• Save
Writing Scientific Research Papers
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Writing Scientific Research Papers

on

  • 3,737 views

Slides from university seminar on Academic Writing and Publishing, January 2014, Bahrain

Slides from university seminar on Academic Writing and Publishing, January 2014, Bahrain
copyright by Jan Recker, QUT, 2014

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,737
Views on SlideShare
3,737
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
0
Comments
1

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Writing Scientific Research Papers Writing Scientific Research Papers Presentation Transcript

  • Writing Scientific Research Papers Professor Dr Jan Recker Woolworths Chair of Retail Innovation Information Systems School, Queensland University of Technology
  • WHAT THIS DAY IS ABOUT Developing Skills to Publish Research What is good research – and what makes a good research article? Why worry about publishing? What are the strategic implications of what and where you publish? How can you plan the writing of a well-structured article? How can you survive the publishing process? Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia
  • Course Schedule Time Session Title 9.00 10.30 9 00-10 30 Session 1 Introduction – Publish or Perish 10.30-11.00 11.00-12.30 Morning Break Session 2 Types of Research and Research Papers 12.30-13.30 13.30-15.30 Lunch Session 3 The Structure of Manuscripts 15.00-15.30 15.30-17.00 Coffee Break Session 4 a university for the The Publishing Process real world R 3 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • MY BACKGROUND Brief CV Master of Science (2004) in Muenster, Germany, PhD (2008) in Brisbane, Australia Full Professor and Woolworths Chair of Retail Innovation at QUT Fellow of the Alexander-von-Humboldt-Foundation Fellow of the Liechtenstein Chapter of the Association for Information p Systems – On of the Youngest ever Full Professors in Australia – Highest-ranked IS researcher in Australia and Germany (based on AIS-Top-6 journals in the last five years) – Published 120+ papers in MISQ, EJIS, JAIS, I & M, DSS, SJIS, Inf. Systems and others Professional Interests – – – – Design practices in process-oriented systems IT enabled IT-enabled Business Transformations Organizational Innovation Sustainability and Information Systems More i f M information: www.janrecker.com ti j k Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia
  • QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Faculty of Business y Faculty of Law Faculty of Health Faculty Ed cation Fac lt of Education Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering Faculty of Creative Industries Science and Engineering Faculty – Chemistry, Physics and Mechanical Engineering g g – Civil and Built Engineering – Earth, Environmental and Biological Sciences – M th Mathematical S i ti l Sciences – Electrical Engineering and Computer Science – Information Systems … Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia
  • INFORMATION SYSTEMS SCHOOL Population – 10 Professors – 16 addit. academic staff (11 with PhD) – 84 PhD students Three research disciplines – Business Process Management – Information Ecology – Service Science Host of BPM 2007, ACIS 2010, PACIS 2011 My work context
  • QUT’s Information Systems School Institution Research Excellence (out of 5) Queensland University of Technology 5 University of Melbourne 4 University of Queensland 4 Monash University 3 University of New South Wales 3 University of Technology, Sydney 3 http://www.arc.gov.au/era/outcomes_2010/FoR/MIC0806 Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia
  • 4,000+ Pages
  • STRONG INDUSTRY PARTNERS
  • Publish or Perish – but why does it matter?
  • Innovation and Research pave the way to the future Innovation and Research pave the way to the future Innovation, research and customer-orientated transformation f are key to surviving a rapidly changing retail landscape according to Woolworths Ltd CEO Grant O'Brien. Mr O'Brien addressed the QUT Business Leaders' Forum today saying the investment of nearly $1 million to fund a Chair of Retail p g Innovation would help the sector better recognize the needs of customers. http://www.news.qut.edu.au/cgi-bin/WebObjects/News.woa/wa/goNewsPage?newsEventID=56077 http://hbr.org/2012/10/data-scientist-the-sexiest-job-of-the-21st- century/ar/pr
  • Evidence means ability to innovate “The collected wisdom of b i d f baseball b ll insiders is subjective and flawed.“ In 2004, two years after adopting the sabermetric model, model the Boston Red Sox win their first World Series since 1918.
  • Sounds familiar?
  • A BI-DIRECTIONAL VALUE PARTNERSHIP - IF YOU GET IT RIGHT IMPACTING Change Research Findings Research Practice UNDERSTANDING Inspiration Empirical Evidence
  • Research as a Service
  • The “Research as a Service” Model Inserting scientific principles to support evidence‐ g f p p pp based decision‐making in knowledge organizations Research as an innovation and knowledge service Novel conceptual perspectives Novel conceptual perspectives Rigorous scientific principles Quality empirical evidence Quality empirical evidence Increased research bandwidth Unbiased observation Unbiased observation
  • Research Knowledge and Decision‐Making g g − Relying on status (confidence) rather than facts (evidence) − Using flawed decision models + Seeking an understanding of true cause-effect relations + Realizing the availability of potential evidence g y p + Opposing tradition, intuition, folklore and rules of thumb
  • Moving Decision‐making from Confidence to Evidence g g Moving to reliable, valid and ultimately credible decisions g , y Requires data and scientific analysis capabilities Provided by university, but also with the view to assist in‐house  y y development Allows capitalizing on internal evidence for organizational  innovation i i Means levelling of hierarchies “If th d i i i i t b d b f t th If the decision is going to be made by facts, then  everyone’s facts […]are equal. If the decision is going  to be made on the basis of people’s opinions, then  mine count for a lot more. “ James Barksdale James Barksdale former CEO Netscape 18
  • Levels of Research Which level is the basis for your decisions?
  • Example p The danger of case studies “A Magazine is an iP d th t d M i i iPad that doesn’t work” ’t k”
  • Example p The danger of case studies “Paper h a great future” “P has tf t ”
  • Some examples Social media usage statistics (S id Cowling, SocialMediaNews.com.au, 2013) li S i l di 20 3) (Source: David C Social network Feb 2012 Social media “noise”2013no measurable Feb has Facebook impact on short-term sales. 10,703,160 11,677,680 Blogspot ( l (But Digital ROI remains k key measure f for 11,000,000 media selection 11,000,000 and marketing 3,500,000strategies.) 3,200,000 Tumblr 1,100,000 2,800,000 LinkedIn 2,220,000 2,400,000 Twitter T itt 1,800,000 1 800 000 2 200 000 2,200,000 Instagram 250,000 1,101,667 Flickr 920,000 850,000 Pinterest 650,000 630,000 Google+ (estimates) 1,200,000 340,000 Myspace 520,000 310,000 YouTube
  • Of course, there are limits Not all decisions require scientific study…
  • Inserting Scientific Principles into Emerging Evidence-based Organisations Unconscious U i Incompetence Conscious Incompetence 24 Unconscious U i Competence Conscious Competence
  • Example  find your internal evidence Example – find your internal evidence “What can we learn about success from within our own company?”
