Abstract
The publication of scientific articles is one of the requirements imposed on Brazilian researchers and contributes decisively to their reputation, mobility and financial benefits. To assess the quality of publications, Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) created the Qualis system, that classifies journals into eight levels - A1 (highest) to C (lowest) - inferring the quality of the articles from the strata of the journals in which they are published. This article examines the flaws and gaps that represent factors for rejecting articles submitted to management journals, comparing the motives for rejection between journals from different strata. Methodologically, we conducted an empirical study with data obtained by questionnaire from 82 editors of Brazilian management journals. Contrary to expectations, the results do not point to clear differences in the factors that lead to rejection between journals from different strata. This article has contributions and implications for researchers, publishers and regulators. In particular, the thoughtful reader can identify the most frequent problems and gaps and be more prepared to produce better articles for future submissions.
Qualis ranks; editors; management research; editorial process; publication