1 / 17

Guidelines for Successful Publishing: From PhD Days to Review Process

This paper discusses the publishing process from a PhD perspective to review stages, emphasizing key considerations for successful manuscript submission. It covers initial screening, review rounds, revision steps, and formatting, offering tips for presenting contributions effectively and engagingly. The text provides insights on developing arguments, theoretical frameworks, research methods, and empirical findings, along with suggestions for responding to reviewer comments and improving paper quality. It also highlights personal experiences and strategies for resilient publishing, showcasing the importance of purpose, opportunity, time management, courage, and collaboration.

kaiya
Télécharger la présentation

Guidelines for Successful Publishing: From PhD Days to Review Process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Margunn Aanestad and Tiwonge Manda Publishing, contribution etc… PhD days February 2015

  2. Review process • The Editor-in-Chief does the initial screening of manuscripts • is the focus of the paper within the scope of the journal? • does the research represent a potential contribution? • is the presentation quality adequate (language, structure, references, etc.)? • If passing the screening, one of the editors is assignedas Associate Editor to handle the review process, and sends the manuscript for a double-blind review by three reviewers. • The initial round of review normally does not take longer than ten weeks from the date of submission.

  3. Review process • The Associate Editor sends his report together with the three reviews to the authors. In the first round, manuscripts normally receive one of the following evaluations: • revise and resubmit • conditional acceptance with major revision • reject • Most manuscripts go through 2-3 rounds of reviews. • For each revision, the authors need to submit a report explaining how the comments in the AE report have been addressed • If accepted, authors do final formatting according to instructions from the production manager.The formatted manuscript is proof read by the authors before publication.

  4. Some tips for successfulsubmission • Present a clear argument for the contribution of the paper in the introduction • what is new? how does this paper contribute to extant research • present an explicit problem statement and/or research question(s) • the detailed review of related research should not be presentedin the introduction, but in a separate section • Present a thorough review of related research • Position your research within the relevant stream(s) of research • Cover recent work in the relevant area(s) • Check for relevant papers in the journal’s archive

  5. Some tips for successfulsubmission • Present explicitly your theoretical lens • Present your research method in sufficient detail • Especially for qualitative studies, be sure to explain how your data was collected and analyzed • In discussion and concluding sections, present explicitly the new knowledge contributed from your research andits validity • Do not present claims/arguments that cannot be supported byyour empirical findings and/or previous research • Discuss implications for practice and further research

  6. Some tips for successfulsubmission • Make sure your paper is technically in shape • proof read, if needed get language assistance • have someone read through the manuscript before submission • check references • Take advantage of the comments! • In the review process, show endurance • take the reviewers’ comments seriously and address these in yourresponse • be prepared to work with conflicting reviews • be willing to undertake major revisions of your manuscript

  7. Publishing – Personal Experiences Purpose, Opportunity, Time, Resilience/Persistence, Courage, collaboration

  8. Publishing – Personal Experiences • Purpose • What is it that you want to talk about and why? • Audience • general research community + Outlet focus • Knowledge of key literature • Opportunity • Novelty • Special Issues • Time • Time to develop your ideas • Time to get a publication through • You have other things ongoing

  9. Publishing – Personal Experieces • Resilence/Persistence • Keep on keeping on • identifying positive aspects of long nerve-wrecking reviews (moving from SJIS to ISJ)

  10. Publishing – Personal Experiences • Courage • Swimming in the deeper end – trying your hand at high end journals • More difficult • Better reviews • Good adrenaline • Test ideas beyond your homeground • Collaboration • You can see things in a different light • Work with experienced others

  11. Some Examples with papers

  12. What is a contribution? • Walsham 1995 • Concept development • Theory generation • Specific implications • Rich insights

  13. What is a contribution? • Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997) - strategies for constructing a contribution: • Structuring intertextual coherence • How do you write the literature review? • Problematizing context for contribution • How do you claim that you have spotted a «gap»? • Positioning as translating interests • How do you argue…

  14. Where to publish? • Senior Editors’ «basket of eight»: • MISQ, ISR, ISJ, JAIS, EJIS, ISJ, JIT, JMIS, JSIS • GI group ~10 years ago: • «A level»: MISQ, ISR, Inf&Org, Org Science, STHV, Inf.Society • «B level»: ISJ, JAIS, EJIS, SJIS, IT&P, CSCW, EJISDC, • Today? • IT&D, JHIDC, AHIJ, etc • AMR, ASQ, ORG, Org Studies, HR, ML

More Related