JMP editorial on increasing your chances of publication Free

As authors of submitted manuscripts will know, the experience of receiving constructive criticism varies greatly across journals. Yet such feedback can be critical to improving a manuscript to a publishable standard. Recognizing the importance of constructive feedback, we are committed to JMP providing a developmental focus to benefit authors. That is, the editorial team ensures that authors receive constructive feedback to help them improve, whether a paper is rejected or offered a revise and resubmit. Notwithstanding our specific developmental feedback on each submitted manuscript, in this editorial we provide advice based on general and recurrent issues that hinder manuscripts from reaching their full potential. To develop this advice, we reviewed the common themes that lead us to reject papers either at their initial consideration (desk-reject) or following review (first-round reject). Many of these issues we identified are core to both the implementation and communication of the research process. Authors can address these problems through more careful manuscript preparation, greater attention to theory, deeper relevant literature review, the addition of another sample, appropriate analyses and taking greater care with writing and editing. These topics, while they may pose fatal flaws for progress to publication, could often be corrected with additional work. Moreover, we note that these common reasons for manuscript rejections hold true across journals, and are not idiosyncratic to JMP.

JMP's aims and scope (Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2020) are as follows:

JMP strives to be a bridge between theory and practice. As such, we welcome manuscripts that address not only the psychological processes underlying phenomena in organizational settings but also emphasize their relevance to managers. JMP publishes manuscripts generally classified as micro-, meso-, and, to some limited extent, macro-level issues. At the micro-level, phenomena that are suitable to the journal involve employee characteristics (e.g. personality, demography), perceptions (e.g. supervision, perceived organizational support), attitudes (e.g. satisfaction, commitment) and behaviors (e.g. performance, organizational citizenship behavior). At the meso-level, we highly encourage studies that focus on team characteristics, perceptions, attitudes and behaviors. At the macro-level, only limited research areas are considered suitable. For example, human resource management (HRM) issues at the organization level (e.g. strategic HRM) are welcome as long as they are tied to individual- and team-level issues.

Despite JMP's openness to the abovementioned areas, some types of manuscripts are out of scope. Manuscripts that are not suitable to the journal include reviews of literature that are neither relevant for theory development nor provide directions for future research. Similarly, manuscripts are not suitable if they examine individual and group phenomena without relevance to organizations (e.g. psychological development of children). Topics related to other related disciplines (e.g. strategy, sociology, entrepreneurship, finance, accounting, etc.) are not appropriate for JMP unless the relevance to managerial psychology is clearly outlined.

One critical reason for rejection stems from the lack of clearly articulated rationale for the study: answering the “So what?” question. There are two ways of answering this question: theoretical and practical – both are important for publication in JMP. Theoretically, a manuscript should clearly articulate what theory is being examined, extended or created, and how it extends and contributes to the conversations in the literature on the topic of interest; practically, manuscripts should persuasively communicate the implications of the findings for organizations and those working in them.

Considering these “So what?” issues in more detail, well-written introductions (which are hard to write) answer the three questions “Who cares?”, “What do we know, what do we not know, and so what?” and “What will we learn?” (see Grant and Pollock, 2011). JMP is in good company: Most peer-reviewed scientific journals require clear articulation of the theoretical contribution in the introduction. Insufficient justifications include simply filling a “gap” of a hitherto underexplored phenomenon or claiming the association between X and Y has not been studied before. These study justifications are inadequate for two reasons: (1) the relationship may have been studied and the authors are simply unaware of it and/or (2) just because a relationship has not been studied or published does not mean it is worthy of being studied or published. The onus is on the authors to explain the value of their study. This can be difficult, perhaps because authors tend to be passionately interested and intrinsically understand the value of their work – the key skill to develop is explaining to others the value of the work and how it connects to related conversations in the literature.

Beyond theoretical contribution, JMP aims “to provide a bridge from science to practice, and from practice to science.” JMP is somewhat unique in the organizational sciences by placing a summary of practical implications on the first page of the article, which emphasizes our concern with communicating the practical importance of the findings of each study published in JMP. Submissions to JMP should include a summary of the practical implications on the abstract page and a substantial (versus pro-forma) practical implications section. A good set of practical implications have actionable value to organizations, their managers and employees. They should be written clearly and simply, avoiding technical language and outlining useable suggestions (APA, 2020; Bartunek and Rynes, 2010; Meuser et al., 2020). While JMP has no specified rule on what practical implications should look like, one structure is to write short sections for each of the various stakeholders implicated in the findings, suggesting what each group of stakeholders might assess, re-evaluate or do differently.

