one of the more common weaknesses reviewers flag in economics and management …
Two papers can present nearly identical findings and receive very different receptions — one gets desk-rejected, the other sails through review and gets cited widely. The difference is often not …
Reviewers in economics and management journals are, almost without exception, trained to scrutinize methodology closely. A paper with an interesting question and clean writing can still be rejected — or …
The abstract is, in a very real sense, the most-read part of your paper. Editors use it to decide whether to send your manuscript to review. Reviewers use it to …
Empirical economics papers follow a fairly standardized structure — and for good reason. That structure helps reviewers and readers locate the information they need quickly: what’s the question, what’s the …
Receiving a “major revisions” decision can feel discouraging at first glance, especially when reviewer comments are blunt or extensive. But how you respond to those comments often matters more than …
One of the most common questions authors ask is simply: how long will this take? The honest answer is “it depends” — but the process itself follows a fairly predictable …
Desk rejection — when an editor declines a paper without sending it to peer review — is often the most frustrating outcome for an author, because it can feel arbitrary. …
For first-time authors, peer review can feel like a black box: you submit a manuscript and then wait, unsure what’s happening on the other side. Understanding the mechanics of the …
Every year, thousands of strong papers get rejected — not because the research is weak, but because it was sent to the wrong journal. Choosing where to submit is one …