

Perspectives on journals and the publication
process
Tips for improving your odds of success
1
•
•
SENIOR EDITOR: John Harry Evans III
EDITORS:
• Michael L. Ettredge, University of Kansas
 David A. Guenther, University of Oregon
 Leslie D. Hodder, Indiana University
 Amy P. Hutton, Boston College
 Bin Ke, The Pennsylvania State University/Nanyang Technological
University
 Lisa Koonce, The University of Texas at Austin
 Charles Lee, Stanford University
 Kenneth A. Merchant, University of Southern California
 Gregory S. Miller, University of Michigan
 Donald V. Moser, University of Pittsburgh
 Morton Pincus, University of California, Irvine
 Vernon J. Richardson, University of Arkansas
 Phillip C. Stocken, Dartmouth College
 Beverly R. Walther, Northwestern University
2

TAR Editorial Assistant, Stacy Hoffman
assigns a manuscript number

Lesson 1:

Full Disclosure is the professional
approach.
- Revision of manuscript
previously rejected by TAR?
3

With help of two doctoral students, Stacy and
I search for two “best reviewers”
◦ Best reviewers are knowledgeable, objective and
motivated
◦ TAR article titles and keywords; Editorial Board
keyword specializations;141 EB vitas; Social
Sciences Citation Index; References cited
 “Acknowledgments” not used
4
•First 4-5 pages critical
•Editor reads this part initially
•Three key parts:
•Research question?
•Why important?
•How does study address the
question?
5

Editors know the players suggest alternative reviewers

Good reviewers are a very
scarce resource
6




Blind copy of paper to two reviewers;
reports requested in 30 days.
Shortly after 30 days, send a reminder.
Each reviewer returns Review Form and
report.
After 60+ days, make a decision?
7
•Reviewers are KEY!
•For your manuscript
•For TAR’s success
•Editorial Board – 130 researchers
•Ad hoc Reviewers – 453 more researchers
8
Five decision categories and templates:

◦
◦
◦
◦
◦

Conditional accept
Revise and resubmit
Uncertain
Reject – Contribution
Reject – Validity
Editor tailors the letter to circumstances
Help author understand:



Basis for decision
What to do next
9
Conditional acceptance
< 1%
Revise and resubmit
13%
Uncertain
11%
Reject – contribution
50%
Reject - validity
26%
10
Contribution is frequently more important
than execution!
Authors often focus too much on execution
and too little on contribution.
11
Odds of publication favor fresh, innovative areas
over such well-established topics as:
•
Earnings management / abnormal accruals
•
Corporate governance and CEO compensation
•
Conservatism
•
Analyst forecasts, accrual anomalies, audit fees, etc.
12
Final “acceptance rate” is like accounting for
inventory – “revise-and-resubmit”
manuscripts are incomplete units
● TAR overall acceptance rate is
approximately 12%-13%
13


 Cruel fact - the vast majority
must be rejected
Success comes to those who
learn from their mistakes and
persevere – revise wisely!
14
 Simplicity
/clarity is key to
communication
 Clear
thinking and clear writing
 Achieving
simplicity/clarity
requires very hard work
15
 Build
a team and help each other
communicate better
 Read
work
 Use
and critiques each other’s
the TAR evaluation form
◦ Evaluate validity and contribution
16
Audit
Financial
Mgrl.
Tax
Other
TOTAL
Analytical
1%
1%
3%
5%
2%
3%
1%
1%
1%
0%
8%
9%
Empirical
Archival
11%
11%
45%
39%
6%
7%
5%
6%
8%
5%
74%
68%
Experimental
5%
5%
3%
5%
3%
4%
<1%
<1%
1%
1%
13%
16%
Other
<1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
3%
<1%
0%
1%
2%
5%
7%
TOTAL
18%
19%
52%
49%
13%
16%
6%
7%
11%
8%
100%
100%
17
From Tuttle and Dillard (Accounting Horizons,
Dec. 2007, Table 4):

38% financial accounting
dissertations in 1995

70% financial accounting
dissertations in 2005
18
“I’m very busy right now. I can’t possibly review
the manuscript you sent me within a month.”
“What’s holding up the decision on my
manuscript?”
19
•
“Review unto others as you would have
them review unto you.”
•
That jerk who stupidly rejected your
paper last week is most likely not the
author of the paper you are reviewing.
20