How to Design and Publish High-Quality Research?

How to Design and Publish High-Quality Research?Goals of an original research articleYou should be highly motivated (i.e., willingness to work hard). WHY?

Sadaqah Jariyah

Justify your academic existence (knowledge, teaching, society; practice, policy makers. Economy).

Get some research grant

Get promoted

Enrich your curriculum vitae (CV)

Impress your friends (and others)Before we startNecessary conditions for publishing:

Hitting upon a good idea.

Understanding the publication process.

Being willing to learn from the process.

Journal Rankings

Writing a good paper.

What is a good question?Nobody has done it beforeThe research question has an impact Academic community Practitioners (corporate managers and investors) Regulators Readers in other countries (Issues need to be unique)

Key questions at this stageWhat is your research question?

Why is it interesting (i.e., who cares)?

What are your predictions?

What is the incremental contribution to knowledge, theory?

How can you develop interesting questions?No easy answersA few tips Develop your own research interest.

Read recent articles and find out limitations and suggestions for future research.

Read review articles for example: JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING LITERATURE and find reviews on your area of interest and the suggestions for future research.

Write down your ideas.

Explain your ideas to experienced researchers.

Data availability and other requirements for the analysis.Publication Criteria in International JournalsFive criteriaRelevance of issue: is it interesting?Clear motivation.Novel incremental contribution.Rigorous methodology.Clear implications.One more for non-English speakersReasonable writing

Publication Process To fully explain the publishing process and provide top tips and insider knowledge to maximize your chances of publicationGetting published: preliminary issues

Get a feel for standards and the competition in your area.Present and attend conferencesFeedback on your paperIdentify other work in the areaNetwork with peer groupIdentify yourself to key players in your field Present and attend seminars/workshopsSeek feedback from colleagues and expertsTry and link your paper to the interests of experts Dont be disappointed if experts do not respond, they are busy folk with many demands for reviewing.Apply for research grants

Selecting the best journalReputations are made in the best journalsBecome familiar with the range of journals Check relevance of journalManagement accounting, financial accounting, auditingGeneral management and administrationSpecialist management IT, Human Resource Management, Marketing, Strategy, HistoryEducationalAccountingProfessional/Academic (cross over journals e.g. Journal of Cost Management, Australian Accounting Review)Professional (Journal of Accountancy, CPA Journal)Be aware of journal preferences and styleSpecific orientation around research approaches (e.g. JAE - economics based).

Special interest in research (e.g. EAR - European research, Critical Perspectives in Accounting critical theory, Accounting Historian Journal accounting history).

Preference for a style of research TAR, JAR US styled theory driven, hard data

Broad interests covering all areas (e.g. AOS, CAR, AAAJ, EAR)What journal and its style?Identify target journalReview last five years and select papers that are similar in topic and style to yoursDo your own best practice analysis of the structure and style of papers in your areaLearn from others experiences with the journal.Write to the style of target journalCheck instructions to authorsImpresses editors and reviewersEDITORIAL TIMETABLEThe Editor(s) do an initial read to determine if the subject matter and research approach of the manuscript is appropriate for the journal (approximately 1 week).

The Editor(s) identify and contact two reviewers for the manuscript (approximately 1 week).

Reviewers are usually given 6-8 weeks to complete their reviews.

The Editor(s) assess the reviewers' comments and recommendations and make a decision on the manuscript (approximately 2 weeks).

Expected time from submission to review feedback: 3 - 4 months (or longer!!!).EDITORS/REVIEWERS WANTOriginality whats new about subject, treatment or results?

Relevance to and extension of existing knowledge

Research methodology are conclusions valid and objective?

Clarity, structure and quality of writing does it communicate well?

Sound, logical progression of argument

Theoretical and practical implications (the so what? factors!)

