1

Publishing in Top Journals

A guide for the perplexed

Martin KilduffUniversity of Cambridge

My Background

Editing, Reviewing, Authoring

SOURCES

• Bem, “How to... “ http://dbem.ws/WritingArticle.pdf

• Frost & Stablein (1992), Exemplary research…

• Cummings & Frost (1995), Publishing...

2

Constructing the "A" Journal Article:

From intuition to publication

Recommendations– Ideas

– Structuring

– Revision

– Targeting

Cautions

Editorial Responses

1. Important and original ideas

• What is your idea?– Research program

• What important question do you address?

• How does it connect, develop theory?

3

Defining the contribution(letter to the editor)

• What will people know that they didn't know before?– New phenomena; new perspective; new answer; new

extension

• Why should anyone care?– Explain in one sentence?

• Your strong motivation and interest?

Origin of new ideas?

• “An intellectual love of the objects of experience” – Einstein

• Engagement with problems in the world –Coase; Hambrick; Van de Ven

• Gap in the literature??

4

Choosing the Right Question(Campion, PPsych, 1993)

• Theoretical importance– Change future research, take field in new direction?

• Practical importance– Coffee house test

• Appropriateness– New or emerging topic, underresearched, timely

– Appropriate to journal: special issue? Style?

– DATA: sample, setting, context

– Method, measures, analysis…

2. Give your ideas structure

• Begin and end strong?

• Contributes to theory and research?

• Relevant to organizations?

• Seamless?

5

Introduction (2 pages)

Theory (9 pages)

Methods (5 pages)

Results (4 pages)

Discussion (9 pages)

Conclusion (1 page)

Hourglass Shape(The Outline)

2. Give your ideas structure

Begin and end strong?

Contributes to theory and research?

Relevant to organizations?

Seamless?

6

3. Write to be published

• Revise, revise, revise– Clarity, logic, vividness, precision, succinctness,

surprise

• Expert opinions– Conferences, colleagues, acquaintances

• Take it on the road

4. Target specific journal

• Information for contributors, style guide, past issues, special issue

• Editorial board– Editors? Reviewers?

• Pay attention to the abstract– See Bem again

• Letter to the editor

7

Five Cautions• Copying

• Lengthening

• Recipes

• Critiquing

• Audience

1. Don’t copy• Don’t plagiarize others

• Don’t plagiarize yourself

• Don’t write summaries for the uninformed

• Don’t include extensive quotations

8

2. Don’t lengthen• Don’t provide an encyclopedia

• Don’t include the literature review from your dissertation

• Don’t add more and more pages to address every possible problem

3. Don’t follow a recipe• Don’t include propositions or hypotheses

unless they are integral

• Don’t include figures or tables unless they add value

9

4. Don’t personalize your critique

• Don’t mount personal attacks on specific people

• Don’t critique without offering alternative

• Don’t ignore the philosophy of science

5. Don’t mistake your audience

• Don’t send papers aimed at practitioners or educators

• Don’t expect the review process to solve problems you can’t figure out

• E.g., how to make this a theory contribution

• Don’t send papers aimed at no discernible group whatsoever

10

Typical 1st Responses• Desk decline

– 40%

• Reject– Improve, send it to next “A” journal

• Reject & resubmit

• Revise and resubmit– “High risk”…– Get it back– Pay attention to ed’s letter

Reviewing for AMR

• Create, extend or advance management theory in a significant way?

• Topic important and interesting? Manuscript pass the “so what” test?

• Central constructs defined clearly?

11

Reviewing for AMJ

• Theory: Does the paper test, create, or extend management theory in a meaningful way? Does the study inform or improve our understanding of prior theory? Are major concepts clearly defined?

• Literature Review: Does the paper cite appropriate literature and provide proper credit to existing work on the topic? If not, can you offer important references that the author has missed? Does the paper contain an appropriate number of references (i.e., neither over-referencing nor under-referencing)?

• Method: Do the sample, measures, methods, observations, procedures, and statistical analyses ensure internal and external validity?Are the statistical procedures used correctly and appropriately? Are the major assumptions of the statistical techniques reasonably well met (i.e., no major violations)?

• Integration: Does the study provide a good test of the theory and hypotheses, or sufficient empirical grounds for building new theory? Is the method chosen -- either qualitative or quantitative -- appropriate for the research question and theory?

• Contribution: Does the paper make a new and meaningful contribution to the management literature in terms of theory, empirical knowledge, and management practice? Is the topic important and interesting? Is the length of the paper commensurate with its contribution?

• Citations: Have you given proper reference or citation to the original source of the comments that you write in the review if they aretaken from others' work (or even your own)?

