Publishing in AMJ: Joining & Contributing to a Theoretical Conversation. Tim Pollock Associate Editor, AMJ Pennsylvania State University

Transcription

1 Publishing in AMJ: Joining & Contributing to a Theoretical Conversation Tim Pollock Associate Editor, AMJ Pennsylvania State University

2 Basic AMJ Facts One of four journals published by the Academy of Management Now in its 53rd year Receives over 1000 submissions per year Averages a 55-day turnaround for fully-reviewed submissions Second highest impact factor among Management journals (behind Academy of Management Review)

3 The Editorial Team Micro Macro Quantitative Joyce Bono, Univ. of Minnesota Jason Colquitt, Univ. of Georgia Adam Grant, Univ. of Pennsylvania Jason Shaw, Univ. of Minnesota Ray Sparrowe,Washington Univ. Ben Tepper, Georgia State Univ. Marta Geletkanycz, Boston College Gerry George, Imperial College Kyle Mayer, Univ. of Southern Cal Gerry McNamara, Michigan State Tim Pollock, Pennsylvania State Anthea Zhang, Rice Univ. Qualitative Kevin Corley, Arizona State Univ. Tima Bansal, Univ. of Western Ontario

4 AMJ s Mission Statement The mission of the Academy of Management Journal is to publish empirical research that tests, extends, or builds management theory and contributes to management practice. All empirical methods--including, but not limited to, qualitative, quantitative, field, laboratory, and combination methods--are welcome. To be published in AMJ, a manuscript must make strong empirical and theoretical contributions and highlight the significance of those contributions to the management field.

5 Improving Your Chances at AMJ Most common themes for rejections: Theoretical Contribution

6 Theoretical Contribution Excerpt from a decision letter The degree to which an article makes a theoretical contribution is an important point of emphasis for AMJ. Articles can make a theoretical contribution by either building theory or testing theory. What s important is that they change, challenge, or fundamentally advance our knowledge of the concepts, relationships, models, or theories embedded in the relevant literatures. In this way, they cause us to think about some organizational phenomenon in a way that would not normally be anticipated from extrapolations of existing work, thereby advancing future work in an important and useful way.

7 Originality (or Novelty) Excerpt from a decision letter AMJ places a strong emphasis on the novelty of a manuscript s contribution when judging a submission. The journal s mission statement stresses that authors should strive to produce novel, innovative, interesting, and theoretically bold research. My sense is that the contribution of your article was more incremental than it needed to be, and that it lacked some of the boldness that the journal strives for in its pages.

8 Improving Your Chances at AMJ Most common themes for rejections: Theoretical Contribution Scope

9 Scope Excerpt from a decision letter The literature affected by your study is a fairly narrow one. Moreover, although you note that your study fills some gaps in that literature, it must be noted that not all gaps are created equal. Some gaps are very nuanced or incremental, or have little impact on the state of knowledge in a given literature. Other gaps are more fundamental, such that the filling of the gap changes the state of knowledge in some important way.

10 Improving Your Chances at AMJ Most common themes for rejections: Theoretical Contribution Scope Technical Adequacy/Rigor

11 What Can Help? Get friendly reviews from colleagues who publish in, and review for, AMJ, at each of these stages: Topic choice Study design Writing Crafting your paper as a conversation: Engagement: Which conversation(s) are you joining? Which conversants are you talking to specifically? Interest: Why are you joining that conversation? (critical mass, topical, timely, discord, variability) Meaningful Insight: What are you adding to the conversation? (commonality and additionality in perspective)

12 Online Resources

13 Online Resources For more info, see

14 Responding to Reviewers Be conversational: Be respectful but not overly formal in tone Don t be defensive Use first person (e.g., I interpreted your comment ) When you make changes: Be explicit about the change and where it is in the paper Explain how the change addresses a problem the reviewer raised Thank them for the idea, and/or pushing you on the issue Give the reviewers credit wherever possible for the change

15 Responding to Reviewers Be forthright: Admitting mistakes isn t a sign of weakness If you don t have the data to do something, or the amount of work relative to the value-added is enormous, say so When you disagree: Try to find some element of their point to agree with Explain why you disagree and provide evidence to support your position Do supplemental analyses when possible Explain what you did as an alternative to address their concern Pick your battles carefully

16 Responding to Reviewers Don t be afraid to talk to the editor We want to see you succeed Better to ask for clarifications than to guess

17 One Last Thought AMJ is trying to expand the number of: Laboratory studies See Colquitt (2008) in Academy of Management Journal, 51: Qualitative studies Around 10% of submissions and published articles are qualitative Qualitative papers won AMJ s Best Article of the Year award 50% of the time from 2000 to 2010 See Bansal & Corley (2011) in Academy of Management Journal, 54 (2): for more on publishing qualitative research in AMJ