Cornell Hospitality Quarterly (CQ) has recently revised its editorial policy regarding the use of previous reviews from other journals. Authors of manuscripts rejected by another journal can now submit revisions of those rejected papers to CQ along with supplemental files containing the previous editorial decision and reviews, a detailed response to those editor and reviewer comments, and the original version of the paper that was rejected. If the reviews are sufficiently thoughtful and helpful, CQ’s editor will base his decision on the previous editorial letter, reviews, response and revision without seeking additional reviews. Assuming that such a rejected paper has merit and is consistent with CQ’s focus on hospitality and tourism, then authors have a real chance of getting a different decision from CQ than they did from the original journal because CQ has a different set of priorities, standards, and set of submissions to select from and its editor may evaluate the paper and reviewer comments differently. In fact, CQ’s editor will face much less pressure than the original editor to agree with the reviewers because he will not know those reviewers’ identities or be likely to need their help with future reviews. Of course, bad papers will be rejected by CQ too, so authors are encouraged to submit only manuscripts that they are confident make large and meaningful contributions to our understanding of hospitality and tourism management.
The Cornell Hospitality Quarterly (CQ) is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal that is published quarterly in association with the Cornell University School of Hotel Administration and the newly formed Cornell College of Business. CQ aims to be a source of the best advances in theory and/or research relevant to management of the hospitality industry broadly defined to include all businesses or other organizations involved in the transport, accommodation, feeding, entertainment, and caretaking of voluntary travelers away from home. Papers and research notes on any topic, from any discipline and using any methodology are welcome provided they sufficiently advance our understanding of how to manage hospitality businesses and organizations.
CQ has the following attractive attributes:
- 2.41 ISI Impact Factor in 2015,
- 10% acceptance rate in 2016,
- 75% desk-rejection rate in 2016 (with desk rejections usually made within 3 days of submission),
- 31 day average turnaround time on first submissions sent out for review,
- an active editor who is not a vote counter,
- a policy of handling R&R’s without sending them back to the reviewers, and
- a policy of accepting and using existing reviews from other journals (when provided by authors – see more details below).
Among the marketing scholars who have published an article in (or have in-press articles at) CQ are:
- Richard Bagozzi
- James Brown
- Bob Cialdini
- Joseph Cronin
- Aimee Drolet Rossi
- John Gourville
- Kevin Keller
- Kathryn LaTour
- Vithala Rao
- Dilip Soman
- Clay Vorhees
- Brian Wansink
- Youjae Yi
- Gerald Zaltman
Regards,
Mike Lynn,
Editor of CQ
Have a nice day to you from Turkey. Firstly, I would like to introduce myself to you. I am a tourist guide and research assistant in the University of Adnan Menderes, from Turkey. I would like to learn whether the subject of our research on Pakistani tourists is appropriate for the “Journal of Cornell Hospitality Quarterly”. I would like to give a brief information about our research. The research aims at revealing tourist behaviors from the beginning to the end of guided tours. Within this context, we have used the items suggested by Pizam and Sussmann (1995) (tourist behavior scale; including interaction with each other or other tourists, bargain, leaving tips to tourist guides etc.) and also added fourteen more items as a result of the interviews made separately with industry professionals, such as travel agents, tour operators, salespeople and guides whose expertise is in tour operations. In accordance with this purpose, we attempted to observe those items during guided tours. The research was carried out on 11 Pakistani tourists visiting on 26.08.2016. They stayed for three days in İstanbul. They were all doctors working at the Searle Company in Pakistan. In the evenings, they made seminers in the Ramada Hotel situtated in Taksim Square, in Istanbul. However during the three days, they took part in the tours (First day (26.08.2016): Blue Mosque- Topkapi Palace- Hagia Sophia- Beyazıd Grand Bazaar; Second day (27.08.2016): daily Bursa tour; Third day (28.08.2016): İstanbul Prince Islands). The visitors checked in the hotel (Taksim Ramada) on 25.08.2016 and They departed from İstanbul at about 18:00 pm, on 28.08.2016. During those days, one of the researcher took part in the tours as a participant observer and observed the tourists behaviors (from interaction to bargaining, tipping etc.) The tourist group did not know the purpose of the researcher. They only knew the researcher as an intern. The researcher wrote everything he observe to his notebook. I would like to give a paragraph from them;
“27.08.2016….12:58pm: We have just depart… 13:20pm: We are now in front of the Grand Mosque. The visitors get inside the mosque for praying… After praying for about twenty minutes, they go out of the mosque. Two of the visitors have purchased two packages of Turkish delight. 13:42 pm: we are waiting for the minibus. While we are getting on the minibus, a peddler comes closer to the group and tries to sell handmade whistles to the group. At first, the group have not been interested in the whistles which the peddler trying to sell. After a while, some of them asked the price of the whistles. 1 whistle 5 Turkish Liras… Visitors start to bargain.. The dark-skinned man wearing light coloured trousers states that if the peddler accepts three whistles for 5 Turkish Liras, he will purchase. The peddler says that it is not possible. After a while, the peddler says two whistles for 5 Turkish Liras. And then he also adds four for 10 Turkish liras..The bargain between the peddler and the group members continues for a few minutes. At the end, the peddler agree to sell 3 whistles for 5 Turkish Liras. Two out of eleven visitors purchase whistles…”
I am sending this mail to you for learning whether that research is appropriate for that journal of Cornell Hospitality? Best Regards, Vedat.
CQ aims to publish articles that provide novel insights into, or strong evidence of, generalizable causal relationships of importance to hospitality management. I am willing to accept qualitative research if the discovered/suggested relationships are both important and surprising. In that case, the new ideas about possible causal relationships are worthwhile even if the evidence for those relationship is weak. However, the vast majority of CQ articles are quantitative tests of theoretically and practically important causal relationships.
Your description of your research project leaves me wondering what causal relationships you are studying. The context of your research is clearly appropriate to CQ but I cannot assess the appropriateness of the research question based on the description provided. My recommendation is to submit your finished paper. If it is not appropriate or of obvious substandard quality, I will desk-reject it – usually within 3 days of submission. If it is appropriate and of apparently good quality, I will send it out for review and get a decision back to you once I have seen those reviews – usually within 30 days of submission.
-Mike Lynn, Editor of CQ