David J. Ketchen, Jr., Professor of Management William Gillis, Doctoral Candidate

1. Why management reviewers recommend that your international paper be rejected and what you can do about it David J. Ketchen, Jr., Professor of Management William Gillis, Doctoral Candidate Florida State University MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004

2. Key questions • What common problems lead management reviewers to recommend rejection of international papers? • Does the mix of problems differ from management papers in general? • What can authors do to avoid common problems? MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004

3. What common problems lead management reviewers to recommend rejection of international papers? • Examined reviews of 34 submissions to the Journal of Management between 2000-2002 • Up to three main reasons coded • Found 250 major problems listed in the 95 reviews of the 34 papers MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004

4. Results ProblemN % of % of ProblemsReviews 1. No theory 311233 2. Concepts and measures 361438 not in alignment 3. Insufficient definition – theory 411643 4. Insufficient rationale – design 291231 5. Macrostructure – organization and flow 20821 6. Amateur style and tone 10411 7. Inadequate research design 321334 8. Not relevant to the field 13514 9. Overengineering 525 10. Conclusions not in alignment 14615 11. Cutting up the data 313 12. International misapplication 16617 MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004

5. Does the mix of problems differ from management papers in general? • Daft, R.L. 1995. Why I recommend that your paper be rejected and what you can do about it. In L.L. Cummings and P.J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the Organizational Sciences, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. • 258 major problems found in 111 reviews for Administrative Science Quarterly and Academy of Management Journal MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004

6. Results ProblemJoMDaft 1. No theory 3156 2. Concepts and measures 3635 not in alignment 3. Insufficient definition – theory 4127 4. Insufficient rationale – design 2927 5. Macrostructure – organization and flow 20 26 6. Amateur style and tone 10 23 7. Inadequate research design 3222 8. Not relevant to the field 13 20 9. Overengineering 5 11 10. Conclusions not in alignment 14 6 11. Cutting up the data 35 12. International misapplication 16 0 MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004

7. Skills needed to earn publication(“Cutting up the data” cases are excluded) JoMDaft Theory Skills (define concepts, enact models, write stories, integrate variables) 142 149 Writing skills (flow, style, integration of parts, rationale, openness, A to Z then back to A) 73 82 Design skills (inadequate method, wrong method, validity) 32 22 247 253 MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004

8. Insights • Overall mix of skill problems are similar • Most frequent problems for international submissions are • Insufficient definitions • Concepts and measures not aligned • Poor research design • No theory MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004

9. What can authors do to avoid common problems? • Theory tips • Define concepts and stay consistent • Avoid ‘argumentation by citation’ • Must be clear on what is the theory that makes you think A and B are related • Box and arrow diagrams are very useful • Perhaps map predictions onto the diagram MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004

10. What can authors do to avoid the common problems? • Method tips • Provide sufficient detail in this section so that others can replicate what you did • Be forthcoming about empirical flaws; Don’t make it seem like you are hiding something • What exactly is your sample size? • Convenience samples need to be well justified MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004

11. Closing thoughts – Some general tips for Ph.D students • Find a template • Seek professional help • One main idea per paragraph • Use outlines • Impression management is free, but very valuable MSU-CIBER July 31, 2004