Publishing Tips & Pitfalls: Insights from an Editor�Steven Dellaportas

Presentation Outline

• Who am I?

​

• Setting the scene

​

• Common reasons why papers are rejected: With a focus on:
• Scope; and
• Contributions

​

Journal Editor

• Journal of Business Ethics (2014 – ongoing)
• Section Editor – Accounting
• Accounting Education (2015 – 2017)
• Associate Editor
• Managerial Auditing Journal (2009- 2011)
• Joint Chief Editor
• Member of editorial boards

Publications

• >60 manuscripts (mostly A or A*)
• 2 textbooks - lead-author (1 translated in Japanese)
• 2 research book chapters
• 150+ Conference papers/presentations
• 2.7 papers per annum

Career

• My career spans more than 30 years in Australia (mostly)
• Moved to China 2020: now at XJTLU (Suzhou)

SETTING THE SCENE

Knowing our research domain(s) is important to knowing which journals welcome your research

Top journals Good journals

(dedicated to mature domains)` (dedicated to emerging domains)

Journal ranking lists

• Journal ranking lists draws:
• authors attention to quantity (hits in particular journals),
• editors’ interest is drawn to quality and not quantity (papers to improve cite scores)
• Implications
• If the number of printed pages has not increased (I believe so), rejection rates must be increasing
• Papers could be rejected for diverse reasons but most common reasons
• Scope (desk reject)
• Contributions are not substantive (desk reject & reject after first review)

SCOPE

SCOPE - Desk Reject

• Check the editorial objectives carefully
• JBE: “to provide a public forum for discussion & debate of ethical issues related to business”
• Importantly, JBE want every paper to incorporate some ethical analysis
• A broad view of ethical analysis is acceptable:
• a descriptive ethical analysis
• a normative ethical analysis;
• ethical implications;
• ethical theory.
• It should not be research which could contain ethical issues, but the ethics NOT analyzed 

SCOPE (Desk Reject)

• Consider this quote from a member of the editorial board:

We receive a number of submissions containing implicit, but few explicit, discussions of business ethics. For example, it is quite typical for papers to draw on stakeholder theory to develop their hypotheses or research questions to help frame the discussion of the results. However, the word “ethics” may not even appear in the main body of the paper.

• The desk reject rate is high and increasing for this reason

What brought us to this point?

• We’re targeting journals with a particular ranking
• stemming mostly from university performance criteria
• Implications
• we’re not targeting journals that are the best fit for our research
• this limits the potential impact of our research
• Compounding this problem:
• top tier journals (TAR, JAE, JAR, CAR, AOS) were historically established to publish mainstream financial accounting research
• research on non-financial accounting topics is not a natural fit for these journals

Consider how to develop your profile

• The majority of research domains (areas of research) gravitate around 3 or 4 journals dedicated to the domain
• Your research (public) profile is influenced by the number of publications in these journals
• Publish 4 papers in this group of journals, you develop a profile as a scholar in your domain
• Publish 4 papers in a single journal, you will be considered an expert in your domain
• DEVELOPING YOUR PROFILE HAS SIGNIFICANT LONG-TERM BENEFITS

​

CONTRIBUTIONS

Rationale/Motivation

Contribution – Incremental v Substantive

• Non-substantive contributions are the most common reason to reject a paper before & after first review
• The introduction is your chance to make a first impression
• Reviewers may not make a decision to accept a paper after the reading the introduction but will often form a decision to reject a paper at this point, especially if they feel the study is inadequately justified

Contribution – Incremental v Substantive

• A few short lines dedicated to contributions is inadequate and will be rejected. For example:

The review has two major contributions to the MA (Management Accounting) literature. First, it provides a comprehensive assessment of the state of the QM research in the past 35 years and its contribution to management accounting literature. Second, it identifies topic areas that require further research which will motivate future researchers to advance our knowledge in the areas of QM and MA link.  

• Papers are accepted or rejected on proposed contributions. This example is very thin? Author must explain why we need to know this research.

Contribution – Incremental v Substantive

A stronger motivation might look like:

• The present study relies on an analysis of relevant literature to provide an evaluation of published works on MA…
• The publication of literature reviews in this area of study are abundant but… (describe the articles and their limitations)
• This study is inspired by two streams of research
• Literature reviews which informs us about past and future research
• To identify elite scholars and/or) important publications that have influenced the direction of research….

Contribution – Incremental v Substantive

• Two key outcomes are expected to be achieved from reviewing the literature on MA
• provides an analysis to synthesize major topic areas, trends and areas of potential future research.
• acknowledge the achievements of key authors and articles that have potentially influenced the course of MA research.

