A Trail Guide to Publishing Success: Tips on Writing Influential Conceptual, Qualitative, and Survey Research

• Author: Robert E. Overstreet,Benjamin T. Hazen,Matthew A. Schwieterman,Matthew A. Waller,Jason W. Miller,Stanley E. Fawcett
• Published date: 01 March 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12039
• Date: 01 March 2014

Editorial

A Trail Guide to Publishing Success: Tips on Writing Influential

Conceptual, Qualitative, and Survey Research

Stanley E. Fawcett

1

, Matthew A. Waller

2

, with Jason W. Miller

3

, Matthew A. Schwieterman

3

,

Benjamin T. Hazen

4

, and Robert E. Overstreet

5

1

Weber State University

2

University of Arkansas

3

The Ohio State University

4

Auburn University

5

Air Force Institute of Technology

Publishing in top journals is difficult. Common challenges undermine authors’attempts to explain and influence their discipline's under-

standing and practice. We identify and describe these roadblocks to publishing success. We also benchmark best practice in management,

marketing, and supply chain journals to provide a trail guide for writing—and publishing—influential conceptual, qualitative, and survey

research. Given equifinality in research, our trail guide should not be viewed as the only way to craft excellent, influential research. However, if

we agree on the basics, we can (1) increase consistency in the review process, (2) reduce publication cycles, and (3) begin to roll back the

length of articles.

Keywords: theory development; storytelling; conceptual; qualitative; methodology

INTRODUCTION

Publishing in top journals is difficult. It is also highly rewarding.

Successful authors know that the publishing process is often a

long, uphill, and potentially perilous journey. The first—and most

important—step in the journey is ideation; that is, coming up with

an interesting research question that, if well answered, will influ-

ence how we think and act (see Davis 1971 or Fawcett and Wal-

ler 2011a). Research questions guide the early phase of the

knowledge-discovery journey, including choice of informing the-

ory, research method, and data sources. A successful journey,

however, requires the endurance of meticulous execution, refined

thinking, and great storytelling. These markers—question, theory,

methods, data, and story—signal whether you are on the path to

making a valid and valuable contribution. Because the publication

success rate is low (often under 10%) and the process is arduous

and time consuming, we seek to provide authors some tips to

make the journey a little easier—and less career threatening.

Before sharing the tips, let us share how we derived them. As

editors at the Journal of Business Logistics, we have delimited

reviewer comments and concerns to help us proactively screen

papers for fit and readiness. One result: A 50% desk-reject rate.

Our goal here is twofold.

1. By desk rejecting articles that have no chance to survive the

journey to print, we save authors 60–90 days of review cycle

—time they can use to reposition and improve their research.

2. We reduce the burden on JBL’s review team.

In all but egregious cases of poor fit, we have tried to provide

authors with a reasonable review so they can move their work

forward. This proactive screening has given us a real apprecia-

tion for the roadblocks that impede authors’progress to publica-

tion. Table 1 summarizes the common signs that authors are on

a perilous path to rejection and acts as a publishing trail guide.

Of note, reviewers who identify three or more major-level danger

signs typically recommend rejection. Beyond fatal methods

flaws, the most common and perilous combination of issues

identified by reviewers is a lack of justification, poor theoretical

grounding, and scarce contribution.

Of course, the objective of the peer-review process—at every

stage—goes beyond “gatekeeping.”At JBL, our immediate goal

is to collaborate with authors to help them make a meaningful

contribution to theory and practice. Our end hope is to provide

society a real return on its research investment by promoting and

publishing research that improves value creation in industry and

informs teaching at all levels. To do this, we must do more than

merely help authors avoid the so-called rejection roadblocks. We

must provide tips to help authors conceptualize and tell a con-

vincing story from start to finish. With this in mind, we bench-

marked best practice in top-tier management, marketing, and

supply chain journals to draft trail guides in three areas: concep-

tual theory building, qualitative investigation, and survey

research. Why develop trail guides for these three domains? Two

issues motivate our efforts:

1. We want to encourage more high-quality conceptual and

inductive research. Trail guides help define the “standardized

language”and “acceptable methods”for authors and reviewers

alike to determine and communicate quality (see Pratt 2009).

