Writing and Publishing A

Research Article

Prof. Badri Munir Sukoco, PhD

 Outline
About me
Why should we publish
Major reasons for rejection
Things to Consider before writing
Review forms

10/2/2017 2
 About me Teaching
S1 S2 S3 - High achievement
Lecturer (3rd) in
Classes Airlangga University
- Strategic Management 2010
- International Business - The most inspiring
Lecturer MSM 2012
- Research Method
- High achievement
- Innovation Management Lecturer (1st) in
Airlangga University
- Strategic Brand Management 2015
- National finalists High
- Strategic Marketing achievement Lecturer in
Indonesia 2015
Advisees 23 8 5 - Prestigious Alumni
Award NCKU Taiwan
- Tiap semester mengajar > 22 SKS di
jenjang S1, S2, dan S3 2016
- Dosen wali bagi 95 mahasiswa/i S1

Copyrighted: Badri Munir Sukoco

10/2/2017
 About me Research Grants

Some of the research grants:

- Internasional
National Science Council, Taiwan (2012-2015)
Co-Principal Investigator SATU Presidents Forum (2014, 2015)

- National
Hibah Strategis Nasional (2011)
Hibah Kerjasama Luar Negeri (2013,2014)
Hibah Penelitian Unggulan Perguruan Tinggi (2015, 2016)

- Internal UNAIR
Hibah FEB UNAIR
Hibah Departemen Manajemen

10/2/2017 Copyrighted: Badri Munir Sukoco

 About me Research

Track Record:
Q1: 2009, 2011, 2011,
2012
Q2: 2010, 2010, 2016,
2017, 2017
Q3: 2016
Q4: 2015, 2016, 2016
(shame on me!!!)
In progress:
38 international Raw Draft: 12
conferences: Ready to submit: 4
AOM, AMA, Submitted: 3
AIB, BAM and 2nd round: 2
others
About me Research
Books
 About me Community
Services
Head of Executive Development Program (EDP) MM
UNAIR, got revenue 5 billion Rupiahs in 2015

Head of consultant for public companies: Semen Indonesia,

Pelindo III, BJTI, Bank Jatim, PJBS, SCG, AMIKOM
Yogyakarta, dan Pegadaian

10/2/2017 Copyrighted: Badri Munir Sukoco

 About me Institutional
Development

Ketua Badan Perencanaan dan Pengembangan (BPP) UNAIR

(September 2015 sekarang)
Anggota Majelis Wali Amanat (MWA) UNAIR (Mei 2015-2017)
Anggota Tim WCU Dirjen Kelembagaan, Ilmu Pengetahuan,
Teknologi, dan Pendidikan Tinggi (September 2015 sekarang)
Asisten KPS MM UNAIR (Januari 2011 November 2015)
Koordinator AACSB FEB UNAIR
Koordinator ABEST21 MM UNAIR

10/2/2017 Copyrighted: Badri Munir Sukoco

 Why write and publish research
papers?
Ideally
to share research findings and discoveries with the hope of
improving healthcare.

Practically
to get funding
to get promoted
to get a job
to keep your job!

10/2/2017 10
Scientists are rated by
what they finish, not
by what they attempt

10/2/2017 11
 Why write and publish research
papers?
Ideally
to share research findings and discoveries with the hope of
improving healthcare.

Practically
to get funding
to get promoted
to get a job
to keep your job!

10/2/2017 12
Publish
or
Perish

10/2/2017 13
 Getting a paper published

Competition for space in journals is intense

Rejection rates vary, depending on the quality of the

journal
AMR = 99%
AMJ = 97%
SMJ =96%
JM = 97%

Quality of the journal depends on impact factor and

immediacy index (see the list)

10/2/2017 14
 Major Reasons for Rejection
(Philips, 2008)

Poorly prepared
The article not ready, only a draft
The article is too parochial (will not appeal to a wider, international
audience)
Poor English (if English is not your first language, seek help)
Technically poor
Too short or too long (check the article length specified in author guidelines)
Article is submitted to the wrong journal (material not of relevance to
readership)
Nothing new is stated or found
Under-theorized Under-contextualized
Not properly a journal article (e.g. better suited to another form of
publication)
10/2/2017 15
 General Tips

1. Know the journal, its editors, and why you submitted the
paper there

2. Pay close attention to spelling, grammar, and punctuation

3. Make sure references are comprehensive and accurate

4. Avoid careless mistakes

5. Read and conform to Instructions for Authors

10/2/2017 16
 Assessing the Best Journal for
Your Article
Is it international?
Who publishes in the journal? Is it in the Thompson-Reuters
ISI or SCOPUS database?
Is it peer reviewed, and how long will this take?
Who is the editor?
Who is on the editorial board?
Is the journal available online and/or in printed form?
Is it published by a major international publisher or
association/learned society?
Does the journal currently have a "Call for Papers" out for a
specific topic you are interested in writing about?
10/2/2017 17
 Choosing the Journals -
http://www.scimagojr.com/

10/2/2017 18
 Choosing the Journals -
http://www.scimagojr.com/

10/2/2017 19
 Assessing the Best Journal for
Your Article
Is it international?
Who publishes in the journal? Is it in the Thompson-Reuters
ISI or SCOPUS database?
Is it peer reviewed, and how long will this take?
Who is the editor?
Who is on the editorial board?
Is the journal available online and/or in printed form?
Is it published by a major international publisher or
association/learned society?
Does the journal currently have a "Call for Papers" out for a
specific topic you are interested in writing about?
10/2/2017 20
 Predatory Journal(s)?

