One of the issues with a relatively new method such as PLS is that reviewers may not be familiar with it. This may cause problems as reviewers tend to reject what they do not understand.
It would be interesting to know the specific problems that those of you who submitted articles using PLS encountered. This will allow everyone going for a future submission to mitigate those problems by writing more adequately their methodology section.
Hence, I suggest to all of you who experienced this kind of problems with reviewers to post the problematic reviewers comments so that we can discuss how to handle them in future submissions.
Example: A reviewer at IMM (Industrial Marketing Management) rejects a paper with the following comment:
"I have major reservations about the scales used to capture the various constructs. In general, there are only three items for each scale...Thus the reliability of the scales is suspect."
(Comment: Reliability was reported and went from 0.79 to 0.94)
God help all of us!
Claude Obadia, Advancia-Negocia, Paris
Problems with reviewers
Response to reviewer
I agree that it would be good to establish a discussion around reviewer issues - perhaps there would be benefit in establishing a new discussion board.
However, your experience with IMM appears to have little to do with PLS and more to do with reviewer ignorance. I would be tempted to challenge this reviewer... the formula for Cronbach alpha means that reliability is actually inflated by increasing the number of items.
However, your experience with IMM appears to have little to do with PLS and more to do with reviewer ignorance. I would be tempted to challenge this reviewer... the formula for Cronbach alpha means that reliability is actually inflated by increasing the number of items.
Problems with reviews
Hello Byron, thank you for your answer.
You are right when you note that the problem mentioned in my first message is not specific to PLS. However, it illustrates a situation that is difficult to deal with. A complain to the editor can be interpreted as a highlight of the fact that he did not do his job properly. Then, the manuscript could be sent back to the same reviewer. At the end, all you get is two pissed-off academics making decisions about the future of your paper. In this case, acceptance can become very problematic.
This is why I believe that the best solution is anticipation. If we can collect information on this type of issues, we could try to work out solutions to be incorporated in future manuscripts to avoid such problems.
Best
Claude
You are right when you note that the problem mentioned in my first message is not specific to PLS. However, it illustrates a situation that is difficult to deal with. A complain to the editor can be interpreted as a highlight of the fact that he did not do his job properly. Then, the manuscript could be sent back to the same reviewer. At the end, all you get is two pissed-off academics making decisions about the future of your paper. In this case, acceptance can become very problematic.
This is why I believe that the best solution is anticipation. If we can collect information on this type of issues, we could try to work out solutions to be incorporated in future manuscripts to avoid such problems.
Best
Claude