  • New Concepts: Positive Deviance a practice that stands out from a pool of comparable practices as it shows better performance under the same environmental conditions. A shift in management thinking, from “fixing errors” to “rewarding and learning from the best”
  • Inserting scientific principles Inserting scientific principles “Bakeries lli “ k i selling more products with less customers.” Positive Deviant Positive Deviant Positive Deviant Positive Deviant Positive Deviant Sale performance es e Positive Deviant Positive Deviant Average Number of customers
  • Scientific Evidence: Finding th T Fi di the True Root Causes R tC
  • What Causes Performance? “It’s not necessarily the process” everyone follows the same process model “It’s not the competition” p process performance independent from local context Individual motivation and the willingness to ‘do something extra’ do extra Clever use of mark-downs Culture: collaboration and communication between departments p Exchange of ideas inter-departmental Creativity: finding new solutions for products, display and service; willingly deviate from standardized process. Exchange of knowledge between stores
  • POTENTIAL HURDLES In successful research and successful transfer into practice Lack of interest / incentives Lack of credibility Lack of awareness Lack of understandability Lack of appropriateness Lack of timing Lack of applicability Lack of capability Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia
  • Secrets of successful people - have talent - work hard - be at the right place - at the right time
  • AGENDA TODAY Vision Research Process Management Research Portfolio P tf li Management Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia Values & Principles Research Management Research Marketing Management Research Strategy Management Research Publication Management Research Quality Management
  • Course Schedule Time Session Title 9.00-10.30 Session 1 Introduction – Publish or Perish 10.30-11.00 11.00-12.30 Morning Break Session 2 Types of Research and Research Papers 12.30-13.30 13.30-15.30 13 30 15 30 Lunch Session 3 S i 15.00-15.30 15.30-17.00 The Structure of Manuscripts Th St t fM i t Coffee Break Session 4 a university for the The Publishing Process g real world R 33 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • The most important lesson from today Good paper Good research • • • • • • Purposive Goals clearly defined. Procedure replicable. • • Objectivity clearly evident. Use appropriate analytical techniques. techniques Conclusions limited to those clearly justified by the data / facts. • • • Purposive Goals clearly defined. Reporting of procedures (including flaws) complete and honest. Objectivity clearly evident. Describe the use of appropriate analytical techniques. Conclusions limited to those clearly justified by the data / facts. • You can only write good papers when you do good research. a university for the real world R 34 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Publish or Perish The purpose of an academic is to produce and disseminate research results. Your publications advertise your skills area of interest expertise a university for the real world R 35 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • You are what you publish! • The most important KPIs of an Academic KPI – Number of peer-reviewed publications • E E.g., US A t Prof. minimum 12+ journal articles i 6 Asst. P f i i j l ti l in years to achieve tenure – Quality of peer-reviewed publications peer reviewed • Journal Impact Factor • Journal ratings • Citations – Raw data –Hi d H-index – G-index a university for the real world R 36 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Expectations and Reality are different, though Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Fuller, M.A., Schneider, C.: Research Standards for Promotion and Tenure in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly 30 (2006) 1-12 a university for the real world R 37 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Expectations and Reality are different, though Dean, D.L., Lowry, P.B., Humpherys, S.L.: Profiling the Research Productivity of Tenured Information Systems Faculty at U.S. Institutions. MIS Quarterly 35 (2011) 1-15 a university for the real world R 38 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • WHAT MATTERS  INSIGHTS FROM QUT WHAT MATTERS – INSIGHTS FROM QUT Performance achievements in 2013 For the discipline Best conference papers p p Journal publications External recognition for industry-work Woolworths chair Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia For individuals Publishing first p p / g paper publishing many papers PhD progress/completion Expanding knowledge and understanding of research
  • ACADEMIC AMBITIONS ACADEMIC AMBITIONS Performance expectations For the discipline – Grants and funding – More journal articles / more “good” papers only in good outlets – Attract good students & staff Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia For individuals Publish top journal papers Progress/complete PhD thesis Contribute to impactful outcomes Transition into next stage of career Manage work/time effectively Build connections
  • Metrics: Official Ranking Lists http://lamp.infosys.deakin.edu.au/era/ a university for the real world R 41 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Metrics: Official Ranking Lists http://www.vvenkatesh.com/ISranking/ p g a university for the real world R 42 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Metrics: Journal Impact Factor • The journal impact factor (IF) is a measure of the frequency with which the "average article" q y g in a journal has been cited in a particular year • IFs are a very short term metric A = the number of times articles published in 2009 g and 2010 were cited during 2011 B = the total number of ‘citable items’ published by that journal in 2009 and 2010 2011 impact factor = A / B a university for the real world R 43 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Metrics: Journal Impact Data • Journal Citation Reports – http://www.library.qut.edu.au/find/databases/fullrec ord.jsp?id=4968 Nature ( 3 ) (~31) Science (~30) a university for the real world R 44 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Caution: Journal Impact Data • • • • • Depend heavily on the size of the field Do not reflect individual articles Include self‐citations (journal and author) Review articles skew impact factors Linked to publication time of journal (two‐year time frame) • Publishing in high‐impact journal does not guarantee high citations • Citations to retracted articles are still counted in the impact‐factor calculation a university for the real world R 45 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • A Personal Example – from 2010 Publication Type ERA Ranking 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Refereed journal article A+ A B C A B C - 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 7 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 3 4 1 2 1 0 0 3 0 1 8 0 1 0 1 5 2 3 1 5 1 2 0 2 5 6 4 6 35 7 9 5 7 - 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 - 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 - 7 17 15 12 16 22 89 Refereed conference proceedings di Refereed book chapters Edited Books and Proceedings Professional and Magazine Articles Total a university for the real world R 46 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Metrics: Citation Data • Harzing’s Publish or Perish – Displays citation data for articles, authors and/or p y , outlets • Raw data • Indices • F example: H i d For l H-index – A researcher with an index of h has published h papers with at l ith t least h citations each. t it ti h a university for the real world R 47 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Metrics Example: Citation Data p - Harzing’s Publish or Perish a university for the real world R 48 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Improve your impact: e-prints and e-publishing http://eprints.qut.edu.au/ a university for the real world R 49 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Improve your impact: e-prints and e-publishing http://eprints.qut.edu.au/ a university for the real world R 50 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Improve your impact: Social Media? a university for the real world R 51 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Publish or Perish • What’s in it for the university?? – Research student publications are an indicator of p research training success – Publications advertise the strengths and areas of interest of the university – Publications generate direct income from the federal government – ‘What helps you succeed helps us succeed!’ a university for the real world R 52 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Fact: Few publications matter! • 50% papers never cited • 20% papers hi hl cited – often early papers in an emerging highly it d ft l i i research area • 5% research front – very highly cited papers • This will determine your success in your field: – Are you a Nobody or heavy-hitter? – Do you have impact? Citations! a university for the real world R 53 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • A Personal Illustration The start of the Long Tail! 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 a university for the real world R 54 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Myth: You can publish anything anywhere • Publication outlets differ WIDELY in quality – Good outlets will only accept good papers describing good research. h • Open publishing process – Once you publish, your ideas are out there! – Can be good or bad for reputation g p • One shot option: p – Once you published a result, you can’t publish it again! a university for the real world R 55 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Myth: You can publish anything anywhere • Avoid ‘salami‐slicing’ • You need to give top‐tier journals the whole sausage! • BUT…also consider other factors (students/postdocs, competition) in assessing cost/benefit • Be honest —do not ignore data that do not fit your hypotheses/theory a university for the real world R 56 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • So how do we do it? a university for the real world R 57 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • a university for the real world R 58 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Writing Scientific Research Papers g p - Session 2: Research & Research Papers Professor Dr Jan Recker Woolworths Chair of Retail Innovation Information Systems School, Queensland University of Technology a university for the real world R 1 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Course Schedule Time Session Title 9.00-10.30 Session 1 Introduction – Publish or Perish 10.30-11.00 11.00-12.30 Morning Break Session 2 Types of Research and Research Papers 12.30-13.30 13.30-15.30 13 30 15 30 Lunch Session 3 S i 15.00-15.30 15.30-17.00 The Structure of Manuscripts Th St t fM i t Coffee Break Session 4 a university for the The Publishing Process g real world R 2 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Types of Research a university for the real world R 3 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Good Papers depend on Good Research • There are many ways of doing research • Th f Therefore • There are many different types of papers! a university for the real world R 4 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • There are many ways of doing Research (examples from my area: Business, Software and IT) • • • • Scholars in information technology, software engineering, and computer science study the technical and computational attributes of information technology as such such. Scholars in behavioural, cognitive, and psychological sciences study individuals’ exposure, use, appropriation, and general b h i l behaviours within i f ithi information t h l ti technology d domains. i Scholars in organisational science, management, and business study how corporate environments shape, and are y p p shaped by, information technology. Economists study the large-scale effects of information technology diffusion and innovation on organisations markets organisations, markets, and societies. a university for the real world R 5 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • What do you need to do in any research (or paper)? • Demonstrate your ability to conduct research and scholarship that make a unique contribution and meet the standards of credibility and verifiability 1. Ask and frame important questions. 2. Show abilities of knowledge generation and t assess, critique, and d f d 2 Sh biliti fk l d ti d to iti d defend knowledge claims. 3. Demonstrate both a broad and deep understanding of important phenomena in the area of research, and be able to critically evaluate the current research knowledge and its progression. 