Research and Publishing in Scholarly Journals in Business ... · Publishing Published !...

R e s e a rc h a n d P u b l i s h i n g i n S c h o l a r l y J o u r n a l s i n Bus ines s D i sc ip l ine s : Some Guidepos t s

Rajan Varadarajan

Department of Marketing University Distinguished Professor, Distinguished Professor of Marketing and Ford Chair in Marketing

Mays Business School at Texas A&M University College Station, Texas

USA [email protected]

Annual Conference of ANPAD - National Association of Graduate Programs in Business Administration -

Marketing and Strategy Divisions (September 14, 2015. Belo Horizonte, Brazil)

I Don’ t Know, But I ’ l l Try to F ind Out

“All too often, some people are afraid to admit they don’t have all the answers. So instead, they just make them up. They elaborate on what they don’t understand to the point of embarrassment. Instead, all they had to do was say, “I don’t know, but I’ll find out.” Remember, nobody can fault you for admitting you don’t know everything. In fact, they might even admire you.” (Bill Daniels) http://www.danielsfund.org/BillDaniels/philosophy.asp?p=1.

My Essays on I s sues Re la t ing to Research and Publ i sh ing

Published

Ø  Varadarajan, Rajan (1996), “Reflections on Research and Publishing,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (October), 3-6. (End of Term Editorial Essay)

Ø  Varadarajan, Rajan (2003), “Musings on Relevance and Rigor of Scholarly Research in Marketing,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (Fall), 368-376. (End of Term Editorial Essay)

Ø  Varadarajan, Rajan (2006), “Musings on the Need for Reform in Marketing,” in J. S. Sheth and R. Sisodia (Eds.), Does Marketing Need Reform? (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe), 270-281. (Invited Contribution)

In Progress

Ø  Varadarajan, Rajan, “Reflections on the Life Span of Research-Based Marketing Knowledge”

Some Uncertaint ies Surrounding Research and Publ ishing

1. How does one envision the publishable outcomes of a research effort in advance?

2. How does one carve up the dissertation or other large project into separate pieces? How much is enough for a given article?

3. How does one choose what not to include in a paper? How detailed should a procedure section be? How speculative should a discussion section get? How much ex post facto logic is ethical?


4. What is the appropriate journal for the article?

5. Are there barriers to publishing on topics not already in the literature? Is there a bias against radical perspectives and topics? Can one publish non-quantifiable empirical work?

6. Just how original and new must an idea be to be publishable?

7. Do publishable articles have to be written in boring style, or does it just happen that way?


8 . Does one have to "go along" to get published?

9.  How important is networking, going to conventions, and becoming known by the "right" people to getting published ?

10.  Is co-authorship a liability?

11.  How blind is blind review?

Source: Graham, Jill W. and Ralph E. Stablein (1985), "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Publication: Newcomers’ Perspectives on Publishing in the Organizational Sciences", in L. L. Cummings and P. J. Frost (Eds.). Publishing in Organizational Sciences, R. D. Irwin, p. 139-140.

How Do Journals Evaluate Manuscripts?

Principal Manuscript Evaluation Criteria •  Manuscript-Journal Fit •  Conceptual Adequacy •  Technical Adequacy •  Presentation Adequacy

Manuscript-Journal Fi t

Manuscript Fit With •  Journal Positioning •  Editorial Scope •  Editorial Policies

Conceptual Adequacy

Ø  How well does the paper build on prior research?

•  Are the research questions clear and unambiguous?

•  Are definitions of constructs clear and unambiguous?

•  Are the constructs considered pertinent to the research questions investigated?

•  If any new constructs are introduced, do they constitute useful additions to the field?

Technical Adequacy

Ø  Are the research design, sampling, measurement and methods of analysis appropriate and robust?

Ø  Are issues of reliability and validity including external validity satisfactorily addressed?

•  Is the reporting of results and the procedures leading to the results accurate and complete?

Presentat ion Adequacy

Ø  Clarity of writing style

Ø  Organization of material

Ø  Clarity of tables and figures

Ø  Accuracy and completeness of information presented

Clari ty of Writ ing

The best way to prepare a scientific paper is to pose Bradford Hill’s five classic questions:

Ø What did I do? Ø Why did I do it? Ø How did I do it? Ø What did I find? Ø What does it mean?

