#Publishing in Top Academic #Journals
I wanted to share in this thread some of the principal thoughts of my 'publishing talk' that I have been giving for a while. It goes beyond this paper "Crafting a JMR #Manuscript"
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1509/jmr.15.0343
#marketing #PhD

Do not underestimate the power of a well-written #manuscript! Its not written, its *crafted*, - the sum of many interconnecting parts. The substantive findings are core, but the way the findings are communicated is no small factor in determining a manuscript’s eventual success.

First course of business: establish #relevance!
Start in an exciting, compelling way (an example would be great; pick a specific, non-generic example).
Then, expand the viewpoint to discuss the ‘class’ of problems.
Develop why it is important and relevant to study the phenomenon

*Spell* out the research questions and contributions (number or bullet the RQs! Have them in one place).

Elaborate explicitly on the specific intended #contribution
“First, our main contribution is …; second, we show that …; third, we establish that …”

In the discussion section later, refer back to (exactly the same!) research questions and contributions.

Make sure you define properly your terms early on (and consistently refer to these terms and definitions)

#Literature review
-tie it closely to your RQs, evaluate pertinent literature *critically*, involving judicious weighing of existing results
-lead to a conclusion regarding *your* research (readers want analysis)
-highlight how you fill the *relevant gap* in the literature

Limited number of #hypotheses;
3-6 is more of the norm, 10 is unusual

Be careful with opposing hypotheses (often they don’t look strong).

#Method section
Add detail and let reviewers know what you know. In the first version, provide rather more than less information.

Describe why the chosen methodology and #data ‘exactly’ matches the requirements for answering your RQ. This is where you need to do some selling.

#Results section
List and describe substantive effects/results. No elaboration per se.
Be sure that you discuss (if applicable)
-Alternative operationalizations
-Robustness checks
-Explanation of unexpected results

#Discussion section
Core of the paper (but not a repetition of the results section)
Contextual interpretation of the findings, evaluation of results, and implications are derived.
Show how researchers and practitioners should go about differently, because of these new insights

#Implications section

Implications for research
3 is a good number
What changes for researchers given *your* results?

Implications for practice
3 is a good number
What changes for practitioners given *your* results?

Process of #writing (1)
Have your results ready/finished when starting to write the manuscript

Before you start the actual writing
-Spell out the research questions
-Produce an outline (sections, unfolding of substantive story)
-Have the main contribution laid out in bullets

Process of #writing (2)
-There is not THE section to start with
-Probably results/methodology section are easiest
-Introduction writing comes relatively late
-Be utterly consistent with your terminology and nomenclature
-If you write 1 good page per day, you’re doing fabulous.

#Exposition
-A lousy exposition leads to a disinterested reviewer at best. Mostly, it turns them off.
-Technical exposition (grammar, typos) vs. logical exposition (argument) vs. narrative exposition (persuasion)
-If not a native English speaker: must! use a copy editor

All of these pointers are predominantly from an empirical marketing point of view but I trust they hold more widely too. Comments welcome
#phdlife @WiSoUniCologne @UniCologne @AMA_Marketing @AMA_CBSIG @IJRMktg @JRetailing @JAMS_updates @vhbonline @AcademyOfIndia1 @CaitLamberton