2. We receive high volumes of survey research. The methods

sections often fail to describe in a clear and easy-to-review

Corresponding author:

Stanley E. Fawcett, Business Administration, Weber State Univer-

sity, WB 267, Ogden, UT 84408, USA; E-mail: stan.e.fawcett@

gmail.com

Journal of Business Logistics, 2014, 35(1): 1–16

© Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

format “what”was done to assure robust results. Reviewers

often ask for clarifications that should have been included in

the initial submission—a fact that lengthens submission-to-

decision lead times.

TIPS FOR CONDUCTING AND WRITING UP

CONCEPTUAL RESEARCH

Conceptual research is scientific inquiry that relies on abstract

thinking—as opposed to empirical, data-driven research—to con-

ceptualize, delimit, and solve real-world problems (Corley and

Gioia 2011; MacInnis 2011). Conceptual research is often associ-

ated with the discovery phase of scientific progress (i.e., intro-

ducing a new theory), but it also serves an important role in the

justification phase of scientific progress (i.e., revising how a con-

struct is conceptualized and operationalized) (Yadav 2010). Con-

ceptual research can address a wide range of entities including

constructs, domains, processes, and theories (MacInnis 2011).

Why do conceptual research?

As evidenced by citations and best-paper awards, conceptual arti-

cles can make a real, disproportionate impact on knowledge dis-

covery—and a discipline’s maturity and contribution (Yadav

2010; MacInnis 2011). Conceptual research helps us see the world

—and decision-making phenomena—through new lenses, enabling

us to find new trailheads for existing and emerging problem-solv-

ing quests. Once these research opportunities are identified,

subsequent empirical research moves us further down the knowl-

edge-discovery path. Conceptual research is thus synergistically

intertwined with empirical research, with Yadav (2010) stating,

Table 1: Warning signs that authors are wandering down a perilous path

Signs of publishing peril Tips

First impression

Abstract

Does not identify research question Take the time to write a clear abstract. It is the first thing a

reviewer reads and sets a first impression that either sells or

undermines your research

Does not explain why the research question is important

Fails to describe the methods used

Does not communicate findings and contributions

Writing Style

The paper is formatted for another journal Don’t create cognitive dissonance. Look at recent articles.

Invest in a good copy editorThe paper is poorly written and very hard to read/understand

The length-to-contribution ratio is poor Tell a clear, concise, and compelling story

Justification

Authors fail to state the research question up front Finding a gap is not sufficient. Some gaps don’t need to be

closed. Provide a real “So, what?”to motivate your

research

Authors don’t articulate why the question needs to be addressed

Authors neglect to clearly show that extant research is inadequate

Theoretical Grounding

The paper reviews the literature, but is not grounded in theory Identify theories that truly inform research, citing key articles.

Explain connections without reiterating the obvious, identify

potential limits, and derive succinct hypotheses/propositions/

extensions

Authors don’t synthesize theoretical perspectives

Authors don’t articulate theoretical conversation they are joining

Authors use dangling or disjointed theory

Hypotheses/propositions do not emerge logically from theory

Methods

Authors don’t justify research method Make sure your method is appropriate for addressing your

research question. Explain your methods clearly and in

sufficient detail. Follow established procedures and make it

easy for reviewers to see what you’ve done

The paper inappropriately employs acceptable method

The paper fails to provide adequate description of methods

The paper goes into too much description of methods

Authors rely on an inappropriate data source

Findings and Discussion

Findings and discussion are detached from the data Concisely discuss findings, always drawing conclusions from

your analysis. Seek feedback via friendly reviewersFindings and discussion are clearly incomplete

Findings and discussion are not very interesting

Contributions

Authors don’t articulate clear theoretical implications Demonstrate how your research contributes to theory and

practice. Be explicit and thoughtfulAuthors neglect managerial implications

Contributions are poorly defined or simply insufficient

Limitations and Future Research

When shared, limitations and future research lack substance Be substantive or leave off entirely

2 S. E. Fawcett et al.