Meet with Editorial Reviewers: An Interactive Discussion of the Difficulties and Issues Facing Authors in the Journal Review Process: An Abstract
With the existing insights on writing and publishing marketing journal articles and the discipline’s rapid expansion of publishing opportunities in new U.S. and international marketing journals, one intuitive prediction is marketing scholars’ publishing success of important scientific articles is rapidly becoming a more common occurrence. Yet, this trend prediction is perplexing and contradictive because the prestigious and top 25 ranked marketing-oriented journals consistently report annual acceptance rates ranging between 7% and 18%. The low acceptance suggests a disconnect gap between conducting important, relevant quality research and ultimately publishing that research in quality journals.
In an effort to begin closing this disconnect gap, the primary objective of this special session is generating meaningful discussions between journal reviewers and the audience on difficulties, critical issues, and pitfalls authors face in submitting manuscripts to high-ranking journal review processes.
An unique element of the session is the interactive framework of using the “question and answer” format between panel members and the audience to create meaningful dialogue and opportunities of exchanging invaluable writing, organizing, and publishing insights toward improving the journal quality factor of manuscripts submitted to journal review processes. Opportunities exist for gaining invaluable insights of the specific components of a manuscript that reviewers use in evaluating a manuscript’s value and contribution to the body of marketing knowledge (or the literature).
Anyone struggling in getting their research successfully through journal review processes can gain a clearer understanding of the role, responsibilities, and expectations of journal reviewers. Discussions will focus but not be limited to “fixable manuscript problems” such as: (1) general manuscript sloppiness – including grammar, style, syntax, spelling errors as well as failure to follow the target journal’s style guidelines; (2) development of hypotheses that are illogical and/or poorly supported by theory or extant literatures; (3) attempts at trying to analyze too many variables and test too many hypotheses and/or ineffectiveness in presenting a coherent set of findings; (4) using a well-written literature review that does not present the right development background for supporting the manuscript’s main story line; (5) ignoring alternative theoretical explanations for unsupported relationships; and (6) using the lack of support of hypothesized relationships as the only contribution to the literature.