2. Structure of presentation
1. Why publish?
2. What are the options? How to choose?
3. What it takes to get published in top-tier journals
4. Practical steps and other reflections
3. I. Why publish?
1.(implicit)
requirement for PhD
2.Making your work public
3.Advancement of career
4.A useful motto for every researcher
– “Research is not finished until it is published’’
4. II. What are the options?
Journal articles -- books -- on-line publishing – business magazines--
working paper series--newspapers
How to choose between them?
1. Who is your audience
2. Objectives, quality and nature of the study
3. Credentials of outlet
4. Developmental approach important
In business and management: primary focus on journal
publications
1. ABS list, RAE 1*/2*/3*/4*
2. Social Sciences Citation Index; e.g., management list, business list
3. US tenure system: top tier list of journals in subject areas
4. FT list of journals (45)
5. The Review Process
Manuscripts submitted to academic journals are subject to a peer
review process
This process is often double-blind and gives some assurance of
quality
If the findings are judged to be significant and robust by one’s
peers (other ‘experts’ in the field), then the manuscript will be
accepted and published as a new contribution to knowledge
If the findings are judged to be insignificant and not robust, then a
manuscript will be rejected
By definition, the peer review process is a social process. Peer
review involves having your work evaluated by others
6. THE REVIEW PROCESS
Paper Submitted
Reject Send for Review Return
Reject Major mods. Minor mods. Accept
Rewrite and resubmit
Reject Rewrite Accept
Publish
7. Theory
Hypotheses or propositions involve constructs/variables and relationships
These require theoretical definitions and underlying mechanisms (theoretical
grounding)
Theoretical development is the price of entry
Building new theory – new constructs and relationships
Extending existing theory – new antecedents, outcomes and contexts (not simply
testing or application)
Building new theory is very high risk and is frequently judged naïve or just plain
wrong
By definition, such papers have weakly defined or mixed audiences
Finding an audience for new theory means positioning around a topic or a problem
8. Theory
Theory Generation
What’s the practical problem? We lack basic understanding of process
What does current theory tell us? We know some variables
What does current theory not tell us? We don’t know process
How is current study going to help fill this gap? New process theory
Theory Elaboration
What’s the practical problem? We lack complete understanding of process
What does current theory tell us? We have some related theories that might
explain process
What does current theory not tell us? We don’t know which theories best fit
How is current study going to help fill this gap? Elaborated theory
9. Reasons for Reject After Review
[based on 270 papers in 2003-2004 JMS]
Reason # %
Lack of contribution 248 92
Failure to develop theoretical 205 76
contribution
Fatal flaws in methods 189 70
Deficiencies in analysis 156 58
10. Competition for space
“the pressure on authors to place their work in the highest-
tier journals can be expected to increase. Where this trend
will lead is uncertain, but it is already affecting the operations
and outcomes of top-tier and specialty journals alike. In
addition, it may be shifting the balance of the types of research
produced (for example, toward meta-analyses and away from
primary studies)” (Rynes, 2007: 489).
Lower acceptance rates for top-tier journals (ASQ, AMR,
AMJ) but also for followers (JIBS, OSc, Ost, JMS)
11. Major Problems in getting
Qualitative Research published
1. The lack of a contribution to knowledge
2. The ‘story’ is not convincing
3. Ignoring the rationale for research
4. The “missing methods” problem
5. Making qualitative research appear quantitative
6. Lack of balance between theory and data
12. Qualitative research: Trend
towards more data
Qualitative research in AMJ
1980 – 1984
Two studies
Average 19 interviews
1985 – 1989
Twelve studies
Average 33 interviews
1990 – 1994
Twenty studies
Average 50 interviews
1995 – 1999
Sixteen studies
Average 52 interviews
2000 – 2005
Thirty-three studies
Average 82 interviews
13. Rules of thumb…cross-sectionally
Estimated 2013/2014 standards
For publication in a “C” Journal
LRP, BJM, Organization
25 – 35 (or equivalent)
Up to roughly three months field/data work
For publication in a “B” Journal
JMS, OSt., OSc, JIBS
30 – 50 (or equivalent)
Up to roughly six months field/data work
For publication in an “A” Journal
ASQ, AMJ, SMJ
60 – 120 (or equivalent)
Up to roughly a year of field/data work
14. Rules of thumb – work
wise
Picture this:
An established academic publishes an article per year…
Each successful article goes through two rounds of revisions
(equaling three submissions)…
“the success rate of one article in a top journal every two years
combined with an eventual acceptance rate of 20 percent for
articles initially targeted to the top journals implies that very
active scholars initiate 2.5 articles per year” (Glick et al., JOB,
2007).
Mind you, this is just the writing, thus not counting:
Vacation
Conferences
Manuscript rejections
Teaching responsibilities
Administrative responsibilities
Data collection and analysis efforts
15. IV. Practical steps
1. Don’t be in a rush to submit
It will only come back to you as a desk reject
2. Get the paper circulated
Comments from supervisors, colleagues
Present at internal staff seminars
Present at external workshops, conferences, etc.
Revise and polish before submission
16. 3. Targeting the journal
Subject area
Aims and scope of journal
Has journal had papers on this topic?
Style of journal
Quantitative vs Qualitative
Theory vs Empirical vs Applied
How papers are framed
Level of journal
See listings of journal quality
Your view on quality of paper
“If you are not getting rejected, you are aiming too low” -- Donald Siegel
[Assoc Ed, JBV]
17. 4. Submitting to journal
Read the papers in the journal
cite papers on your topic
cited authors may be your reviewers
see structure and framing of papers
“We went through previous AMJ papers line-by-line. We identified
standard phrasing and framing” -- Frans van den Bosch [Erasmus
University, published in AMJ 2006]
Follow style guidelines
citation and heading style, etc.
abstract
number the pages
get rid of track changes and internal notes to yourself!
• Submit to ONE journal at a time!!!
18. 5. Frame your paper!
Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997): framing practices -- synthesize prior research
and show how existing research is wanting in some respects → sets up
opportunity for advancing knowledge (contribution)
Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997)
Synthesize prior research as incomplete (need for further
development/specification)
Synthesize prior research as inadequate (extant literature does not sufficiently
incorporate different perspectives on the phenomenon under investigation)
Synthesize prior research as incommensurable (extant literature not only
overlooks relevant perspectives but is also simply wrong)
Positioning is where you locate your study in a stream of research, bridge
between framed gap or problem and offered solution
19. …other reflections
Think about writing collaboratively:
Enable material to be seen in a new, fresh way.
Maximise opportunities for dissemination of research.
Teamwork can help refine arguments
Offer emotional support.
Strategies for Collaborative Writing:
Relaying – handing on as in a relay race.
Portioning- dividing up the task among the team.
Sounding – sounding out ideas on the rest of the team
20. …other reflections
Writing skills
Copy style and writing of exemplary papers
Use of colleagues or professional copy-editors
Method skills
Rigour (advanced methods) and stay abreast of
developments
Ongoing training and development needed
Conceptual and craft skills
Framing and positioning
Increasing emphasis on formalisation and interaction
models
21. Conclusion
“There are probably rules for writing the persuasive, memorable
and publishable qualitative research article, but rest assured, no
one knows what they are”.
Van Maanen (1988).
