Transcript Slide 1

Publishing in high quality journals
Prof Helen De Cieri
ACREW Roundtable
Department of Management
May 19, 2008
www.monash.edu.au
Develop Your Research Strategy
• What is your research plan for the next 5 years?
• Do you want your research profile to be focused in a
specific research area, or to have broader
representation?
• What’s the next ‘big idea’?
• Where are the gaps in your field?
• What are you doing now to ensure you have high
quality research outcomes for the next 5 years?
www.monash.edu.au
2
Develop Your Research Strategy
• What is/are your research project(s)?
• What journal articles are you planning?
– Rough topic/abstract?
– What are your target journals?
www.monash.edu.au
3
(http://www.publishnotperish.org)
Your Research Process: Consider the entire process of research. Rate each activity in terms
of how difficult it is for you, where 1=very difficult and 5=very easy.
Activity
Understanding what
is ‘good research’
Idea generation
Selecting a target
journal
Research design
Conducting the
research
Analysing data
Writing the paper
Revising the paper
Balancing research
and other
responsibilities
Other…
Rating (1-5)
Why this rating?
If <4, what can you do to
improve this rating?
Your Research Goals:
• Twelve months from now, I will have accomplished these
research goals:
• Three years from now, I will have accomplished these
research goals:
• Ten years from now, I will have accomplished these research
goals:
(http://www.publishnotperish.org)
Your research calendar: Write 3 actions in each
month that you will take to further your research.
May 2008
1.
2.
3.
June 2008
1.
2.
3.
July 2008
1.
2.
3.
Aug 2008
1.
2.
3.
Sept 2008
1.
2.
3.
Jan 2009
1.
2.
3.
Oct 2008
1.
2.
3.
Feb 2009
1.
2.
3.
Nov 2008
1.
2.
3.
Mar 2009
1.
2.
3.
Dec 2008
1.
2.
3.
Apr 2009
1.
2.
3.
(http://www.publishnotperish.org)
What criteria are reviewers asked to consider?
Example 1: AMJ Reviewer Form
Criteria
(Tick one: Completely inadequate; Weak; Modest; Strong; Very Strong)
1. Appropriateness for AMJ
2. Clarity of exposition
3. Technical adequacy
4. Theoretical contribution (i.e. testing, creating, or extending
theory)
5. Empirical contribution
6. Interestingness, innovativeness, and novelty
7. Potential implications for practice
8. Potential significance of contribution
9. Magnitude of contribution relative to length
Example 2: JIBS Reviewer Form
Scalar Evaluation (7-point scale with labels)
Please provide a scalar evaluation of the manuscript in terms of the following criteria.
Your ratings are confidential; they are for the JIBS Editor only and will not be
shared with the author(s).
•
1. Overall Contribution: The manuscript should contain insightful and
influential research on international business (that is, cutting-edge research
that breaks new ground, rather than an incremental contribution to the field).
The topic of the paper should be important and interesting, and its conclusions
should be significant. International business scholars should want to read and
cite this paper.
•
2. Theory Development: The paper should make a new and meaningful
contribution to the international business literature in terms of theory building.
The study should inform or improve our understanding of prior theory.
Propositions or hypotheses should be logical and clear, with major concepts
clearly defined.
•
3. Literature Review: The manuscript should cite the appropriate international
business literature and provide proper credit to existing work on the topic. All
important references should be included. The paper should contain an
appropriate number of references, neither over nor under referencing.
Example 2: JIBS Reviewer Form (continued)
•
4. Methods: (For empirical pieces only – select 'Not Applicable' for conceptual
pieces) The sample, measures, methods, observations, procedures, and
statistical analyses should ensure internal and external validity. Statistical
procedures should be used correctly and appropriately. Major assumptions of
the statistical techniques should be reasonably well met (i.e., no major
violations). All important statistical tests, tables and methods critical to the
paper’s scholarly credibility and conclusions should be included.
•
5. Integration: (For empirical pieces only – select 'Not Applicable' for
conceptual pieces) The manuscript should provide a good test of the theory
and hypotheses. There should be sufficient empirical grounds to build new
theory. The empirical method(s) chosen – qualitative or quantitative – should
be appropriate for the paper’s research question and theory development.
•
6. Style of Presentation: The presentation style should be appropriate for a
top-level journal of business. The writing style should be clear, with no
typographical errors or grammatical mistakes. Figures and tables should be
useful and clearly explained. The paper’s length should be appropriate to its
contribution.
If you are reviewing for journals, be aware that the
editors may conduct reviewer reports:
•
•
•
•
Papers assigned to you
Invitations, declines, time-to-review, etc.
Length of time taken to provide reviews
Lifetime R-score
www.monash.edu.au
10
What is good research?
• Understand your epistemology and ontology.
• Study & learn how to master the research craft.
www.monash.edu.au
11
Foundations of ‘good’ research’
• “Having good data” is not enough.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A novel and important idea
A contribution to knowledge
A strong theoretical base / contribution
Thorough and up-to-date literature review
Sound & rigorous research design & method
Appropriate research questions/ hypotheses
Appropriate analyses
Robust discussion & conclusion
Clear, concise writing style
www.monash.edu.au
12
Important points to consider about journals
•
•
•
•
How is this journal ranked?
