I just read comments from 2 reviewers of a journal. The first reviewer gives a minor correction because of English editing, copy editing, and elaboration in the discussion section. The first reviewer gives good comments too, for instance, we have to have another robustness test, which is a very good idea to make our paper better. The second reviewer gives a rejection because two issues. First, he/she suspect we just wrote down the R-Square (R2) before running the factor analysis. I just stunned, and read it again and again. R2 from factor analysis? Second issue is about the data collection. He/she addresses our manuscript is too weak as it does not mention the philosophical data collection. I was confused that time thinking what the reviewer means by philosophical data collection. After reading it again, reviewer mentions that I have to write down, not only whether we adopt or adapt the items of questionnaire, but also the grounded theory of the data collection and the phenomenological of items construction. I was very surprised because actually grounded theory data collection and phenomenological are qualitative approach which is totally different view from our approach which is quantitative method. I just smile facing this type of reviewing process. But it makes me think what the root of this “evil” is. Why nowadays people are good in click-click the software interface but fail in understanding comprehensively the statistic. Continue reading →