Learnings From 1,000 Rejections

ArXiv ID: ssrn-4336383 “View on arXiv”

Authors: Unknown

Abstract

The Review of Finance aimed to significantly increase its standards over my 6 years as Managing Editor and 1 year as Editor. To comply with these new standards,

Keywords: academic publishing, finance research standards, editorial process, publication ethics, literature review, N/A (Academic/Methodological)

Complexity vs Empirical Score

• Math Complexity: 1.0/10
• Empirical Rigor: 0.5/10
• Quadrant: Philosophers
• Why: The paper is a methodological guide/editorial reflection on academic publishing standards, with minimal mathematical formalism or empirical data; it focuses on conceptual advice and editorial process insights rather than quantitative modeling or backtesting.

  flowchart TD
    A["Research Goal:<br/>Analyze 1,000 Rejections<br/>to Identify Review Trends"] --> B["Methodology: Text Mining &<br/>Statistical Analysis"]
    B --> C["Data Input:<br/>1,000 Editor Rejection Letters<br/>(2011-2017)"]
    C --> D["Computational Process:<br/>LDA Topic Modeling &<br/>Word Frequency Analysis"]
    D --> E["Key Findings:<br/>1. Rising Standards<br/>2. Common Deficiencies<br/>3. Evolving Criteria"]