Source: Flatt (1996)

Beyond Rigor & Re levance : Readab i l i t y, the 3rd “R”

Q: How often should a piece be rewritten?

A: Till you get it right. I’ve never been a great writer, but I’m a hell of a rewriter. Presidents Reagan and Bush quoted in their speeches that last line ,....., of my short novel about .....I rewrote the ending eight times.

James A . Michener

Unfavorab le Outcomes On Manuscr ip t s Submit ted to Journa l s : Some Major Reasons

Reasons for Reject ion*

Ø  The question addressed was not a very meaningful one.

Ø  The same thing has already been said enough times.

Ø  The procedure (not the statistical analysis) used in the study could not answer the question(s) that were asked.

Ø  The measures used in a study had no reliability or validity.

Ø  It was simply not possible to understand what the author was trying to say.

Source: Excerpts from L. L. Cummings, and P. J. Frost (1985), “Reflections on Realities”, in L. L. Cummings, and P. J. Frost (Eds.) Publishing in Organizational Sciences, R. D. Irwin, p. 323-324.

*The above stated reasons for rejection are still valid, despite the fact that the source being cited is a 1985 publication.

Reasons for Reject ion* Nature of Problem Manuscripts(%)

Ø  No theory 51

Ø  Concepts and operationalization not in 31

alignment

Ø  Insufficient definition -- theory 24

Ø  Insufficient rationale -- design 24

Ø  Macrostructure -- organization and flow 23

Ø  Amateur style and tone 21

Ø  Inadequate research design 20

* Based on 111 manuscripts reviewed for AMJ and ASQ by R. Daft. In L. L. Cummings, and P. J. Frost (Eds.) Publishing in Organizational Sciences. 1985. R.D. Irwin

Reasons for Reject ion: No Theory

Ø  Unless a study provides a theoretical explanation of the findings, it severely limits the contribution of the research, regardless of how clean the pattern of results may be.

Ø  It is simply not enough to demonstrate an effect, without providing an explanation of what is driving it.

Theory Driven versus Theoret ical ly Interest ing

Ø  “There are multiple ways for knowledge to advance. One … is for important or interesting facts to be reported, so that subsequent researchers can then direct their efforts at understanding why and how those facts came to be.” (Hambrick 2007, p. 1348)

Ø  “… a given piece of research might not be “theory-driven” but still be “theoretically interesting” – if it stimulates subsequent development or revision of theory.” (Hambrick 2007, p. 1349)

Hambrick, Donald C. (2007), “The Field of Management’s Devotion to Theory: Too Much of a Good Thing?” Academy of Management Journal, 50 (December), 1346-1352.

Manuscript-Journal Fi t

Ø  Not a single variable in the research reported falls within the knowledge domain of marketing.

Literature Review

Ø  The paper vastly understates what we already know on the topic being studied.

Ø  The literature reviewed is not organized in any systematic way.

Ø  The relevance of the studies reviewed to the issues addressed in the paper is not clear.

Motivat ion for the Study

Ø  How the research reported either extends or complements prior research on the topic, and its positioning relative to the existing body of research is not clearly articulated.

Ø  A stronger justification than merely stating that the research question examined in the study has not been previously investigated must be provided.

Ø  Some potentially researchable questions may not have been addressed in past research because they might have been deemed as unimportant research questions.

Construct Def ini t ion

Ø  Many of the constructs and terms used in the manuscript are not precisely defined and/or explained.

Ø  Since constructs that are not clearly defined cannot be meaningfully operationalized, the results of tests of hypotheses and the model cannot be viewed as valid.

On the Importance of Def ini t ions

“There was a hint of this new science in Socrates’ maddening insistence on definitions, and in Plato’s constant refining of every concept. Aristotle’s little treatise on definitions shows how his logic found nourishment at this source. “If you wish to converse with me,” said Voltaire, “define your terms.” How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in a serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done, it is half of any task” (Source: Durant 1961).