Recency and relevance of references

Adherence to the editorial scope and objectives of the journal

TOP TIP 1Dont give an Editor a good reason to give you a desk rejection!!!Bradbury (2012), "Why you don't get published: an editors view", Accounting and Finance 52, 343-358Why desk reject?There is no fit with the journalNo contribution to the literaturePoorly writtenPoorly executed

TOP TIP 2What Editors and Reviewers DO NOT want possibly the worst article ever written!How many mistakes can you identify HERE?SOME ANSWERSThe title is too longThe title is uninteresting and would not catch the eye of a researcherThe authors should not be named on the first page of the article they should be on a separate title pageThis paper does not have a Structured Abstract, despite the instructions in the journalNo author is named as corresponding authorAll authors addresses should be included with the paperThe keywords are OK, however they should include a more general word such as productivity growthThe article does not list the articles JEL Index numbers which all submissions to economics journals should containThere are two spelling mistakes and one grammatical error in just abstractThere is a footnote on the first page all articles for Emerald require endnotes.TOP TIP #3Improve dissemination byUsing short descriptive title containing main keyword

Writing a clear and descriptive abstract containing the main keywords and following any instructions as to content and length

Providing relevant and known keywords

Making your references complete and correct

Make a marketing plan for your work this can include posting your paper on archives (e.g. SSRN), conference etc.

Acknowledgement - conferences, seminarsetc.

SUBMISSIONCover Letter to the editorDear Professor [The Editor] I am pleased to send you a paper that we wish you to consider for possible publication in . This is an entirely new paper that represents a significant contribution to .. literature. It introduces .. Our results have not been demonstrated in any other paper.

We strongly believe that . would be the best place to publish our paper. This paper is our original unpublished work and it has not been submitted to any other journal for review.

The title of the paper is: ..

Looking forward to your response in due course.

Kind regards,Requirement for four experts and sample cover letter Dear Editor of the [please type in journal title]:

Enclosed is an article, entitled .." Please accept it as a candidate for publication in the [journal title]. Below are our responses to your submission requirements.

1. Title and the central theme of the article. Article title: ." This study examines ...

2. Which subject/theme of the journal the material fits.Financial reporting

3. Why the material is important in its field and why the material should be published in the journalBriefly discuss the relevance issue here.

We strongly believe the contribution of this study warrants its publication in the [journal title/acronym].

4. Names, addresses, and email addresses of four international experts in the subject of your paper

Professor. Address.. EmailExpertise:Relationship: I met Dr. .. only once at a conference in .. I do not know him personally.

Finally, this article is our original unpublished work and it has not been submitted to any other journal for review.

Sincerely, Electronic submission/ hard copy submission or bothEuropean Accounting Review: submit onlinehttp://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rear

British Accounting Review: Electronic submission (preferred) in Microsoft Word of any manuscripts for consideration by BAR should be sent to THEBAR@cardiff.ac.uk. Alternatively, four hard copies may be sent to:Jan Richards The British Accounting Review Editorial Assistant Department of Accounting and Finance,Cardiff Business SchoolColum DriveCARDIFF, CF10 3EU

The Australian Journal of Accounting Education- Authors are requested to submit four hard copies of their manuscript to:Jenny Kent (Editor)Australian Journal of Accounting EducationFaculty of CommerceCharles Sturt UniversityLocked Bag 588Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678AustraliaResponse from the target journal

Be patient !

Weeks to several months after MS submission

Decisions: reject, conditional accept, R & R , acceptReject: send MS elsewhere (with/without revision)R & R = revise and resubmitAccept (with no changes required): RARE ! Acceptance without any changes

RARE2. Conditional acceptance decision

Address all concerns/comments of the (1-2) referees

Number all comments of each refereeWrite point-by-point response to every commentAgreement with every comment not mandatoryCan just defend your position (but not too often)

Submission of revised manuscriptPolite cover letter to EditorThank referees for their suggestions and insightClearly mark changes in the revised MSPeer-review DOES improve MS quality (even yours)

Be patient !

Weeks to several months after MS re-submission

Some journals RE-review a revised MS

3. The Revise & Resubmit R&RYour odds are now better than 50%.The game changes completely.Referees are always right, or elseAddress all issues raised.Prepare a detailed Guide to Revisions.Some journals send papers to a fresh reviewer.Some journals allow only one resubmission.4. Rejections

What leads to rejection1. Paper fails the so what questionIt is not interestingExamination of practice without an interesting angleOld topic without a twist or advance in methodUninteresting replication (across countries)Simple bi-variate model (need to show interrelationships in model)Not relevant to the field (e.g. no accounting)No contribution that is new

