Maximising your chances of getting published
Introduction
#EditorObservations 02 Maximising your chances of getting published (YouTube, 2m 11s)
As a journal editor nothing gets me more excited than a really new idea – a really new research question. If I had to choose one factor that most determines what makes me desk-reject a manuscript or pass it onto an Associate Editor it would be the originality and significance of the idea. In contrast, manuscripts that investigate questions that represent marginal contribution to knowledge, at best, are unlikely to be considered for publication.
The next aspect I look at in a new submission is whether the method used is suitable to answering the research question asked. It is surprising how often this is not the case. For example, authors ask questions about causal relationships between constructs, but do not conduct an experiment that would allow drawing causal conclusions. Authors want to learn about behaviour – behaviour of a consumer, of a manager, or a policy maker – yet they fail to measure behaviour, relying instead on self-reported behaviour. In some instances self-reported behaviour may be acceptable but more often than not self-reports are biased, especially when the construct under study is affected by social desirability bias.
Here are a few articles that offer guidance on choosing a suitable method for a research question of a specific nature and how results can be reported accurately:
