How to survive the review process HSE, Moscow November 2015

How to Survive the Review Process Journals in different disciplines have different styles, norms etc: – Quantitative vs qualitative methodology – Emphasis on theoretical contribution, empirical rigour – Explicit statements of hypotheses Comments relate to papers submitted to (3* & 4*) Management journals What is the contribution of the paper? – Is it significant? – Is the contribution expressed clearly?

The Decision on the Original Submission Brace yourself! – Rejection rates (particularly at 3* & 4* journals) are often high Common reasons for rejection: – The paper does not fit with the journal’s objectives/readership – The contribution is unclear, or is judged to be small – Poor or inappropriate methodology – Poor presentation Invitation to revise & resubmit: – A cause for minor celebration – A long way to go, but you are still “in the game”

Revise & Resubmit The Reviewers are not always wise, knowledgeable and perceptive – but you should assume that they are: – You need the approval of the reviewers before the paper can be accepted for publication – It is your responsibility to communicate your ideas to the reviewers, not the reviewers’ responsibility to figure out what you are trying to say Think of the R&R process as an opportunity to improve the paper, rather than simply a tedious distraction Five categories of reviewers’ comments: – Very difficult, without a considerable amount of work – Difficult, but feasible – Easy – Off-the-mark – Crazy

The Covering Letter Allocate considerable time and effort, and provide point-by-point responses to each comment Show that you have engaged fully and constructively with the comments, rather than treating them as annoying distractions Be respectful, especially if you are taking issue with any of the comments Remember that the reviewers will have devoted considerable time to their reviews, and for no reward

Final Comments The peer review process is not perfect, but nobody has yet come up with something better – Reviewers may not be wise, knowledgeable and perceptive – Sometimes good papers are rejected, whilst poor papers are accepted Only appeal to the Editor in exceptional circumstances: – Editors generally stand by their reviewers’ judgments – If different reviewers give opposing instructions – If one reviewer gives contradictory instructions

Final Comments Everybody – with no exception – has had papers rejected: – Try to take lessons from the feedback – Seek advice from colleagues and/or enlist co-authors with complementary expertise – Try, try again Publishing in good (3* & 4*) journals is getting tougher: – Journals receive more submissions – Reviewers are tougher – After a few rejections, go for 2* journal – then move on to the next paper

And finally ….. Down the impact factor ladder