What is interesting?Break through theories that have not been applied to accounting (e.g. economics, organizational, behavioral, sociological, anthropological)Cross countries studies.Tension between competing theoriesInteresting extensions and elaborations of topical themes and practices (e.g. the search for insights into contemporary practice)Application of novel methodData collection, statistical methodCombined method e.g. survey and cases

2.TheoryNo theory, rather a list of empirical findings to support proposed associationse.g. list the results of prior studies to build theoryneed the core arguments and then any empirical supportInappropriate theory to address research questionse.g. use theories related to participation to discuss empowermentSimple replication of theory and evidence in another disciplinewhy would the reader expect the relationship not to hold

Too little theoryNot convincingHypotheses not supported by theoryToo much theoryIf theory is well known it is not necessary to go through it all, againLack of clarity on how paper relates to theoryImprecise variables, variables not measurable, association between variables not specified How does the paper confirm theory?How does the paper extend or modify theory?

3. Research method:Population, sampleLack of clarity as to the population (or cases) & reasons for selection

Poor sampling methods

Small sample size (justify small sample)

Poor execution of surveyNo mention of usinglack of preplanningno evidence of selling the surveye.g. personal contact, trust, rewardsno pilot study inadequate follow upPoor InstrumentationUse of existing inappropriate instrumentsLack of evidence of development work on new instrumentsNo checks on reliability and validityInadequate reporting (collecting) of demographic dataType of organization: size, industry, ownership affiliation (sub-unit or independent organization) Respondents: function, age, gender, time in position, time in organization, education, experience

4.Analysis/theory testingWrong statistic to test hypothesesPreliminary bivariate statistics reported and related to more complex modelUse of multiple regression to argue that variables, such as size, are being controlled (in the sense of a variable being a moderator)Use of Structural Equation Models (SEM) when hypotheses are based on moderation, or vice versaWrong conclusion drawn from tests.Errors in execution

Poor reporting of sampling distribution characteristicsrequired cases outliers multicollinearity normality linearity homoscedasticityindependence of residuals

5. Discussion of resultsInappropriate generalizationsExtending findings without additional evidenceIntroducing additional ideas revealed in findings but which could properly be considered in theory construction.Not enough discussion of the implications of the studyHow do the results achieve the objectives of the study?What are the key insights?

6. ConclusionsHave not identified main points from the studyBrief overview of results and links to other studiesHave not shown direction and ideas for future researchProvide ideas on how your study has advanced the literature. How the study provides a basis to move forward.Have not identified limitationsBe honest about limitationstheorysamplemeasurementanalysis (e.g. too few numbers for analysis)6. CommunicationsPaper is hard to follow due to poor structureTry putting headings to each section (the headings should tell the story of the paper)Expression lacks clarity and precisionToo much irrelevant discussionToo many side tracks or secondary issuesToo many typographical errorsPaper submitted too earlyLack of exposure of paper to peer group and othersIf English is not first language consider using an editor.Managing editors and reviewersThe ideal is to respond to reviewers while maintaining the integrity of the workOnce you have submitted your paper you are competing with other researchersDifferent journals use the same reviewersA rejected paper submitted to second journal may have the same reviewer as the first journalMake sure you have attended to the first review issuesReviewers see many papers, so a well written, clearly presented paper will impress.

EditorsEditors have different styles of involvement in the editorial processHighly involved editorsYou may be able to use this to advantage Help from the editor (later stage of paper)Convince the editor of your viewpointMake sure you are totally honest with editorsDO NOT submit same paper to different journals at the same timeBe honest about why you may not be able to respond to requests for more information, data, etc.ReviewersMake sure you respond to every point raised by reviewers, even if you disagree with them, or you think the comments are odd.Ideal is to get the reviewer to work with you on the paperIf you disagree with comments put your arguments clearly, do not suggest that the reviewer is wrong.If a reviewer gets difficult on a point that you are confident about you can always appeal to the editor.Managing rejection Read the comments carefully and see if the paper can be improved.

Probably not a good idea to write a scathing letter to the editor!

If you send manuscript to another journal (which you should) MAKE SURE you address the reviewers comments from the rejected manuscript

Reject the rejectionIf you can revise the paper to take into account the reviewers concerns you can ask the editor if he/she will accept the paper as a new submission.Note the editor will likely use the same reviewersManaging the review processAn invitation to revise and resubmit (R&R) does not mean an automatic acceptance.Make your letter to the editor and responses to the reviewers as clear and precise as possible.Make the review process easy for the reviewersTry to engage the reviewerAcknowledge the helpfulness of the reviewerProvide the reviewer with optionsIf you disagree with a point argue your case carefully without personally attacking the reviewerAim to get the reviewer to work with you on the paper (not against you)

Ethical and reputation issuesManaging your research reputation is important. It is hard to recover from serious mistakes early in your careerManage time requirements Papers ready on-time for conferences, seminars, fast turn around on reviewsAvoid too much double-triple dipping on research effortsThe same paper in different journalsAbide by journal rulesDo not submit same paper to multiple journalsMultiple papers using same data must disclose other papersMake data available to research community

Make sure you disclose everythingOther papers (plagiarism will finish your career)Data sourcesHelp from othersFunding sourcesAcknowledge all in the final paperBecome a helpful member of the research communityOffer to do reviews (books in the first instance)Help on conferences/seminarsOffer to read colleagues workLook to work with colleaguesIt is fun and helps motivationBUT, also publish on your ownStudies on effective publication: opinions of reviewers and editorsCzyzewshi & Dickenson (1990) Journal of Accounting Education, Survey of reviewers of 27 major journals1.Positive factors to help acceptancePapers that contain a new theory with significant results Papers dealing with a topic of interest to the field and with content that differs from existing literature (novel)

2.Negative factors that lead to rejectionNo new informationNon significant resultsInclusion of the paper in published proceedingsLack of generalizability of resultsLack of control groupTopic outside mainstream of field

Chow and Harrison (1998) Journal of Accounting Education(15 most important factors, in rank order, leading to success in accounting research, based on survey of successful accounting researchers)Consider which you can control.1Communicate and write logically, clearly and concisely

2.Rigorous doctoral training, focus on skills and statistics

3.Persistence, perseverance, dedication

4.Interesting/original topic

5.Relevance/importance of topic

6.Supportive colleagues

7.Discipline and hard work

8.Presenting at conferences/workshops for exposure and feedback

9.Having time strictly for doing research

10.Solid research design

11.Thorough/rigorous data analysis

12.Innovation in theory, hypotheses, design

13.Staying current with literature and research skills

14.Motivating research with strong theory

15.Having good co-authors

Zimmerman (1989)Issues in Accounting Education(Improving your writing style for journals)Dont write a mysteryPurpose, findings and conclusionsDont write a diarySummer camp syndrome: dont tell about false starts, your experiences and the likeLimit use of footnotesUse for bibliographic cites or new material/detailsLimit of one per pageLimit use of acronymsUse only established acronyms (eg ABC)Limit use of may when you mean if-then statementUse tables carefullyShould be stand alone Dont replicate data in textRefer precisely to data in table (row/column)

Brown. L.E. (2005)The Accounting Review

305 submissions to TAR over 2002-3 show that: editors more likely to invite revisions from papers presented at more workshops papers are cited more often if presented at more workshops.Conclusions hold even after controlling for institution and authors reputation.

Stout, Rebele & Howard (2006)Issues is Accounting EducationAbout 500 submission to Issues inAccounting Education and Journal of Accounting EducationPrimary reasons for rejectionPoor motivation (so what question)Poor research designPoor theoryToo specific (external validity)Variable definition & measurement not consistent with theoryPoor measurementStatistical issuesInappropriate statistical proceduresInvalid inferencesInadequate statistical test powerResults, implication & conclusionsNot a meaningful contributionEvidence not persuasiveFailure to discuss implication to areaManuscript preparationPoor linkage across sectionNot using journal guidelinesPoor writing (focus, detail, readability, grammar)

Some tipsPresent your work at conferences.Coauthoring helpsAsk colleagues and key people for commentMake sure paper fits with journalPay attention to the journal style and submission requirementsReference papers from journal you are submitting toUS journalsWork on several interrelated papers simultaneously.Some papers will be first-tier quality, others wont.Do not leave finished papers on your desk.

Final thought

Be patient. The best writing comes from rewriting.

Thank you !

Any questions ?