​

• Note: Recent studies on literature attempt to map key attributes using bibliometric analysis

Gaps & contributions are NOT the same

Gaps

Gaps point us to an area of interest

But contributions tell us how knowledge is extended

Contributions

• A contribution is concerned with bringing about a result to advance knowledge
• A contribution is considered important because it adds value to existing research

Gaps v contributions

• A gap does not justify research but points to potential areas where knowledge is lacking
• But a gap may exist because the knowledge is not necessary or is insignificant

So why do projects lack contributions?

• A data mining approach to research increasingly delves deep into data and sophisticated analyses but loses focus on why the research is undertaken
• Identifying the contributions becomes an afterthought and often appears weak in the paper and is unconvincing to reviewers
• Papers are purposely and narrowly selected to justify the research and if detected by reviewers (in absence of the whole body of literature), authors are criticized for limited or incomplete knowledge of the relevant literature

Examples of lazy research and lack meaningful contributions

• The present study builds on concepts drawn from the ‘stakeholder multiplicity’ and ‘networking’ literatures to understand the combined effects of a networked relationship on CSR (Fassin, 2012; Garriga, 2009; Garriga, 2017; Lienert et al., 2013; Maak, 2007; Neville and Menguc, 2006; Neville et al., 2011; Neville et al., 2017; Odziemkowska and Henisz, 2016; Rowley, 1997; Sciarelli and Tani, 2013; Vandekerckhove and Dentchev, 2011; Cormier et al., 2005; Figge and Hahn, 2013; Huang and Kung, 2010; Islam and Deegan, 2008; Laguir and Elbaz, 2014; Rodrigue et al., 2013).
• Be more specific, a more meaningful statement will look something like:
• This study will build on our knowledge of CSR by extending the work undertaken by Fassin (2012), then explain how you will extend Fassin…..

​

Signs of lazy research

• The aforesaid discussion leads the study to identify the following hypotheses to explain the cogency of grading of IPO in estimating the post-IPO operating performance, demand, and valuation of the IPO, primarily for two important stakeholders, investors and IPO firms. The research is expected to contribute to a better understanding of the IPO process as enablement in creating low-cost capital in emerging as well as developed economies. The hypotheses below examine the relationship between IPO grading and: operating performance using cash flow measures (H1 to H4); IR (H5 to H8); institutional investors’ participation (H9 to H12); and retail investors’ participation (H13 to H16):

H1: Graded IPOs show superior operating performance compared with ungraded IPOs.

H2: Higher-graded IPOs show superior operating performance compared with lower-graded IPOs.

H3: Higher-graded IPOs show superior operating performance compared with ungraded IPOs.

H4: Lower-graded IPOs show superior operating performance compared with ungraded IPOs.

H5: Graded IPOs show lower IR compared with ungraded IPOs.

H6: Higher-graded IPOs show lower IR compared with lower-graded IPOs.

H7: Higher-graded IPOs show lower IR compared with ungraded IPOs.

H8: Low-graded IPOs show lower IR compared with ungraded IPOs.

H9: Graded IPOs show greater demand from QIBs compared with ungraded IPOs.

H10: Higher-graded IPOs show greater demand from QIBs compared with lower-graded IPOs.

H11: Higher-graded IPOs show greater demand from QIBs compared with ungraded IPOs.

H12: Low graded IPOs show greater demand from QIBs compared with ungraded IPOs.

H13: Graded IPOs show greater demand from RIIs compared with ungraded IPOs.

H14: Higher graded IPOs show greater demand from RIIs compared with Low graded IPOs.

H15: Higher graded IPOs show greater demand from RIIs than ungraded IPOs.

H16 : Low graded IPOs show greater demand from RIIs compared with ungraded IPOs.

Thought experiment

Example: CSR Disclosure and Firm Environmental Violations: Evidence from China

• This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, unlike most prior studies which focus on voluntary CSR disclosure (Dhaliwal et al., 2011; Lys et al., 2015; Plumlee et al., 2015), this study examines the differences between mandatory and voluntary CSR disclosure. We provide evidence that mandatory CSR reporting has lower disclosure quality as well as more negative impact on firms’ actual environmental performance than voluntary reporting. We also find that investors’ valuation of CSR reports, conditional on the occurrence of environmental violations, varies greatly between these two types of firms.
• Consider your decision? Desk reject or Review?

