So the conventional status quo goes something like this: the higher a rejection rate at a journal, the more exclusive it will appear. If more exclusive, the perception of its value will increase.
And the conventional action research logic goes something like: the more developmental a review reviewers give, the better the final manuscript will end up and the more likely it will be to move toward publication.
There is a creative tension here - or at least a conundrum. Action research culture promotes higher lower rejection rates. The action research community wishes to be seen as valuable in the broader discourse on research and wants/needs a journal to given that impetus voice.
How to resolve this tension/conundrum/paradox?!
At least a few issues come immediately to mind:
The more "high value" a journal the more helpful it is to those who publish in it in terms of their careers (especially if they are in academia)
The more high value a journal appears in conventional terms, the better it is in creating a bridge to conventional rsearchers.
To be continued...