Innovation-Organization & Management- 发表记

Innovation-Organization & Management

SSCI

社科综合 / 综合社科期刊

投稿-录用

不足一个月

投稿-拒稿

7个月

录用-见刊

— —

版面费

￥ -- / 篇

审稿费

￥ -- / 篇

稿酬

￥ -- / 篇

更多信息

ISSN ——

主办单位 ——

编辑部TEL ——

编辑部邮箱 ——

投稿方式 ——

投稿地址 ——

官网 ——

知网 ——

其他 ——

点评 4 条

最新

最热

匿名用户

审稿流程来讲速度还是比较快的，3周左右会给结果如果退稿的话，本人有投过一篇，拒绝的很快，大概10几天就看到了退稿信息。感觉这样很好，英文期刊的优势吧，不墨迹，不用直接给反馈，希望中文期刊可以多多学习借鉴。

2023-06-06 14:32 1 回复(0)

匿名用户

投稿人

不足一个月录用 7个月拒稿

这本期刊我之前投过几次，要严格按照它的收稿范围，不然徒劳浪费时间被拒绝。和编辑的沟通还不错，回复邮件及时。

2023-04-26 10:45 1 回复(0)

匿名用户

其实从2023年以来包括MDPI等几大开源刊物也越来越难发表了，我投过四五家刊物都是直接拒稿，很多刊物原因都没有写，现在越来越难毕业了，希望有大佬指点。

2023-04-02 08:41 0 回复(2)

学术垃圾制造机器

投稿人

一本四区管理类SSCI，年发文量很少就30-40篇左右，看期刊名也知道是喜欢收innovation有关的选题。本人投过一次，员工创新行为的文章，初审11天拒稿，但是主编写了一封200字的拒稿说明，很客气和委婉的指出不适合发表，我节选了部分放到下面，与大家分享一下。 Thank you for submitting……to Innovation: Organization & Management. Before sending a manuscript to review, I look at a few significant elements to see whether the paper in its current form has a significant chance of making it past the reviewers. This is to save everyone’s time and facilitate a smooth and quick reviewing process……While the topic of your manuscript is interesting and worthwhile, I also have serious concerns. My concerns are serious enough to be doubtful that a publishable version could be achieved in the course of one round of major revision. Therefore, I regret to inform you that I unfortunately feel it is unsuitable for publication in Innovation: Organization & Management……I know this will be a disappointment but I am confident that this is the right decision. I would nevertheless like to encourage you to continue working on your material……Thank you for considering Innovation: Organization & Management. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts. 大家不难看出，虽然编辑给了拒稿理由，但是都是很笼统和模糊的说法，并没有真正说出了什么（很像是拒稿模板），也对修改论文没什么帮助。于是我试探性地回了个邮件，问编辑能不能具体指出哪里需要改进，具体是如何提高论文质量以满足期刊要求。没想到，两天后，编辑居然真的回复了！而且回复了很多，我节选了部分放到下面，就是关于文章哪里写的不好、哪些部分存在问题都给指出来了。说实话我当时十分震惊，也十分感慨…… Thank you for your query……While your manuscript has potential and obvious effort has been put into it, it suffers from a variety of issues. The first is that there is no theoretical problematization (why is this something we need to know?) nor a clearly derived research question that systematically links.….(how, really, are these related to each other? And there are many other constructs in the theory section). Much more needs to be done to build a much more logically coherent argument with fewer constructs. And perhaps as a result, the manuscript as whole ends up being somewhat descriptive; while there is a discussion section, there is no explanation for why these results are theoretically interesting in the context of ongoing discussion nor how it moves theory forward. I think once there is a more robust theoretical underpinning, then a more meaningful theoretical contribution can be crafted……Another issue is the overall model, which has no appreciation of the relational aspect. What I mean by this is that ….. E.g., whether the employees like each other, their history, etc. Indeed, the huge heterogeneity that typifies human relationships has been assumed away. Now, some of these could be controlled for, but at present there are no controls in the mode……The model I think needs to be much more granular (perhaps even dyadic or triadic) to be able to measure what you seek to measure……I know the decision is disappointing, but I hope this helps explain the decision further…… 不说别的，就冲编辑这态度，真的是不能不给好评！后来这篇文章又改了两版，转投了Creativity and Innovation Management，详情请见我对这本期刊的点评。

2023-01-30 15:48 2 回复(0)

点评

记录

收藏
解锁

纠错

END

微信公众号

微信小程序