Dellaportas

1. Insider's guide to getting
published
•Getting your paper to review
stage
•Insights from an editor
Steven Dellaportas
A/Prof in Accounting
Co-editor: MAJ
Editorial Board: AJFA

2. What do editors
look for before a
paper is sent out to
What the editors do?
• Pre-screen manuscripts
• Manage peer-review process
• Take the editorial decision over manuscripts
• Invite authors for feature/review articles
• Organise/plan topical issues with Guest Editors
• Promote journal at conferences and call for papers
• Communicate with Editorial Board
• Assemble issue (with Production Editor)
• Editorial Assistant
– Interacts with authors and reviewers
review

3. Context
• With changes to the ERA – emphasis is
now on quality rather quantity
– Publishing is now more competitive, rejection
rates are higher
– Editors are seeking to raise the
ranking/profile of their journals – using
esteem factors

4. Managerial Auditing Journal (MAJ)
2010 2009 2008 2007
Submissions 102 100 77 80
Published 44 (43%) 45 (45%) 46 (60%) 52 (65%)
Rejected 58(57%) 55 (55%) 31 (40%) 28 (35%)
Approximately 50% of unsuccessful papers
are rejected before they go out to review

5. What editors look for in pre-screen
• Are references up to date?
• Understandability /readability
• Is format consistent with journal style
• Does the topic fit the scope of the journal
• Is it novel or interesting?
• Is the work important and relevant?
• Editors may not be qualified to evaluate the
technical merits of manuscripts, this is the
job of the referees. Therefore, the above
factors must be convincing to invite
reviewers to do their job.

6. Referencing
– Position your paper relative to the
most recent related papers
– Do not reference papers that are
irrelevant to what you are doing even if
they are the editor’s papers
– Strategic referencing (omitting or
including an author) is almost always
unproductive

7. Understandability/readability
– A paper should be easy for the editor to
read
• Paper should be free from typographical
errors
• Paper should be consistent with author
guidelines/journal style
– If the editor feels that you do not care about
getting it right, they will become suspicious
/annoyed and be inclined to reject the paper.

8. Understandability/readability
• Referees are busy colleagues that give
up their time freely for the journal/editor.
Editors will not release papers that may
cast unfavourably on the editor or
journal.

9. Understandability/readability
• Avoid submitting your manuscript
simply to get it reviewed
• It wastes editors' and reviewers' time,
and those who reject it may also be the
ones who review the paper when it's
submitted to a another journal
– "It's a small community. Don't use up
your reviewers".

10. Understandability/readability
Recommendation
– The abstract, introduction and conclusion
should be clear enough that you could
read them to a class of MBA students
– Most papers are polished and repolished
several times before submission
– If it can be interpreted in more than one
way, it’s wrong

11. Understandability/readability
Recommendation
• Proofing or polishing your paper
– Get input from colleagues before
submitting a paper. They will help you to
correct mistakes and clarify ambiguities.
• Consider forming a reading group
where members exchange drafts and
receive feedback

12. Scope
• Manuscript is outside scope of journal
– some editors may recommend submitting
your work to a different journal
• Found myself becoming an arbiter of
defining ‘auditing’ research
• Check the editorial objectives carefully
• MAJ has clearly positioned itself as one of
three specialist auditing journals
– http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/jo
urnals.htm?id=maj

13. Scope
Recommendation
• Find a journal that is consistent with its
scope
– Where do you read papers related to
your research?
– How important is for others to find your
manuscript?

14. Motivation/contribution
• Is the motivation solid?
– Is motivation positioned in current
literature?
– Is their a contribution to existing
literature/knowledge?
– Is the work novel?
• If motivation is unclear /unimportant the
paper is likely to be rejected

15. Discussion/insights
• The discussion section should draw
general conclusions from the particular
results
– Recapitulation of the research aims
– Conclusions drawn from the results
– Comparison of results with previously
published studies
– Focus lies on discussing, not repeating the
results

16. Rejection
• Should you appeal a rejection at pre-screen
stage?
– Usually no
– Editors know their journal
– Editor’s criticisms may be valid
– Run the risk of prolonging publication
– If you enlist support from colleague, get
colleague to provide detailed reasons

17. Rejection
• The overwhelming majority of
submissions are rejected at first.
• Only a small proportion, 5 to 10
percent-are accepted the first time
they are submitted, and usually they
are only accepted subject to revision.
• To get a lot of publications, you also
will need to get lots of rejections