What does it take to get published these days?

Citation

Mollenkopf, D.A. (2014), "What does it take to get published these days?", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 44 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-02-2014-0019

What does it take to get published these days?

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Volume 44, Issue 3

As a newcomer to the Senior Associate Editor group at IJPDLM, I have been reflecting recently on the publication process and the current state of literature in our discipline. As pointed out by McKinnon (2013), every journal wants to be highly ranked by the ranking organizations and leading academic institutions. As authors, we want the journals that accept our manuscripts to be well respected by our peers and institutions. We also know that the benchmark for publishing academic articles is continually getting higher. While this is a good thing (really!), it makes it harder for us to get our manuscripts accepted. Thus, we all have to “up our game” to have a voice in the academic discourse of our disciplines.

This is something I am constantly discussing with my PhD students at the University of Tennessee. As program director, I am responsible for working with colleagues to foster strong research skills in our PhD students. We emphasize that good research does not just happen overnight, but requires a lifelong dedication to living up to the “good questions, well-answered” mission of being a scholar. Our PhD students are taught three fundamental aspects of good research; these fundamentals also have relevance for authors submitting to IJPDLM. I encourage all those who submit to this journal, and to those who review manuscripts for this journal, to consider the following points when writing and reviewing manuscripts. The most recent Vol. 43 of IJPDLM includes some exemplars that are highlighted in this editorial to demonstrate the high caliber of current IJPDLM authors.

Good research is both timely and timeless

Timely research asks questions about issues that are current and opportune for study. As the world continues to change, as technology changes the way business operates, as people change their priorities, what is considered “timely” is constantly evolving. Prior to the technological revolution of the late twentieth century, no one could have predicted the plethora of e-commerce research that has emerged. Such research is timely. Growing interest in sustainability practices offers another avenue of timely research opportunities, both on the consumer front and the business front. For example, Wang et al. (2013) address sustainability issues related to remanufacturing from a consumer’s perspective while Hall et al. (2013) focus on sustainability through reverse logistics from an industrial perspective. Such research is also timely.

Timelessness refers to the “everlasting truth” aspect of research. Fads come and go, and while they can offer ample opportunities for quick research output, research that resonates through the ages is what we should aspire to produce. This means we often have to get below the surface of a fad to understand the underlying sociological or economic factors at play. I recently re-read Alderson and Martin’s (1965) treatise on transactions and transvections in preparation for the supply chain management theory PhD seminar I am currently teaching. That research was timely in 1965 when the marketing channels discipline was conscious of the need to become more scientific in its research approach. Yet, the research is timeless in that Alderson and Martin identified issues and patterns of exchange and analysis approaches that we supply chain researchers still rely upon today as part of our underlying rationale for much of the research we conduct.

Good research is both relevant and rigorous

Within the disciplines that IJPDLM serves, relevant research meaningfully addresses phenomena pertinent to the physical distribution/logistics/supply chain management disciplines. Tom Mentzer, Tennessee’s guiding mentor for many years, stated that the “central mission of business scholars and educators is to conduct research that contributes knowledge to a scientific discipline and to apply that knowledge to the practice of management” (Mentzer, 2008, p. 72). The IJPDLM web site calls for relevant research that provides scholarly insight and has practical implications for business practitioners. Note the first key attribute on the web site: “IJPDLM provides business practitioners, consultants and academics with leading edge information and discussions of current developments in the field.” Thus, submissions to IJPDLM need to clearly demonstrate the scholarly contribution of the research and provide a bridge to practitioners so that the knowledge presented in a given manuscript can be translated to the practitioner world. For example, Ehrenthal and Stölzle (2013) provide a very clear bridge to the practitioner world by discussing implications for retail managers trying to deal with the persistent challenge of stock outs.

Mentzer was equally adamant about the necessity of conducting rigorous research. The choice between rigor and relevance is a non-choice that should never be entertained. As scholars, our research efforts should be both relevant and rigorous. Rigor is “the constant examination of whether research can actually support and justify the claims it makes” (Mentzer, 2008, p. 72). This does not mean we need to use increasingly complex methodologies just because they are in vogue, or to prove we can. Rather, Mentzer’s legacy continues to stress the use of “appropriate theories and methods to avoid concluding something the research did not actually reveal” (Mentzer, 2008, p. 72). In my own review efforts at IJPDLM (and other journals), I frequently caution authors to rethink their stated conclusions. Lack of rigor in theorizing or methodological laziness is often at the root of erroneous conclusions that cannot logically be supported by the research as presented. The recent grounded theory work conducted by Thornton et al. (2013) provides a solid example of rigorously conducted research. Thornton was one of Tom Mentzer’s last students, thus she learned early the importance of being relevant and rigorous in her research. During her dissertation research phase (I was a member of her dissertation committee), her co-authors and I continually challenged her to demonstrate the relevance of her research on counterproductive behaviors in supply chain relationships, and to design her research in such a way that her conclusions could be well supported. The paper published in 2013 is one of several outcomes of a relevant and rigorous research process; it should provide a solid foundation for other researchers to build upon this initial foray into counterproductive supply chain behaviors.

