Abstract
Getting a positive nod from editors and reviewers is an essential hurdle that all research papers must overcome before getting published in a scholarly journal such as Family Business Review (FBR). 1 By its very nature, the blind review process requires the authors of a manuscript to convince reviewers and editors that their research fits the scope of the journal, is rigorous, and makes a significant contribution to knowledge in the field. This task of convincing fellow experts has to be accomplished through the manuscript (including revisions) that describes a study, and through the answers to questions and comments of editors and reviewers contained in the response letter(s). Of course, while all research published in an academic journal must be scientifically rigorous and make a contribution to the literature, the rigor and contribution of a study are both continuous variables that fall within a continuum with easy-to-detect extremities of high and low at the two ends and a large gray area in between. Authors, reviewers, and editors have their own ideas of the degrees of rigor and contribution needed for publication in a specific journal. Yet these three parties must come to an agreement for any manuscript to be accepted, making it a negotiated settlement.
An important question to consider is why are some authors more successful than others in getting work of similar rigor and contribution published? In this editorial, we continue FBR’s tradition of publishing editorials that help authors improve their chances of getting their manuscripts published. 2 Our aim is to demystify the editorial and review process by drawing on our experiences as authors, reviewers, and editors, to shed light on this question. 3 We believe the variance in success of publishing work of similar rigor and significance is at least partly because some authors are better than others in appreciating and understanding the mind-set of editors and reviewers. Authors aware of this mind-set will be better at converting the review process into a collective effort among authors, reviewers, and editors that maximizes the knowledge creation potential and readability of their work. In other words, these authors are better at not only “closing the deal” but also at improving their manuscripts.
Getting Published
The formula for getting a manuscript published seems deceptively simple, with an emphasis on deceptively. For family business research, the four-step process starts with authors coming up with interesting research questions, that when addressed, will change scholarly understanding of the motivation, behavior, or performance of family firms. As elaborated in the editorial by Salvato and Aldrich (2012), while there are many sources of inspiration for generating interesting research questions, in professional fields like family business studies, researchers with closer linkages to practice and/or prior literature are better positioned to identify questions that lead to usable knowledge that is not only published but also well-read and cited (cf. Lindblom & Cohen, 1979). Objectives such as simply “getting published” may be more dominant in earlier career stages. Over time, however, most scholars hope to make a difference in the mind-sets of other researchers and ultimately practitioners (Vermeulen, 2007; Zahra & Sharma, 2004). But, this does not always happen.
The next step is to design and execute a rigorous study aimed to build or test theory that addresses the research questions. A misfit between theory, methods, and empirics is the most commonly observed error in this step. Ideally, the theory selected should be able to deal with the different aspects of the research questions. Similarly, the methods and empirics chosen should be appropriate for investigating these questions. Given the rapid growth and development of the family business literature, there is some advantage to selecting a topic that is narrow enough to allow the study to do justice to the research questions and to fit the expertise of the authors.
Preparing the manuscript is the third step. Pragmatic guidance on this step has been provided in the frequently downloaded FBR editorial titled: “The Anatomy of a Paper” (Reuber & Sharma, 2013). More successful authors realize the subtle yet critical distinction between the quality of the research and the quality of the manuscript submitted. In our experience, a poorly written manuscript reporting a good research study is about as likely to be rejected as a well-written manuscript with a poor research design. At this stage, seeking candid and critical feedback from colleagues is useful. Another useful technique is to set the paper aside for a period of time before giving it a final polish. We have found this to be almost as valuable as getting feedback from colleagues as it allows authors to clear their minds, thereby seeing the paper in a fresh light and from a different perspective. This is where we find writing with coauthors to be a great advantage because when one author has already gone blurry-eyed reading the manuscript, a coauthor can take over with eyes that are refreshed from not having read it for a while. Authors of the Academy of Management Journal’s best papers have reported engaging in at least 10 revisions before they felt their paper was ready for submission (cf. Grant & Pollock, 2011). Even this short editorial went through a similar number of revisions, which included making adjustments based on the advice of friendly reviewers who helped us rectify problems with the way we explained our points as well as identify additional perspectives on the topic. 4
The last step for authors is to submit the paper to the right journal, which means the journal whose editorial policy and focus at the particular point in time best fits the research question addressed (Craig, 2010). Most successful scholars tend to remain vigilant of any changes in the editorial policies of their target journals. For example, when a journal switches from accepting family business papers on any topic to accepting only family business papers that focus on entrepreneurship, one clearly should not submit a family business paper that does not address entrepreneurship to that journal. One way scholars new to a field of study can stay in touch with such changes and developments is through active participation in conferences.