4. Be versed in theoretical and methodical approaches to examine and develop the current knowledge. g a university for the real world R 6 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • How do you know you are not on the right track? • Common misleading views on what research is about: – The great idea “I have just had this great idea! I do not know if anyone else has ever had the same idea, because I’ve not checked, and I’m rather new in this field. Anyway, my idea is brilliant, so I really would like to share it with you all.” – Other people’s idea “I have just read this great book that I really like a lot. I’ll just give you a I I ll short resume of the interesting points in the book and apply it to this situation over here.” a university for the real world R 7 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • How do you know you are not on the right track? • Common misleading views on what research is about: – The software hacker “I have just built this great computer system/software tool/mobile application. It is not based on previous theories or empirical findings. I am not very theoretical myself, but the system has a lot of fantastic features, and the interface is neat. Plus, people could really use it.” – The theory hacker y “I have come up with this theory/conceptual framework/model/methodology. It is not related to other theories/conceptual frameworks/models, or any empirical data for that p , y p matter. Most of the concepts have been defined differently by all the big shots in the field, but I just do not like their categories so I have invented my own. And I think it is surely better (I haven’t checked that either).” a university for the real world R 8 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • DIFFERENT WAYS O DOING RESEARCH S OF O G S C Examples from QUT’s BPM Group Our research group combines both Computer Science and Information Systems research. What is the difference? – Computer science is an engineering field • apply the tools and findings of mathematics to complex practical problems • Focus is on the technology that computes – Information Systems is a social science y • study people or collections of people [as they relate to informationtechnology-in-use]. • Focus is on the people that use technology a university for the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia real world R 9 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • TYPES OF RESEARCH Conceptual research – is concerned with an analysis of the problem at hand without a commitment to any technologically-driven solutions – E.g., context-aware BPM Formal research – Is concerned with describing concepts in mathematical terms (so as to remove any potential ambiguity with respect to their interpretation) and presenting theorems with corresponding proofs to provide more insight into these concepts – E.g., Configurable process modeling a university for the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia real world R 10 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • TYPES OF RESEARCH Technological research – Is concerned with the development of sophisticated software artifacts to prove that certain ideas can indeed be realized and to reason about the comparative strengths and weaknesses of various g architectural approaches – E.g., YAWL Experimental research – typically addresses a limited set of properties of a phenomenon (e.g., a property of a model a method or a model, software artefact), and examine these properties in controlled settings – E g Process Model Understandability E.g., a university for the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia real world R 11 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • TYPES OF RESEARCH Empirical research – sets of to study BPM-related phenomena in real-life practice, and to real life build or confirm theories about how BPM is conducted. – can be based on case studies surveys studies, surveys, action research or grounded theory. – E.g., Acceptance of BPMN, Green Transformations, Transformations Success factors of BPM a university for the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia real world R 12 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • TYPES OF RESEARCH What do I do, specifically? Most of my research is empirical or experimental, but I have also done some conceptual and formal research. Empirical: – Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P., and Indulska, M. "Do Ontological Deficiencies in Modeling Grammars Matter?," MIS Quarterly (35:1) 2011, pp 57-79. – Seidel, S., Recker, J., and vom Brocke, J. "Sensemaking and Sustainable Practicing: Functional Affordances of Information Systems in Green Transformations," MIS Quarterly (37) 2013. Experimental: E i t l – Mendling, J., Strembeck, M., and Recker, J. "Factors of Process Model Comprehension — Findings from a Series of Experiments," Decision Support Systems (53:1) 2012, pp 195-206. – Recker, J. "Empirical Investigation of the Usefulness of Gateway Constructs in Process Models," European Journal of Information Systems (22) 2013 forthcoming 2013, forthcoming. Conceptual: – Rosemann, M., Recker, J., and Flender, C. "Contextualization of Business Processes," International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management (3:1) 2008, pp 47-60. – Recker J Mendling J van der Aalst W.M.P., and Rosemann, M "Model-driven Enterprise Systems Recker, J., Mendling, J., Aalst, W M P Rosemann M. Model driven Configuration," in: Advanced Information Systems Engineering - CAiSE 2006, E. Dubois and K. Pohl (eds.), Springer, Luxembourg, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, 2006, pp. 369-383. Formal: – Mendling, J., Recker, J., Rosemann, M., and van der Aalst, W.M.P. "Generating Correct EPCs from Configured g g g CEPCs," 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, ACM Press, Dijon, France, 2006, pp. 1505-1510. – Günther, C., Rinderle-Ma, S., Reichert, M., Van der Aalst, W.M.P., and Recker, J. "Using Process Mining to Learn From Process Changes in Evolutionary Systems," International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management (3:1) 2008, pp 61-78. a university for the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia real world R 13 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • EXAMPLES OF BPM RESEARCH AT QUT Conceptual Research Context-aware Business Process Management – Studies the ability of processes to react to environmental events – Suggests concepts to improve context scanning, scanning context analysis and context adaptation of a process a university for the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia real world R 14 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • CONTEXT AWARE CONTEXT-AWARE BPM Example a university for the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia real world R 15 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • EXAMPLES OF BPM RESEARCH AT QUT Formal Research Configurable Process Modeling – Specifies reference process models that can be adapted to fit different organizations. – Defines formally the syntax and semantics of such models such that they can be automatically configured. – Provides the basis for tool implementations a university for the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia real world R 16 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • CONFIGURABLE PROCESS MODELS Example a university for the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia real world R 17 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • EXAMPLES OF BPM RESEARCH AT QUT Technological Research Yet Another Workflow Language Most-mature community-based, open-source BPMS: • • • • • Very expressive y p Sophisticated process verification Questionnaire-based process configuration Dynamic workflow & exception handling Declarative process modeling Impact: • • • Taught at 30+ universities worldwide T ht t 30 i iti ld id Over 100,000 downloads Various industry partners: o US Naval Research Laboratory, Knexus Research y, Corporation (USA) o Gecko (Germany), Impello (UK), o AFTRS and Porchlight Films Production (Australia) p (US - till 2007) ) o Intercontinental Hotels Group ( a university for the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia real world R 18 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • YAWL RESEARCH Example a university for the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia real world R 19 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • EXAMPLES OF BPM RESEARCH AT QUT Experimental Research Understanding Process Models – Studies how to design process models in a way that human users can best understand the modeled processes. – Examines various model design choices under controlled conditions. – Provides the basis for modeling guidelines guidelines. a university for the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia real world R 20 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • UNDERSTANDING PROCESS MODELS Example a university for the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia real world R 21 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • UNDERSTANDING PROCESS MODELS Example Subjective Cognitive Load j g Process model comprehension ocess ode co p e e s o 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% 0.77 5.50 0.72 4.83 0.69 0.69 4.49 4.29 3.50 R_E R_B R_U R_E R_Y 5.01 5 01 4.80 4 80 R_B R_U R_Y Subjective Difficulty of Control Flow  Comprehension Time 5.50 4.44 4 44 4.50 4.91 4 91 4.85 4.50 4.50 4 50 3.57 3.50 3.53 3.50 2.50 3.33 3.10 1.50 1 50 2.50 0.50 R_E R_B a university for the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia R_U real world R_Y R R_E R_B R_U R_Y 22 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • EXAMPLES OF BPM RESEARCH AT QUT Empirical Research Adoption of Process Modelling – Studies why users decide to start or continue using process modeling. – Uses large surveys of many users in many organizations. Organization decides to buy y and use a grammar a university for the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia real world R Individual starts using a g grammar 23 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • BPMN ADOPTION Example a university for the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia real world R 24 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • BPMN ADOPTION Example Confirmation Key *** ** * 0.47*** Perceived Usefulness ns 0.42*** p < 0.001 p < 0.01 p < 0 05 0.05 non significant 2 R = 0.42 0.26*** Satisfaction 0.26*** R2 = 0.58 0.25*** Perceived Ease of Use 0.49*** 0.18*** 0.21*** Intention to Continue to Use R2 = 0.40 a university for the Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia real world R 25 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Planning for Publication: How do I publish ‘my type of research’? a university for the real world R 26 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Planning for Publication Publication should never be an afterthought. Plan to publish as part of the research plan! -Where do I publish? Wh d bli h? -What do I publish? Wh t d bli h? a university for the real world R 27 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Know Yourself and Your Targets • Where do you want to publish? – Thesis? • • • • Who reads it? Who marks it? What concepts is the audience familiar with? What are the deadlines? – Conference or Journal? • • • • • • Which one? Who publishes in this journal or conference series? What topics are published there? Who is in the program committee or editorial board? What concepts is the audience familiar with? What are the deadlines? a university for the real world R • What do you want to publish? – Status of the research – Quick wins vs major opportunities – Ask your colleagues – B objective and h Be bj i d honest about your own work! – Don’t waste your time on research that takes too long and will not be accepted anywhere “good” – Don’t submit if you know you won’t make it. 28 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • What do I publish? http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen a university for the real world R 29 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • What to write about? • Research! – What does that mean? • The process and, importantly, the outcomes of a scientific activity. – What does that mean? • An endeavor to discover knowledge through scientific study. • Typically involves examining large chunks of data or other evidence and uncovering novel knowledge of some sort sort. Validity – By building or testing theories – By designing novel artefacts • Typically means that you establish some objective knowledge in a reproducible way. Reliability R li bilit a university for the real world R 30 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Putting it bluntly • A scientific paper must contain enough information to enable peers (the scientific community) to: –A Assess observations b ti – Repeat experiments/study – Evaluate intellectual processes (i.e. are the authors’ conclusions and interpretations p valid?) a university for the real world R 31 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Again: The most important lesson Good paper Good research • • • • • • Purposive Goals clearly defined. Procedure replicable. • • Objectivity clearly evident. Use appropriate analytical techniques. techniques Conclusions limited to those clearly justified by the data / facts. • • • Purposive Goals clearly defined. Reporting of procedures (including flaws) complete and honest. Objectivity clearly evident. Describe the use of appropriate analytical techniques. Conclusions limited to those clearly justified by the data / facts. • You can only write good papers when you do good research. a university for the real world R 32 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • “Write Early and Write Often” Write Often • Good writing takes time and practice. • What to start with? – Publish your Honours or MSc Research! – Identify some completed areas of work (e.g., is your literature review a contribution in itself?) • Scale Up! – Target a (g g (good) conference in y ) your field, , – Target a (good) journal in your field, – Target a better journal in your field, write a book, etc. a university for the real world R 33 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • The ‘publishable quantum publishable quantum’ • Learn to recognise a concept/result that is independently p p y publishable. 