Professor Don Bergh on Publishing in Top academic Journals

1. Increasing publication success in
management journals: Lessons
learned from 10 years of editing
Donald Bergh
Louis D. Beaumont Chair of Business Administration
And Professor of Management
University of Denver

2. My purpose
• I’ve been a member of editorial review boards for more
than 15 years, an action editor for more than 10, and
edited 4 special issues
• Share some of this experience:
• Share some insights
• Focus on the “art of crafting”
• Help increase our odds of publication success
• Former advisor to me: “Making a silk purse from a
sow’s ear”

3. My agenda
• Manuscript evaluation –
• Typical problems seen in 80% of submissions
• Anticipating troubles
• Dealing with reviewers
• Becoming a board reviewer
• Overall suggestions

4. Evaluation: Desk reject?
• Avoiding desk rejections
• It happens to many of us
• 60%+ for JMS
• 20-30% at other journals
• Why?

5. Evaluation: Our purpose
• We are writing scientific papers, not novels
• Contribution to length matters
• It’s all about contribution – everything else is tied to
that contribution
• Introductions: 2-3 pages
• Theory: End by page 15
• Whole thing: End by page 40
• Edit, edit, edit; plan before you write

6. • Evaluating the advance of your paper…Is it interesting?
‾ Quality: challenge existing explanations or applying extant theory
‾ Type: empirical (add a new variable) and/or extend, revise theory
• In empirical papers, some equate findings as an advance
• Think other way around: Emphasize conceptual addition; data
are only evidence for supporting the addition
Evaluation: Contribution (intro and
discussion)

7. • Align contribution type with journal
• Consider contribution in terms of whether it is phenomenological and/or
explanation
• A-tier: new insights into topic and explanation of topic
• B-tier: new insights into topic, no new insights into explanation
Most quantitative papers do not define, develop or explain the conceptual
properties of the contribution
Many scholars lose time/journal candidacy by sending first draft of paper
to best journals (almost certain recipe for rejection)
Evaluation: Contribution

8. • Positioning…
• Capture existing explanations? (Paragraph 2)
• Does proposed advance extend or revise
conceptual-based explanations? (value; rare)
(Paragraphs 3 and 4; show in Discussion)
• Relevance to journal (references and building
upon recent research)?
Evaluation: Contribution

9. Evaluation: Model
• Typical problems:
• Model: structure, concepts and logic have no
conceptual basis; coherence
• Literature review is substitute for theory
• 80% of papers have problems here; often seen
as a fatal flaw
• Integration: model and hypotheses flow
from theory

10. Evaluation: Methodology
• Some reviewers read this first; it’s the first one that I
write
• Method: sample selection, measures align with
constructs; evidence of validity and reliability; design
controls (align with alternative theories!)
• Fit of analyses (not the basis of new advance)

11. Evaluation: Discussion
• Answer to research question(s)
• Clear implications to explanation of topic
• Possible implication to theory
• Limitations associated with design
• End with a bang – not a whimper

12. • Think really hard on what your paper is really all about
• Thick skin and perseverance – emotional, but don’t
become emotional
• Resist temptation to finish/submit prematurely
• Cite recent work in the targeted journal
• Tell a story, data supports your story
Anticipating troubles

13. • Theory
• Intro paragraph of theory
• Relate theory to topic (align)
• Model boundaries, concepts
• Logic: symmetry; argue by logic, not citations
• Trace hypotheses backwards to theory
• Full disclosure in method, results, supplemental
Anticipating troubles

14. Dealing with Reviewers
• Try to influence reviewer panel (essential)
• Find driving point within each comment
• In letter: Restate/clarify/provide answer (before going
to paper)
• Exec summary: Provide overview of changes – be
nonemotional
• They have very high influence on the outcome –
editor makes decision, based on reviewer input

15. Dealing with Reviewers
• Tactics:
• Try to turn objections into empirical questions
• Change only the areas of contention
• Agree with concern – either blame it on
communication or it’s a real problem that was
dealt with (don’t say that they’re wrong)
• Push back in an even-handed way – it is your
paper
• You can appeal a decision (technical mistake,
process compromised)

16. Becoming a Board Reviewer
• Develop your expertise and credibility through
publishing first
• When reviewing
• Timely – shoot for 2 weeks or less
• Two types of comments for five sections
Content –> advance, theory, method, results,
integration (3-4 pages) (major issues); help the
editor write their letter
Constructive –> comment + suggestion

17. Becoming a Board Reviewer
• Decisions – reject, revise, accept?
• Can the major problems be solved within the
current frameworks? Would required solutions
produce new paper altogether?
• Uncertainty given for revisions (when in any doubt,
request revision); put risk on author

18. • Publishing is not “best mousetrap” wins – has its own
rules and games
• Develop contribution first, choose journal second
• Craft each section of the paper
• Integrate models in empirical work
• Expect rejection of paper (not you)
Overall Suggestions

19. Finally…
• Not a 100% success rate
• Rejected papers often cannot be resubmitted
to same journal if simply revised
• See AMJ FTEs; Bem’s chapter
• Expect to be pushed hard