While easy to articulate, these steps are difficult to accomplish; however, most scholars are familiar with the process. Another obvious, but somewhat neglected point, is that getting published also depends on the authors’ ability to convince reviewers and editors that the study adds value to the literature. To achieve this objective, authors must understand the mind-sets of editors and reviewers.
The Mind-Set of Editors
Past FBR editorials have discussed the various dimensions of the job of journal editors, including their vision and strategies (Sharma, 2016; Webb & Kammerlander, 2016). Here, we highlight three aspects guiding editors’ mind-sets: (1) the quality–quantity trade-off, (2) risk bearing, and (3) balancing personal perspectives with the perspectives of reviewers.
The Quality–Quantity Trade-Off
Journal editors have the dual responsibility of advancing their field of study by publishing the most interesting and rigorous research while ensuring timely publication of their journal. By publishing articles that make important contributions and attract follow-up studies, they help channel research in the field in directions that maximize knowledge creation. Such papers tend to get cited often and, thus, also improve the journal’s ranking which, in turn, attracts more quality submissions.
In fast-growing fields such as family business, with a regular influx of new participants from sister disciplines and doctoral programs, the standards of rigor and the expectations of reviewers continue to evolve and change quite rapidly. Invariably, expectations go up, not down. Thus, while the number of submissions continues to increase, so does the rejection rate (Sharma, 2017). Amid these evolving standards and expectations, however, the journal must be published regularly to deliver on the contract with its publisher. Thus, editors must continuously manage the trade-off between the quality and quantity of the articles published. If all submitted manuscripts get rejected, there will be nothing to publish. On the other hand, if manuscripts weak on rigor or contribution get accepted, the reputation of the journal will suffer. If this occurs, the trade-off between quality and quantity becomes more difficult to manage in an acceptable fashion because a smaller quantity of quality manuscripts will be submitted to the journal.
Editor Risk Bearing
Editors are typically appointed for limited term contracts. The editor of FBR, for example, is given a 3-year contract, which is generally renewable for two terms. Nevertheless, an academic career can span a period of three decades or more. Thus, editors tend to be mindful that their job performance will influence their reputation as a scholar. This reality, combined with the heavy volume of work, makes editors conscious of the risk they bear if mistakes are inadvertently made during their terms. They will weigh the cost to their reputation of mistakenly rejecting a good paper (Type I error) versus that of erroneously accepting a bad paper (Type II error). Rejecting a paper might be the wrong decision but it is not a wrong decision that will be forever emblazoned on the pages of the journal, as would be the case of a decision that leads to the mistaken acceptance of a theory paper that is based on faulty logic or an empirical paper not quite up to the normal methodological standards of the journal. For example, few people will ever know the names of the editors who rejected Nobel Prize winning papers, but it is easy to identify the names of editors who presided over the decline in quality of a journal by accepting second-rate papers. Thus, it is no wonder that many editors are averse to making independent judgments about the papers they are assigned because that entails the risk of a Type II error. That is why they rely, sometimes excessively, on the opinions of reviewers in making decisions. But, herein, lies another dilemma: Reviewers can be wrong too!
Balancing Perspectives
The peer-review process requires authors not only to satisfy the editor but also the reviewers. The nature of knowledge creation is such that no editor can stay current on all the developments in the field. This is particularly true in a rapidly growing field such as family business. Thus, editors rely on the reviewers they select to have expertise in the topics, theories, or methods used in a manuscript. Moreover, as scholars themselves, editors have their own preferences and biases that are at least partially a product of their training and experiences as academics.