1. A small portion of a larger p j p g project that is p particularly relevant y to a specific subset audience. 2. 2 A small portion of a l ll ti f larger project th t i particularly ti l j t that is ti l l timely. 3. 3 A ‘spin-off’ – a research result that was not necessarily the spin off target of your work, but will interest an audience. a university for the real world R 34 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Paper-based research vs research-based papers Paper-based research Research-based papers • • • • • • You want to write a paper, so you start doing some research. Often deadline-driven. Works relatively well for conference papers. May (or may not) work well for (some) journal papers Does rarely work for a thesis. a university for the real world R • • • • You did some research, and you seek to publish a paper about your findings. Often results-driven. results driven. Works well for journal papers Works well for a thesis Often “too much” for a conference paper. 35 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • What to write about • • These questions will help to work out the content of your paper and how data will be presented. Being absolutely clear about these points before beginning to write is even more important when targeting a top‐tier journal. – – – – – – Why is the topic interesting? What is the broader context of your work? What big problems are there in the field? What has your work added to current knowledge? How did you do it? What is the wider impact of your work? y a university for the real world R 36 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Key criteria: Original contribution of a paper • • • Anything that has not been published before is novel, but not all novel findings are considered original, or of sufficient conceptual advance. advance Different journals use different criteria to gauge the level of conceptual advance and readers’ potential interest. Common types of conceptual advance – – – – – Unexpected phenomenon Never before seen this way Mechanistic insight Technical breakthrough Resource value R l a university for the real world R 37 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Examples a university for the real world R 38 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Examples a university for the real world R 39 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Planning for Publication • Some considerations BEFORE submitting a p p paper: – Ethical aspects of publishing – Strategizing about result publishing – Co-authorship and leadership – The Pre-submission lifecycle ( (covered in session 4 today) y) a university for the real world R 40 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Responsible and ethical publishing of research • • • • As a (co-) author of a paper, you bear responsibility, at least in part, for the content of a paper. This is not to be taken lightly lightly. Serious debates about authorship often arise if something goes wrong (e.g. fraud) or really well (e.g. awards). Negative headlines occur over and over: – The Schön scandal – The case of German minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg – „40 under 40“ star professor Ulrich Lichtenthaler a university for the real world 41 R 41 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Responsible and ethical publishing of research • • • • Publication of multiple papers based on the same set(s) or subset(s) of data is not acceptable. An author who submits substantially similar work to more than one publisher must disclose this to the publisher at the time of submission. As a general principle, research findings should principle not be reported in the public media before they have been reported to a research audience of experts in the field of research - preferably by publication in a peer-reviewed journal, except where there is a contractual arrangement. Publications must include information on the sources of financial support f the research. f fi i l t for th h In IS: http //home aisnet org/displa common cfm?an 1&s barticlenbr 15 IS http://home.aisnet.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=15 a university for the real world 42 R 42 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Example: MISQ Submission Dear MISQ Editorial Office On behalf of Dr Michael Rosemann, Dr Peter Green, Dr Marta Indulska and myself, I would like to submit the manuscript “Do Ontological Deficiencies in Modeling Grammars Matter?” for consideration Do Matter? for publication in the Research Articles section of MIS Quarterly. In line with the MIS Quarterly submission guidelines, we would like to suggest as potential senior editors Dr Juhani Iivari and Dr Shirley Gregor. Dr Iivari is well versed in the topic and research approach of the paper. Similarly, Dr Gregor is well acquainted with the theory and research used in the paper. Our nominees for associate editor are Dr Andrew Burton-Jones and Dr Roger Chiang. Dr Burton-Jones is Chiang a leading expert in both the conceptual modeling domain and the ontological theory referred to in the paper. Dr Chiang also is a well-known expert in the conceptual modeling domain. With our suggestions we acknowledge that the nominees for senior editor and associate editor have no conflict of interest with any of the authors of the paper being submitted. We confirm that the research presented in this paper conforms to the AIS Code of Research Conduct. This Conduct paper has not been published or accepted for publication. It is not under consideration at another conference, journal or at MIS Quarterly. A report about the measurement development that was used to develop measurement scales for four of the theoretical constructs considered in the manuscript (those of perceived construct deficit, overload, redundancy, and excess) partly uses the same dataset as the p p journal Data & Knowledge Engineering. g g g submitted manuscript. This report is under consideration at the j The Data & Knowledge Engineering manuscript, entitled “An Instrument to Measure Perceived Representational Deficiencies in Conceptual Modeling” reports on the steps undertaken in identifying and creating appropriate measurement scales. To a large extent, this report uses data different from the data set used in the paper submitted to MIS Quarterly, and only applies this data to display reliability and validity pp of the final scales. Furthermore, no theoretical model is advanced, the scales are not applied in a structural model or any other theory development or test. Therefore, in our view, the manuscript submitted to MIS Quarterly makes a sufficient contribution over and above the measurement development paper in that it develops, and empirically examines, the causal links between perceived ontological deficiencies of conceptual modeling grammars, and usage beliefs about these grammars. We are looking forward to the feedback to our submission. We provide contact details for all authors below. With kind regards, R aJan Recker for the university world real 43 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Strategizing about publications Be i df l f li i B mindful of slicing and di i ! d dicing! (may work for conference papers, can backfire for journals) a university for the real world R 44 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Maintain an overview! Topic Team Target Ranking Status To-Do Topic Team Target Ranking Status Discontinuance SAP Sustainability  Transformation JR ISR A* To‐Do Responsible revise and resubmit  to different journal JR SS, JR, CP, JvB CAIS A Modeling expertise JM, JR, HR ISR A* Modeling preferences gp Process Modeling for  Innovation KF, JR , CAIS A KF, JR EJIS A* EAM Benefit Realization ML, JM, JR EJIS A* rejected under 3rd round  review Facilitation AH, JR, MR, ML CAIS A major revisions culture and modeling TK, JR, JM JAIS A* under 1st round review Design Science in conferences MI, JR CAIS A revise and resubmit Organon BPM Principles BPM Principles Approx Clones FS, MA, JR, MR ISJ A* TS, JvB, JR, PT,  WM, SV WM SV BPMJ B CE, MD, LGB,  IEEE  R MLR, JR, ATH TSE A* a university for the world real rejected under 2nd round  review rejected under 2nd round  review Responsible Date under 1st round review 3/09/2013 10/12/2013 revise and resubmit  to different journal JM 22/03/2013 31/08/2013 / / revise and resubmit  to different journal KF 17/07/2013 13/08/2013 AH 9/11/2013 30/09/2013 revise and resubmit  to different journal MI under 1st round review minor revisions minor revisions Date 30/05/2013 30/04/2013 JvB 10/11/2013 45 1/07/2013 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Co-authorship and Collaborative Writing a university for the real world R 46 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Researching and writing papers together • Good papers built on good research. – You can contribute in either or both areas. • Important tasks involved in the research process: – – – – – – – – – Having an original idea Designing a study Organizing data collection Collecting data Analyzing data Writing a paper Driving a revision Sponsoring the research Managing the research project Who will be co-author? Who should be? Who should not? a university for the real world R 47 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • About authorship • Authorship of a research output is defined as substantial participation in a research output, including: – conception and design or analysis and interpretation of data design, – drafting an article or revising it critically for important intellectual content • Authorship of a research output should not be claimed where – participation is solely in the acquisition of funding or the collection of data. – General supervision of the research group does not justify authorship. authorship Caveat: these are my personal opinions, and I do not wish to impose these on anyone. a university for the real world 48 R 48 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Authorship credit • Typical practices when it comes to putting the authors’ names on the paper… – Name of the principal contributor should appear first. – Subsequent names in order of decreasing contribution. – However, • In some scientific fields the most highly credited author is the one whose name appears [first/last]. • In some institutions, project leaders are always included. • Social scientists tend to place the authors’ names in alphabetical order regardless of the amount of effort that was contributed. contributed a university for the real world R 49 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Authorship credit • The order of authors is entirely up to the authors – Some groups do it alphabetically – Most often, the first authors are the ones who did , most of the work, with principal investigators at the end of the list – Some journals allow annotations identifying one or two authors who did the majority of the work (this can b i be important f PhD th i d f t t for thesis defences or f job for j b applications) a university for the real world R 50 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Authorship credit a university for the real world R 51 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Collaborative Writing • Often, parts of papers are written by different p p people: – e.g. for theory/experiment • Advantage: a wider range of expertise will increase the depth and quality of a paper • Disadvantage: it can be challenging to achieve a common writing style, l t alone j i diff iti t l let l join different t parts for a coherent narrative. a university for the real world R 52 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Hint: Identify the driver • Typically, research ownership is evident • Typically, papers are driven by an individual – Major contribution to completing the first draft – Handling the revisions • If not – discuss! – Research ownership p – Data ownership? – Paper ownership a