Download
publishing in jm n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Publishing in JM PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Publishing in JM

Publishing in JM

88 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Publishing in JM

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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!