Advice for New Authors:

Preparing Manuscripts for

Publication
Detmar Straub
Georgia State University

University of Memphis
January 2009

1
 Agenda
1. Difficulty of hitting the “A” journals
2. The journal review process
3. Top ten reasons why “A” journals accept
your papers
4. Planning and executing the study
5. Preparing for submission
6. Submitting
7. Monitoring the review process

2
3
To publish or not to publish,
that is the question.

“Publish or perish” is too harsh.

4
1. Difficulty of hitting the “A” journals

 Most schools are still insisting that their

junior faculty publish in the established
top journals in the field
 From a career standpoint, this should
make sense to you as well
– Pubs are portable; teaching evals somewhat;
service to discipline somewhat; service to
institution, not, not, not

5
1. Difficulty of hitting the “A” journals

 Publications and tenure

 Tough to publish in very top journals
 Sources: Athey and Plotnicki (2000) &
Chua et al. (2003)
References
Athey, Susan and John Plotnicki, "An Evaluation of Research
Productivity in Academic IT," Communications of the AIS, 3,
7, (2000), 1-20.
Chua, Cecil, Lan Cao, Karlene Cousins, and Detmar Straub.
"Assessing Researcher Production in Information Systems."
Journal of AIS, 3, 6 (January, 2003), 145-215.

6
 1. Difficulty of hitting the “A” journals
 Athey and Plotnicki (2000) examined 2763 articles from
942 IS authors over a 5 year period (1992-1996)
 They argue on page 10 that:

"Only 42 universities had five or more ... articles in 5

years in the top journals …..

Unless authors at the same university decide to write

jointly authored papers, the probability of three
untenured faculty in the same department publishing two
or more top tier articles in 5 years is very low."

7
1. Difficulty of hitting the “A” journals

900
800 Sample: 1929 IS faculty published
700 during the period 1990-2000
600
No. Faculty

500 Sample: over 26,000 journal articles

400 coded for the 58 in journal basket
300
200
100
0
2

8
10

12

14

16

18

20
bs
Pu
No

58 Journals
No. Publications 11 Journals
10 Journals
Chua et al. (2003) 4 Journals
8
2. The journal review process
Why is it so hard? Because
the process is…
 Rational (about half the time...DWS) but
fiercely competitive
 Ideological
 Organizational
 Political

....Based on: Frost, P.J. and Taylor, R.N. "Partisan Perspective: A Multiple
Level Interpretation of the Manuscript Review Process in Social Science
Journals," In Publishing in the Organizational Sciences, Irwin, Homewood,
IL, 1985, pp. 35-62.
9
3. Top ten reasons why “A”
journals accept your papers
My List (an editor’s and reviewer’s viewpoint)
1. Its basic idea is exciting (Blue Ocean strategy).
2. Its research questions are nontrivial.
3. It hits themes that are popular.
4. It sufficiently uses or develops theory.
5. It effectively uses or applies new methods.
6. It follows a recognizable formula.
7. It has a respectably large, field sample (empirical,
positivist work).
8. It does not counter the work of major movers and
shakers.
9. It covers the key literature sufficiently.
10.It is clean (grammatically, typographically, appearance).
10
The Difference Between Blue and Red Ocean Strategies

11
 1...
.
2...
In RANK ORDER.... 3...
.

1. Has a good theory base that is applicable

2. Interesting topic that makes advances in the field
(contribution-academic and practice)
3. Good research design (well executed)
4. Well presented and written

...Based on: Straub, D.W., Ang, S. and Evaristo, R. "Normative Standards

for MIS Research," DATA BASE (25:1, February), 1994, pp. 21-34.

12
 In RANK ORDER....
1...
.
1. Theory base 2...
2. Well written .
3...
3. Etc.

...Based on: Daft, R.L. "Why I Recommended That Your Manuscript be Rejected
and What You Can Do About It," In Publishing in the Organizational Sciences, L.
Cummings and D. Frost (Ed.), Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1985, pp. 193-209.

