SGBED 2016Manuscript Development Workshop

Vasant Ravalvraval@creighton.edu

Heider College of BusinessCreighton University

Omaha, USA

In my opinion,

• Research record remains a unique footprint for every researcher.

• Choice of a domain is driven by various factors– Dissertation topic/committee, interests of

colleagues, courses taught, frustration over the current state, or just plain curiosity.

• Qualitative and quantitative research• Research for practice vs. research as a practice

GAPS

• Gaps in . . . (Claudio De Mattos)• Gaps in the existing landscape• Gaps at the frontier– Early development of ideas• Insurance policy for driverless cars

– Examples: Big data, technology shock, cybersecurity disclosures and market price effect

Research quality

TOY QUESTION, TOY METHOD

SIGNIFICANT QUESTION, TOY METHOD

TOY QUESTION, SIGNIFICANT METHOD

SIGNIFICANT QUESTION, SIGNIFICANT METHOD

RESEARCH QUESTION

RESEARCHMETHOD, DATA

How od you know a question is significant?

Identifying one’s strength

• What kind of research do I excel at? What do I need to do to deepen my domain expertise?– Does it makes sense to change my domain every

few years?• What type methodologies am I competent in?• Do I need a co-researcher?– as a supplemental/complementary thinktank.– as someone who will keep me on track.– as a constructive critique on the project.

Research career progression – the 10,000-hour rule (Malcolm Gladwell)

• Presentations at professional meetings.– Discussant feedback. Make a log; ask for clarification;

consider revisions; co-opt the discussant?• Proceedings publications.• Discussant and session-chair roles.• Journal column/weekly questions/blog contributor. • Book chapters.• Ad hoc reviewer; reviewer.• Early publications in light-weight journals.• Upgrading the publication source.

Before submitting your work:

• Select the publication source.– At what stage of the manuscript development should one

select the publication?– What criteria should the author follow?

• Spellcheck the manuscript.• Verify that the manuscript follows the style guideline

of the journal.• Check if the citations include at least one or two

references to past publications in the same journal.– Suggests fit between the manuscript and the journal.

Feedback from reviewers and next steps• Who might have reviewed your paper? What is his/her

background? Is your paper unique enough that reviewer backgrounds may not fit? Do the reviewers agree? Converge?

• Typical feedback and next steps:– Do not publish

• Carefully assess the significance of reasons for rejection. Do you agree? Disagree?

– Publish with minor revisions• Identify the expected revisions.• Consider each separately to see if you agree with the call to revise. Will

the revision change substantively your paper?• Make revisions where appropriate.• Prepare a table showing what was asked for and what you changed. Send

it along with the revised manuscript.– Consider major revisions and resubmittal

Major revision and resubmittal• Identify and comprehend what is asked for. Understand

why it is asked for. – Do you agree it is a major revision? – Do you agree that if revised, the paper would be more

“truthful”?• What do you do if you don’t agree on some of the

suggested revisions?• Make the revisions within the given deadline.• Prepare a table showing what was asked for and what

you changed. Send it along with the revised manuscript.

My six -• Be selective of your domain.

– What are you passionate about? What can you do that will help the profession or education?

• Keep the pipeline full.• Avoid the tendency to treat research as a residual item on the

To-do list. Allocate chunks of time and stick to the calendar.• Don’t be afraid of ejecting failed attempts; it is a part of the

learning. • Monitor your progress along research career path. Continue

beyond the tenure process.• The hardest part is finding competent and well-read

researchers to read your work and provide feedback.