Publish across a range of journals
Be realistic in identifying your targets
‘Goodies’ take a LOT longer to prepare, develop
and publish
• Be willing to ask for and to take advice
• Identify which journals contain articles on topics
that are relevant to your research
• AND your research builds on those articles
• Check that the journal publishes the appropriate
type of paper (review / empirical / research
approach)
www.monash.edu.au
13
Collecting information about journals
– Learn about Journal aims, scope, topics, types of
articles, editorial board members, guidelines for
authors, rejection rates.
– Check recent editorial notes for any changes in
direction
– Check for any forthcoming special issues (they are
often softer targets and/or have high citation rates)
– Attend editors’ sessions at conferences
– Download information from journal websites, collect at
conferences, go to the library and copy from recent
issues.
www.monash.edu.au
14
‘Rating’ a journal: ‘Formal’ information
• Learn about journal rankings
– see Social Sciences Citation Index: ISI Web of
Knowledge Journal Citation reports can be
accessed via Monash Library database
– See our Dept intranet and Faculty website for:
> The Association of Business Schools –
Academic Journal Quality Guide (UK)
> ABDC List
>our Faculty Consolidated Journal List
– See www.harzing.com -- Journal quality list
www.monash.edu.au
15
Preparing your paper
• Try to guess who will review your paper
• Examine/study the style (structure, approach) of
articles published in that journal.
• Ask others to read and provide feedback, and act on
that feedback BEFORE you submit the paper.
• Proof-read carefully.
• Ensure your paper conforms to the journal’s
guidelines.
• Cite relevant articles published in that journal.
• IS this journal a good match for your paper?
www.monash.edu.au
16
Writing your Manuscript
 Is it a conceptual paper or an empirical paper?
 Abstract
 What you did, how you did it, what you found
 Introduction
 Give a clear and concise introduction
 In first page, give a clear statement of why this research is
important
 In page 2-3, give a paragraph of the aim of this research
 In page 2-3, give a paragraph of the outline of the paper.
 Literature review
 Show that you know the literature
 Use the literature; Citation is not enough
 Show your research will contribute to knowledge in this field
www.monash.edu.au
17
Writing your Manuscript
Literature review
 Develop the argument/ story in a logical way (ask
others to read it, even if they are not familiar with your
area)
 Plan
the structure
 Ensure there is a logical development of
argument
 Include a clear explanation of the research
topic/question
 Ensure research question/ hypotheses are clear,
feasible, follow in a logical way from the literature
review
www.monash.edu.au
18
Writing your Manuscript
Research method
 Provide the information a reader needs in order
to understand (and replicate) your research
 E.g., clear explanation of the sample, procedure
Results
 Do the necessary, relevant analyses to test the
research question, hypotheses
 Make sure the analyses are appropriate
www.monash.edu.au
19
Writing your Manuscript
Discussion
 Address the research question/s
 Integrate the relevant literature
 State your contribution
 Acknowledge limitations
 What’s the conclusion?
 Passing
the ‘so what’ test
 Show how your manuscript contributes to
advancement of theory, research and practice in
this field
www.monash.edu.au
20
The most common mistakes, as reported by
reviewers:
 This is the wrong journal for this manuscript
This paper has no (or inadequate) theoretical
foundation
 Proof-reading errors
 The manuscript does not follow the style for this
journal
the article is too long
 Writing style:
verbose, vague, unclear;
 too many ‘bullet points’;
lack of justification of claims, generalisations;
www.monash.edu.au
21
The most common mistakes, as reported by
reviewers (cont.):
‘Key’ references are not cited
References are cited but has the author actually read
them?
The manuscript structure is illogical, difficult to follow
What is the author really trying to test?
Inadequate argument leading to hypotheses
I cannot understand or do not approve of the research
method
The research analysis is inappropriate / inadequate
The discussion misrepresents the findings
So what? Does this paper make a contribution?
www.monash.edu.au
22
How to handle a ‘revise & re-submit’
(R&R)
 Be
polite (it’s a small world)
 Follow the recommendations as much as
possible (referees volunteer their time,
they are trying to be helpful!)
 Follow the editor’s advice, instructions
 Address each of the points made by each
referee
 Return the revised MS as soon as possible
www.monash.edu.au
23
If your paper is rejected
• It’s OK. It happens to all of us.
 If
it’s rejected:
examine why
make changes, find another target, or
make significant change?
www.monash.edu.au
24
Useful references
• Huff, A.S. 1999. Writing for scholarly publications, Sage:
Thousand Oaks CA.
• Academy of Mgt Review, 2007, 32 (4): Special topic
forum on the interplay between theory and method.
• Kilduff, M. 2007. Editor’s comments: The top ten
reasons why your paper might not be sent out for review.
Academy of Mgt Review, 2007, 32 (3): 700-702.
• Academy of Mgt Journal, 2007, 50 (5): Editor’s forum on
the research-practice gap in human resource
management.
www.monash.edu.au
25
Useful references
• Day, A. 1996. How to get research published in journals, Gower
Publishing: Aldershot.
• Creswell, J.W. 2003. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
• JOM Editorials
•
– Feldman, D.C. 2004. The Devil is in the Details: Converting Good
Research into Publishable Articles, Journal of Management, 30(1): 1-6.
– Feldman, D.C. 2004. Being A Developmental Reviewer: Easier Said
Than Done, Journal of Management, 30(2): 161-164.
– Feldman, D.C. 2004. Negotiating the Revision Process, Journal of
Management, 30(3): 305-307.
Eden, D. 2004. From the editors: Reflections on the AMJ Associate editor
role. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (2): 167-173.