Not really when there are too many things wrong to provide detailed feedback. for a few reaosns:
-
When there is a lot wrong it will take a long time
-
For example if a reviewer fed back on hard rejection saying, “the typography is not good enough” or " There is a lack of visual hierarchy" or “lacks technical quality”…
- what if the author does not understand this?
- what if they simply lack the professional ability to fix it?
- what about the subjective difference between what an author thinks is good enough and the reviewers opinion?
Either this will confuse some authors more OR they will fix stuff then resubmit and if they get rejected again they will be more upset because they will feel they have answered the reviewers requests and it may still not be good enough.
Does that make more sense?