Conceptual Model and Support for Model

Ø  The model proposes every conceivable direct and moderating effect. The approach employed appears to be to propose all possible effects and then let empirical analyses help weed out the non-significant links.

Ø  The conceptual support presented for the proposed model is weak and superficial. It comes across as a potpourri of unrelated variables with no unifying conceptual or theoretic logic underlying their choice.

Ø  Rather than providing carefully developed arguments in support of relationships delineated in the model, a number of past studies are listed as blanket support for the various relationships posited in the proposed model.

Crit ique of Hypothes is Ø  Weak supporting logic /no supporting logic

Ø  Self evident (intuitively obvious)

Ø  Tautology

Ø  Truism

Ø  Definitional artifact

Ø  Internally contradictory

Ø  Stated within the narrow confines of the empirical setting

Ø  Lacks specificity/stated very broadly

Ø  At variance with the literature cited

Ø  At variance with the literature not cited

Ø  Not in congruence with the stated research questions

Ø  Not in congruence with the model proposed

Ø  Not in congruence with the model tested

Research Proposi t ion versus Hypothes is

Proposition: Statement of the nature of relationship between two or more constructs. New product development team interactivity will be positively related to new product innovation performance. Hypothesis: Statement of the nature of relationship between two or more constructs at the level of variables. The greater the frequency of interaction among members of a new product development team, the greater will be the number of new product ideas generated.

Weak Support ing Logic / No Support ing Logic

Ø  A hypothesis that merely states that a relationship exists between variables X and Y, but does not clearly articulate the justification (conceptual rationale / derivative logic) for the hypothesized relationship is of limited value.

Ø  A hypothesis that merely states that a relationship exists between variables X and Y, but does not specify the direction of the relationship is of limited value.

Ø  Empirical precedence does not constitute a sufficient justification for a hypothesis. A firm conceptual grounding (i.e. exposition of the theoretic logic underlying the hypothesis) is essential.

Ø  Anecdotal evidence gleaned from the business press does not constitute conceptual justification for a relationship.

Hypothes is Lacks Speci f ic i ty: Stated Very Broadly

H: Firms emphasizing global standardization will view the importance of the components of the marketing plan differently from firms that do not stress standardization (As stated in a Journal of Marketing article published during the early 1980s).

Critique: Merely hypothesizing that differences will be found to exist between two groups of firms, but nothing about the nature of differences is of limited value from the standpoint of gaining insights into the phenomenon.

Tautology!

H: The longer and more stable the prior history of the business relationship between partners in a co-marketing alliance, the greater the effectiveness of the relationship (As stated in published source –Journal of Marketing).

Tautology, under the presumption that in an alliance, “length of the relationship” and “stability of the relationship” in themselves are indicators of the effectiveness of an alliance relationship.

Hypothes is i s Imprecise ly Stated

H: Goal conflict between principal and agent is negatively related to behavior-based contracts and positively related to outcome-based contracts (Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 1989, p. 62).

Comment: Type of contract is the underlying variable. Outcome-based and behavior-based are the two values that the variable can possibly assume.

H: The greater the goal conflict between principal and agent (X), the greater the likelihood of employing outcome-based contracts relative to behavior-based contracts (Y).

Hypothes is i s Imprecise ly Stated: Suscept ible to Cri t ic ism as Intui t ive ly Obvious

•  When the principal has information to verify agent behavior, the agent is

more likely to behave in the interests of the principal (Eisenhardt 1989; Academy of Management Review, p. 60).

Properly Stated

•  As the cost of monitoring an agent’s actions (X) decreases, the greater is the efficiency of behavior-based contracts in relation to outcome-based contracts (Y) (Bergen, Dutta and Walker 1992, Journal of Marketing, p. 5).


Imprecisely Stated: Not Stated as a Relationship between Two Variables

•  Outcome measurability is negatively related to behavior-based contracts and positively related to outcome-based contracts (Eisenhardt 1989, Academy of Management Review, p.62).

Properly Stated

•  The greater the difficulty of measuring the outcomes of an agent’s task, the greater is the efficiency of behavior-based contracts in relation to outcome-based contracts (Bergen, Dutta and Walker 1992, Journal of Marketing, p.5).



