ABSTRACT
With such clear targeting and clear direction given to prospective authors why, then, are up to half of all papers rejected before the review process? And, why do some of those which are reviewed engender comments such as those below, given by a reviewer of a well-focused, highly academic journal:
‘The topic itself is interesting but the treatment from an academic standpoint is slightly shallow... This is the kind of paper which is probably more of interest to practitioners than to academics.’
