www.monash.edu.au

Publishing in high quality journals

Prof Helen De Cieri

ACREW RoundtableDepartment of ManagementMay 19, 2008

www.monash.edu.au

2

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

3

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?

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 Rating (1-5) Why this rating? If <4, what can you do to improve this rating?

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…

(http://www.publishnotperish.org)

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.

Oct 2008

1.

2.

3.

Nov 2008

1.

2.

3.

Dec 2008

1.

2.

3.

Jan 2009

1.

2.

3.

Feb 2009

1.

2.

3.

Mar 2009

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 FormScalar 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.

www.monash.edu.au

10

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

11

What is good research?

• Understand your epistemology and ontology.

• Study & learn how to master the research craft.

www.monash.edu.au

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

‘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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

journalthe article is too long

Writing style:verbose, vague, unclear; too many ‘bullet points’;lack of justification of claims, generalisations;

www.monash.edu.au

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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.

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.