13
4. Planning and executing the study

 Motivation
– “N matters. N+1 is needed for
tenure.”…according to Paul Gray (Prof.
Emeritus, Claremont)
– It’s fun! And entrepreneurial!
 Develop a line of work for which
you become recognized as the
expert
 “Quick and dirty” ???
– New directions?
– Only quality work!
14
 4. Planning and executing the study

 Co-authoring
– They have good data.
– They have certain skills you don’t have
(e.g., methodological, writing talent).
– They want to provide support (e.g.,
dissertation chair).
– It’s the key to being more productive.
– It’s a good learning opportunity.
– It’s more fun.
 Butit can be a major source of
conflict!
15
 4. Planning and executing the study

 A bona fide contribution by co-author?

 Why can’t I be first author?
– Someone else first thought of idea
– Wrote first draft
– Collected the data
– Was second author on last paper
 Why aren’t they doing what they said they
would do…when they said they would do it?

16
 Interesting Papers (Contribution)
 They are different in some significant way
 Basis for making a paper interesting
– Subject (effect on practitioners)
– Method
– Theory (effect on scholars)
 But they can’t transgress the status quo
too much!!
 And, where would our field be if we didn’t
study a topic more than once??

17
4. Planning and executing the study

 Why is this important?

 Why is it interesting?
 Research design issues
– Theoretical base
– Constructs and their operationalizations
– Methodological approach
– Sample
– Analysis

18
 4. Planning and executing the study

Phenomenon – research question –

theory – framing
 How do I take a phenomenon and turn it
into an interesting research question?
 How do I theoretically frame the research
question?
 How do I create my own space: the
research gap?
 How do I then communicate my
contribution?

19
4. Planning and executing the study

 The easy part?????

 Analyzing the data may not be as
simple as you had planned

20
5. Preparing for submission

 Avoid hot-off-the press

submissions
 Find the right home
 Do your homework
 Consider hiring a language editor
 Review (and learn)

21
5. Preparing for submission

 Avoid “Hot-off-the Press”

Submissions
•Present at workshops
•Have colleagues review
•Write and rewrite

22
5. Preparing for submission

Write and Rewrite

 Writing is VERY difficult but we become better
at it over time (although it does not become
easier!)
• Do not re-create the wheel
• Find a paper that you like (from a top
journal) and study why it is written that
way
• Have your heroes that you copy and learn
from (but don’t plagiarize them!)

23
5. Preparing for submission

 Considerations in finding the right home

• Target audience of journal
• Methodologies used in journal articles
• Type of articles published in journal
• Editorial board of journal
• Quality of journal and article
• Message you want to send
• Turnaround time of journal

24
 6. Submitting

The editorial objective of MIS Quarterly

 the enhancement and communication of
knowledge concerning the development of IT-
based services, the management of IT
resources, and the use, impact, and economics
of IT with managerial, organizational, and
societal implications. Professional issues
affecting the IS field as a whole are also in
the purview of the journal.

25
2. Submitting: Quality Considerations

26
6. Submitting: Quality Considerations
Dennis Galletta, President, Association for
Information Systems (AIS website at http://aisnet.org
accessed on November 27, 2007)

“AIS encourages members, as well as deans and

department chairs, to treat a ‘basket’ of 6
journals as top journals in our field.…This list was
adopted from a formal statement by the ‘Senior
Scholars Forum’ as of 23 April 2007. The six
journals in the list are, in alphabetical order:

European Journal of Information Systems

Information Systems Journal
Information Systems Research
Journal of AIS
Journal of MIS
MIS Quarterly”
27
6. Submitting: Quality Considerations

The Effect of Longevity on

Quality Considerations

 High barriers to entry into

the top journal ranks
 Reputations built over a
long period of time
 Once established, hard to
lose

28
6. Submitting: Quality Considerations
Journal Impact Factors
 The journal impact factor is the average
number of times articles from the journal
published in the past two years have been
cited in the JCR year (JCR is the "Journal Citations
Report" from Thomson’s ISI Web of Knowledge).
 An impact factor of 1.0 means that, on
average, the articles published one or two
years ago have been cited one time.
 Citing articles may be from the same journal;
most citing articles are from different
journals.