Probably the most common issue in rejected quantitative manuscripts is underdeveloped theory. Formal theories provide a framework to describe why expected relationships between variables exist. Theory is “an explanation of relationships among concepts or events with a set of boundary conditions” (Van de Ven, 2007, p. 112) or a “story about why acts, events, structure, and thoughts occur” (Sutton and Staw, 1995, p. 378). Theory answers why and when X is related to Y (Kaplan, 1964; Merton, 1967; Sutton and Staw, 1995).

Identifying a theoretical framework is a crucial step in the scientific process in the hypothetico-deductive tradition because it guides the research, including working out new and important questions to answer, the selection of variables and the most suitable research method. Simply because a framework is common does not mean it is the best for your study. Consider that while social exchange is the most common framework for leader–member exchange (Dulebohn et al., 2012), it is not without criticism (Cropanzano et al., 2017a) and there are other possibilities, for example role theory (Kahn et al., 1964) and affective events theory (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996; Cropanzano et al., 2017b).

A critical error we encounter is failure to interweave literature reviews into a logic that supports a manuscript's research focus. On one extreme, “theory name dropping” occurs, that is referencing a theory without explaining it. This is insufficient because the theoretical framework should be clearly explained in the manuscript such that a reader with no prior knowledge of the theory has sufficient orientation. Moreover, the theoretical framework must be used to argue the logic of the specific variables investigated and their relationships. On the other extreme, extensive literature reviews that exhaustively cover literature relevant to a theory wear out the reader, and usually preclude coherent argumentation for the hypotheses. Rather, the literature review should provide a balanced view of the literature, including the essential features or debates pertinent to the research being presented.

A well-crafted manuscript describes the chosen framework(s), and how the overall expectations of the framework apply to the specific variables in the study. This argumentation should derive from the conversation in the literature, and appropriate citations to relevant articles should be present; relatedly, paragraphs that lack citations suggest the authors are not sufficiently drawing on relevant literature. Some scholars suggest writing your logic before the literature review, and then adding literature review and citation components after your logic is sound (Sparrowe and Mayer, 2011).

One common mistake is to equate hypotheses with providing a theoretical framework. However, hypotheses are not theory; rather, they are “concise statements about what is expected to occur, not why it is expected to occur” (Sutton and Staw, 1995, p. 377). They lack the why that is provided by theory. It is not uncommon for rejected manuscripts to have poorly written hypotheses that do not follow clearly or logically from the argumentation provided before them. Long lists of hypotheses are usually indicative of inadequate argumentation and, as a rule, we suggest providing a rationale prior either to each hypothesis or small clusters of hypotheses.

Another issue is overreliance on prior empirical findings to assert a prediction. An important distinction here is the difference between explanations and predictions. While successful predictions are important to science, predictions alone are not science. Predicting X is related to Y can be done on the basis of prior observation or research – citing meta-analyses for example. Explanations go beyond mere predictions and are the target of scientific endeavor. Science seeks knowledge of why things occur, through theory, not simply that they do occur. Explanations give meaning to the universe.

We have dedicated considerable space in this editorial to theoretical issues because these are a key weakness that yield a rejection of a manuscript. Thus far our focus has been on theory in quantitative studies, reflecting the majority of manuscripts received at JMP. However, we welcome both quantitative and qualitative studies equally, as well as conceptual papers. Hence, we turn to a few points relating to theory in qualitative papers.

For qualitative research, theory is often developed inductively from data. The standards we expect as evidence for the rigor of theorizing are achieved through transparency, which itself may be attained via a range of approaches, including but not limited to plausibility, credibility and dependability (Grodal et al., 2020; Pratt et al., 2020). Ultimately, authors need to explain what issue is being studied and why, how the context and specific data are relevant, and how data were analyzed to support the concepts that emerged (Grodal et al., 2020; Pratt et al., 2020).

