This is the type of review I criticize heavily. It is vague. and adds nothing that helps the authors to improve in the next revision of the document. Worst when nothing is said about changes in the document from the previous revision.
Furthermore, the usage of words such as "novelty", "final" , among others indicate other concerns are being taken into account, ones that are not stated in the contents of the email sent.
For now, the document will continue to be parked at SSRN until I find time to make it more .... equal to others. Here's the link:
https://lnkd.in/dYRh8bkW
Below is a partial copy of the response I received from the journal "Construction Engineering and Management" hosted by American Society of Civil Engineers:
"The authors need to do far better work to write and organize a technical manuscript for journal submission. The organization of the paper and the framework is weak. The authors need to clearly state the objective of the paper, present the problem, conduct the analysis, and discuss the findings that include managerial implications. Also, the knowledge gaps need to be further addressed and the novelty/originality shall be further justified to highlight that the manuscript contains a new body of knowledge. The content as it stands, lacks novelty, rigorous research methodology, analysis, and discussions.
We would like to give the prompt response back to the authors if the manuscript is recommended for a decline without review due to insufficient technical content. Please be advised that the decline decision is final.
Thank you.
--------
We realize that it takes a great deal of time and effort to prepare a paper for submission and we thank you for choosing the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management for submission of your work
Sincerely,
@Elizabeth Clark
Editorial Coordinator
