1 / 48

Publishing in JM

Publishing in JM . Ajay K. Kohli Editor-in-Chief Co-Editors: Gary L. Frazier & Robert P. Leone January, 2011. Agenda. Why publish in JM? What kind of papers are of interest to JM? Publication criteria – 3 screens Review process

rehan
Télécharger la présentation

Publishing in JM

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. Publishing in JM Ajay K. Kohli Editor-in-Chief Co-Editors: Gary L. Frazier & Robert P. Leone January, 2011

  2. Agenda • Why publish in JM? • What kind of papers are of interest to JM? • Publication criteria – 3 screens • Review process • Crafting manuscripts for JM & responding to reviewers • Reviewing for JM

  3. Agenda • Why publish in JM? • What kind of papers are of interest to JM? • Publication criteria – 3 screens • Review process • Crafting manuscripts for JM & responding to reviewers • Reviewing for JM

  4. Why publish in JM? • Largest, diverse readership

  5. Why publish in JM? • Largest, diverse readership • Fewer self cites • High impact . . .

  6. Impact statistics

  7. Agenda • Why publish in JM? • What kind of papers are of interest to JM? • Publication criteria – 3 screens • Review process • Crafting manuscripts for JM & responding to reviewers • Reviewing for JM

  8. What kind of papers are of interest to JM? • Rigorous research with actionable implications

  9. What kind of papers are of interest to JM? • Rigorous research with actionable implications • Papers with new theoretical/substantive insights and findings (not methodological papers)

  10. What kind of papers are of interest to JM? • Rigorous research with actionable implications • Papers with new theoretical/substantive insights and findings (not methodological papers) • Any topic

  11. What kind of papers are of interest to JM? • Rigorous research with actionable implications • Papers with new theoretical/substantive insights and findings (not methodological papers) • Any topic • Any method • Archival data, experiments, surveys, historical methods, qualitative approaches, etc. all are welcome

  12. What kind of papers are of interest to JM? • Rigorous research with actionable implications • Papers with new theoretical/substantive insights and findings (not methodological papers) • Any topic • Any method • Archival data, experiments, surveys, historical methods, qualitative approaches, etc. all are welcome • Conceptual and review articles • But these are not easy

  13. Agenda • Why publish in JM? • What kind of papers are of interest to JM? • Publication criteria – 3 screens • Review process • Crafting manuscripts for JM & responding to reviewers • Reviewing for JM

  14. Three screens Interesting?

  15. Three screens Interesting? • New? Non-obvious?

  16. Three screens Interesting? • New? Non-obvious? • Change thinking/action?

  17. Three screens Interesting? • New? Non-obvious? • Change thinking/action? • Organic innovation?

  18. Three screens Interesting? • New? Non-obvious? • Change thinking/action? • Organic innovation? • Readable?

  19. Three screens Interesting? Valid? • New? Non-obvious? • Organic innovation? • Change thinking/action? • Readable? • Methodological rigor • Conceptual rigor

  20. Three screens Interesting? Valid? Broad Appeal? • New? Non-obvious? • Organic innovation? • Change thinking/action? • Readable? • Methodological rigor • Conceptual rigor • Number of scholars, managers, consumers, policy makers? • Level of managers and policy makers

  21. Agenda • Why publish in JM? • What kind of papers are of interest to JM? • Publication criteria – 3 screens • Review process • Crafting manuscripts for JM & responding to reviewers • Reviewing for JM

  22. The review process • Paper assigned in rotation to one of three co-editors • Consistency across papers • Weekly + ad hoc conferences/consultations • Typically 2-3 reviewers • Up or down decision after 2nd round •  Extremely conscientious and thorough revision

  23. Agenda • Why publish in JM? • What kind of papers are of interest to JM? • Publication criteria – 3 screens • Review process • Crafting manuscripts for JM • Reviewing for JM

  24. Crafting manuscripts for JM • Know your “first customer” – the reviewer • Extremely busy person

  25. Crafting manuscripts for JM • Know your “first customer” – the reviewer • Extremely busy person • Make it easy for a reviewer to like your paper • Short sentences! • Short paragraphs! • Point out the specific novel insights, the methodological care, the actionable implications . . .