JMP concerns itself with application of theory and practice of managerial psychology, which as a field focuses on the behaviors, theories, practice, methods and tools used to solve workplace problems and increase the efficacy of people at work, and to sustain healthy, meaningful and productive workplaces. The contribution(s) of an article may be across any of these areas.

Academic articles generally share a common structure that clarifies the contribution, although there is some variation, especially across different methodologies. However, most often a manuscript will start with an introduction, literature review and relevant theoretical frameworks or alternative ways of understanding the motivation for the research questions, hypotheses or research propositions. For empirical articles, these sections provide the context and logic underpinning the methods and results or findings. A discussion draws the common threads together, often including strengths and limitations, as well as theoretical and practical implications, and a conclusion. While not all articles have all components, this overall pattern is conventional, and the familiar structure helps readers navigate what are often complex ideas. Within this structure, the writing aims to be scholarly and precise. Together, they enable a manuscript to communicate how it extends understanding of phenomena and answers the “So what?” question. This means successful articles that achieve publication in JMP provide evidence to advance our understanding of organizational phenomena or make sound argumentation for how research should proceed via either a theory and/or methods contribution.

JMP also considers replication studies for publication. Here, authors should clearly articulate the contribution by specifying how their replication adds to what we already know and extends current theorizing. For example, many theories are tested almost exclusively in Western contexts. A manuscript reporting a replication in a different context should clearly articulate why one might expect specific aspects of theory to work differently in a different context. The authors need to answer the “so what” and “why” questions that justify the replication and what we might learn from it. In doing so, the authors also need to include variable(s) reflecting the context under consideration. Emerging research areas or nascent theories provide additional situations where a replication study might be valuable. Such replications highlight their contribution to the new research areas or emphasize how they provide further evidence for the new theory.

Practitioner articles' contributions focus on the how-to and much less the why of. These articles typically lack formal theory sections and formal hypotheses, discussions of methods and statistics, and other features common to scientific articles. Practitioner articles are written directly with managers and employees in mind. They focus on pro- and prescriptive advice, often furnish examples or vignettes to illustrate their points, and are typically much shorter than an academic manuscript. As important as practical implications are, JMP is not an outlet for practitioner-oriented manuscripts, which may find a more appropriate venue in established outlets (e.g. Harvard Business Review, California Management Review, MIT Sloan Management Review and Business Horizons).

For quantitative articles, analyses should closely match the associations presented within research propositions or hypotheses. At JMP, in addition to the relevant expertise of the Associate Editor assigned any particular manuscript, we have Associate Editors particularly focused on methods who are a resource for the editorial team. Advancing our discipline depends on findings that are supported by robust analyses, and this is an area where manuscripts often fall short. Here, we point out common issues we encounter that lead to manuscript rejection, along with citations. We recommend that prospective authors familiarize themselves with these issues as relevant to their prospective submission.

On the research design side, the variables measured must match the constructs hypothesized; samples must be relevant to the issues under investigation. Student samples must be used with care, and often cannot be the only sample in the manuscript. Reliance on single source one-time data collections will usually yield rejection. JMP has instituted a policy to reject manuscripts testing mediation models with cross-sectional datasets. In a case-by-case situation, JMP considers manuscripts that test moderated mediation, use strong theory and prior evidence for the directionality of the proposed mediation, and/or use strong statistical procedures to check for reverse causality. Single item measures are problematic because reliability cannot be estimated. Latent variables should be measured with multiple item scales with evidence of good validity and reliability; and steps should be taken to mitigate common method variance when planning the research (Podsakoff et al., 2003, 2012).

As noted above, following data collection, analyses need to help to test the relationships proposed between variables. A mismatch between theory and analyses invariably yields rejection. Some common issues include: omitting or inaccurately conducting or reporting confirmatory factor analyses (Crede and Harms, 2019); using ordinary least-squares regression when data are nested, implying a need for hierarchical methods (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002), using the outdated Baron and Kenny (1986) method to test indirect (mediation) effects instead of more accurate approaches (Cheung and Lau, 2008; Hayes, 2009); not testing for moderated mediation when moderator(s) and mediator(s) are included in the theoretical model (Cheung and Lau, 2017); and not taking steps to assess the effects of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2012; Williams and McGonagle, 2016). Additionally, analyses should be at the level of sophistication required to test whether proposed relationships exist, rather than too simple to provide the depth of analysis required or unnecessarily complex. To this end, analyses using “simple” statistics, such a correlations or ANOVAs (with experiments a notable exception) are usually inappropriate. Authors using unusual or newer analytic techniques should provide sufficient explanation given that readers may not have previously come across them. Finally, we often encounter analyses that lack sufficient description in sample and other details, which obfuscate reviewers' and readers' ability to evaluate the science. Transparency of reporting is important for many reasons (Aguinis et al., 2019; APA, 2008). The list of potential methods issues is lengthy and a full treatment is beyond the scope of this editorial. Please see  Appendix for a list of common issues we encounter at JMP and citations as relevant.