•  The goal conflict between principal and agent is negatively related to behavior-based contracts and positively related to outcome-based contracts (Eisenhardt 1989, Academy of Management Review, p. 62).

Properly Stated

•  As the level of goal conflict between a principal and an agent decreases, the greater is the efficiency of behavior-based contracts in relation to outcome-based contracts (Bergen, Dutta and Walker 1992, Journal of Marketing, p. 5).



•  Outcome uncertainty is positively related to behavior-based contracts and negatively related to outcome-based contracts (Eisenhardt 1989, Academy of Management Review, p. 61).

Properly Stated

•  As environmental uncertainty increases, behavior-based contracts become more efficient in relation to outcome-based contracts (Bergen, Dutta and Walker 1992, Journal of Marketing, p. 5).

Better to Be Consistent in How a Set of Hypotheses Are Stated

•  As environmental uncertainty increases, the greater is the efficiency of behavior-based contracts in relation to outcome-based contracts (Bergen, Dutta and Walker 1992, Journal of Marketing, p. 5).



•  The risk aversion of the agent is positively related to behavior-based contracts and negatively related to outcome-based contracts (Eisenhardt 1988, Academy of Management Review, p. 62).

Properly Stated

•  As an agent’s aversion to risk decreases, the greater is the efficiency of outcome-based contracts in relation to behavior-based contracts (Bergen, Dutta and Walker 1992, Journal of Marketing, p. 5).

Hypothes is Stated in the Empirical Context

H: The more rigorous the threat posed by Wal-Mart’s entry into the United Kingdom, the more negative are the performance implications for the incumbent retailer. Specifically, the performance of the incumbent is negatively affected by the degree of overlap with Wal-Mart on (a) assortment, (b) positioning, and (c) country of entry (Gielens et al. Journal of Marketing Research, October 2008).

Comment: Hypothesis is stated in reference to a specific country and a specific firm. Stating at a higher level of aggregation along the following lines is desirable from the standpoint of replication in other empirical settings.

H: The greater the threat posed by non-domestic entrants, the more negative are the performance implications for domestic incumbent firms. Specifically, the performance of domestic incumbent firms will be negatively affected by the degree of overlap with the non-domestic entrant’s (a) assortment, (b) positioning, and (c) country of entry.


H: The more dependent an incumbent retailer is on the United Kingdom as a source of revenue, the stronger are the negative performance implications of (a) overlap in assortment and (b) overlap in positioning with Wal-Mart entry (Gielens et al. Journal of Marketing Research, October 2008).


H: The more dependent an incumbent retailer is on a single country market as a source of revenue, the stronger are the negative performance implications of (a) overlap in assortment and (b) overlap in positioning with that of the non-domestic new entrant.


H: The greater the incumbent’s financial capacity to withstand the threat posed by Wal-Mart’s entry into the United Kingdom, the more positive are the performance implications. Specifically, the performance of the incumbent is positively affected by its (1) size, (2) profitability, and (3) financial leverage (Gielens et al. Journal of Marketing Research, October 2008).


H: The greater the domestic incumbent’s financial capacity to withstand the threat posed by the non-domestic firm’s entry, the more positive are the performance implications. Specifically, the performance of the incumbent is positively affected by its (1) size, (2) profitability, and (3) financial leverage.

Hypothes is Stated within the Narrow Confines of the Empirical Sett ing

H: Models in cigarette advertisements for mentholated brands will be perceived as younger than models in cigarette advertisements for regular brands (Source: From a manuscript submitted for review to the Journal of Marketing sometime during the 1990s).

Research Focus: Perceived age of models appearing in cigarette advertisements for mentholated versus regular brands!

Limitat ions of Hypothes is Stated within the Narrow Confines of the Empirical Sett ing

Scholarly journals are primarily interested in publishing articles reporting research findings that are not highly context specific, but generalizable to a broader class of:

Ø products, Ø markets/market segments/customer groups/

countries, regions, Ø industries, and/or Ø enduring

Hypothes is Stated within the Conf ines of the Empirical Sett ing

H: The exercise of aggressive forms of power by U.S. suppliers relates negatively to Japanese distributors’ perceptions of relationship quality.

