Maximising your chances of getting published
Choose the correct methodology
#EditorObservations 04 Choose the correct methodology (YouTube, 1m 38s)
The title, abstract and conclusion sections are where authors most prominently present key conclusions they draw from their study. Whether or not these conclusions are valid, however, can only be assessed by studying in detail the methodology section. Among quantitative studies submitted to Annals of Tourism Research during my tenure as the Co-Editor-in-Chief, a substantial proportion of articles drew conclusions that were not backed up by the empirical findings from their study. This is an immediate reason for rejection. Publishing articles that draw invalid conclusions misleads readers and fundamentally undermines society’s trust in scholarly research. It is a core role of academic journals to ensure that conclusions drawn in articles they publish are valid.
For authors this has several implications: (1) it really is essential that they have substantial expertise in research design so they can conduct the study in a way that enables them to validly answer their research questions; and (2) authors must be very precise with the use of language. With authors increasingly under pressure to “sell” their papers to journals – to make them as attractive and exciting as possible – it can be very tempting to ever so slightly overstate the importance of findings. A typical mistake is to indicate in the title, abstract and conclusions that a study provides insight into behaviour when actual behaviour was never measured.
A study is only as good as the method used to derive insights.
A journal is only as good as its ability to ensure conclusions drawn in their papers are valid.
#editorobservation
“Why quantitative papers based on primary data get desk-rejected by Annals of Tourism Research” now freely accessible.
Scott McCabe and I hope it will help authors to prevent an unnecessary desk rejection
#editorobservation
Many quantitative studies based on primary data are desk-rejected at Annals of Tourism Research because the research design is not suitable to answer the research question asked.
- The study sets out to learn about behaviour, but behaviour is not measured.
- The study sets out to draw causal conclusions but analyses data from a one-off cross-sectional survey study without intervention.
There is no universally right or wrong research design but the design must enable the researcher to validly answering the question asked.
Here’s a framework that might help guide authors in their choice of research design.
#editorobservation
CAUTHE 2021: Meet the Editor session.
Cross-sectional survey studies not recommended.
Single cross-sectional survey study a guaranteed desk-reject at Tourism Management.
Not our favourite at Annals of Tourism Research either.
Rarely a valid approach.
#editorobservation
As I process new manuscript submissions that use quantitative methods for Annals of Tourism Research, one single dominant desk reject reason emerges: The research design the authors have chosen generates data that cannot answer the research question they ask and that does not permit the conclusions drawn to validly be drawn.
This flow chart might be useful to authors in guiding their research design choices. Visit Field experiments: Overcoming the limitations of survey experiments for actionable behavioural insights for the full open access article.
#editorobservation
At Annals of Tourism Research, we are receiving more and more articles that contain several studies. I have no objection to that in principle, but often I do get the impression that some of the studies are artificially created for the sole purpose of having more studies in one article.
More studies do not make the research better if the validity of each of the studies is undermined by methodological weaknesses. More is not always better.
But better is always better. One well-executed study that allows valid conclusions to be drawn beats a series of studies affected by methodological weaknesses any day.
