I am trying to be a researcher in a field of economics but with emphasis on philosophy. The field of philosophical (argumentative) economics is, in my opinion, not in the limelight these days; however, a few reputable journals still exist.
I wrote a manuscript and submitted it to one of these journals which then resulted in desk rejection. This is not the problem at all but in his response the editor has written that the paper provides no results... Which, though, true, is the thing many other papers published in this specific journal do not provide. In philosophical economics, we mostly see a section for implications instead of section for results... To me, the editorial rejection r seems to be too weird, especially because papers without results are relatively common in the whole field.
What should I make of such an answer?
- The editor rejected the paper based on my background (low rep institution)?
- The paper was written so poorly that the editor did not want to lose time with it?
- Something has changed over years and this journal tries to attract only classical empirical IMRAD (Introduction-Methodology-Results-Discussion)?