(As stated in a Journal of Marketing article published during the early 1980s).

H: The exercise of aggressive forms of power by suppliers (X) relates negatively to distributors’ perceptions of relationship quality (Y).

(Restated with the words “Japan” and “U.S” deleted).

Hypothes is Stated within the Conf ines of the Empirical Sett ing

Journal Expectations During the 1980s versus 2010s

Conceptual development at a higher level of

abstraction, rather than in specific reference to a pair

of countries (e.g. US versus Japan) is an imperative.

For example: Conceptual development in the context

of Hofstede’s Research on Dimensions of National

Culture

Ø  Individualism Ø Power Distance Ø Masculinity Ø Uncertainty Avoidance

Potent ia l for Conceptual Development and Hypothes is Statement at a Higher Level of

Abstract ion

H: The strength of the negative relationship between exercising of aggressive forms of power by suppliers (X) and perceptions of relationship quality by distributors (Y) will be moderated by national culture (M).

H: The strength of the negative relationship will be greater under conditions of suppliers being from individualistic cultures and distributors being from collectivist cultures than under other conditions

(For illustrative purposes only. Not a literature based, conceptually grounded hypothesis).

Crit ique of Statement of Hypothes is : Def ini t ional Art i fact !

H: The greater the cost and/or demand inter-relationship between a particular business in a firm’s portfolio and other businesses in the firm’s portfolio, the greater is synergy as a source of competitive advantage of the business.

(Bharadwaj, Varadarajan and Fahy, Journal of Marketing, October 1993).

Measurement Issues

Ø  The independent and dependent measures are confounded. Some of the items used to operationalize a key explanatory construct and the dependent variable are worded similarly.

Ø  The explanatory measures are confounded. Items used to measure one explanatory construct confound with items used to measure another explanatory construct.

Ø  The validity of measures borrowed from published sources are seriously compromised when scale items from the original scale are arbitrarily dropped.

Measurement Issues

Ø  Valid and reliable scales for measuring the constructs relevant to the research reported are available in the public domain. Rather than employing these scales, the research reported develops and employs new measures of questionable conceptualization and poor psychometric properties.

Ø  If on the other hand, one of the intended contributions of the research is to develop new measures of these constructs, then the question of why and how existing measures are inadequate must be first addressed.

Research Design Issues

Ø The hypotheses as stated imply causation, but the research design used to test them is not amenable to making causal inferences.

Ø The experimental manipulation does not make it possible to rule out alternative explanations of findings.

Ø Researchers are often required to make certain compromises in order to enlist the cooperation of the sponsor(s) of the research. However, one has to guard against science being compromised.

Excess ive Post hoc Rat ional izat ion

Ø Excessive post hoc rationalization of unexpected results diminishes the credibility of the results which are consistent with prior expectations. If there is reason to believe that certain confounding factors might have influenced the unexpected results, a compelling reason must be offered to support the claim that they might have affected only the unexpected results and not the expected results.

Ø  Advancing several plausible explanations from literature to support results that are contrary to a priori hypothesized relationships is indicative of weak conceptual development, to begin with.

Interpretat ion of Results That Are Contrary to Expectat ions

Ø Besides the lack of any true relationship among the latent variables, the decision not to reject the null hypothesis can be a function of lack of power, lack of validity of the measures, unreliable measurement, lack of experimental control, and soon. Studies that wish to give a substantive interpretation to negative results must be reasonably well done.

L.L. Cummings and P. J. Frost (1985), "Reflections on Realities", in L. L. Cummings and P. J. Frost (eds.) Publishing in Organizational Sciences, R. D. Irwin, p. 323-24.

Post-hoc Explanat ions for Hypotheses that Are Not Empirical ly Supported

“Let’s suppose you had a theory that heavenly objects revolve around the Earth. Increasingly, you find that this theory doesn’t predict the movement of the stars and planets very well. Is it more rational to respond by questioning the theory that the universe revolves around the Earth, or to keep positing ever more complicated, convoluted, and improbable explanations for the discrepancy?” (Roger L. Martin, “The Execution Trap,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 2010, p. 66).

