ARC: Research: Research Tips: Reflections by Richard J. Lutz
Excerpted from Richard J. Lutz (1990), “Editorial”, Journal of Consumer Research, 17, (December), 242-245.
As I write this, I have just placed my last manuscript decision letter in the mail. As editor of the Journal of Consumer Research the past three years, I have processed 689 new manuscript submissions and 449 revisions - a total of 1,138 decisions. Of the 689 new manuscripts, 121 (17.5 percent) have been published or are forthcoming, 523 (76 percent) were rejected, and 45 (6.5 percent) are back with the authors for revision.
It is customary for retiring editors to offer their perspectives on the nature of the review process. The editorial review process in general (not just at JCR) is often a source of frustration for authors and reviewers alike. Some have even gone so far as to characterize it as “a socially approved form of intellectual sadomasochism” (Holbrook 1986, p.105). I view it somewhat differently. The review process is inherently a human communication process and, as such, subject to all the vagaries and idiosyncrasies of the human condition, but I daresay that in general it is far more rational and humane than the typical departmental faculty meeting.
If a 76 percent rejection rate is not symptomatic of a pernicious and evil review process, what accounts for this relative lack of success? Having made quite a number of rejection decisions and having read even more reviewer recommendations that a manuscript be rejected, I can offer the following observations.
Reasons for manuscript rejection generally cluster, into two categories: fatal flaws and communication barriers. The most easily detected fatal flaws are those involving the execution of the research: sloppy, incomplete, or erroneous conceptualizing; methodological flaws; and ignorance of directly relevant prior literature.
More often, the flaw is simply that the stated research problem is not judged to be innovative, interesting, or important. In many cases, I believe, this results from the lack of a clear focus on the part of the authors regarding the intended contribution of the research; that is, what knowledge is the research expected to produce, and for whom? The last phrase is of particular importance, because it underscores the notion of a constituency for the research findings. Please note that I am not referring to the constituency for the manuscript but for the research itself. Conducting a piece of research and only later considering the audience for it is a classic example of the sales orientation (i.e., a product in search of a market). Instead, research, like a product, should be designed with a constituency in mind, whether it be managers, public policy officials, or academic researchers (Peter and Olson 1983). Many futile researcher hours could be saved if authors were to “test-market” their intended contributions and research designs before executing the research. Many of the more successful authors in our field routinely test-market their manuscripts via a peer review process, but the idea-generation and research-design stages of projects are not generally subjected to the same degree of scrutiny. Taking this simple step (which those of us in marketing advocate to our students as essential to the new product development process) would greatly increase the potential yield of our collective research efforts.
The most important communication barrier to publishing otherwise sound research is the expositional quality of the manuscripts. Frankly, it is appalling to see how badly so many of us write. Simple spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors abound. The JCR Style Sheet is more often ignored than followed. These points may seem trivial, but they are distracting at best and, at worst, can be interpreted as indicative of the care that went into the research itself.
Beyond the simplistic errors, many manuscripts are not written very well at a global level; one wonders whether the author ever constructed an outline of the paper before writing it. At its heart, a manuscript is a persuasive communication; the author is attempting to persuade the intended audience that a contribution to knowledge has been made. Yet, often a manuscript is so poorly written that it is frustrating to read. The sadder case is when a manuscript is so obfuscatory that bad exposition is mistakenly judged to be fatally flawed conceptualization or method. At the very least, all manuscripts should go through a conscientious peer review before being submitted. How do you know whether your peer reviewers have been conscientious? If they don’t make you think or cause you to revise the manuscript in some significant fashion, there’s a good chance that they are either not expert or not conscientious. (Either that or you’re perfect!)
The other common barrier to publication is related to the general expositional problem but is more specific. In the vast majority of cases, manuscripts are simply too long relative to their potential contribution. Reference lists are unnecessarily lengthy; they are not intended to be bibliographies. Typically, literature review sections are distended (manuscripts based on dissertations are the worst offenders). Discussion sections often wander off to strange lands or even distant galaxies. Ceteris paribus, the shorter the article, the more likely it is that someone will actually read it. Again, the notion of a manuscript as a persuasive communication is relevant. Say what you have to say. Focus on the message and not on all the trappings. Reviewers, editors, and readers will appreciate it.
A couple of final thoughts. Over the past three years, I have been asked literally dozens of times (usually, but not exclusively, by Ph.D. students) what the “hot topics” in consumer research are. (I have never come up with a snappy reply to that question, to my great dismay.) To attempt to answer that question, officially and for the final time, I suggest that you look within yourself: a topic isn’t hot for you unless you decide it is. It is safe to say that the very best researchers in our field follow their own instincts in selecting research topics. This may sound contradictory to my earlier “test-market” advice, but it isn’t. Their instincts are firmly grounded in an expertise emanating from a total immersion in the topic area: reading the relevant academic literature, scanning the trade press, talking with industry researchers and colleagues at conferences, trading working papers and ideas in a network of scholars with similar interests, and so on. It is commitment to a program of research that makes it work; you need to become an absolute expert on your subject. To expect the contributions of your research to achieve first-rate status from anything less than that sort of commitment is to expect the unrealistic.
So, my best advice for successful publishing is to forget about it; instead, concentrate on successful, committed research. The ultimate goal is to make a contribution to knowledge. The publication process is not a “game” to be negotiated. Reviewers’ and editors’ complaints should not be viewed as contrivances designed to thwart your efforts. Instead, view them as constructive guidance (even when it hurts!) for improving the manuscript at hand but even more importantly for enhancing the contribution of your research, both present and future.
Richard J. Lutz
December 1990
Holbrook, Morris B. (1986), “A Note on Sadomasochism in the Review Process: I Hate When That Happens.’ Journal of Marketing, 50 (July), 104—108.
Peter, J. Paul and Jerry C. Olson (1983), “Is Science Marketing?” Journal of Marketing, 47 (Fall), 111—125.