Reviewing for ASQ

ASQ should (check one): Estimate the probability of the author(s)

successfully revising this paper (check one):

____ Definitely reject this paper _____ Extremely unlikely

_____ Probably reject this paper _____ Fairly unlikely

_____ Offer a “revise and resubmit” _____ I can’t tell

_____ Provisionally accept this paper _____ Fairly likely

subject to minor revisions _____ A near certainty

_____ Accept the paper subject to

routine copyediting

B. Specific Ratings (place and “x” next to your rating for the manuscript on the following criteria):

(a) Significance of 1____ 2____ 3 ____ 4____ 5____

contribution to None Trivial Modest Important Highly

the field Significant

(b) Technical adequacy 1____ 2___ 3____ 4____ 5____ Totally Major Minor Adequate Superior

Inadequate Problems Problems

(c) Appropriateness 1____ 2____ 3____ 4___ 5____ Definitely Doubtful Suitable but Highly Need More

Not de-emphasize Appropriate of this type

(d) Clarity 1____ 2____ 3____ 4____ 5____ Totally Major Minor Good Superior

Deficient Problems Problems

12

Desk Decline Letter• We received and read with interest your paper manuscript # which you

submitted to …. We appreciate your interest in …as an outlet for your ideas. In this case, though, we feel it is best not to forward your paper to our reviewers for their comments and evaluation. At…, we screen all manuscripts before initiating a review to ensure that each paper conforms to our editorial goals. Our reviewers almost never recommend publication of papers that are weak conceptually or papers that do not conform to our mission. We believe it better to truncate the review process rather than subject authors to the disservice of a lengthy review process when acceptance seems very unlikely.

Reject & Resubmit LetterI am very sorry to report that we cannot accept your paper for publication in ….nor

consider additional revisions of this manuscript. The decision was based upon the enclosed reviews as well as my own reading of the manuscript. I want to leave the door open for a possible submission of a new manuscript that builds on the current one, if you manage to revise the paper substantially and in a way that resolves the key concerns raised in this letter and in the reviews. The decision on this manuscript, therefore, represents a "Reject and Resubmit." The conditions for resubmitting a new manuscript are (a) that the paper should be drastically rewritten to avoid current concerns and be clearly distinct from the current paper; (b) that the paper will be reviewed by the same action editor who has the discretion to choose one or more of the current reviewers; and (c) you respond succinctly in a cover letter to the points in this letter. Note that your new manuscript should be returned to within a six-month period, and that you should notify us as soon as you can concerning whether you will be taking up this opportunity.

13

Revise & Resubmit• I cannot accept this version of the manuscript; but I will consider further a substantially revised version.

Please note that undertaking such a revision is very risky, for I judge the distance to be traveled between the current version and an acceptable one to be great.

• I was excited by the idea of the manuscript but disappointed by the delivery. I had hoped to read a compelling analysis of

• I had hoped you would provide substantially new thinking concerning

• The current draft of your paper

• As a result, it is difficult to perceive the value-added of your contribution.

• A successful revision must be sharply focused, provocative, well-reasoned, and present substantially new insights not available in the current literature. Let me focus here on some of the major points raised in my own reading of your paper and in the comments of the reviewers. There are at least four major issues that any revision must address.

Revise & Resubmit, 2nd round

• The paper is moving in the right direction, but there are still significant improvements that need to be made if the paper is to fulfill its potential. I would like to offer you the opportunity to strengthen your arguments and clarify your intended contribution in a further revision of the current manuscript. Please understand that in offering you the chance to revise the paper, I can make no promises concerning the likelihood of publication. The paper has improved considerably, but much more needs to be done. Problems highlighted in the previous round continued to show up in the latest version. The reviewers have provided a range of different suggestions. Let me draw your attention to particular issues.

14

Conditional Acceptance• We have completed our evaluation of your revised manuscript….. Clearly, you

have worked very hard on this revision, and the paper is generally improved. Your paper has the potential to make a strong contribution. Given my own close reading of your manuscript and the comments of the reviewers, I am prepared to conditionally accept your paper for publication. In this case, conditional acceptance means that you must continue to work to improve the paper through as many more rounds as necessary until I am satisfied that your paper represents a clear and significant contribution to the literature. A paper that is conditionally accepted may still go through major modifications prior to final publication.

• Let me focus this letter on the major concerns that you must address in your revision.

Revision Process• Major changes?

• Get expert opinions before resubmission

• Timeliness

• Put major revision effort into paper

15

Conclusion

The evolutionary process of paper development

The competitive market for ideas

Questions?