Great research remains meaningless if it is not well-communicated

No matter how brilliant the research, the onus rests with authors to communicate clearly and simply even the most complex ideas. There is no room, nor excuse, for obfuscation when writing good research papers. I coach my own students on the following points:

1 .Set the stage in the introduction section: Provide context for the research. Clearly identify the timeliness of the research; Clearly identify the research gaps and subsequent research question(s) being addressed; Establish the relevance of the research for both scholars and practitioners by clearly indicating the contributions of the paper (to be further elaborated upon in the discussion section).

2. Provide the background and logical rationale for the current research: The literature review provides a discussion of what is already known about the phenomenon under research. This is not just a summary of the extant literature, but also the author’s interpretation of the relevance of the literature to the current research question; Clearly substantiate the research gaps that were first identified in the introduction section; Clearly develop the theoretical grounding for the research. Atheoretical research does little to advance knowledge, guide further research, or enlighten practitioners; For deductive research, develop logical and well-supported, theory-based hypotheses that help answer the research question being posed. Inductive qualitative research does not start with hypotheses, but should end with research propositions tied to a theoretical foundation.

3. Describe the methodology thoroughly: Make sure that another researcher could replicate the work being described. This means clearly articulating the sample, the respondents, the unit of analysis, any scale items used, interview protocols, as well as evidence of research rigor (reliability, validity, trustworthiness, etc.); Clearly describe the analysis procedures, whether quantitative or qualitative.

4. Draw conclusions: Stay within the confines of what the data actually allow; Link the conclusions to the theory used to develop the research (for deductive, theory-testing research) or to theory that helps explain the results (for inductive, theory-building research); Clearly articulate the contributions to knowledge that stem from the research; Provide clear advice for practitioners based on the findings; Discuss limitations and future research directions.

These are admittedly very broad guidelines, but when I review a manuscript and recommend rejection, it is always because of these basic failings: lack of timeliness, relevance, rigor, or writing clarity. Paying attention to these publication basics is essential. For a more detailed overview of what it takes to get published, Summers (2001) provides additional guidance.

The current issue provides several additional examples of effective research. Kembro and Näslund conduct a literature review, entitled “Information sharing in supply chains, myth or reality? A critical analysis of empirical literature”. In their article, the authors clearly establish the scholastic relevance of research on information sharing in the supply chain and then provide a clear direction for future research. For example, they point out the need for the benefits of information sharing to be assessed at a supply chain level rather than at a firm level. Such research will provide further insights and clarity on an important aspect of supply chain management.

Also on the information front, Hazen, Huscroft, Hall, Weigel and Hanna address information systems within the returns channel in their paper entitled “Reverse logistics information system success and the effect of motivation”. Interestingly, they extend previous research to include both returns to a focal firm as well as returns upstream from that focal firm. Note the strong theoretical foundation to their research, as well as the way the authors link their findings to theory in the discussion section.

Butcher, Chhetri and Corbitt address a very timely issue in their article, “Characterising spatial logistics employment clusters”. Policy makers are increasingly recognizing the economic impact of the logistics sector, particularly in this age of global trade. Following up on Sheffi’s (2012) characterization of logistics clusters, their research provides interesting insights to policy makers evaluating infrastructure development and job growth goals.

Social capital theory provides the foundation for Hartmann and Herb’s paper, “Opportunism risk in service triads – a social capital perspective”. The conceptual development of their research is especially intriguing because of their focus on triadic relationships. Their research is clearly positioned in terms of relevance to both scholars and practitioners.

I look forward to serving the authors, reviewers and readers of IJPDLM as a Senior Associate Editor. The team that Alex Ellinger has assembled represents a skilled set of scholars from whom I will undoubtedly learn much about research, scholarship and journal editorship. I look forward to working with the many authors who submit their work to IJPDLM and hope the ideas here can help others disseminate the research that they so passionately pursue.

February 2014

Diane A. Mollenkopf, Senior Associate Editor, IJPDLM

References

Alderson, W. and Martin, M.W. (1965), “Toward a formal theory of transactions and transvections”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. II No. 2, pp. 117–127

Ehrenthal, J.C.F. and Stölzle, W. (2013), “An examination or the causes for retail stockouts”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 54–69

Hall, D.J., Huscroft, J.R., Hazen, B.T. and Hanna, J.B. (2013), “Reverse logistics goals, metrics, and challenges: perspectives from industry”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 43 No. 9, pp. 768–785

McKinnon, A.C. (2013), “Starry-eyed: journal rankings and the future of logistics research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 6–17

Mentzer, J.T. (2008), “Rigor versus relevance: why would we choose only one?”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 72–77

Sheffi, Y. (2012), Logistics Clusters: Delivering Value and Driving Growth, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Summers, J.O. (2001), “Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in marketing: from conceptualization through the review process”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 405–415

Thornton, L.M., Esper, T.L. and Morris, M.L. (2013), “Exploring the impact of supply chain counterproductive work behaviors on supply chain relationships”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 43 No. 9, pp. 786–804

Wang, Y., Wiegerinck, V., Krikke, H. and Zhang, H. (2013), “Understanding the purchase intention towards remanufactured product in closed-loop supply chains”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 43 No. 10, pp. 866–888