10/2/2017 21
 Assessing the Best Journal for
Your Article
Is it international?
Is it peer reviewed, and how long will this take?
Who is the editor?
Who is on the editorial board?
Who publishes in the journal? Is it in the Social Science
Citation Index (SSCI) database?
Is the journal available online and/or in printed form?
Is it published by a major international publisher or
association/learned society?
Does the journal currently have a "Call for Papers" out for a
specific topic you are interested in writing about?
10/2/2017 22
 Writing for Your Chosen
Journal
Look at previous papers to get a feel for what is accepted
Check the aims and scope statement again
Take note of the maximum extent (word count) of the
submission
Follow any submission guidelines carefully
Quote from previous papers (show awareness of the
literature)
Send an abstract to the editor

10/2/2017 23
 General Tips

1. Know the journal, its editors, and why you submitted the
paper there

2. Pay close attention to spelling, grammar, and punctuation

3. Make sure references are comprehensive and accurate

4. Avoid careless mistakes

5. Read and conform to Instructions for Authors

10/2/2017 24
10/2/2017 25
10/2/2017 26
 Things to Consider before
Writing 1/3
1. Topic choice
Significance: taking on Grand Challenge
Novelty: changing the conversation (leadership
followership)
Curiosity: catching and holding attention
Scope: casting a wider net
Actionability: insights for practice

10/2/2017 27
 Things to Consider before
Writing 1/3
2. Time to write the paper?
has a significant advancement been made?
is the hypothesis straightforward?
did the research method test the hypothesis?
can you describe the study in 1 or 2 minutes?
can the key message be written in 1 or 2 sentences?

Those who have the

most to say usually say it
with the fewest words
10/2/2017 28
 Things to Consider before
Writing 2/3
2. Time to write the paper?
has a significant advancement been made?
is the hypothesis straightforward?
did the research method test the hypothesis?
can you describe the study in 1 or 2 minutes?
can the key message be written in 1 or 2 sentences?

3. Tables and figures

must be clear and concise
should be self-explanatory

4. Read references
will help in choosing journal
better insight into possible reviewers
10/2/2017 29
 Things to Consider before
Writing 3/3
5. Choose journal
study instructions to authors
think about possible reviewers
quality of journal impact factor

6. Tentative title and summary

7. Choose authors

10/2/2017 30
 General Structure

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgements
References

10/2/2017 31
 Title

Will determine whether paper gets read

Avoid long title (see journal rules)
Avoid abbreviations
Title format:
The effects of heat on ice
Heat melts ice
The role of heat in melting ice

10/2/2017 32
 Abstract

Critical part of paper

State main objective
Summarize most important results
State major conclusions and significance
Avoid acronyms
Write and rewrite until flawless

10/2/2017 33
 Introduction

Build case for why study is important/necessary

Provide brief background
State hypothesis / central question
Give a one sentence summary of findings

10/2/2017 34
 Theoretical Background and
Hypotheses Development
See Sutton and Staw (ASQ, 2004)

10/2/2017 35
 Methods

Best to begin writing when experiments still in progress.

Should be detailed enough so results can be repeated by

others.

Reference published methods where appropriate.

10/2/2017 36
 Results

Briefly repeating protocols can be effective

Tables and figures must be straight forward and concise
Present main findings referring to tables/figures.
Do not speculate or over discuss results.

10/2/2017 37
 Discussion

First answer question posed in introduction

Relate your conclusion to existing knowledge
Discuss weaknesses and discrepancies
Explain what is new without exaggerating
Do not repeat results
Conclusion/summary, perspectives, implications

10/2/2017 38
 References

Relevant and recent

Be highly selective
Read the references
Do not misquote
Use correct style for journal

10/2/2017 39
 Revise, Revise, and Revise!!!