university for the real world R 53 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Hint: Communicate early and openly • Open lines of communication throughout p g the research process are vital. – You should talk openly and frankly. – It’s the team’s responsibility to create a p y communication environment without fear of reprisal, demotion, or other punishment. • Most important part of this process: – Voicing one’s investment, – Creating transparency about p g p y publication strategies, – Mutually recognizing each other’s goals, – Building flexibility into the process, and – Establishing commonly accepted criteria for making these basic decisions. a university for the real world R 54 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Tips: Collaborative writing • • • • • • • • Establish a project leader and a procedure to resolve conflicts Write down procedures and responsibilities Establish E t bli h a complete t k li t and assign who d l t task list d i h does what h t Determine which tasks depend on the completion of other tasks Create a realistic schedule Discuss an overall narrative and style to ensure a consistent format Individual sections need to be reviewed by all authors. Double‐check technical accuracy a university for the real world R 55 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Tips: Collaborative writing • Include author contribution statements in the paper: a university for the real world R 56 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Quick exercise: Collaborative writing Professor Smith, the head of the lab, is publishing a paper on the structure of chitin. chitin Professor Smith’s lab collaborated with a high profile lab group in Sweden that had already engineered and published the correct gene construct to express chitin in vitro and who sent some of their materials to help vitro, Professor Smith’s team. Professor Smith’s post‐doc, Mary, did the majority of the lab work, staying late and working long hours to get the necessary data A final year PhD data. student, Jiang, and a technician, Oliver, both helped Mary do some of the technical work. Professor Smith did not write any of the paper, but reviewed and edited paper Mary’s drafts that she sent to him. He is writing the cover letter and submitting the paper to Nature. Mary wrote the bulk of the paper but for the Introduction she used paragraphs of text directly from Jiang’s unsubmitted, draft thesis. Who should be listed as an author? a university for the real world R 57 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Lunch a university for the real world R 58 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Writing Scientific Research Papers g p - Session 3: The Structure of Manuscripts Professor Dr Jan Recker Woolworths Chair of Retail Innovation Information Systems School, Queensland University of Technology
  • Course Schedule Time Session Title 9.00-10.30 Session 1 Introduction – Publish or Perish 10.30-11.00 11.00-12.30 Morning Break Session 2 Types of Research and Research Papers 12.30-13.30 13.30-15.30 13 30 15 30 Lunch Session 3 S i 15.00-15.30 15.30-17.00 The Structure of Manuscripts Th St t fM i t Coffee Break Session 4 a university for the The Publishing Process g real world R 2 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • How to write a paper or a thesis? • • • Agree on the structure. Revise the structure. Start populating the sections. – This typically is not sequential sequential. – The first paragraph of the Introduction is the hardest part of a paper to write. – Methods is the easiest and can be started even when the research is unfinished. • • • • Revise the sections sections. Revise the paper/thesis. Put it in a drawer, take it out, read again, again revise again again. Submit. a university for the real world R 3 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Structuring your Thesis The Typical Structure of a PhD Thesis: 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Methodology/Research Design 4. Results 5. Discussion of Results 6. Conclusion http://www.agsci.utas.edu.au/thesisoutlinetemplate.doc a university for the real world R 4 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Structuring your Paper Different outlets may use different section headings and subheadings The Typical Structure of a Research Paper: 1. Introduction 2. Theoretical Background/Literature Review 3. Research Model 4. Procedure/Approach/Methodology/Research Design 5. Results 6. Discussion of Results p 7. Implications – for Research and Practice Strange, J.R. and Strange, S.M. 1972. "How to read a scientific 8. Conclusion research report" in Reading for Meaning in College and After, Brooks/Cole: Monterey, pp. 54-66. a university for the real world R 5 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Examples p • – – – – – – – – • • MISQ paper Introduction I t d ti Theory Proposition Development Research Method Scale Validation Results Discussion (Limitations, Implications) Conclusions C l i – – – – – – – – – – • JAIS paper – – – – – Introduction I t d ti Background & Related Work Research Design Comparison Contributions C t ib ti (Implications, Limitations) a university for the real world EJIS paper I & M paper – – – – – – R Introduction I t d ti Background Theory and Hypotheses Method Operationalization and Validation Data Analysis & Results Discussion Future Research Practical Implications Conclusions Introduction I t d ti Background and Research Models Research Method Operationalization and Validation Data Analysis Results D t A l i &R lt Conclusions (Contributions, Limitations, Implications) 6 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Filling the sections: What goes where? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Introduction Theoretical Background Research Model Procedure/Approach/Methodology Results Discussion of Results Implications – for Research and Practice Conclusion a university for the real world R 7 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Section: Introduction • Contains three parts, and three parts only: – Motivation: What is your p y problem, and why is it a , y problem? – Specification: what is your specific research question/research outcome? What is your research approach (in very general terms)? – Outline: how will the paper tell us about what you did? a university for the real world R 8 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Section: Introduction • Tips – Good introductions are SHORT. – Place the study in the context of previous research y p but tell only what the reader needs to know to understand the present work. – Either avoid jargon or explain it very clearly. a university for the real world R 9 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Examples While prior work based on Wand and Weber’s (1990; 1993) theory of ontological expressiveness has attempted to examine characteristics of modeling grammars or characteristics of grammars, models created with such grammars, our research is interested in examining how the theory of ontological expressiveness informs an understanding of the usage of conceptual modeling grammars grammars. This is important because conceptual modeling grammars… We use a theory of ontological expressiveness (Wand and Weber 1993) to facilitate an understanding of four key properties of conceptual modeling grammars in terms of their levels of ontological completeness and ontological clarity. […] We then examine empirically whether the ontological deficiencies of BPMN (as predicted through the selected theoretical base) manifest in the perceptions of the users of the grammar. ) p p g Subsequently, we examine whether the perceptions of these deficiencies inform user perceptions about the usefulness and ease of use of the grammar. We proceed as follows. The next section provides a background to the process modeling domain, and describes the selected theoretical models. Next, we describe the research method employed in our empirical study. We then discuss operationalization and validation of measurements used, before the next section presents our data analysis and an examination of the results. The final section presents the a university for the real world implications of our research and discusses the limitations of our work. R 10 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Section: Background • Provides what is required to facilitate an understanding of y g your research processes and p findings – Relevant theories – Relevant concepts/terms that you need – Relevant previous p methods/algorithms/findings/arguments on which your work is based a university for the real world R 11 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Section: Background • What is it not? – A recap of all other works in the area – A criticism of all other works in the area – A collection of term definitions a university for the real world R 12 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Some important differences • In empirical research, the background section often sets the scene for the method and results to come. – Typically, after the introduction section. – F instance, it introduces th th For i t i t d the theoretical l ti l lens th through which h hi h the empirical results will later be interpreted. • In engineering/design/development, the section often contrasts the artefact/method/algorithm/implementation to other works – T i ll before the conclusions section. Typically, b f th l i ti – For instance, it compares features of a prototype to similar system p y prototypes that exist. yp a university for the real world R 13 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Writing the Background Section • Tips – – – – – Organize the section according to topics Discuss, don’t just list related work Don’t exaggerate differences Explain how your work complements others’ Don’t be afraid if your work contradicts previous work – Highlight areas in which your work builds on others’ – Keep it concise and precise a university for the real world R 14 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • The Background Section - Example (1) “Our research mainly relates to semantic and pragmatic aspects of process models. W complement works th t establish a connection d l We l t k that t bli h ti between structural metrics and both understanding and error-probability [CGP+05, MRC07, MVD+08, GPP08] by investigating whether the verbobject labeling style might be superior to other styles In contrast to styles. previous works like [Mil61, SM01, MCH03] that recommend verbobject labels, we provide a sound empirical justification for this guideline. guideline ” a university for the real world R 15 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • The Background Section - Example (2) Recent research has started to examine process model understandability, for instance, the impact of process model structure, model user competency, and activity node labeling. While the impact of structural properties is clearly identified [4] it is also reported that model [4], readers systematically overestimate their ability to draw correct conclusions from a model [3]. Furthermore, shorter activity labels have been found to be positively correlated with understanding [5]. This raises the question in how far a better representation of domain semantics in process models beyond the use of text labels only would improve understanding. In our work we continue along this line of work towards more understandable process models. Current practice indicates that the labeling of activities is a rather arbitrary task in modeling initiatives and one that is sometimes done without a great deal of thought [8]. This can undermine the understandability of the resulting models in cases where y g the meaning of the labels is unclear, not readily understandable or simply counter-intuitive to the reader. a university for the real world R 16 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • A Special Section for Empirical Papers: The Research Model • Provides an overview of the factors being studied in an empirical setting p g – The independent and dependent factors in an experiment, – The important theoretical constructs and their relationships in a field study, or – The set of hypotheses or propositions to be tested/explored/falsified a university for the real world R 17 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Section: Research Model Organization of Material • Overview of conceptual or research model being de eloped developed • Subheadings should reflect the model • Key references should be worked into discussions of key constructs • Each hypothesis should be preceded by a strong argument as to why it should hold. a university for the real world R 18 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Developing Hypotheses • A hypothesis must contain a justified theoretical argument for why you expect a certain phenomenon to occur ( not) (or t) – No such thing as a self-evident hypothesis • Connect your hypotheses to existing research – Include references to key literature in building your argument - this literature should