1. SGBED 2016
Manuscript Development Workshop
Vasant Raval
vraval@creighton.edu
Heider College of Business
Creighton University
Omaha, USA
2. In my opinion,
• Research record remains a unique footprint
for every researcher.
• Choice of a domain is driven by various factors
– Dissertation topic/committee, interests of
colleagues, courses taught, frustration over the
current state, or just plain curiosity.
• Qualitative and quantitative research
• Research for practice vs. research as a practice
3. GAPS
• Gaps in . . . (Claudio De Mattos)
• Gaps in the existing landscape
• Gaps at the frontier
– Early development of ideas
• Insurance policy for driverless cars
– Examples: Big data, technology shock,
cybersecurity disclosures and market price effect
4. Research quality
TOY QUESTION,
TOY METHOD
SIGNIFICANT QUESTION,
TOY METHOD
TOY QUESTION,
SIGNIFICANT METHOD
SIGNIFICANT QUESTION,
SIGNIFICANT METHOD
RESEARCH QUESTION
RESEARCH
METHOD, DATA
How od you know a question is significant?
5. Identifying one’s strength
• What kind of research do I excel at? What do I
need to do to deepen my domain expertise?
– Does it makes sense to change my domain every
few years?
• What type methodologies am I competent in?
• Do I need a co-researcher?
– as a supplemental/complementary thinktank.
– as someone who will keep me on track.
– as a constructive critique on the project.
6. Research career progression – the
10,000-hour rule (Malcolm Gladwell)
• Presentations at professional meetings.
– Discussant feedback. Make a log; ask for clarification;
consider revisions; co-opt the discussant?
• Proceedings publications.
• Discussant and session-chair roles.
• Journal column/weekly questions/blog contributor.
• Book chapters.
• Ad hoc reviewer; reviewer.
• Early publications in light-weight journals.
• Upgrading the publication source.
7. Before submitting your work:
• Select the publication source.
– At what stage of the manuscript development should
one select the publication?
– What criteria should the author follow?
• Spellcheck the manuscript.
• Verify that the manuscript follows the style
guideline of the journal.
• Check if the citations include at least one or two
references to past publications in the same
journal.
– Suggests fit between the manuscript and the journal.
8. Feedback from reviewers and next steps
• Who might have reviewed your paper? What is his/her
background? Is your paper unique enough that
reviewer backgrounds may not fit? Do the reviewers
agree? Converge?
• Typical feedback and next steps:
– Do not publish
• Carefully assess the significance of reasons for rejection. Do you
agree? Disagree?
– Publish with minor revisions
• Identify the expected revisions.
• Consider each separately to see if you agree with the call to revise.
Will the revision change substantively your paper?
• Make revisions where appropriate.
• Prepare a table showing what was asked for and what you
changed. Send it along with the revised manuscript.
– Consider major revisions and resubmittal
9. Major revision and resubmittal
• Identify and comprehend what is asked for. Understand
why it is asked for.
– Do you agree it is a major revision?
– Do you agree that if revised, the paper would be more
“truthful”?
• What do you do if you don’t agree on some of the
suggested revisions?
• Make the revisions within the given deadline.
• Prepare a table showing what was asked for and what
you changed. Send it along with the revised
manuscript.
10. My six -
• Be selective of your domain.
– What are you passionate about? What can you do that will help
the profession or education?
• Keep the pipeline full.
• Avoid the tendency to treat research as a residual item on
the To-do list. Allocate chunks of time and stick to the
calendar.
• Don’t be afraid of ejecting failed attempts; it is a part of the
learning.
• Monitor your progress along research career path.
Continue beyond the tenure process.
• The hardest part is finding competent and well-read
researchers to read your work and provide feedback.
