Manuscript development workshop
- 1. SGBED 2016 Manuscript Development Workshop Vasant Raval vraval@creighton.edu Heider College of Business Creighton University Omaha, USA
- 2. In my opinion, • Research record remains a unique footprint for every researcher. • Choice of a domain is driven by various factors – Dissertation topic/committee, interests of colleagues, courses taught, frustration over the current state, or just plain curiosity. • Qualitative and quantitative research • Research for practice vs. research as a practice
- 3. GAPS • Gaps in . . . (Claudio De Mattos) • Gaps in the existing landscape • Gaps at the frontier – Early development of ideas • Insurance policy for driverless cars – Examples: Big data, technology shock, cybersecurity disclosures and market price effect
- 4. Research quality TOY QUESTION, TOY METHOD SIGNIFICANT QUESTION, TOY METHOD TOY QUESTION, SIGNIFICANT METHOD SIGNIFICANT QUESTION, SIGNIFICANT METHOD RESEARCH QUESTION RESEARCH METHOD, DATA How od you know a question is significant?
- 5. Identifying one’s strength • What kind of research do I excel at? What do I need to do to deepen my domain expertise? – Does it makes sense to change my domain every few years? • What type methodologies am I competent in? • Do I need a co-researcher? – as a supplemental/complementary thinktank. – as someone who will keep me on track. – as a constructive critique on the project.
- 6. Research career progression – the 10,000-hour rule (Malcolm Gladwell) • Presentations at professional meetings. – Discussant feedback. Make a log; ask for clarification; consider revisions; co-opt the discussant? • Proceedings publications. • Discussant and session-chair roles. • Journal column/weekly questions/blog contributor. • Book chapters. • Ad hoc reviewer; reviewer. • Early publications in light-weight journals. • Upgrading the publication source.
- 7. Before submitting your work: • Select the publication source. – At what stage of the manuscript development should one select the publication? – What criteria should the author follow? • Spellcheck the manuscript. • Verify that the manuscript follows the style guideline of the journal. • Check if the citations include at least one or two references to past publications in the same journal. – Suggests fit between the manuscript and the journal.
- 8. Feedback from reviewers and next steps • Who might have reviewed your paper? What is his/her background? Is your paper unique enough that reviewer backgrounds may not fit? Do the reviewers agree? Converge? • Typical feedback and next steps: – Do not publish • Carefully assess the significance of reasons for rejection. Do you agree? Disagree? – Publish with minor revisions • Identify the expected revisions. • Consider each separately to see if you agree with the call to revise. Will the revision change substantively your paper? • Make revisions where appropriate. • Prepare a table showing what was asked for and what you changed. Send it along with the revised manuscript. – Consider major revisions and resubmittal
- 9. Major revision and resubmittal • Identify and comprehend what is asked for. Understand why it is asked for. – Do you agree it is a major revision? – Do you agree that if revised, the paper would be more “truthful”? • What do you do if you don’t agree on some of the suggested revisions? • Make the revisions within the given deadline. • Prepare a table showing what was asked for and what you changed. Send it along with the revised manuscript.
- 10. My six - • Be selective of your domain. – What are you passionate about? What can you do that will help the profession or education? • Keep the pipeline full. • Avoid the tendency to treat research as a residual item on the To-do list. Allocate chunks of time and stick to the calendar. • Don’t be afraid of ejecting failed attempts; it is a part of the learning. • Monitor your progress along research career path. Continue beyond the tenure process. • The hardest part is finding competent and well-read researchers to read your work and provide feedback.