Writing for journal publication

1. Writing for journal publication Andreas Werr (andreas.werr@hhs.se)

2. The publishing industry • Publishers produce 1000s of journals • Open access journals are growing (although still marginal) • Several of the highest ranked journals are published by scholarly associations (e.g. Academy of Management, EGOS) • Journal rankings are getting increasingly important

3. An increasingly competitive environment

4. Journal Rankings • A number of competing ranking systems (see e.g. www.harzing.com/resources.htm#jql.htm ) • SSCI/ISI impact factor is increasingly important • Its validity has been criticized: • Focuses on citations in a rather short time span • Leads to unwarranted focus on high-ranked journals • Awards convention rather than creativity • Leads to an increasingly self serving system Based on Tienary & Thomas (2006)

5. The publishing process Revision Comments to reviewers and editors Submission Author Desk reject (ca 50%) Reject (30%) R&R/ accept Selection of reviewers Decision letter Initial scanning Editor Scanning Editor Reviewer Review (2-3 reviewers; Double blind) 1-2 weeks 6-10 weeks 1-2 weeks About 6 months

6. The publishing process cont. Revision Comments to reviewers and editors Author Reject R&R/ (conditional) accept Editor Scanning Editor Scanning Editor Decision letter Accept Proof Publication 10-15% Review (2-3 reviewers; Double blind) Reviewer 1-2 weeks 6-10 weeks 1-2 weeks About 6 months 1-2 weeks 2-12 months

7. Choosing a Journal • Choose journal early in the (re)writing process • Look out for special issues • What journals appear in your reference list? • What is the significance of your contribution and the quality of your study? • Search literature databases for additional (less prestigious) outlets • Check fit with journal aim and scope

8. Writing your paper • Obtain feedback throughout the writing process – seminars, conferences etc. • Co-author your first paper(s) with an experienced author • Follow journal conventions both explicit and implicit ones. What do articles in the journal look like?

9. Key points to consider - introduction • Position your research and its contribution • What is the problem/issue you deal with? • What is the specific contribution of your paper? • What are the implications for practice and research? • Make sure you • Demonstrate a good knowledge of current theory and debates • Clearly identify a research gap and how you aim to close it

10. Example of purpose statements • “…the former theorists suggest that adaptive learning in social systems is fundamentally problematic and rare, and the latter, only slightly more sanguine, propose that expert intervention is necessary to bring it about […]. This paper takes a different approach to understanding learning in organizations by examining to what extent and under what conditions learning occurs naturally in organizational work groups” (Edmondsson, 1999; ASQ) • “…Even though [aircraft] carriers represent “a million accidents to happen (Wilson, 1986: 21), almost non of them do. Here, we examinie why not. The explation we wish to explore is that organizations concerned with reliability enact aggregate mental processesthat are more fully developed than those found in organizations concerned with efficiency” (Weick & Roberts, 1993; ASQ)

11. Key points to consider - framework • What do we currently know about the subject? • What are the limitations of this knowledge? • What are the key concepts with which you approach the problem? • In quantitative papers: What are the hypotheses you aim to test?

12. Key points to consider - methodology • How was data collected and analyzed? • What are the methodological issues involved in your approach • Does the data and analysis fit the framework? • Are the conclusions drawn reasonable given the quality and quantity of the data?

13. Key points– discussion and conclusions • Link back to the purpose of the study • Discuss findings in relation to previous research • Clearly identify how the study adds to the current state of knowledge • Spell out implications for research and practice • Discuss limitations of the study

14. Revising your paper • Attend to all reviewers comments • You do not have to follow all advice, but in case you don’t you need to motivate this • A good editor provides guidance in the case of contradictory reviews • Submit a separate document addressing the reviewers’ comments

15. Example – comments to editor/reviewers Dear Editors, dear Reviewers, thank you for your remarks and the reviews. We have modified our manuscript accordingly, as follows: • Reviewer 1 remarks that organizational commitment is arguably not the only variable that links leadership to organizational outcomes. We have commented on this in the paper, including a reference (p. 14, 3rd paragraph). • Another concern was the suitability of the GLOBE study and scales for the present research. We now argue explicitly why we consider the GLOBE study to be an adequate background (p. 3f.). We also checked for significant differences between the Austrian and German sample concerning the leadership dimensions (p. 11, section 5, 1st paragraph). • … Reviewer 1: 1.1. The main result of the research is the mismatch between formal and informal organisation so that informal interaction does not follow the prescribed formal lines of communication. The actor level indices, however, give unidimensional view on the networks as a whole. There is no measure of the intercorrelation between networks, which would be more than appropriate comparing the overall match between formal and informal organisations. This could be done using QAP (quadratic assignment procedure) correlation intended to deal with network data as implemented in Ucinet network software. → Please refer also to the suggestions made by Reviewer 2 (2.4) and Reviewer 3 (3.5) as well as my respective responses. • I have extended the section containing the descriptive results now being called “Descriptive Statistics and Associations between Relations”. I agree that QAP correlations may give valuable insights into how the individual relations and relational types respectively are associated. For this reasons, the correlation coefficients which have been derive by applying QAP are reported in addition to the numerical comparison of relational ties. The analyses reveal moderate levels of association between formal structures and emergent networks. • Similarly, the associations between informal and emergent networks are moderate with the notable exception of information at OIL-CORP. However, I suggest that QAP correlations may only be treated as a first step towards the investigation of the research questions addressed in the paper. I base this notion on two important reasons: First, there is no clearly undisputed way to assess the statistical differences between QAP coefficients. Krackhardt (1992) himself has argued that “QAP should not be used as a test of fit” (p. 281) anc cannot ascribe a reasonable inferential or probabilistic interpretation to my QAP test results” (p. 293). Mattila (1994) who has also applied QAP correlation to test for associations between “ideal” and observed matrices suggests that conclusions based on QAP “must be very tentative” (p. 378). Second, the paper predominantly aims to investigate how emergent networks differ from formally designed cooperation structures. This kind of research question, however, requires difference measures in addition to measures of association such as correlation coefficients.

16. Your characteristics of a well written text • Books: • Direct writing style; not afraid of drawing conclusions, takes a clear position (Fuchs) • A visible and charismatic author; anecdotes and examples (Asplund) • A fresh and novel approach; mind opening; examples keeping the readers interest alive; exciting, spirit raising… (Dussauge & Garette) • Practical; checklists and tools; based on research; directed at a clear target group; illustrative cases (Grath & MacMillan) • Articles • Shows early that it proposes a new view on something (Meyer & Rowan) • A combination of beeing interesting, stringent, clear, vivid – and trustworthy (Meyer & Rowan) • Comprehensible, easy to read, illustrative practical examples (Latour) • Philosophical language without using sense of reality; metaphors; author opens up for a dialogue with reader; a relation to the author (Ketola); • Shows how to do things in novel and non-traditional ways; introduces a new concept (value constellation); easy to understand – also for outsiders; use of examples; gives new insights every time you read it; openness to interpretation; unfolding argument (Norman & Ramirez) • Pedagogical; understandable; provides new perspectives (Blomberg) • Strong message; simplifying without trivializing; balance richness and stringency (Kogut & Zander)