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

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

What do editors look for before a

paper is sent out to review

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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