GETTING PUBLISHED: LESSONS FROM THE I'S' FIELD

1
GETTING PUBLISHED LESSONS FROM THE I.S. FIELD

• DIS April 15th 2005
• Professor Leslie Willcocks
• Warwick University Business School

2
Agenda

• Which Journals and Why
• How A Journal Works The JIT .and others
• How To Get Published
• Q. and A. and Issues For Next Time

3
Journals The Food Chain

• A Journals Issues
• 2. A/B Journals
• 3. B/C Journals
• 4. Non-IS Journals
• 5. Conference Papers
• 6. What Do Book Chapters Do For You?

4
How A Journal Works

• An Example - The Journal Of Information
  Technology
• 2. MISQ and ISR process, history acceptability
• 3. The A/B Journals US vs. European
• 4. Non-IS Journals e.g JMS. OS, BJM, SMR, HBR,
  CMR

5
Getting Published Ten Lessons

• Have some real content to start with!
• Aim at a suitable journal given the standard of
  the paper
• Avoid irritating the journal e.g unnecessary
  eagerness/contacts, sending in a poor paper just
  for the reviews, sending the paper to several
  journals at the same time
• Understand well how the journal works and who is
  involved.
• Expect the Rule of Three in reviews
• Do NOT take the reviews personally
• Turn around the revisions quickly and in detail
• Be persistent, patient but always polite
• Accept most of the recommendations.. It makes
  your position stronger for the one you cannot.
• Co-authorship can be valuable.

6
Details Tailoring the Paper

• Style
• Its important to put your paper in the house
  style. Use bibliographic software (eg Endnote).
• Check if there are general structures the journal
  expects
• Clear and direct English. US journals especially
  like short punchy sentences, and active tenses.
  Use US spellings.
• Make sure the paper looks properly finished off.
  Get it read by others.
• Content
• A strong grounding in the (IS) literature.
• A clear statement of the methodology for
  empirical work, or justification for theoretical
  work..
• A clear statement of the original contribution of
  your work and why it is significant for IS.
• A strong concluding section summarising the paper
  and discussing limitations and further research.
• If you can, link you paper into an on-going
  debate.
• Audience knowledgeable but not expert
• Do not agonise over particular sections/wording
• The submission is not the end point of some long
  search for perfection, but the start of moulding
  your material.

7
Details Responding to Referees Re-Working the
Paper

• First Reviews
• It is unusual NOT to have to make significant
  revisions to your paper. DO NOT become dispirited
  or see it as a criticism of you or your work in
  general. All of us, professors or not, have had,
  and still do have major re-writes and even
  rejections.
• Treat a resubmit with revisions as a SUCCESS,
  and regard it as the first step towards getting
  accepted.
• If you do get rejected, do not throw the paper
  away. Think hard about why that particular
  journal rejected it, and choose another one that
  may be more suitable, or easier.
• Responding
• Take seriously what the referees say and
  recognise that you have work to do. You may have
  to remove treasured stuff you may have to do
  more, possibly significantly more or you may
  have to rewrite or re-orientate your paper.
• There may be some things that you feel that you
  cannot or will not do.

8

• Details if you decide to revise and resubmit
  then you should
• Address as many of the comments as you possibly
  can, including trivia
• Write a detailed response, to each reviewer,
  addressing each point.
• Where you do not want to do something explain
  clearly why not.
• Write separately to the editor (or AE) explaining
  your general response and particularly
  highlighting any difficulties such as
  disagreements between referees.
• If there are comments you are not clear about,
  ask dont just ignore them.
• Regard the whole process as a bit of a
  negotiation you dont have to do everything,
  but you have to do enough to let them know you
  have taken them seriously.

9

• Detail Problems with referees
• A referee rejects the paper with very little
  comment, or clearly disagrees fundamentally with
  your whole approach.
• Two referees strongly disagree with each other.
  This is difficult. Either contact the AE or try
  and appease both.
• A referee wants major new work, perhaps empirical
  research, and you dont want to do this. Contact
  the AE and try and negotiate something less.
• The referee gives a response that you think is
  inappropriate. Contact the AE and discuss it.
• The referee says this has all been done before,
  by them, and references lots of their papers.
• Finally, DONT GIVE UP. Every paper can be
  published somewhere - you just need the right
  outlet and you can get published in better
  journals if you make the effort.

10
Any (More!) Questions?
11
Case Research Example Applying Nine
Pragmatic Criteria
12
Consider The ICIS 1997 Case Research Track Main
Reasons for Non-Acceptance
1. Did not make explicit the research methods,
let alone the rationale for them Result
appropriateness could not be assessed 2. Seemed
to be using theory or analytical framework but
did not provide enough data in case to
demonstrate support or otherwise for
it Result weaknesses in analytical
generalization 3. Did not consider the
plausibility of alternative explanations Result
interpretations undermined
Source Track Chairs Willcocks Lee, 1997
13
Main Reasons for Non-Acceptance
4. Poor structuring of the analysis Result
rich case/poor interpretation OR thin
case/unsupported speculation 5. Did not make
explicit their epistemological and ontological
positions, or did so then proceeded to be
inconsistent on this without seeming to realise
it Result confusion in reader on how to read
the case PLUS seeming anomalies in assumptions
and approach
Source Track Chairs Willcocks Lee, 1997
14
Doing Case Research Nine Pragmatic Criteria
1. Key pertinent set of issues for an
acknowledged audience 2. Research approach
likely to produce plausible/ reliable
evidence 3. Hypothesis, set of hypotheses and/or
analytical framework 4. Case study write-up
that provides a chronological spine 5. Evidence
of research supporting the story line -
evidence rich enough to be available for
analysis
Source Leslie Willcocks, ECIS 1998
15
Doing Case Research Nine Pragmatic Criteria
6. Analysis that confirms/extends/disconfirms
hypothesis and/or analytical framework 7. Demon
strated sensitivity to alternative
interpretations and explanations 8. A
discussion that includes speculation, new bold
hypotheses and limitations 9. Administrative
abstract, introduction, conclusion and
references
Source Leslie Willcocks, ECIS 1998
16
Test Case California Franchise Tax Board
Criteria Rating Detail
1. Theme/Issues ????X - Benefits funding
project management, IT value - But more
on IT productivity paradox? 2. Research
Approach ???XX - Detailed interviews,
documents, multi-perspectives - But
research only in 1996/7 wider interviewing
useful detailed statement of research
perspective? 3. Hypotheses/Analytical ????XX -
IT sourcing criteria framework Framework -
But literature basis of comparison with
CSFs? 4. Chronology ???XX - Described in
text. Detailed - But more structure?
Diagram? 5. Rich Evidence ???XX - Background
and two projects detailed/distilled - But
limited voice of respondents other
voices? 6. Analysis linked to 3 ???XX -
Strong on IT sourcing criteria - But more
needed on CSFs origins/comparisons 7.
Alternative Explanations ??X XX - Wider
interviewing might have undermined eg
CSFs? - Analysis of management rhetoric of
success how was staff commitment
achieved, if it was? 8. Speculation/limitations
???XX - Extenuating circumstances
stated - Some speculation But more
on public sector context, perhaps more on
implementation CSFs? 9.
Administrative ????X - In place -
Abbreviated by length requirement