29
 6. Submitting Rank Total
Cites Factor
Total 14 Scientometrics 1406 1.738
Rank
Cites Factor
Journal for the American Society of
15 2552 1.583
1 MIS Quarterly 2395 4.978 Information Science and Technology
Journal of the American Informatics 16 960 1.562
2 2040 4.339 International Journal of GIS
Society
3 Academy of Management Review 6387 4.254 17 Journal of Information Technology 347 1.543

4 Journal of Marketing 5307 4.132 18 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 691 1.537

5 Marketing Science 1724 3.788 19 2562 1.535

Journal of Management
6 Administrative Science Quarterly 5906 2.719 Journal of Environmental Economics
20 1714 1.529
and Management
Annual Review of Information
7 298 2.652
Sciences 21 Information & Management 1230 1.524
8 Journal of Marketing Research 4495 2.611
Journal of the Academy of Marketing
22 1336 1.485
Science
9 Academy of Management Journal 6944 2.2
Journal of Management Information
23 1167 1.406
Systems
10 Journal of Consumer Research 4356 2.161
24 Harvard Business Review 4475 1.404
11 Information Systems Research 949 2.054
25 Journal of Management Studies 1622 1.326
12 Strategic Management Journal 6137 1.897
Journal of International Business
26 1788 1.25
13 Journal of Business Venturing 1279 1.846 Studies

Table 2. ISI Impact Factors (2007; accessed June 11, 2007) 30

6. Submitting: Quality Considerations

Journal Total Citations

MISQ 4327
ISR 2896
MS 1810
Table 2. Re-Analysis and Aggregation of Lowry et al.’s
(2007) Citation Tables of the Period 1990-2004

Source: Lowry, P.B., Karuga, G.G., and Richardson, V.J. "Assessing Leading
Institutions, Faculty, and Articles in Premier Information Systems Research
Journals," Communications of the Association for Information Systems
(20:Article 16) 2007, 142-203. 31
 6. Submitting: Quality Considerations
Rank Rainer & Lowry et al., Mylonopolous & Whitman et al., Hardgrave & Holsapple et al., Gillenson &
Miller, 2005 2004 Theoharakis, 2001 1999 Walstrom, 1997 1994 Stutz, 1991