  26. Crafting manuscripts for JM • Title – Crisp and inviting • Helps to state key novel insight in a single sentence if possible

  27. Crafting manuscripts for JM • Title – Crisp and inviting • Helps to state key novel insight in a single sentence if possible • Abstract – Executive summary, not shell statements • Assume it is the only thing a reader will read

  28. Crafting manuscripts for JM • Introduction • Write a research report, not a mystery novel • Pointedly state the problem/issue, + Who should care + Why? • Boldly list your contributions: The new insights + Why they are useful • 2-4 page synopsis of the whole paper

  29. Crafting manuscripts for JM • Theoretical framework and hypotheses section • Discuss the literature as it informs your research question(do not provide a listing of vaguely related prior findings) • Convincing arguments for hypotheses • 7-8 pages is plenty

  30. Crafting manuscripts for JM • Method and results section • Provide necessary detail but not in a sing-song style • Multi-study papers: State the purpose of each study in a brief intro (few sentences), clarifying how it complements the previous study • Use tables to help reduce text • 7-8 pages is a good target

  31. Crafting manuscripts for JM • Discussion section – split it into three sub-sections: • Theoretical implications: Brief overview of how results extend prior research, but do not repeat all findings • Managerial implications:What should which marketing stakeholders do differently, based on the specific findings? • Limitations and future research opportunities

  32. Crafting manuscripts for JM • General suggestions • Sweat the writing throughout – accurate, precise, concise • Many scholars revise dozens of drafts before submission • Consider professional copy editing, but don’t abdicate!

  33. Responding to reviewers • Time helps • Put away the reviews, and read them when you are calmer • Go behind the comments • Try to want to understand why a reviewer said what s/he did • What will fully satisfy him/her? • If they don’t “get it,” it is quite likely you didn’t “give it” • Do more than more than asked for!

  34. Crafting manuscripts for JM Publication!

  35. Agenda • Why publish in JM? • What kind of papers are of interest to JM? • Publication criteria – 3 screens • Review process • Crafting manuscripts for JM & responding to reviewers • Reviewing for JM

  36. Reviewing for JM • Important obligation

  37. Reviewing for JM • Important obligation • Learning experience • Newest thinking • How to craft papers – what authors do well, what mistakes they make

  38. Reviewing for JM • Important obligation • Learning experience • Newest thinking • How to craft papers – what authors do well, what mistakes they make • Build a track record in Manuscript Central • Each review is rated for quality and timeliness

  39. What to evaluate? • Contribution • Does the paper offer new insights? • How important are the new insights and to how many people? • Do they have the potential to change the thinking/behavior of one or more marketing stakeholders?

  40. What to evaluate? • Conceptual rigor • Is each construct defined clearly and precisely? • Do the arguments for hypotheses/predictions make sense? • Do the arguments use construct meanings indicated in their definitions? • Is there a common theme across the constructs? • Is there a common logic across the hypotheses/predictions?

  41. What to evaluate? • Methodological rigor • Do the measures correspond to the theoretical constructs? • Do the manipulations manipulate the construct and nothing else? • Are the measures reliable and valid? • Is the sample appropriate for the research question? • Is the analysis appropriate? • Are rival explanations accounted ruled out (experimentally or via analyses)?

  42. What to evaluate • Readability • Is the writing easy to understand? • Do the ideas flow? • Are the sentences and paragraphs short? • Is the writing in the present tense?

  43. Writing a review A brief synopsis of the paper’s objective and findings (2 sentences) 43

  44. Writing a review A brief synopsis of the paper’s objective and findings (2 sentences) Describe 2-3 major strengths 44

  45. Writing a review • A brief synopsis of the paper’s objective and findings (2 sentences) • Describe 2-3 major strengths • Describe 3-4 major weaknesses AND helpful suggestions for dealing with weaknesses – “path to publication”

  46. Writing a review • A brief synopsis of the paper’s objective and findings (2 sentences) • Describe 2-3 major strengths • Describe 3-4 major weaknesses AND helpful suggestions for dealing with weaknesses – “path to publication” • Describe additional concerns and suggestions separately

  47. Writing a review • A brief synopsis of the paper’s objective and findings (2 sentences) • Describe 2-3 major strengths • Describe 3-4 major weaknesses AND helpful suggestions for dealing with weaknesses – “path to publication” • Describe additional concerns and suggestions separately • Two or three single-spaced pages

  48. Thank you!

More Related