Tips from the AEs of JAMS
In this issue, AEs share their No.1 advice for future JAMS authors and common mistakes made by authors during revisions.
1. What would be your #1 piece of advice to authors submitting to JAMS?
Simon Bell (University of Melbourne, Australia): Consider your contribution to theory as well as the novelty of your findings. Marketing is a social science which means we have fewer uncontested, lawlike tenets to underpin and inform our research. How we go about solving problems and addressing unanswered questions in marketing, therefore, depends crucially on the theory we choose as a lens with which to frame our research questions. Then we must use our findings to advance, and make more robust, this focal theory. To be sure, this might involve challenging some of the assumptions of the theory, but this does not make the theory weaker. Rather it allows researchers to apply it more thoughtfully in the future. It provides avenues for shoring up a theory for more confident application. And, yes, it might on rare occasions involve dismantling a focal theory altogether and replacing it with something new. Like consultants, journalists, and authors, we’re in the business of discovering and publishing new findings. But unlike these professions, we are the custodians of theories that outlast the vagaries of our manifold studies. It’s because these theories persist, that they can provide the bedrock for future social scientific discoveries long after we’re gone.
François Carrillat (Griffith University, Australia): Once the research has been performed, the importance of writing up the manuscript effectively for ultimate success is often underestimated, especially by junior scholars. In that regard, it helps to think of writing and manuscript preparation as being more about teaching than research. A good manuscript is a manuscript that is effective at teaching experts—reviewers, researchers, managers, public policy officials—about the insights from your research. As experts, they have much knowledge about the topic area that you are researching, so it is the authors’ responsibility to show them that they do not already know what you want to teach them and that learning it is worth it (hook them early in the intro), then tell them exactly what they need to know (nothing more, nothing less) when they need to know it throughout their learning journey (the main body of the manuscript) while demonstrating that these insights are very unlikely to be incorrect (methodological rigour). Finally, as they are still learning and processing the manuscript’s content and what it all means, you must give them a useful perspective on how to make sense of these new insights so that, hopefully, they become new knowledge (enlightening discussion).
Deepa Chandrasekaran (University of Texas at San Antonio, USA): Develop impactful ideas that address timely, relevant issues to engage readers from the start. Clearly articulate both the theoretical significance and practical implications from this research.
2. What has been the most commonly made mistake during the revision process?
François Carrillat (Griffith University, Australia): [As a new AE my answer here is mostly based on my work as an ERB member for JAMS] A very common problem is to only do the strict minimum to address a reviewer’s comment. Even if the focal issue raised seems addressed, a strict minimum approach is often not enough for reviewers. Instead, it is better to make the extra effort to address the fundamental issue that the reviewer’s comment reflects, even if the reviewer is not explicit about it. For instance, a reviewer suggests several alternative explanations for the posited mechanism. Authors may then run a new study in which they measure additional mediators that capture the alternative explanations suggested and test whether they can be ruled out based on the results. This approach is insufficient because this type of comment is really about the relevance of the current mechanism and conceptual framework. Hence, in addition to testing these alternative explanations, improving the current conceptualization is in order. First, these other mechanisms for the effect(s) need to be justified theoretically; why are they plausible mechanisms worth an empirical investigation? One cannot just proceed with their testing in the results section without a rationale. Second, what do we learn about the core posited mechanism from testing alternative mechanisms, whether they are ruled out or not? What nuances do these alternative explanations bring to our understanding of how the posited mechanism works and in which conditions? How are the theoretical implications affected based on these additional results? Many comments from reviewers have ramifications that extend beyond the immediate focal issue and the revised manuscript must reflect this.
Benét DeBerry-Spence (University of Illinois at Chicago, USA): A common mistake authors make during the review process is addressing more than what was pointed out in the feedback. That is, the authors introduce additional revisions beyond those requested by the review team. The intent may be to enhance their work with a more detailed revision or to prevent possible concerns that could surface in a future review. However, an unintended consequence may be bringing attention to issues the reviewers missed (or did not consider critical) and potentially addressing them in a way that does not meet reviewer expectations. In the worst scenario, this could lead to the manuscript being rejected due to an issue the authors themselves introduced. Given this, it's important to remember the rule of 'know your audience'—stay focused on the specific feedback from the review team and how it can guide you in improving your work.