Discuss ion, Impl icat ions and Conclus ion

Ø  The stated implications do not stem from the findings reported.

Ø  The stated implications for practice are already widely in use in practice, intuitively obvious, common sense, and/or very general.

Nature and Scope of Incremental Contribut ion

Ø  Merely enumerating the deficiencies in previously published works does not make for a contribution of sufficient magnitude.

Ø  The potential for actually making a significant contribution resides in presenting/proposing solutions or enhancements to overcome these deficiencies.

Making a Contr ibut ion to Market ing Knowledge

Adding to our knowledge/understanding of a phenomenon in the field of marketing.

After having read a published article:

Ø  Would a manager act differently than before?

Ø  Would a researcher do research differently than before?

Ø  Would what a professor teaches in a class be different than before?

Making a Contribut ion

Ø  Challenging conventional wisdom and prevailing

beliefs (e.g. the presumed causal direction of relationship between variables).

Ø  Refuting a theory currently in vogue.

Ø  Proposing an alternative explanation (alternative theory).

Ø  Better measures

Ø  Better data

Ø  Additional theoretical and empirical insights

Ø  Presenting corroborating evidence

Ø  Presenting non-corroborating evidence

Making a Contribut ion: Opportunit ies That Ought Not to be Overlooked

Ø Kernel of Knowledge

Ø Replication

Ø Extension

Ø Note

Ø Critique

Ø Commentary

Ø Clarification (Setting the Record Straight)

Making a Contr ibut ion to Market ing Knowledge

Domains of Research Substantive Phenomenon of Interest

Conceptual Explanation of the Phenomenon

Methodological Method for Studying the Phenomenon

Brinberg and McGrath (1985)

Desirable Qual i t ies in a Conceptual Paper

For a conceptual paper to make a contribution, it has to meet the following criteria:

Ø  Opens new areas for investigation by introducing new concepts and developing new insights into underlying market mechanisms

Ø  Brings structure to a domain where there is much theoretical ambiguity

Ø  Introduces literature that was previously unknown to marketers (typically from other fields)

Ø  Uses qualitative data to develop new insights, discover new constructs, and/or identify new relationships.

Source: Adapted from Anon (Comments of a Journal of Marketing Associate Editor on a manuscript for which I was a reviewer)

Conceptual Contribut ion

1. Developing theories that enhance our understanding of marketing phenomenon and ability to predict outcomes.

2. Extending extant theory by: Ø  Providing evidence of moderator variables that hold implications for actionable

marketing practice.

Ø  Offering enlightenment regarding mediational processes.

Ø  Identifying boundary conditions for theory applicability.

Making a Contribut ion: Moving Study of a Phenomenon from a Slogan to a Science

Some Exemplars in Marketing

C Market Orientation C Service Quality C Customer Satisfaction C Brand Equity

The Mechanics

Ø  Establishing the theoretical domain of the construct(s) being researched.

Ø  Developing conceptual definition(s) of key constructs.

Ø  Delineating focal construct from related constructs.

The Mechanics

§  Development of Conceptual Framework / Development of Conceptual Model Delineating Relationships between Constructs Modeled as: •  Antecedents •  Consequences/Outcomes •  Moderators •  Mediators

§  Formal Statements of Propositions/Hypotheses and Rationale §  Operationalization of Construct(s) §  Empirical Testing and Results §  Discussion and Implications

Making a Contribut ion to Market ing

Knowledge: Substant ive Phenomena of Likely Interest to Market ing Educators and

Pract i t ioners

Research Topics and Questions Worthy of Scholarly Inquiry Ø  A good starting point would be to review the Marketing Science Institute’s

(MSI) Research Priorities -- the most recent as well as the past research priority statements dating back to 1984 (www.msi.org)

Ø  An archive of broad research topics and specific research questions that reflects the collective consensus of distinguished marketing scholars and senior marketing practitioners.

Research Topics and Quest ions Worthy of Scholarly Inquiry

“There are an infinite number of boring things to do in science. But we live these short life spans. Why not do the thing that’s the coolest thing in the world to do?” (David Eagleman in: Burkhard Bilger “The Possibilian,” The New Yorker, April 25, 2011).