have been discussed in your y background section • Keep your hypotheses simple but precise – They should specify two (or more) key constructs and the relationship between them. a university for the real world R 19 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Developing Hypotheses: Tips • Do not use words like "prove”. Instead use words like “suggest” or “support”. – Hypotheses are never proven; only supported. • Explain your expectations clearly clearly. – Identify dependent and independent variables and the direction of expected relationships. p p • Make sure the relationships between the variables are testable. a university for the real world R 20 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Example H1a. Process model comprehension accuracy will be higher when p process models contain routing symbols with high p g y g perceptual p discriminability. H1b. H1b Process model comprehension efficiency will be higher when process models contain routing symbols with high perceptual discriminability. y H1c. Process model comprehension task difficulty will be lower when process models contain routing symbols with high perceptual discriminability. a university for the real world R 21 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Example Model interpretation occurs in two stages following (Newell & Si (N ll Simon, 1972) th 1972), these b i perceptual processing being t l i (seeing) and then cognitive processing (understanding). The perceptual processing stage is extremely important due to a potential computational offloading effect of graphical information in a diagrammatic model: model elements that can be perceptually discriminated reduce the processing burden of the cognitive system because the parsing of model elements to different semantic components is performed by the perceptual sensors (Treisman & Gelade 1980) Several studies suggest that Gelade, 1980). perceptual processing largely explains differences in the effectiveness of the subsequent cognitive processes (Larkin & Simon, 1987; Petre, 1995). These considerations suggest that syntactical effects (the percept al discriminabilit effect of an e plicit visual perceptual discriminability explicit is al syntax of gateway constructs) will dominate semantic effects (the reduced ontological clarity of the process model due to the presence of visual gateway constructs). This is because the perceptual discriminability effect of gateway construct occurs before the ontological clarity effect occurs a university for the real world R 22 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Section: Research Model • Some simple tips for the research model – “KISS” – Keep y p your terminology consistent with p gy prior literature. – Develop a graphical representation, if possible. This section is often crucial for the acceptance of empirical papers. a university for the real world R 23 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Example - EJIS Recker, J.: Continued Use of Process Modeling Grammars: The Impact of Individual Difference Factors. European Journal of Information Systems 19 (2010) 76-92 a university for the real world R 24 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Example - MISQ Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P., Indulska, M.: Do Ontological Deficiencies in Modeling Grammars Matter? MIS Quarterly 35 (2011) 57-79 a university for the real world R 25 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Example - EJIS In light of the theoretical considerations above, we draw several propositions to investigate the effects of using gateway constructs in process models on model readers’ ability to interpret the process model. Figure 2 shows our research model. The model proposes that process model interpretability (in terms of interpretational fidelity and interpretational efficiency) is a function of the syntactic and semantic effects of representation forms chosen to express convergence and divergence in a process model, and the overall complexity of the process model. The model further suggests that user characteristics (knowledge of the th process modeling grammar and k d li d knowledge of l d f fundamental control flow concepts) will interact with the effects of the process model characteristics on process model interpretability in terms of interpretational fidelity and interpretational efficiency. … Following the research model, we now discuss three expected effects on model interpretability stemming from the use of gateway constructs in process models. User Characteristics F: Method Knowledge F: Control Flow Knowledge O: Self-reported grammar familiarity O: Knowledge test scores Process Model Characteristics Process Model Interpretability F: Semantic versus Syntactic Effect F: Interpretational Fidelity O: Unconditional Flow versus Gateway O: Comprehension Task Scores F: Model Complexity F: Interpretational Efficiency O: Single versus multiple Di- and Convergences O: Task Scores/ Completion Time Key F Theoretical Factor O Operationalization of Factor Recker, J.: Empirical Investigation of the Usefulness of Gateway Constructs in Process Models. European Journal of Information Systems 22 (2013) 673-689 a university for the real world R 26 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Section: Results • Only contains a description of findings. • Should contain just factual result reporting (in the past tense) including statistical (or other) tests, but no discussion. • Writing, statistics and graphs should be presented as simply as possible. – Try to make figure legends self contained so that reference to self-contained the text is unnecessary. • Do not present irrelevant data to which the Discussion p will not refer. This section is easy to write, and quite methodical – check published papers that use a method similar to yours. a university for the real world R 27 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Example - MISQ The squared multiple correlation (SMC) values show that the model accounts for 24.0 percent of the variance p in perceived usefulness of the BPMN grammar, and for 12.1 percent of the variance in perceived ease of use. Examining the hypothesized paths in the model, Figure 3 shows that all three theorized paths between PCD p measurement points and PU show the predicted directionality, and two of the three theorized paths between PCD measurement points and PU are statistically significant. The perceived usefulness of the y g p BPMN grammar is significantly and negatively affected by the perceived deficit of BPMN in the articulation of business rules (γ = -0.14, p < 0.01) as well as BPMN’s perceived deficit in the articulation of process structure and decomposition (γ = -0.11, p < 0.01). The perceived deficit in the articulation of logs of state changes has no significant impact on PU (γ = -0.02, p > 0.05). Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P., Indulska, M.: Do Ontological Deficiencies in Modeling Grammars Matter? MIS Quarterly 35 (2011) 57-79 a university for the real world R 28 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Example - MISQ Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P., Indulska, M.: Do Ontological Deficiencies in Modeling Grammars Matter? MIS Quarterly 35 (2011) 57-79 a university for the real world R 29 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Section: Discussion • • • When most people read a paper, they read the Abstract first, then the Introduction, some graphs or tables and then the Discussion. Therefore, Therefore the Discussion should begin by summarising the main findings. Then: Interpret the findings – Theoretical sensemaking of the results: What do the results actually mean? Why did you get the results that you obtained? • Explaining the results • Abstracting the results • Theorizing the results • • Keep the discussion to the results, i.e., do not go beyond the data. Use present tense. a university for the real world R 30 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Example – Summarizing the key findings This study provides empirical results on the associations that two types of characteristics of the BPMN modeling grammar, i.e., perceptions of a lack of ontological completeness and ontological clarity, have with user beliefs about the usefulness and ease of use of the modeling grammar. a university for the real world R 31 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Example – Interpreting the key findings While we found that users who did not use constructs that are classified as excess had higher perceptions of the ease of use of the grammar the differences in PEOU ratings between grammar, the groups were not always significant. Two related studies can assist in providing an explanation for the inconsistencies found. An exploratory study on BPMN use (Recker et al. 2006) identified situations in which the excessive constructs were actively used by modelers to mitigate other deficiencies in the modeling grammar. For example, Recker et al. (2006) found that the BPMN Text Annotation construct was actively used to represent business rules given the lack of support for business rule modeling stemming from construct deficit in BPMN. Similarly, the study of zur Muehlen and Recker (2008) found some constructs classified as excess by Wand and Weber’s (1993) theory, such as Text Annotation, Gateway types and Association Flow, to be amongst the most frequently used constructs in BPMN gp modeling practice. One possible interpretation of these results is that some of the excess constructs in BPMN (e.g., Association Flows or Text Annotations) are used by modelers to mitigate or mask other deficiencies (e.g., construct deficit or overload). These y y yp workarounds may distort the theoretically hypothesized results, in that users may have positive usage perceptions about some of the excess constructs. For example, a modeler may find the excess construct Text Annotation useful because it allows them to handle other deficiencies of the grammar (for instance, those relating to the deficit for articulating business rules). a university for the real world R We further found that, when model complexity is increased, y p p y syntactic effects related to the perceptual discriminability of the Gateway constructs have a positive effect on model interpretability, over and above the effects of the constructs’ ontological deficiencies on a semantic level. Given that ‘typical’ process models found in industry practice are quite complex and may involve up to thousands of activities and related objects such as data and applications (Mendling, Reijers, & van der Aalst, 2010), this finding is significant in that it underlines the importance of perceptual, syntactic considerations in the design of process models that are readily and intuitively perceptible by the intended audiences. Our results suggest that potential semantic deficiencies of these models (in terms of the precision of the clarity of their specification) can be positively mitigated through appropriate 32 visual means, e.g., by selecting easily distinguishable shapes for better perceptual discrimination. CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Section: Implications • • • Research should inform future studies and the actual practice. Good journals demand specific implications for ongoing research and practice. practice Implications for Practice – Detail how the study findings change/impact the way that important stakeholders work in actual practice. • Implications for Research: – Not to be confused with ‘future research’ (as in conference papers). – Instead: What have we found that can guide future research • • • E.g., a new measurement instrument E.g., a new theory Potential extensions of the study a university for the real world R 33 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Example: Implications for Research For research streams investigating process model understanding (e.g., Mendling, Reijers, Reijers & van der Aalst 2010; Mendling Reijers & Recker 2010) our study adds Aalst, Mendling, Reijers, Recker, 2010), to the current body of knowledge by investigating, and comparing, semantic as well as syntactic characteristics of process modeling grammars, and their effects on process modeling interpretational fidelity and efficiency. We chose one semantic characteristic, construct excess as a manifestation of ontological non-clarity, and one syntactic characteristic perceptual discriminability Thus opportunities exist for characteristic, discriminability. Thus, fellow scholars to examine different semantic and syntactic characteristics of process models, and the impact these characteristics may have on the ability of individuals to understand the models. Other research could extend our approach to measuring process model interpretability. In this paper we chose to examine comprehension of process control flow logic. Past research suggests that comprehension is a type of surface understanding, which is different from deep understanding (Burton-Jones & Meso, 2008; Gemino & Wand, 2005). In fact, both products of understanding can be seen as two