Advice for first-time IJRM authors
Two Basic Criteria
In our first three months as IJRM editors, we were delighted to receive so many submissions, more than 250! We also believe that first-time authors may benefit from our observations about which submissions have made it into the peer review process and how other submissions can and should be improved. As we wrote in our first editorial, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167811624000533 your submission will be evaluated initially along two main criteria:
1) Does the paper provide enough contribution (Is it interesting?)
2) Does the method address validity concerns (Is it not wrong?)
Substantive and Theoretical Interest
Let’s get more specific about each dimension:
The first question relates to the substantive contribution – specifically, is there a potential contribution to both academic (did I learn something new?) and non-academic stakeholders (should a decision maker change his/her mind and/or behavior in view of the new insights?).
Our advice is to assert such a substantive contribution at the very start, ideally outlining the substantive dilemma (broadly speaking) in the first paragraph. The second paragraph(s) can then delve deeper into why the answer cannot be found in previous literature, and why it is intellectually exciting.
If your purpose is not a substantive contribution, focus on the theory contribution or method contribution you are making:
1) If you claim that your method is superior, make sure that you have compared it with typical alternative methods – both in terms of benefits (e.g. accuracy) and costs (e.g. runtime, data collection resources)
2) If you test theory (e.g., the typical marketing strategy paper with a hypotheses section), define the key constructs and develop novel arguments for relationships connecting these constructs. We have all heard the term “overarching” theory, which is often misunderstood as referring exclusively to off-the-shelf theories such as transaction cost economics (or TRA, prospect theory, social capital theory, assemblage theory, etc.) —which may feel constraining.
While “theory” serves to justify the choice of constructs, relationships between constructs, and arguments, an “overarching” theory ensures coherence of arguments and shared assumptions.
3) If you construct theory, you need to a) demonstrate value added to a phenomenon of interest, and/or b) translate theory into terms familiar to our audience as well as showing value added. Showing how a marketing or consumer behavior context adds to the foundational theory can also be a big plus. Both consumer psychology and consumer culture theory have contributed back to psychological theory and sociological/anthropological theory.
Excitement may come from different sources, including, but not limited to the following ten:
1) Demonstrating when previous theory or common wisdom does not hold.
2) Quantifying what’s conceptually known: How much? When? How long?
3) Sign reversals, non-linear effects, or relative importance of driving factors.
4) Black swan cases that revise theory.
5) Use of novel context to revise theory, not just another application in new context.
6) Insight into the multifaceted nature of a construct or phenomenon previously regarded as monolithic.
7) What seems to be a local/general phenomenon is a general/local phenomenon.
8) Newly uncovered relationships between constructs.
9) Dual causality or reverse causality refuting long-held causality assumptions.
10) A distinctive perspective on a phenomenon (e.g., sociological perspective on a phenomenon typically regarded as a psychological one or vice versa).
Papers that focus narrowly on the application of existing theories to particular industries or national contexts face difficulty in crossing the interestingness bar. While the application of existing theories is important, we want more insight than showing simple applicability.
Similarly, we appreciate theoretical results that are generalizable across contexts or which could generate new insights across contexts (theoretical generativity). If results only apply to a specific context (e.g. banking in a specific country), they also face difficulty in crossing the interestingness bar.
Sound Methodological Choices and Execution
The second question goes to method – specifically, a motivation of method choice and a way to overcome its limitations. For publication in IJRM, you need to go beyond describing a phenomenon and increase our understanding by (a) specifying why your method is the best way to answer the research question and (b) executing the method carefully.
For instance, surveys are appropriate when respondents are sufficiently aware, have the required expertise, are familiar with rating or ranking, are motivated to share their perceptions in a questionnaire, and are not fearful of consequences. Validity threats such as sample size, sample representativeness and common method bias should be discussed and guarded against. Please provide enough detail for readers to verify what you have done, and which important intermediate results led to your main finding.
Validity concerns also relate to the choice and measurement of constructs. Note that the bar for measurement in marketing research has traditionally been high. We can only properly assess the quality of measures when we know what we are trying to measure: step 1 of measurement is to provide strong, conceptual definitions of all key constructs.
Every methodological choice and method face similar tests of best practice to those specific to survey research.
In general, pay close attention to the link between research design, research question or purpose, and methodological choices. For example, interviews are NOT generally appropriate for making causal attributions; managers are not the appropriate sample for drawing inferences about consumer behavior. Strive for maximal transparency: err on the side of giving too much information about samples, measures, and models.
Writing to Communicate
We close with a note on exposition – exposition is key to meeting our two initial criteria, and research demands clear and concise communication. While the journal does not have a schema of what a paper should look like, authors should have read at least a few recent publications to get an idea of what the journal values. In case of IJRM, a paper often follows the hour-glass structure: start general, get more specific in conceptual development, data and method, and then generalize from your empirical findings to the literature and practical problem you started with. Please go beyond reporting your specific results and include a thorough discussion of their theoretical and practical implications. Ensure that all parts of the manuscript cohere, e.g. claims of contribution in the discussion should be supported by the empirical analysis.
As an author of a submitted paper, you enter into a conversation with related papers in IJRM and the broader field of identified stakeholders. Prior to submission, present your paper a few times to relevant audiences and integrate their feedback. Get a friendly read on the “final” paper BEFORE you submit and integrate feedback. The journal is NOT the place to improve research basics. The purpose of reviewing is NOT to fix foundational weaknesses, which timely feedback can help you address. Submissions should represent the authors’ very best effort to convey their research results.
We welcome your submissions and wish you well on your scholarly journeys.
Submitted by Newsletter Editor, Eric Arnould
Comments