Mandatory CSR Disclosure and Firm Environmental Violations: Evidence from Chinese Capital Market

Desk reject

• The topic of corporate disclosure and environmental responsibility sits within a well-established body of literature particularly in the areas of Corporate Social Responsibility and Social and Environmental Accounting. The ethical implications, a core requirement of the Journal, are at best, inferred.

Example: CSR Disclosure and Firm Performance in China

• This study has policy implications for China and other developing countries. For example, when introducing CSR reporting requirements, policy makers should emphasize the importance of disclosure quality. In addition, the enforcement of regulation is important to shape firms’ incentive to comply with the regulation.

​

• Consider your decision? Desk Reject or Review?

Example: CSR Disclosure and Firm Performance in China

Desk reject

• Policy contributions are not equivalent to literature contributions – the focus of highly regarded journals

​

Example: Do Institutions Shape Corporate Tax Evasion? The Role of Media Institutions

• We show that informal institutions (trust and religiosity) are the most important in curtailing corporate tax evasion. This evidence lends support to the notion that informal institutions are more rooted in a society and have a stronger influence on individuals and firms in that society. This finding should help inform tax policymakers as they tailor their regulatory and enforcement actions to reduce tax evasion, in that policies that shape social norms and strengthen social institutions might be more effective in reducing tax evasion. The policy issue of how to deter tax evasion to increase tax revenue is also increasingly important in light of the current Covid-19 global pandemic that is a significant drain on public finances

​

Do Institutions Shape Corporate Tax Evasion? The Role of Informal, Formal, and Media Institutions

Desk reject

• Contributions are practical not conceptual nor evidence based.
• How knowledge or literature is extended is not explained

YOUR INTRODUCTION

What should it look like?

Your introduction

• There is no set or agreed-to structure for an introduction but consider the following components:
• Paragraph 1:
• set the context of the study
• Paragraph 2 (and maybe 3):
• highlight the tensions/limitations (not gaps) in existing literature
• Paragraph 3:
• state and explain your aim(s)

Contribution – Incremental v Substantive

• Paragraphs 4 and 5 (maybe 6 but be cautious of promising too much):
• identify and explain why your study is important and how it contributes to…
• make sure you link back to the tensions in para 2/3

​

More on Contributions

Proposed contributions may be 1 (or more) of three types (from highest to lowest - hierarchical)

• Theory; and/or
• Knowledge; and/ or
• Evidence

​

Contributions are hierarchical – (1) Theoretical

• The paragraph n theory contributions will say something like:

This study will advance our understanding on this theory by ….

• Contributing to theory is most challenging
• Authors and reviewers are trained in data analysis not theory enhancement
• Combining two existing theories is common to this objective, but..
• reviewers most always want to see empirics
• reviewers are knowledgeable in only one theory
• Application of theories appears as a parallel discussion - insightful knowledge and discussion of theory is necessary

Contributions are hierarchical – (2) Knowledge

• The paragraph on knowledge-based contributions will say something like:

This study will build on our knowledge of accounting by extending the work undertaken by Georgie (????) …..

• Contributing to knowledge is most common but is not explicit in many papers, leading to rejection (consider the examples above)
• Explain the limitations of Georgie (????) and how your study addresses these limitations
• Explain the tensions on the literature and how you are resolving them

​

Contributions are hierarchical – (3) Evidence

• The paragraph on evidence-based contributions will say something like:

This study will provide additional or unique evidence in this area of research …

• Contributing to evidence is weakest form of contribution and has low(er) probability of success
• This research is mostly replication in a different context
• Justify your claims explaining why the context is important (not why the evidence is important)

Gaps v contributions

• Discussion
• A paper without a discussion on contributions suggests that the study does not make a contribution.
• Sometimes discussion is a separate section or located in the conclusion (I like the former)

Discussion

(how you extend, complement, challenge existing knowledge)

ONE FINAL COMMENT

Understandability/readability

• A paper should be easy to read, free from typographical errors, and consistent with journal’s guidelines including word length
• If the editor feels that you do not care about getting it right, they will become suspicious and be inclined to reject.
• Additionally, referees are busy colleagues, if they find it is difficult to understand, they will return the paper with a rejection
• Professional editors will correct your grammar but not the meaning or logics of your research

Your best effort always

• Avoid submitting your manuscript simply to get it reviewed
• It wastes editors' and reviewers' time
• You are inclined to compromise on your best effort
• If you do it too often, it may personally reflect on you as a researcher
• Reject does not mean ‘second chance review’ the rejection is permanent to the journal

Close enough is NOT good enough: Always put your best foot forward

THANK YOU