ends of a continuum. We focused on individuals' understanding of g grammatical elements and their meaning in a process model (surface g p ( understanding), which is fundamental to being able to faithfully and efficiently interpret a process model. Future work could now extend this work and examine the problem solving performance (which is indicative of deep understanding, see BurtonJones & Meso, 2008; Gemino & Wand, 2005) of individuals who use process models to solve tasks such as organizational re-design, software specification, certification and others. a university for the real world R 34 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Example: Implications for Practice Our research results also provide guidance to organizations and individuals on how properties of a modeling grammar (specifically, the constructs used to articulate graphically convergence and divergence of process control flow) aid individuals’ understanding of the processes depicted. Our findings can be used to guide modeling grammar developers in their design efforts, as we provide a theoretical base, base and a study of the implications for model interpretability from which relevant interpretability, design principles can be drawn. We investigated the role of gateway constructs specifically, and our findings can inform ongoing revision or new development of process modeling grammars, such as, for instance, the ongoing efforts surrounding the BPMN grammar (e.g., OMG, 2009). Furthermore, providers of training and analysts in charge of conventions can be informed through our study about the role of gateway constructs in process modeling. Our results suggest that gateway constructs are helpful in aiding process model interpretation in cases where the depicted processes are quite complex but not in cases where the processes are straight-forward. Modeling conventions g g y p g g pp p could leverage these insights by developing a staged approach for process modeling grammar usage dependent on process complexity. For instance, managers in charge of modeling conventions can use the findings of our study to define a restricted set of process modeling grammar constructs to be used for complex processes, so as to improve the level of understanding of the final process models. a university for the real world R 35 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Section: Conclusions • This section should be short! • Recaps very b i fl th k contributions of th paper, without R briefly the key t ib ti f the ith t going into detail. • Reflects about the research presented in the paper. • The conclusions section never introduces new material or findings. • Is often little more than one abstract statement. a university for the real world R 36 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Example: Conclusions In this study, we contribute to process modeling research by providing a theoretical and empirical analysis of the ontological deficiencies of the BPMN grammar. Our study provides theoretical and empirical evidence on the strengths and weaknesses of using BPMN, and it also discusses a range of contextual factors that impact the use of BPMN. These findings assist an understanding about capabilities and issues in the use of BPMN, and, in turn, they can guide executive d i i makers i th i i id ti decision k in their investment d i i t t decisions when choosing t h h i to implement a process modeling initiative in an organization. In summation, our study has uncovered a rich and contextualized understanding of usage behavior associated with process modeling grammars. It has provided also further evidence for the utility of the ontological theory of grammar expressiveness to aid our understanding of process modeling practice practice. a university for the real world R 37 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • After writing: editing! “As a reviewer, I see a lot of papers that are sent in with the idea that they [the authors] will do the final editing after the reviews (or perhaps that the reviewers will provide what they [the authors] need to edit to final form). My personal view is that when you submit a paper it should be in final form and that you should be comfortable with th paper fi l f d th t h ld b f t bl ith the going directly to press as is. It is a waste of time for all of us to review anything less.” y g Jim Steenburgh, University of Utah, in: Eloquent Science, David M. Schultz, AMS 2009, p167 a university for the real world R 38 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Editing a paper makes it better • Editing helps to refine and enhance your text. • The purpose of editing is not only to refine language but also to review the entire draft, from the presentation to the content and structure. • Is best done after a significant time break! • The final step is proof reading. a university for the real world R 39 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Practical tips • Ask others for comments even experienced authors benefit from this. • Leave some time between writing and editing. • If English is not your first language ask a language, native English speaker to read your paper. • B brutal and uncompromising when editing Be b t l d i i h diti yourself, it is normal to rewrite entire sections from scratch. f t h a university for the real world R 40 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Coffee Break a university for the real world R 41 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Writing Scientific Research Papers g p - Session 4: The Publishing Process Professor Dr Jan Recker Woolworths Chair of Retail Innovation Information Systems School, Queensland University of Technology
  • Course Schedule Time Session Title 9.00-10.30 Session 1 Introduction – Publish or Perish 10.30-11.00 11.00-12.30 Morning Break Session 2 Types of Research and Research Papers 12.30-13.30 13.30-15.30 13 30 15 30 Lunch Session 3 S i 15.00-15.30 15.30-17.00 The Structure of Manuscripts Th St t fM i t Coffee Break Session 4 a university for the The Publishing Process g real world R 2 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • The Publishing Process - Tips and Experiences but no silver bullet, sorry a university for the real world R 3 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • The Publishing Process - Confessions I am still getting way more rejects than accepts. I am getting more rejects than ever before. I am probably more frustrated by rejects than ever before. a university for the real world R 4 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • a university for the real world R 5 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • The Publishing Process in a nutshell 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5 6. 7. 7 8. 9. 10. Plan the project Do the work Choose the publication venue Obtain the guidelines for authors Write th W it the manuscript i t Produce figures and tables Submit the paper The editorial process Manuscript revision Final processing a university for the real world R 6 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Choosing the publication venue • • • • This must be done before you write your manuscript (planning with your supervisor) Choose a format or journal that targets your specific audience audience. Try to publish in the highest impact venue possible (but be realistic – do not waste time submitting to journals that will not publish your work) You may be constrained to lower tier venues owing to: – size of manuscript or speed of publication – special volumes or proceedings • Points to consider: – Wh t j What journals did you read i d i th research? l d in doing the h? – Is the journal available online? a university for the real world R 7 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Where to publish? • Factors to take into account 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 7 8. Audience Scope Publication frequency q y Quality of other papers published Publication form (print/online) Open access/subscription based Technical peer review only Technical‐peer‐review‐only journals Your likelihood of acceptance! a university for the real world R 8 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Guidelines for authors Follow the outlets’ guidelines exactly (They are serious about the details) Some journals provide formatted templates Pay attention to: heading structures citation style and reference lists it ti t l d f li t figure and table requirements (especially formats for files) submission process word length a university for the real world R 9 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Example a university for the real world R 10 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Understand your venue a university for the real world R 11 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Subscribe to Mailing Lists a university for the real world R 12 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Table-of-Content Alerts a university for the real world R 13 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Hint: Know Your Outlet • Check written description of target areas on conference or journal’s Web site, and on occasion in the editor’s regular introduction. • Look at other articles published in the journal/conference. • If in doubt, email the editor an abstract and ask whether it is appropriate for that journal/conference. journal/conference • Talk to editors and email! a university for the real world R 14 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Hint: Know Your Outlet • What is the page limit? How long to publish your article? – Thesis mistakes – papers too long! • Be aware of format requirements – follow them • closely for conferences • loosely for journals – The paper will not be rejected if you don’t use the APA style… don t – Journals will format/edit your paper when accepted. • Structure your papers to be easy to ready St t t b t d – The abstract is really important. a university for the real world R 15 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • The Pre-submission lifecycle 1. Conceive idea revise 5. Submit to journal (only when ready) 2. Write multiple drafts revise 4. Approach potential editors with 95 % version revise revise a university for the real world R 3. 3 Send to “friendl “friendly critical reviewers 16 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • What to do before you submit your manuscript Many journals invite you to contact editors prior to submission Some even have dedicated paper development workshops - Early feedback y - Quick decision about journal fit - essential changes where required When submitting, include a cover letter -Explain nature and contribution of article -Confirm professional and ethical integrity -Suggest editors and reviewers where possible a university for the real world R 17 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Example: Paper Development Workshops a university for the real world R 18 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Example: MISQ Submission Letter Dear MISQ Editorial Office On behalf of Dr Michael Rosemann, Dr Peter Green, Dr Marta Indulska and myself, I would like to submit the manuscript “Do Ontological Deficiencies in Modeling Grammars Matter?” for consideration Do Matter? for publication in the Research Articles section of MIS Quarterly. In line with the MIS Quarterly submission guidelines, we would like to suggest as potential senior editors Dr Juhani Iivari and Dr Shirley Gregor. Dr Iivari is well versed in the topic and research approach of the paper. Similarly, Dr Gregor is well acquainted with the theory and research used in the paper. Our nominees for associate editor are Dr Andrew Burton-Jones and Dr Roger Chiang. Dr Burton-Jones is Chiang a leading expert in both the conceptual modeling domain and the ontological theory referred to in the paper. Dr Chiang also is a well-known expert in the conceptual modeling domain. With our suggestions we acknowledge that the nominees for senior editor and associate editor have no conflict of interest with any of the authors of the paper being submitted. We confirm that the research presented in this paper conforms to the AIS Code of Research Conduct. This Conduct paper has not been published or accepted for publication. It is not under consideration at another conference, journal or at MIS Quarterly. A report about the measurement development that was used to develop measurement scales for four of the theoretical constructs considered in the manuscript (those of perceived construct deficit, overload, redundancy, and excess) partly uses the same dataset as the p p journal Data & Knowledge Engineering. g g g submitted manuscript. This report is under consideration at the j The Data & Knowledge Engineering manuscript, entitled “An Instrument to Measure Perceived Representational Deficiencies in Conceptual Modeling” reports on the steps undertaken in identifying and creating appropriate measurement scales. To a large extent, this report uses data different from the data set used in the paper submitted to MIS Quarterly, and only applies