Decisions are relatively easy if the editor and reviewers agree on the strengths and weaknesses of a piece. But, in many cases, there are substantial variations in the perspectives among the reviewers as well as between the reviewers and the editor that renders decision making difficult. Unfortunately, academic training encourages individuals to be extremely cautious and critical, and to shun definitive statements by qualifying everything to the nth degree. 5 Furthermore, the search for “truth” causes academics to want perfection even though perfection cannot exist. These characteristics create a certain amount of internal conflict in the minds of editors because their job is to make decisions about the level of imperfection that is acceptable, which flies in the face of their training as academics.
Among the most difficult decisions for editors are when the reviewers are split in their recommendations. This is why we see so many “high-risk revision” decisions. Editors are well aware that all decision letters, including reviews, go not only to the authors but also to all reviewers. Despite anonymity of reviewers and authors, the editor’s identity is known. This creates in the minds of editors a dilemma of how to balance their own perspectives with those of the reviewers while being fair to the authors. For each manuscript, the editor must act in either a passive (accepting the reviewers’ recommendations at face value) or assertive manner (going beyond the reviewers’ comments to summarize, reconcile, add to, or even overrule). Typically, this is based on the editors’ (1) philosophy of their role in the process, (2) perception of the level of expertise and diligence of the reviewers, and (3) judgment about the potential of the author(s) to effectively respond to the comments and guidance received. 6
The Mind-Set of Reviewers
In annual reviews of most academics, reviewing falls in the “professional service” category that is often times valued less than publications or teaching activities. Short-term rewards for reviewing are minimal (Carr & Voordeckers, 2015; Sharma & Kellermanns, 2009). Management journals seldom compensate reviewers (or editors) and time consumed in reviewing cannot be spent on other tasks that are more valued in annual assessments. Besides, most scholars are pressed for time. Thus, it is no surprise that even though many scholars value being on the review boards of major journals in their fields, the invitation to review is almost always received with mixed feelings. Consequently, manuscripts are often presumed to be guilty until they are proven innocent (cf. Short, 2012) because justifying a rejection takes less time than providing detailed comments and suggestions about how the manuscript may be improved. What this means is that reviewers will not waste a lot of time trying to figure out a confusing, ambiguous, or poorly written manuscript. However, in their role (along with editors) as gatekeepers for the quality of the journal, they will spend time on due diligence. Indeed, the good ones really do not miss much. Unfortunately, being people, reviewers sometimes let their worldviews as well as personal biases regarding theory, methods, and even manuscript structure influence their decisions. Authors, therefore, need to keep this in mind because as they attempt to plant new ideas alongside or in place of old ideas, the reviewers are likely to be the individuals whose ideas the authors are attempting to supplant.
In addition, as anyone who submits papers to journals soon discovers, reviewers often do not agree in their evaluations of a manuscript or in their remedies to improve a manuscript. Compounding the problem for authors who are fortunate enough to receive a “revise and resubmit” decision, are three other characteristics of some reviewers that can create considerable problems in the review process. First, for reasons of benevolence, reluctance to seem unkind, or simply of passing the buck to the editor, reviewers often recommend “revise” when they really mean “reject.” This discrepancy is often made clear when comparing the reviewers’ comments to the authors versus their comments to the editor. 7 Second, reviewers often hold strong beliefs that their assessments, opinions, and interpretations are invariably correct and take exception to those who hold different assessments, opinions, or interpretations. Third, reviewers sometimes do not appreciate the subtle distinction between making a recommendation (their role) and making a decision (the editor’s role). Thus, they are not always willing to judge a revised manuscript for what it is rather than for what it was. These three aspects of the reviewers’ mind-set can lead to a vicious circle in the review process, where a manuscript continues to get revise and resubmit decisions, but moves no closer to publication. Of course, this problem is especially acute when combined with an editor who is more passive than assertive in handling manuscripts. 8
Making Editors and Reviewers Happy
The picture we have painted above is not pretty. But, it is a realistic depiction of some of the behind-the-scene issues that authors could face to a greater or, hopefully, lesser degree. Fortunately, just as it is possible to conceive, design, and execute a study that potentially contributes to the literature, it is also possible to sell the study to editors and reviewers in a way that will make them happy. Indeed, prior editorials have dealt with issues such as fit, the importance of the introduction, making the paper interesting, and so on (e.g., Craig, 2010; Salvato & Aldrich, 2012; Short, 2012). To this, we would add some simple suggestions related to the original manuscript, the revision and the response letter, and becoming part of the scholarly community.
