I examine here the questions of when to write, how to improve a text (by soliciting feedback on the manuscript) and the revision process used by refereed journals.
1. When to Write
On the issue of when to write, the principal advice we find repeatedly given is, begin as soon as possible (Richardson, 1990; Wolcott, 1990; Yin, 1990). To fully understand this argument, it is important to remember that the writing up of a research project is not done in one sitting. It is a long process, a labor to which one returns many times in order to improve the text. Commencing writing early in the project brings several advantages. The most trivial is purely practical: the early stages of the research are relatively less demanding, and there is time to collect the required documentation. By writing in advance in this way researchers can free up their time, allowing them, when the time comes, to devote their full attention to analysis and results (Yin, 1990).
Wolcott (1990) highlights another advantage. He points out that writing is a form of reflection, and therefore that writing enables us to clarify our thoughts and to expose weaknesses in our reasoning. So, he explains, the process of writing can reveal how the work is unfolding: if the writing is going badly, it is surely because one has nothing to say, or more correctly, that one is not yet able to explain the research. Wolcott (1990) also points out that authors who postpone writing, arguing that they have not yet clarified their ideas perfectly, run the risk of never commencing.
2. Feedback
A text will be revised many times during the writing phase, which is a long and delicate process. Numerous questions arise as this process unfolds, including the degree of exposure to give to a paper in progress, and when to start looking for comments and feedback. First, it must be noted that there is unanimous agreement on encouraging writers to seek comments on their manuscripts before formally submitting them to a journal. It is important to have the manuscript read by colleagues, friends, and students who may be able to give advice relating to the research, but equally well to the way in which the article is written. As Daft (1995: 180) advises: ‘Allow the paper to ripen naturally with the passage of time, lots of sunshine, and many revisions …’.
An article should undergo at least two or three major revisions before it is submitted to a journal (Meyer, 1992; 1995). These revisions should relate to both content and form, (Wolcott, 1990). We must also bear in mind that comments and modifications can be endless: there will always be something in a paper that can be improved, whether as a result of comments from a reviewer, or the writer’s own development on the subject. It is important then to know when to stop. Comments are more often related to form than to content (Richardson, 1990), as it is easier to criticize a phrase than a general process, and because readers are there to help writers to convey their ideas, and not to impose their own (Wolcott, 1990). Hence it is important to provide them with a paper that is already well advanced. A manuscript that is full of errors and approximations, or is incomplete, distracts the readers’ attention from its most important points, and prevents them from making a worthwhile contribution: it is much easier to help improve a good manuscript than a really poor paper.
Comments are generally negative. It is well to be aware of this beforehand, so as not to be surprised or discouraged. We are more inclined to pick up on imperfections, problems or difficulties, than to stop at an excellent passage to
congratulate the author on it. This is, first, because a precise, meticulous reading renounces a general impression in favor of a detailed examination of each point. The second reason is the fact that, in doing this, the reader is fulfilling the expectations of the writer. In order to help improve the text, it is necessary to pick up on all its imperfections. So, whatever the quality of the text, comments are always disproportionately on the negative side. Submitting an article to a refereed journal will provide ample demonstration of this.
3. The Reviewing Process
The major academic journals have an extremely rigorous process of selecting articles. Each article is evaluated anonymously by specialists in the field, called reviewers, and returned to the author for revision. This process is repeated until the article is rejected or, less often, accepted for publication.
The reviewing process is a strongly emotional issue that is often poorly understood. To appreciate the various aspects of this – the development of the research, publishing of its results, maintaining the required minimum level of quality, the power relationships involved, etc. – Publishing in the Organizational Sciences, edited by Cummings and Frost (1995), is a good source of perceptive advice.
The reviewing process should be seen as a social activity, with interaction between the author, the editor, and the reviewers (Pondy 1995). This interaction should be constructive. As Meyer says (1995: 265) in reference to reviewers, the process should ‘turn umpires into coaches’. It is therefore strongly advised to attach a personal reply to each of the reviewers when returning the revised article, explaining point by point which of their comments have been incorporated and why the others have not.
It is important to maintain a positive attitude during the review process. Certainly, it is often difficult to accept criticism of a labor into which one has put so much of oneself, but objectivity is essential. As Rousseau (1995) points out, even the most provocative commentaries may have been written by reviewers who appreciate the research. And in the contrary situation, seemingly negative reviewers can eventually change their mind, or have their opinion rejected by the editor. A reviewer is there to improve the article: if a point has not been understood, this is surely because it was not expressed clearly enough (Daft, 1995; Meyer, 1995). The importance of feedback in improving an article is shown clearly in the examples given by Frost and Stablein (1992). Each of the research projects they discuss benefited greatly from feedback, as much informally through the views of colleagues, as formally through the reviewing processes of the journals to which these articles were submitted.
Often, however, the process does not lead to the desired result and the article is rejected. Faced with this situation, the researcher has to resist several impulses: arguing that the reviewers are stupid, giving up on the article entirely or sending it straight off to another journal. The first solution is not constructive and stops an author from reflecting on the weaknesses of the article. The second is unproductive and comes down to obliterating all the effort that went into the research. And the third brings with it the risk of suffering a new rejection. It is better to allow some time to pass so as to be able to take a step back from the manuscript. The researcher is then in a position to study the reviewers’ comments, discuss them with colleagues, and thoroughly rework the article before submitting it to another journal. Here it is important to note that, almost universally, journals have a policy against the same article being sent to several of them at the same time. Authors must wait for the decision of one journal before soliciting another.
Source: Thietart Raymond-Alain et al. (2001), Doing Management Research: A Comprehensive Guide, SAGE Publications Ltd; 1 edition.
superior comment