Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

 Perspectives on journals and the publication process  Tips for improving your odds of success 1.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: " Perspectives on journals and the publication process  Tips for improving your odds of success 1."— Presentation transcript:

1  Perspectives on journals and the publication process  Tips for improving your odds of success 1

2 SENIOR EDITOR: John Harry Evans III EDITORS: Michael L. Ettredge, University of Kansas  David A. Guenther, University of Oregon  Leslie D. Hodder, Indiana University  Amy P. Hutton, Boston College  Bin Ke, The Pennsylvania State University/Nanyang Technological University  Lisa Koonce, The University of Texas at Austin  Charles Lee, Stanford University  Kenneth A. Merchant, University of Southern California  Gregory S. Miller, University of Michigan  Donald V. Moser, University of Pittsburgh  Morton Pincus, University of California, Irvine  Vernon J. Richardson, University of Arkansas  Phillip C. Stocken, Dartmouth College  Beverly R. Walther, Northwestern University 2

3  TAR Editorial Assistant, Stacy Hoffman assigns a manuscript number  Lesson 1: - Revision of manuscript previously rejected by TAR?  Full Disclosure is the professional approach. 3

4  With help of two doctoral students, Stacy and I search for two “best reviewers” ◦ Best reviewers are knowledgeable, objective and motivated ◦ TAR article titles and keywords; Editorial Board keyword specializations;141 EB vitas; Social Sciences Citation Index; References cited  “Acknowledgments” not used 4

5 5 First 4-5 pages critical Editor reads this part initially Three key parts: Research question? Why important? How does study address the question?

6  Editors know the players - suggest alternative reviewers  Good reviewers are a very scarce resource 6

7  Blind copy of paper to two reviewers; reports requested in 30 days.  Shortly after 30 days, send a reminder.  Each reviewer returns Review Form and report.  After 60+ days, make a decision? 7

8 8 Reviewers are KEY! For your manuscript For TAR’s success Editorial Board – 130 researchers Ad hoc Reviewers – 453 more researchers

9  Five decision categories and templates: ◦ Conditional accept ◦ Revise and resubmit ◦ Uncertain ◦ Reject – Contribution ◦ Reject – Validity  Editor tailors the letter to circumstances  Help author understand:  Basis for decision  What to do next 9

10 Conditional acceptance Revise and resubmit Uncertain Reject – contribution Reject - validity 10 < 1% 13% 11% 50% 26%

11 11 Contribution is frequently more important than execution! Authors often focus too much on execution and too little on contribution.

12 12 Odds of publication favor fresh, innovative areas over such well-established topics as: Earnings management / abnormal accruals Corporate governance and CEO compensation Conservatism Analyst forecasts, accrual anomalies, audit fees, etc.

13 Final “acceptance rate” is like accounting for inventory – “revise-and-resubmit” manuscripts are incomplete units ● TAR overall acceptance rate is approximately 12%-13% 13

14   Cruel fact - the vast majority must be rejected  Success comes to those who learn from their mistakes and persevere – revise wisely! 14

15  Simplicity /clarity is key to communication  Clear thinking and clear writing  Achieving simplicity/clarity requires very hard work 15

16  Build a team and help each other communicate better  Read and critiques each other’s work  Use the TAR evaluation form ◦ Evaluate validity and contribution 16

17 AuditFinancialMgrl.TaxOtherTOTAL Analytical1%1%3%5%2%3%1%1%1%0%8% 9% 9% Empirical Archival11%11%45%39%6%7%5%6%8%5%74%68% Experimental5%5%3%5%3%4%<1%<1%1%1%13%16% Other<1%1%1%1%2%3%<1%0%1%2%5%7% TOTAL18%19%52%49%13%16%6%7%11%8%100%100% 17

18 From Tuttle and Dillard (Accounting Horizons, Dec. 2007, Table 4): 18 38% financial accounting dissertations in 1995 70% financial accounting dissertations in 2005

19 “I’m very busy right now. I can’t possibly review the manuscript you sent me within a month.” “What’s holding up the decision on my manuscript?” 19

20 20 “Review unto others as you would have them review unto you.” That jerk who stupidly rejected your paper last week is most likely not the author of the paper you are reviewing.

Download ppt " Perspectives on journals and the publication process  Tips for improving your odds of success 1."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google