Research Papers Are Not Detective Novels
A research paper should not be a detective novel hiding the most important piece of information until the end. Indeed, authors must guide the reader through the manuscript by conveying the message clearly and consistently. It is the authors’ responsibility to make sure the reader knows upfront the contributions that the study intends to make. In addition, the message needs to be reinforced by pointing out the highlights of the manuscript (i.e., uniqueness of the insights, concepts, or methodology) without drifting off the path; each sentence should help move the reader along the pathway toward the destination which is to convince the reader that the manuscript has delivered on what the authors have promised. Recap or summarize often without being too repetitive so that the reader knows how what has been read up to that point fits with the intended contribution and addresses the study’s research questions. Doing so will ease the concerns of editors over manuscript quality and reduce fears of making a Type II error (accepting it when it should have been rejected). It will also provide evidence to the reviewers that the manuscript crosses the threshold of rigor and contribution considered acceptable for the journal at that point in time.
Tight on time, editors and reviewers are happier when they get what they are led to expect, when what they get is complete, and when, very quickly and clearly, they are convinced that what they are getting is reliable and legitimate with respect to the contributions claimed. Furthermore, each journal tends to develop its own preferences for what material to present as well as where and how the material should be presented (Reuber & Sharma, 2013). Authors should become familiar with previous articles published in the journal and perhaps draw inspiration from a handful of exemplars as to how the research story should unfold in each section and each paragraph. Such deconstruction helps, as do efforts in getting additional training at workshops specifically focused on the crafting of scholarly manuscripts for journal submissions. Authors will find it helpful to work with researchers who have successfully published in the focal journal as some nuances associated with crafting a manuscript that fits a journal must be learned from experience. Following the expected protocols and procedures can help authors avoid triggering reviewer bias or making their presumption of guilt a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Deliver on Promises
A manuscript will be judged on its ability to achieve the objectives promised by the author in the title, abstract, and the introduction. Simply put, this means that overpromising is a very bad thing and delivering what was promised is a very good thing. Editors and reviewers are not happy when they do not receive what they have been promised and are equally unhappy when the arguments made are incomplete or unconvincing.
There are two dimensions to this issue: first, focusing on a research question that piques the curiosity of the reader and second, fully addressing that question. It is tricky to determine how much to promise as promising too little may not attract the readers’ attention, making it difficult to answer the “what’s new here” question. On the other hand, besides being harder to deliver, promising too much can lead to the “where did this come from” question. It often helps to “shop around” early versions of a paper at conferences to refine the research question so it is just right for the intended audience. The second issue relates to the manuscript itself and whether the research question indicated through the title, abstract, introduction is actually the one that is addressed in the paper. 9 Some authors benefit from writing their research question on a post-it note and making sure they do not deviate from it throughout the manuscript. Again, friendly reviewers can be useful to gauge how well the manuscript delivers on its promises.
Authors should remember that only about two thirds of the submissions to FBR make it beyond the editor’s desk and into the review process; invitations to revise are given to only about one out of every five papers sent out for review; but, approximately two thirds of the papers that are revised are eventually accepted for publication. What this means is that a revise and resubmit is a golden opportunity for authors. In fact, it is the best outcome that authors should expect from the initial submission. The editor and reviewers (noting stipulations and vagaries aforementioned) have bought in and all that remains is to close the deal, although such closure is no certainty by any means. Indeed, the revision process involves some of the hardest and least “fun” work of all. Nevertheless, the authors now have valuable (but not necessarily complete) information on the mind-sets of the editors and reviewers as well as on the parameters for success. In this respect, we offer the following advice. 10
Remember the Big Picture
There are a great many issues that editors and reviewers will raise and these must be addressed. However, the authors must be mindful that in dealing with these concerns, the big picture and big contribution of the study is not lost. Although an invitation to revise brings authors closer to getting their manuscript published, if the cost of this is having to change the contributions one is trying to make, authors should pause to decide whether the price is too high and whether making such a dramatic change will really lead to the desired outcome.
