Reasons for rejection of a case

1.

It is a research case rather than a teaching case: The case is built around a theory or conceptual framework that is transparently obvious; it contains a lot of data and is “rich,” but this richness is not linked to any specific teaching objectives; its main purpose is to apply a theory or demonstrate the value or importance of a theory or conceptual framework; it is very intangible, insufficiently lively or dynamic.

For more information:
Editorial Policy
Guidelines for the Production of Case Studies

2.

The case lacks value as a teaching tool: It is an exercise rather than a case study; its teaching objectives are too basic, aiming for the comprehension or application of a theory, as opposed to targeting higher-level teaching objectives such as the development of judgment, critical thinking and decision-making skills.

For more information:
Editorial Policy
Guidelines for the Production of Case Studies

3.

The case is insufficiently international in scope: The situation described is highly idiosyncratic and of little interest to a broad readership; the description of the local context lacks detail, making comprehension difficult for readers unfamiliar with the context; the teaching notes fail to explain how the case problem is relevant outside of the local context described.

For more information:
Editorial Policy
Guidelines for the Production of Case Studies
Guide to Writing Teaching Notes

4.

The teaching notes are insufficiently developed: The teaching objectives and intended end-user courses are not sufficiently clear; the teaching scenario is unconvincing or poorly developed; the case analysis is too cursory or superficial; no conceptual or theoretical support is proposed; there are no “answers” to the questions proposed, etc.

For more information:
Editorial Policy
Guide to Writing Teaching Notes

5.

The case has not been authorized for distribution: The case uses actual, non-public information, but authorization has not been obtained from the company for distribution of the case; the case uses publicly available information but presents it in a fictional scenario in which real people are named without their authorization; the case is based on actual information that has been poorly disguised or the company’s authorization is missing; the case claims to be “fictional, but inspired by an actual situation,” but the reader can easily identify the company or individuals likely at the centre of the case.

For more information:
Editorial Policy
Company Authorization Form

6.

The quality of the writing is poor. Cases submitted to the Journal must have undergone linguistic revision prior to submission. Cases whose quality of language is deemed insufficient will be returned to authors.

7.

The case has already been distributed or published elsewhere.