2. Margunn Aanestad and Tiwonge Manda
Publishing, contribution etc…
PhD days February 2015

3. The Editor-in-Chief does the initial screening of manuscripts
Review process
The Editor-in-Chief does the initial screening of manuscripts
is the focus of the paper within the scope of the journal?
does the research represent a potential contribution?
is the presentation quality adequate (language, structure, references, etc.)?
If passing the screening, one of the editors is assigned as Associate Editor to handle the review process, and sends the manuscript for a double-blind review by three reviewers.
The initial round of review normally does not take longer than ten weeks from the date of submission.

4. Most manuscripts go through 2-3 rounds of reviews.
Review process
The Associate Editor sends his report together with the three reviews to the authors. In the first round, manuscripts normally receive one of the following evaluations:
revise and resubmit
conditional acceptance with major revision
reject
Most manuscripts go through 2-3 rounds of reviews.
For each revision, the authors need to submit a report explaining how the comments in the AE report have been addressed
If accepted, authors do final formatting according to instructions from the production manager. The formatted manuscript is proof read by the authors before publication.

5. Some tips for successful submission
Present a clear argument for the contribution of the paper in the introduction
what is new? how does this paper contribute to extant research
present an explicit problem statement and/or research question(s)
the detailed review of related research should not be presented in the introduction, but in a separate section
Present a thorough review of related research
Position your research within the relevant stream(s) of research
Cover recent work in the relevant area(s)
Check for relevant papers in the journal’s archive

6. Some tips for successful submission
Present explicitly your theoretical lens
Present your research method in sufficient detail
Especially for qualitative studies, be sure to explain how your data was collected and analyzed
In discussion and concluding sections, present explicitly the new knowledge contributed from your research and its validity
Do not present claims/arguments that cannot be supported by your empirical findings and/or previous research
Discuss implications for practice and further research

7. Some tips for successful submission
Make sure your paper is technically in shape
proof read, if needed get language assistance
have someone read through the manuscript before submission
check references
Take advantage of the comments!
In the review process, show endurance
take the reviewers’ comments seriously and address these in your response
be prepared to work with conflicting reviews
be willing to undertake major revisions of your manuscript

9. Publishing – Personal Experiences
Purpose, Opportunity, Time, Resilience/Persistence, Courage, collaboration

10. Publishing – Personal Experiences
Purpose
What is it that you want to talk about and why?
Audience
general research community + Outlet focus
Knowledge of key literature
Opportunity
Novelty
Special Issues
Time
Time to develop your ideas
Time to get a publication through
You have other things ongoing

11. Publishing – Personal Experieces
Resilence/Persistence
Keep on keeping on
identifying positive aspects of long nerve-wrecking reviews (moving from SJIS to ISJ)

12. Publishing – Personal Experiences
Courage
Swimming in the deeper end – trying your hand at high end journals
More difficult
Better reviews
Good adrenaline
Test ideas beyond your homeground
Collaboration
You can see things in a different light
Work with experienced others

13. Some Examples with papers

15. What is a contribution? Walsham 1995 Concept development
Theory generation
Specific implications
Rich insights

16. What is a contribution?
Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997) - strategies for constructing a contribution:
Structuring intertextual coherence
How do you write the literature review?
Problematizing context for contribution
How do you claim that you have spotted a «gap»?
Positioning as translating interests
How do you argue…

18. Where to publish? Senior Editors’ «basket of eight»:
MISQ, ISR, ISJ, JAIS, EJIS, ISJ, JIT, JMIS, JSIS
GI group ~10 years ago:
«A level»: MISQ, ISR, Inf&Org, Org Science, STHV, Inf.Society
«B level»: ISJ, JAIS, EJIS, SJIS, IT&P, CSCW, EJISDC,
Today?
IT&D, JHIDC, AHIJ, etc
AMR, ASQ, ORG, Org Studies, HR, ML