Today, for the first time since I became Editor of the Journal of Economic Psychology, I rejected a paper due to lack of reviewers.
This was a very sad thing to do. I saw promise in the paper (which was actually a Brief Report) and thought it would be interesting, but of course that is not how peer reviewing works. Without the support and review of peers, a paper cannot be evaluated. If a large number of natural reviewer candidates decline, at some point I cannot keep the authors waiting, and I have to take the hint that there is insufficient interest on the paper.
Sadly, this will most likely happen more and more in the future. And it might happen to any of us. Continue reading