Poor quality writing continues to be a pervasive issue plaguing many submitted manuscripts (see also Rogelberg et al., 2009; Stone, 2010), affecting especially the introduction and discussion sections. Key issues at the outset include a poor or missing description of intended contribution, unclear or insufficient theoretical reasoning, poorly defined constructs, and, for quantitative papers, a lack of precision in developing or presenting hypotheses. For the discussion section, common issues are a lack of analysis and insight linking back to the literature, and a lack of practical implications, these latter being particularly important given that JMP aims to positively impact employees and managers, the organizations they work in, and society more broadly (Stone, 2010).

More general problems include grammatical issues, overly complex writing, excessive use of acronyms, inappropriate causal language, missing references and poor formatting (including text, tables, figures and/or references). Authors need to make their ideas and analyses easily accessible so that reviewers can focus on the value of what is being said, rather than trying to fathom out what is being said. As Ragins (2012, p. 494) notes in her editorial on clear writing, “the beauty of clear writing is that it creates nearly effortless reading”.

There are various ways to improve the quality of your writing. Universities often provide writing centers and workshops to help staff members and students develop crucial writing skills. Beyond these, one solution is to use software (e.g. Grammarly, ProWritingAid, WhiteSmoke). Another solution is to use copy-editing services, which are offered by many publishers (e.g. Emerald offers Peerwith) and many universities also keep records of individual copy-editors or companies that they recommend. However, note that none of these provide a guarantee as by and large these ameliorate only the spelling and grammar of your text – they rarely improve the quality or clarity of your arguments. Perhaps a better alternative is to ask a native English speaker for a review. We emphasize that none of these offers a panacea that will result in an error-free manuscript. Indeed, one of us is a native English speaker and received a review comment at a different journal “The manuscript can be improved significantly by having edited by [sic] a proficient/native English writer.” Equivalently, one of us has recommended in our editorial comments to authors that they get their manuscript copy-edited, only to be told that it already had been, which suggests the copy-editing was substandard. Ultimately, thorough editing across multiple drafts is needed to achieve concise, accurate, clear and interesting writing.

Beyond these issues of the quality of writing, we note also that authors, in presenting the unique contributions of their work, should link into ongoing research conversations in JMP and/or other journals. It is generally the case that a manuscript that has very few or even no citations to a journal is a bad fit for that journal. Citations that link to ongoing conversations in JMP and/or other journals allow authors to identify both how their research contributes to those ongoing discussions, as well as the distinctive contribution of their research (Stone, 2010).

Finally, authors should follow JMP's style guide in preparing their manuscripts. This includes Harvard style referencing in the body of the manuscript and the reference section. Tables and figures should adhere to American Psychological Association (APA) style (APA, 2020). Authors who do not attend to these important details convey an impression of sloppiness in their work, and thus reduce the editorial and review team members' confidence in the quality of the manuscript. Articles that are too long (or too short) will be rejected by the editorial assistant, delaying the progress of your manuscript. Please note JMP's guidelines on word count, and the standard word allowance per table or figure. Note also that JMP requires a concise title; reviewing the titles of recently published articles may be helpful.

There can be no doubt: knowledge creation is a challenging endeavor and successful scholars must hone myriad skills spanning from creative inspiration to painstakingly detailed record keeping. Here, we take a step toward JMP's mission to be a developmental journal and provide current advice based on recent rejections at JMP to help scholars improve the quality of their research and scientific reporting. While there exist a host of concerns when embarking on a project or constructing a manuscript, space prohibits us from covering them all; we hope this present exposition helps current and prospective authors achieve publication of their work in JMP and elsewhere.