Decision letters tend to address both major and minor issues. So, authors should first identify the issues they consider to be more crucial to the main contribution of their study to the field. They should not worry or argue about the small stuff; instead, they should do what is asked and move on to the next comment. Authors should pay close attention to the comments received on big issues and choose their battles wisely. A balance should be struck between recognizing constructive and legitimate criticism and maintaining the integrity of the paper and its contribution to the literature. Responding effectively to legitimate advice on big issues is essential to the final acceptance of a manuscript. Yet, too much compromise may destroy the fabric of the contribution and actually lead to still more revisions (the vicious circle) or, worse, rejection if in satisfying individual comments or individual reviewers, the Type II risk of editors is aggravated.
Succinct yet Comprehensive Changes and Response Letters
Editors and reviewers notice when something they asked for is overlooked. On the other hand, it is equally important to avoid changes that alter the nature of the paper but do not directly deal with one or more of the comments of the editor or the reviewers; such changes could cause the editor and/or reviewers to view the revision as a “new paper” that invokes all the negative connotations associated with new papers discussed above. Thus, it helps to stay as focused as possible on the changes recommended, making only the necessary adjustments in the manuscript, and noting them in the response letter.
Writing response letters is an important skill in itself (Shaw, 2012). Keeping in mind how time-pressed reviewers and editors are, it is important to prepare a well-formatted, easy-to-follow response letter that specifically addresses how each comment was handled in the revision. Another good idea is to avoid engaging in long philosophical discussions concerning the revisions, which may exacerbate ambiguities and concerns and ultimately, serve as an invitation for the editor and reviewers to find more things wrong with the revised paper. It is okay to disagree with the editor and reviewers regarding their interpretations and comments on the manuscript. But, explaining those points of disagreement in a manner that is polite and nonconfrontational always takes the authors further even (or perhaps especially) when faced with preconceived notions and biases on the part of editors and/or reviewers. In this vein, it helps to keep in mind the iron rules of the publication process: (1) the editor and reviewers are generally always right; (2) when the editor and reviewers are wrong, see Rule 1; (3) the editor and reviewers make the rules, know the rules, and expect the authors to follow the rules.
Become Part of Your Scholarly Community
An important reason one aspires to publish in a journal is to change the mind-sets of other experts in the field, on whose positive nod an author is reliant. How better to understand this mind-set than learning-by-reviewing? As we noted earlier, there are short-term costs associated with reviewing, but there are many long-term benefits, not the least of which is the positive impact it can have on an author’s own success in publishing in a particular journal, and getting that work read and cited. Reviewing and carefully following the scholarly conversation in decision letters is an efficient way to understand, with minimal personal cost, the mind-set of editors and reviewers of a journal. Moreover, it is an effective way to build social capital with important gatekeepers in the field (Carr & Voordeckers, 2015; Sharma & Kellermanns, 2009). The aura of such contributions made by an author also might play a role (at least implicitly) when an action editor selects reviewers for that author’s papers or has to decide whether to offer a revision when the recommendations of the reviewers are split. In his book, Give and Take, Adam Grant (2013) makes a compelling case of why generous people tend to be more successful over the long term. To paraphrase his words: Being a giver is not a good short-term strategy, but it is a valuable long-term recipe for success. Since academic careers are not made in a vacuum, taking a long-term orientation is probably not a bad idea. Indeed, that is one of the key advantages of family firms cited in the literature (e.g., Chua, Chrisman, & Sharma, 1999) so we would be wise to take our own advice.
Conclusion
In this editorial, we have discussed some of the basics in getting published, described the general mind-set of editors and reviewers, and outlined what it takes to makes editors and reviewers happy. We believe that understanding the mind-set of editors and reviewers will improve authors’ ability to get their research published and prepare them to become better editors and reviewers in their own right. This is important because regularly publishing in quality journals is necessary for professional growth (Wright & Sharma, 2013).
Our main message is that publication is as much about selling ideas as it is about doing good research. They are two sides of the same coin; both are necessary but neither is sufficient by itself to ensure publication success. We also hope that authors will better appreciate the human side of editors and reviewers—that all the traits and mind-sets that are noble or otherwise exist in each of us. Understanding manifestations of those traits and mind-sets in others can help us understand how to respond as well as how they manifest in ourselves. Gaining such understanding will make us better authors, reviewers, and editors, as well as more agreeable people to be around.