Publishing in Top Journals
A guide for the perplexed
Martin Kilduff
University 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...
1
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?
2
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??
3
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?
4
Hourglass Shape
(The Outline)
Introduction (2 pages)
Theory (9 pages)
Methods (5 pages)
Results (4 pages)
Discussion (9 pages)
Conclusion (1 page)
2. Give your ideas structure

Begin and end strong?

Contributes to theory and research?

Relevant to organizations?

Seamless?
5
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
6
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
7
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
8
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
9
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?
10
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 are
taken 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
Probably reject this paper
Offer a “revise and resubmit”
Provisionally accept this paper
subject to minor revisions
_____ Accept the paper subject to
routine copyediting
Extremely unlikely
Fairly unlikely
I can’t tell
Fairly likely
A near certainty
B.
Specific Ratings (place and “x” next to your rating for the manuscript on the following criteria):
(a)
Significance of
contribution to
the field
1____
2____
3 ____
4____
None
Trivial
Modest
Important
Technical adequacy
1____
2___
3____
(b)
(c)
(d)
Appropriateness
Clarity
5____
Highly
Significant
4____
5____
Totally
Major
Inadequate Problems
Minor
Problems
Adequate
Superior
1____
2____
3____
4___
5____
Definitely
Not
Doubtful
Suitable but Highly
de-emphasize Appropriate
1____
2____
Totally
Deficient
Major
Problems
3____
Minor
Problems
4____
Good
Need More
of this type
5____
Superior
11
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 Letter
I 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.
12
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.
13
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
14
Conclusion

The evolutionary
process of paper
development

The competitive
market for ideas
Questions?
15