1 MISQ MISQ MISQ MISQ MISQ MISQ MS

2 CACM ISR CACM MS ISR CACM MISQ

3 ISR JMIS ISR CACM MS MS CACM

4 MS MS JMIS ISR CACM HBR DSCI

5 JMIS CACM MS DSCI JMIS I&M JMIS

6 HBR DSCI IEEET JMIS DSCI JMIS JACM

7 DSCI DSS HBR HBR IEEETSE SMR ACMT

8 DSS IEEET DSCI IEEET OS Datamation IEEET

9 ACMTOIS I&M DSS SMR HBR IEEETSE ACMCS

10 IEEETSE ACMT I&M JACM DSS DSCI HBR

11 IEEETSW EJIS EJIS IEEEC ACMTODS ASQ (tied 11th) IEEEC

12 I&M JAIS SMR ACMT IEEET DSS (tied 11th) I&M

13 EJIS ISJ ACMT DSS SMR AMJ SMR

14 IEEETSMC OS DATA BASE ACMCS ACMCS ComputerWorld JISM

15 DATA BASE HBR OS I&M AMJ ACMCS ISYS

32
 6. Submitting: Editorial Boards

EIC

SE #1 SE #2

AE #1 AE #2 AE #3

Reviewer #1 Reviewer #2 Reviewer #3 Reviewer #4

33
 6. Submitting: Editorial Boards

EIC

SE #1 SE #2

Reviewer #1 Reviewer #2 Reviewer #3 Reviewer #4

34
 6. Submitting: Editorial Boards

EIC

AE #1 AE #2

Reviewer #1 Reviewer #2 Reviewer #3 Reviewer #4

35
 6. Submitting: Editorial Boards
MISQ (SEs)
Henri Barki, HEC, Montreal
Alan Dennis, Indiana University
Shirley Gregor, Australian National Univ.
Varun Grover, Clemson University
Al Hevner, Univ. of South Florida
Chris Kemerer, University of Pittsburgh
Dorothy Leidner, Baylor University
Joe Valacich, Washington State Univ.
ISJ (AEs)
Ellen Christiaanse, University of Amsterdam
Robert M. Davison, City Univ. of Hong Kong
Pat Finnegan, University College Cork
Liisa von Hellens, Griffith Univ., Australia
Debra Howcroft, University of Manchester
JAIS (SEs)
Izak Benbasat, University of British Columbia
Robert Fichman, Boston College
Varun Grover, Clemson University
Rudy Hirschheim, Louisiana State University
Juhani Iivari, University of Oulu, Finland
Robert Kauffman, Arizona State University
Frank Land, London School of Economics, UK
Jeffrey Parsons, University of Newfoundland
Suzanne Rivard, HEC
Bernard Tan, National University of Singapore
Yair Wand, University of British Columbia
ISJ (continued)
Rueylin Hsiao, National Univ. of Singapore
Jan Pries-Heje, IT University, Denmark
Emmanuel Monod, Paris Dauphine Univ.
Nancy L. Russo, Northern Illinois Univ.
Carsten Sorensen, LSE
Duane Truex, Georgia State University
36
 6. Submitting

 Use specified format

 Follow instructions about submitting
 Nominate reviewers and editors when
given an option
 Be sure to get confirmation of receipt

37
7. Monitoring the Review Process

New Scholar One System

38
39
40
 7. Monitoring the Review Process

 Make sure your paper has been received.

 If available, use journal tracking system

 Follow up if you haven’t heard anything

– Three months for initial inquiry (or less)
– Approximately every month thereafter
 Be polite!

41
 7. Monitoring the Review Process

11/01/03
Ms. Jennifer Syverson:
We submitted electronic document file attachments of the revised
version of our above manuscript along with "Responses to SE, AE,
and the Three Referees" on the 14th of October, 2003. We have
not yet received your acknowledgment. We would appreciate if you
would let us know if these have been sent out for the 2nd round of
review. If you want the .pdf versions, I can send them out to you
as well. With best regards.

11/04/03
I have your paper... unfortunately, there is a labor problem at
Minnesota (strike) and Jennifer is on the picket line. So, she has
not been available for the past ten days. I will shortly look at your
revision and then initiate the review... I have been swamped with
writing SE letters on the 70 submissions to the MISQ special issue
for which this week is the self-imposed deadline for first round
decisions. Bottom line is that I have your review and I will get to
it soon.

(SE name withheld)

42
7. Monitoring the Review Process

2/19/04

I understand that you have conveyed your apprehensions to

Jennifer about the delay on your paper's review. About two
weeks ago, I asked the Associate Editor to proceed without a
review from the delinquent reviewer.

I am awaiting a recommendation anytime now... my apologies

for the delay and the consequent anxiety that you might have
incurred.

Cordially
(SE name withheld)

43
 7. Monitoring the Review Process

Is It a Rejection? Or Is It a Rejection?

Sea Story of Management Science "rejection"

 Read the letter carefully, and if you are unsure,
email the Editor and ask point blank if they are
inviting resubmission or not

44
7. Monitoring the Review Process

Receiving the Final Decision

OR

45
7. Monitoring the Review Process

Good news
 Celebrate

 Take care of details (galleys)

 Update your CV

 Treat yourself when it is published

 Plan your next project: Go back to

Starting Stage

46
 7. Monitoring the Review Process

Not So Good News

 Put the letter in a drawer
for a week or so
 After a week or so, carefully read
the rejection letter and plan how to
proceed
 Go back to Starting Stage

47
 Concluding Thoughts

 Publish early and publish often.

 You learn to write by writing.
 Be realistic about where your paper
fits. Not everything you do is A level
work.
 If you never get a rejection letter,
then you aren’t trying hard enough
 Write a good dissertation…. And draw
from it
48
 Thank you!
Any Questions?

49