1. Reflections on the Review Process A. Parasuraman University of Miami SERVSIG Doctoral Marketing Consortium 29 June 2006

2. © Professor A. Parasuraman; not to be reproduced or disseminated without permission 2 Presentation Outline Understanding the review process Grounds for desk rejection Assignment of reviewers Editor’s interpretation of the reviews Responding to reviewer feedback Handling rejections Handling resubmissions Crafting articles to minimize reviewer criticisms

3. © Professor A. Parasuraman; not to be reproduced or disseminated without permission 3 Grounds for Desk Rejection  Lack of fit with the journal’s positioning  Absence of scholarly rigor  Lack of (or no) overlap between the reference list and extant literature pertaining to the journal’s domain  Evidence of serious sloppiness

4. © Professor A. Parasuraman; not to be reproduced or disseminated without permission 4 Assignment of Reviewers  Paper’s main topic(s)/theme(s)  Authors cited in the references  Board members vs. ad hoc reviewers  Numbering of reviewers

5. © Professor A. Parasuraman; not to be reproduced or disseminated without permission 5 Editor’s Interpretation of the Reviews  Care with which the review has been prepared  Reviewer’s recommendation to the editor  Reviewer’s past reviewing history  Degree of consistency across the reviews

6. © Professor A. Parasuraman; not to be reproduced or disseminated without permission 6 Responding to Reviewers’ Comments  Be cordial…not confrontational  Be comprehensive…not selective…in responding to comments  Use “Reviewer Comment – Author Response” type format in preparing the responses  Do not pit one reviewer against another  Make sure that the changes implied by the author’s responses are incorporated in the paper

7. © Professor A. Parasuraman; not to be reproduced or disseminated without permission 7 Handling Rejections  Sleep on it for a few days to allow time for the initial emotions to wear off  View the feedback constructively and capitalize on it to strengthen the paper – never dismiss the feedback as being flawed, biased, useless, etc.  Appeal the editor’s decision sparingly and only if you are convinced of gross injustice  Never resubmit the paper “as is” to another journal

8. © Professor A. Parasuraman; not to be reproduced or disseminated without permission 8 Handling Resubmissions  Be diligent in addressing the reviewers’ comments and editor’s specific instructions (if any)  When in doubt seek the editor’s advice  Revise and resubmit as soon as possible  The probability of eventual acceptance and publication increases dramatically after a request for resubmission – do not squander this opportunity!

9. © Professor A. Parasuraman; not to be reproduced or disseminated without permission 9 Crafting Articles to Minimize Reviewer Criticisms Three excellent sources of advice:  Varadarajan (JM, Oct. 1996, pp. 3-6) – From the Editor: Reflections on Research and Publishing  Summers (JAMS, Fall 2001, pp. 405-415) – Guidelines for Conducting Research and Publishing in Marketing: From Conceptualization Through the Review Process  Stewart (JM, Oct. 2002, pp. 1-6) – Getting Published: Reflections of an Old Editor

10. © Professor A. Parasuraman; not to be reproduced or disseminated without permission 10 Crafting Articles to Minimize Reviewer Criticisms Literature Review – should be an insightful synthesis rather than simply an overview Constructs – should be clearly defined, and compared and contrasted with previously studied constructs Model/Framework – should be well- grounded in extant theories and/or an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon of interest

11. © Professor A. Parasuraman; not to be reproduced or disseminated without permission 11 Crafting Articles to Minimize Reviewer Criticisms…continued Operationalization of constructs – should provide evidence of reliability as well as different types of validity Analyses – should be appropriate for the type and measurement level of the data Discussion – should highlight contributions, rather than simply describing the results already presented

12. © Professor A. Parasuraman; not to be reproduced or disseminated without permission 12 Limitations – should not be used as a substitute for inadequate planning and thought prior to conducting the study Significance of the contribution – should be demonstrated convincingly Crafting Articles to Minimize Reviewer Criticisms…continued

13. © Professor A. Parasuraman; not to be reproduced or disseminated without permission 13 Writing – should be:  Succinct  Logical  Error-free  Checked by a professional copyeditor, if necessary  A pleasure to read! Crafting Articles to Minimize Reviewer Criticisms…continued

14. © Professor A. Parasuraman; not to be reproduced or disseminated without permission 14 Please consider the Journal of Service Research as your first-choice publication outlet for you best-quality service research! jsr@miami.edu A Request…

15. © Professor A. Parasuraman; not to be reproduced or disseminated without permission 15 Thank you and good luck!