this data to display reliability and validity pp of the final scales. Furthermore, no theoretical model is advanced, the scales are not applied in a structural model or any other theory development or test. Therefore, in our view, the manuscript submitted to MIS Quarterly makes a sufficient contribution over and above the measurement development paper in that it develops, and empirically examines, the causal links between perceived ontological deficiencies of conceptual modeling grammars, and usage beliefs about these grammars. We are looking forward to the feedback to our submission. We provide contact details for all authors below. With kind regards, R aJan Recker for the university world real 19 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Pre-submission checklist • • • • • Is the paper written clearly and understandably? Have you pitched it to the right audience? Does it get all the relevant points across? Is the text in the right section? Could you simplify the text without losing the meaning? • Is all information accurate and complete? • Did you meet all formatting requirements? a university for the real world R 20 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • What happens when you submit your manuscript? Submission is commonly by electronic upload but hard copy submissions still occur The editor will determine if your manuscript content is suitable for publication in the journal If it is, the manuscript will generally be sent to two or more reviewers. They are asked about: Significance, quality of the methods, data analysis, reasoning, results and conclusions, whether it is up-to date with the literature, whether it i well written, etc. h th is ll itt t Can it be shortened?, are the figures adequate and all necessary? a university for the real world R 21 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Next: wait… for the editor s decision wait editor’s • • • • Rejection – the paper is not accepted by the journal – the editor will tell you why. Rejection with an invitation to resubmit, generally after resubmit addressing concerns of the reviewers or the editor (A resubmitted manuscript may, or may not, go through peer review again) i i ) Revisions required – will involve re-reviewing by editors and/or reviewers, and then acceptance, p p pending y g your addressing the g concerns of the reviewers Acceptance as is, or with minor modification a university for the real world R 22 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Your Response Don t Don’t be precious – get published published. If rejected – determine why j y If there are legitimate flaws – fix them Do not resubmit the same flawed manuscript somewhere else h l Revision: Take all editorial and reviewer comments seriously. a university for the real world R 23 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Revision and Response Strategies 1. Read all editor and reviewer comments 2. Fix those that you agree with y g 3. If the reviewer was confused, it was probably poorly written – rewrite it and explain it better 4. If the reviewer was wrong, write a cogent explanation to the editor after explaining it better in your text 5. Deal with every comment 6. Document everything you did in a letter to the editor when you resubmit - they are too busy to find your changes a university for the real world R 24 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Revision Management 1. Put the reviews aside for a while. – – – All initial reviews are critical (you will very rarely accepted straightaway – it only happened to me once) You will probably have some strong negative reactions to a review. After several days/week, they will look more manageable. 2. Read the reviews. – – – You need to truly and fully understand each and every comment. Read the reviews several times. Develop a strategy 3. Tabularise reviews. – – – – Create a table for the editors and reviewers and copy and p py paste each “block” of review comments into a separate row. Have three columns, one for the comment, one for the response, and one for notes and discussion within the research team. Mark them as “quick fixes” (easy to handle) and “major pieces of work”. quick fixes major work Indicate the type of revision required: (a) change the research, (b) change the presentation of research, or (c) a suggestion that cannot be handled given the research conducted. a university for the real world R 25 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Revision Management 4. Revise the paper. – – – – Changes will have to be made to the document. Changes will be more, or less, ranging from changing/inserting/deleting paragraphs/figures/tables of some sections, to writing a completely new manuscript. Don’t be afraid to make big changes to a manuscript. A major revision should always look like one. Some suggest completely re-writing a paper from scratch for major revisions – and in my re writing experience this can often be necessary. 5. Write a response letter. – – – – – Write point-by-point responses to all comments made. Write the response letter by perusing the revision table. Include a pre-amble that expresses your gratitude towards the editor and reviewers for considering your manuscript and investing their time to give you and assisting you to improve your work work. Outline the strategy your pursued in your revision. Summarize the main changes made. a university for the real world R 26 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Two Response Strategies 1) Expansive • • • • Interprets review comment Outlines revision alternatives Justifies chosen revision Describes revision. a university for the real world R 27 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Two Response Strategies 2) Concise • Is direct and blunt. • Only states what has been/not been done. • Doesn’t go into detail Doesn t detail. • Offers brief justification. a university for the real world R Comment: Do D program chairs adjust f the tracks h i dj for h k that accept too few or too many papers? Response: We do not have concrete data to answer this issue We believe based issue. on our own experiences in conference chairing and reviewing that this is often the case. However, we do not have case However data on this and therefore we have made no changes to the paper based on this comment. 28 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Example: Revision Cover Letter Response to the Comments by the Editors Submission to the [JOURNAL], [SubmissionID] [Paper Title] Dear Editorial Team Many thanks for providing us with constructive and comprehensive feedback about our submission. We found the responses very valuable in further improving our theoretical model and data analysis, as well as in revising the way we describe our research in the manuscript. We detail our responses in the tables below. In summary, our main changes are as follows: 1. We expand on the conceptual foundation for our work and provide more precise and explicit construct definitions. 2. We expanded on the discussion of findings, with a particular view on improving on managerial implications and design advice that follows from our work. 3. We tested alternative conceptualizations and measurement models to examine the suggestions by the reviewer and to attest to the validity of o r proposed model. alidit our model 4. We revised the structure and content of our manuscript and streamlined the flow of the paper by moving details about our analyses to a separate appendix. We are confident that these changes significantly improved the paper and we hope that our efforts become evident from the responses below as well as the revised manuscript itself. We look forward to receiving your feedback. Best regards, [the authors] a university for the real world R 29 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Final Processing Success at last… Once resubmitted and accepted and after dealing with the technical accepted, editor… Don t Don’t let minor grammatical points delay your publication You will receive page proofs, or ‘galleys.’ CHECK THEM CAREFULLY Then you can learn to deal with copyright assignment, page charges, and reprints. a university for the real world R 30 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Journal Article Life Cycle Life-Cycle • Conceive idea – Revise • W it multiple d ft Write lti l drafts – revise • Send to “friendly” critical reviewers friendly – revise • Approach potential SE/AEs with 95% draft – revise • Submit to journal – only when ready l h d a university for the real world R 31 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Journal Article Life Cycle Life-Cycle • • Revise according to reviews; submit to new journal Result: “Revisions required” – Mi / j revisions d not guarantee acceptance Minor/major i i do t t t – Important: dedicate effort to revising the paper! • • • Iterate: – Revise according to reviews – Resubmit with letter: • How you addressed (or why you did not address) each point in each review Final acceptance Post draft on your Web site (before publication) a university for the real world R 32 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Important Things to Remember • Writing is a process and it takes time. – Dedicate resources to this task. Include it in your time management. • Writing is a skill that needs to be developed and honed. – Do it! Learn to write conference papers, then learn to write journal papers, then learn to write books… • Review papers to learn how to publish in good journals journals. • Consider responsible and ethical publishing of research. • Write, revise, give it to someone to read, put in the drawer for a month, month and then start over again again. a university for the real world R 33 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Some Good Literature that will help you a university for the real world 34 R 34 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • A Beginner’s Guide to Research Beginner s Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide by Jan Recker Springer; ISBN 978-3-642-30047-9. 2012. a university for the real world R 35 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Useful readings • Guides to Writing Articles – Bem, D. (2003). “Writing the empirical journal article”, in Darley et al (eds.). The Compleat Academic: A Practical Guide for the Beginning Social Scientist, 2nd edn., APA. – Sorenson C (2002) “This is not an article – Just some thoughts on how Sorenson, C. (2002). This to write one”. Working paper. Dept of Information Systems, London School of Economics, No. 121 (available online) – Webster, J. and Watson, R. ( 00 ) “Analysing t e past to p epa e for the ebs e , J a d a so , (2002). a ys g the prepare o t e future. Writing a literature review”, MIS Quarterly, 26, 2, xiii-xxiii. – Straub, D.W. “Creating Blue Oceans of Thought Via Highly Citable Articles," MIS Quarterly (33:4) 2009, pp iii-vii. – Straub, D.W. “Why Top Journals Accept Your Paper," MIS Quarterly (33:3) 2009, pp iii-x. – Aitchison, C. et al. “Publishing Pedagogies for the Doctorate and Beyond”, R tl d P bli h B d” Routledge Publishers, 2010 2010. a university for the real world R 36 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Good websites • A Guide for Writing Research Papers based on Styles Recommended by The American Psychological Association A i ti – http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/apa/ • The Shoemaker’s Children – http://www.socialtext.net/misq5040/index.cgi • Harzing’s Publish or Perish Tool Harzing s – www.harzing.com/pop.htm • Common errors in student research papers – http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/tools/report/reporterror.html a university for the real world R 37 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Learn from experienced and successful scholars • Visnawath Venkatesh: Road to Success: A Guide for Doctoral Students and Junior Faculty Members in the Behavioral and Social Sciences • Dog Ear Publishing, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2011. Indianapolis Indiana 2011 • ISBN: 978-1457504051 a university for the real world R 38 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Inspiring Books What is this thing called science? by Alan F. Chalmers 3rd edition; UQP Paperbacks; ISBN: 9780 7022 3093 6. 0-7022-3093-6. 1999. a university for the real world R 39 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Inspiring Books A Beautiful Mind: A Biography of John Forbes Nash, Jr. F b N h J by Sylvia Nazar Simon & Schuster; ISBN: 0684853701. 1999. a university for the real world R 40 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Inspiring Books Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century by Lauren Slater Norton & Company; ISBN: 978-0393326550. 2005. a university for the real world R 41 CRICOS No. 00213J
  • Prof. Jan Recker, PhD Woolworths Chair of Retail Innovation Information Systems School Science and Engineering Faculty Queensland University of Technology email web twitter a university for the real world R j.recker@qut.edu.au j recker@qut edu au www.janrecker.com janrecker 42 CRICOS No. 00213J