Writing and publishing important scientific articles: A reviewer's perspective

Abstract

The article discusses various complex and interrelated quality issues mediating reviewers' expectations and standards. Authors must meet or exceed reviewers' and editors' expectations of providing convincing arguments and support of the importance and relevancy of the research topic and questions, evidence of scientific rigorousness, and meaningful and usefulness of the findings making substantial and/or incremental contributions to the scientific body of marketing knowledge. Marketing scholars struggling to publish their research in high-quality marketing journals will definitely benefit from the insights in this article.

Introduction

Throughout the world, university and program accreditation and scholarly research standards are rapidly changing and marketing scholars face increasing research and publishing productivity requirements governing hiring and promotion/tenure decisions as well as establishing a successful professional career. Pressures are growing for marketing scholars, particularly young assistant professors, to provide evidence that their scholarly research activities include conducting high-quality theoretical and empirical research projects which are innovative and cutting edge (Armstrong, 2003, Ladik and Stewart, 2008, Rust, 2008, Weitz, 1992), leading to the publication of important scientific articles (Armstrong and Pagell, 2003, Woodside, 2009).

Scientific articles provide meaningful contributions to the body of marketing knowledge on topics interesting and relevant to a variety of constituencies and readership groups such as other academic researchers, research practitioners, managers, public policymakers, marketing educators, society at large (Brown and Dant, 2008, Levy and Grewal, 2007). Marketing scholars also face increasing pressures of publishing scientific contributions in the marketing discipline's prestigious journals with high-quality journal impact metrics. This emphasis on where marketing scholars should disseminate important scientific contributions is not new among faculty operating within research-dominant work environments. Yet, the growing pervasiveness has renewed long-standing concerns, issues, and debates of the sound logic and practicality of such a limiting dissemination focus (Armstrong, 1982a, Kupfersmind and Wonderly, 1994, Pfeffer, 2007), especially from those marketing journals that, in some minds, fall short on the prestige image criterion. Confounding this direct relationship between important scientific contributions and prestige marketing journals is empirical evidence suggesting only a small percentage (about 3%) of the articles appearing in prestige journals contain meaningful important scientific contributions concerning new innovative, important, and/or useful insights that enhance the body of marketing knowledge (Armstrong, 1997, Armstrong, 2004, Mort et al., 2004).

The current article is not about rehashing the issues and debates concerning the perceptions of ranking marketing journals, judging a journal's quality image or impact of marketing journals. Instead, the article discusses the issues, concerns, and elements relating to undertaking important and relevant research endeavors and writing important scientific articles that offer meaningful and useful contributions to the ever-growing marketing literature.

Presenting insights (or tips) on writing journal articles is not a new endeavor. The existing literature provides numerous meaningful and useful insights on surviving journal review and publishing processes (e.g., Armstrong, 1982a, Levy and Grewal, 2007, Ortinau, 2010, Stewart, 2002). Publishing insights appear as elegantly written editorials by current and past editors of the discipline's journals (e.g., Brown and Dant, 2008, Ladik and Stewart, 2008, Stewart and Zinkhan, 2006, Weitz, 1992, Wittink, 2004). Articles invited by various journals (e.g., Babin et al., 2008, Ortinau, 2010, Shugan, 2003, Summers, 2001), specialty books on the topic (e.g., Arnould, 2003, Kupfersmind and Wonderly, 1994), and through Meet the Journal Editors sessions at national/international marketing education conferences.

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 rates suggest a disconnect gap between conducting important, relevant quality research, and ultimately publishing that research in quality journals.

This article investigates and discusses issues that underlie the apparent disconnect gap between researching and publishing important scientific contributions and provides useful insights to writing scientific articles. Three main objectives guide the focus of the article. The first objective is to enhance awareness and understanding that publication success involves a number of subjective assessment processes relating to the overall evaluation of how well an article conveys a high-quality journal image. Another objective is to provide clear and useful insights of the key elements editorial reviewers (or peer reviewers) look for in judging evidence of high quality, importance, relevancy, and contribution value of manuscript submissions for publication in prestigious and high-quality marketing-oriented journals. The last objective is to validate previous research and publishing insights of past and current journal editors and academic scholars. The article's discussions and insights integrate several significant themes. One theme is the relevancy and importance of the topic under investigation as well as the research questions that drive important scientific research endeavors (projects). Another theme is the use of double blind review processes for judging the relevancy and importance of the research findings and contributions to the existing body of scientific marketing knowledge. The final theme relates to the importance of using solid theory or theoretical rationale as the driver of scientific research endeavors (see support for these type of themes are found in Armstrong, 1982b, Brown and Dant, 2008, Ladik and Stewart, 2008, Levy and Grewal, 2007, Stewart and Zinkhan, 2006, Shugan, 2003, Sutton and Staw, 1995). Additionally, this article uses several unique perspectives in discussing the relevant issues within each theme. First, the comments and insights are from an editorial reviewer's (or peer reviewer's) perspective rather than current or past journal editors. Second, this article uses a cognitive image framework that incorporates many of the interconnected theoretical underpinnings of expectancy theory, expectancy–performance theory, and confirmation–disconfirmation theory. The framework suggests that the overall perceived judgment of a manuscript providing solid (convincing) evidence of conveying a high journal quality image plays a critical, yet elusive, role in mediating journal editors' final acceptance decisions.

Organization of the remainder of the article is by categorical issues relevant in writing important scientific papers and the reviewing processes of the top 25 marketing journals. The discussion first focuses on what elements constitute important scientific research endeavors and how particular environmental issues, high-quality rigorous research practices, and different marketing journals' personalities influence the selection of research topics and endeavors.

The second part focuses on the benefits and limitations of using subjective and objective impact metrics as determinants of important scientific contributions to the body of marketing knowledge. Next is a discussion on who are editorial reviewers (or peer reviewers) and their responsibility in determining scientific contributions as well as developing and enhancing the body of marketing literature. The following section identifies the critical elements of a scientific journal manuscript and discusses the types of concerns (or weaknesses) having negative effect on reviewers' perceptions and assessments of manuscripts' high journal quality image along with insights on avoiding these issues and concerns. Finally, a list of research reference sources offers opportunities for gaining an in-depth understanding of what high-quality, value-added journals expect in submitted scientific manuscripts.