Will a journal reject a paper for citing an Encyclopedia? When writing a paper, when I identify some area I'm uncertain of, I try to track down a good source in JSTOR, the library, etc. I am in a situation where I found there is no academic source available on the subject. Scholars studying the topic within the confines of a specific territory, I could find none presenting the information globally.
To be really specific about the case, I need info on the territories a European nation acquired globally, changes to that territory over time. All sources I uncovered were territory-specific, and it would seem silly to cite 10 separate books for this general information.
So that leaves me citing the Encyclopedia in about 10 places in the article, which I normally stay away from except for building background knowledge. Is that something that will be a problem to publishers if I have citations to something like Encyclopedia Britannica?
No
If other secondary sources like review articles are acceptable, then an encyclopedia is acceptable.
If the information is a well-documented, undisputed territorial boundary, then secondary sources should be adequate.
Personally, I have never heard of a paper being rejected for citing the wrong type of source in my field of research.  If the source is wrong or irrelevant, that could be a problem, but type of source does not matter.  In physics, non-peer reviewed sources like ArXiv can be cited, and these are less reliable than encyclopedias.