All authors should participate

Review order of data presentation
Polish the writing style
Double check references
Look for typos
Double check spelling

10/2/2017 40
Publication
Process

10/2/2017 41
 Review Form 1/2

10/2/2017 42
 Review Form 2/2

10/2/2017 43
 Reviewer Form AMJ 1/2

10/2/2017 44
 Reviewer Form AMJ 2/2

10/2/2017 45
 Responding to Reviewers

1. Carefully prepare your responses

Each comment should be addressed
Each change should be stated
Be enthusiastic
2. Reviewer may be wrong
3. Be tactful thank the reviewers
4. Do not respond to reviewers while upset
5. Never call the editor
6. Get help from other authors

10/2/2017 46
What Theory is Not

Robert I. Sutton and Barry M. Staw

 Authors

Robert I. Sutton Barry M. Staw

Stanford University University of California at Berkeley

10/2/2017 48
 Introduction
Many journals, particularly ASQ, reject the submitted paper
which has inadequate theory

Scholars address how to write a paper with strong theory, but

there are lack of consensus about whether:
- A model and a theory can be distinguished;
- A typology can be labeled as a theory;
- The strength of a theory depends on how interesting it is;
- Falsifiability is a prerequisite for a theory

10/2/2017 49
 Introduction
Developing a theory in behavioral sciences is difficult. The
reasons are:
- Reviewers, editors, and audiences hold inconsistent beliefs about what is
theory and whether is strong or weak; thus, easy to be rejected if it clashes
with their existing conceptual tastes;
- Little consensus about which theoretical perspectives are most suitable to
describe certain phenomenon;
- Theory building also full of internal conflicts and contradictions, which
needs tradeoffs between generality, simplicity, and accuracy.

This paper propose five features of article that can guide

authors to distinguish what theory is inadequate.
10/2/2017 50
 Parts of An Article
Explains, Predicts,
and Delights
Data Variables/
Constructs

References
Theory?

Diagrams

Hypotheses

10/2/2017 51
 References Are Not Theory
References to existing theory help to create new conceptual
arguments through the stream of logic on which they are
drawing and expecting to contribute;

But presenting references are not equal with theory, unless

there is a logic presented to explain why particular
phenomenon happens;

Thus, authors need to explicate which concepts and causal

arguments are used from prior works and how they linked to
the propose theory to answer a new theoretical question.

10/2/2017 52
 Data Are Not Theory
Data (quantitative or qualitative) as empirical evidence play
prominent role in organizational theory to confirm, revise, or
discredit existing theory and lead to new theory;

Empirical results can support a theory, but it should not construed a

a theory itself;

Data describe which empirical patterns were observed, while

theory explains why empirical patterns were observed or are
expected to be observed (Kaplan, 1964)

Data do not generate theory only researchers do that (Mintzberg,

1979).
10/2/2017 53
 Variables/Constructs Are Not Theory

Scholars present variables (constructs) to represents a logic

behind certain phenomenon, but they are alone do not
constitute a theory;

The explanation why variables (constructs) exist or connected

are required to be named a theory;

10/2/2017 54
 Diagrams Are Not Theory
Diagrams (figures) present causal relationships, which are
helpful to develop a theory, but it is not a theory yet;

Good theory is often representational and verbal, and it needs

clear and rich arguments before depicted into diagrams
(figures);

Clear explanation of why proposed causal relationships is

prerequisite for a theory

10/2/2017 55
 Hypotheses Are Not Theory
Hypotheses serve as bridges of theory and data, by explicitly
describe how the variables and relationships expect to be
existed;

It has no logical reasoning why causal relationships are

expected to occur, it just explain what is expected to occur;

Predictions (hypotheses) presented without any causal logic

do not constitute a theory (Homans, 1964; Merton, 1967;
Weick, 1989).

10/2/2017 56
 Identifying Strong Theory
Theory is the answer to queries of why;

Theory is a story about why acts, events, structure, and

thoughts occur systematically in subsequent manners;

Strong theory provide systematic reasons (explanations) for a

certain phenomenon;

A good theory explains, predicts, and delights (Weick, 1995)

10/2/2017 57
 Good Theory always Published?
It depends on the authors (whether they are good in
developing theory or empirical skills) on which journals they
aim.

ASQ aims both, and expecting that young scholars which

mostly have been trained in empirical skills can also benefit
from reviewing process to be able as good theorist

10/2/2017 58
 Dichotomy Evaluations

Method Decision

Good Bad Rejected?

Theory
Bad Good Accepted?

10/2/2017 59
 Complex Evaluations - 1

Method Decisions

Good Bad

Good Accepted
Theory
Bad

10/2/2017 60
 Complex Evaluations - 2

Method Decisions

Good Bad

Good Accepted
Theory Or
Bad
Rejected?

10/2/2017 61
 Complex Evaluations - 3

Method Decisions

Good Bad

Good Accepted
Theory or
Bad
Rejected?

10/2/2017 62
 Complex Evaluations - 4

Method Decisions

Good Bad

Good
Theory Rejected
Bad

10/2/2017 63
 Conclusion
Inadequate theory become the most used reasons for paper
being rejected by leading journals;

The paper propose five parts of an article (references, data,

variables, diagrams, and hypotheses) that might mislead
authors to be called a theory;

It needs greater theoretical emphasis in quantitative

researches, along with more appreciations of the empiricism
of qualitative papers.

10/2/2017 64