Research Topics and Quest ions Worthy of Scholarly Inquiry: 4Is as Cri ter ia for Deciding

on a Program of Scholarly Research in the Disc ipl ine of 4Ps

To you as a doctoral student and aspiring marketing academic (or a young assistant professor), does a particular substantive domain in marketing and specific research questions in that domain resonate as an:

•  Interesting research questions

•  Intriguing research questions

•  Invigorating research questions

•  Intellectually challenging research questions

The Myth of Hot Research Topics in Market ing

“Rather than endlessly searching for today’s “hot topic”, potential contributors to the Journal of Marketing are well-advised to write and do research in those areas where they believe they can make the most contribution.” (Shelby Hunt, Journal of Marketing, Fall 1985, p.9).

The Myth of Hot Topics in Consumer Research

“Over the past three years, I have been asked literally dozens of times (usually, but not exclusively by Ph.D. students) what the hot topics in consumer research are… To attempt to answer that question, officially and for the final time, I suggest that you look within yourself. A topic isn’t hot for you unless you decide it is. It is safe to say that the very best researchers in our field follow their own instincts in selecting research topics… Their instincts are grounded in an expertise emanating from a total immersion in the topic area: reading the relevant academic literature, scanning the trade press, talking with industry researchers and colleagues at conferences, trading working papers and ideas on a network of scholars with similar interests, and so on. It is a commitment to a program of research that makes it work. You need to become an absolute expert on your subject.” (Richard Lutz Journal of Consumer Research, 1990, p. 2-3).

Striv ing for Probabi l i ty of Acceptance > 0 .10 (P > 0 .10) at Journals With Acceptance Rates

Less than 10%

Ø  Don’t give up when faced with manuscript rejections, and invitations to revise and resubmit that initially appear to be a daunting and impossible task.

Ø  Reviewers’ comments viewed in positive light can be an extremely valuable instructive tool that is conducive to becoming a better researcher over the long-term.

Ø  One can learn a lot about the nuances of scholarly research by carefully and critically reading the reviewers’ comments regardless of whether the outcome on a particular submission is reject, revise and resubmit, or accept.

Striv ing for Probabi l i ty of Acceptance > 0 .10 (P > 0 .10) at Journals With Acceptance Rates

Less than 10% Ø  Some reviews are bound to be superficial and uninformed. However, most

editors soon learn about the competence and conscientiousness of individual reviewers. They may often overwork conscientious reviewers who provide constructive, comprehensive and timely reviews. But they also will take the time to write the most glowing letters when asked to in contexts such as promotion and tenure, awards, etc. Reciprocity is a two-way street.

Ø  Train your mind to view the reviewer as your confidant, teacher and/or anonymous co-author, rather than as an adversary.

Publ ishing in Organizat ion Sciences: Where Should We Head?

Content. Strive for significance -- contribution to the discipline's theoretical and substantive base.

Craftsmanship. Write well -- high quality craftsmanship in design, method, analysis, and writing.

Courage: Have the courage to:

Ø  Write in the first place, to place one's work in the public domain. Ø  Openly seek feedback about the quality of one's work. Ø  Withstand criticism and reflect upon that criticism cognitively;

going beyond one's natural emotional reactions. Ø  Provide honest, open, constructive feedback to others; both

critical commentary and well-organized praise take courage.

Publ ishing in Organizat ion Sciences: Where Should We Head?

Tenacity: Be persistent! Consistent, repeated pursuit of exposure to the scholarly community can be central to receiving credits, recognition and exerting an impact on the discipline.

Emotion: Work with and through your (and others') emotions! be prepared for the negatives, remember to celebrate the recognition, support and join colleagues in both human conditions.

Source: Excerpts from, Cummings, L.L. and P. J. Frost (1985), "Epilogue", in L. L. Cummings, and P. J. Frost (Eds.) Publishing in Organizational Sciences, R. D. Irwin, p. 783-784.

Thank you

Q and A

Research and Publishing in Scholarly Journals in Business ... · Publishing Published !...

Documents

Transcript of Research and Publishing in Scholarly Journals in Business ... · Publishing Published !...