Meet the editor of... Management Decision

An interview with: John Peters

---

Management Decision (MD) publishes research and reflection on the theory, practice, techniques and context of decisions taken in and about business and business research. Considered by many to be the best in its field, it has a long history of presenting thoughtful and provocative insights into current management practice. From 2001-2005, it incorporated the Journal of Management History.

John Peters is former CEO of Emerald, and editor of Management Decision. As an Emerald director, John has been associated with a number of policies that have helped ensure Emerald's market pre-eminence. He has edited Management Decision since 1985.

Editorial philosophy and general journal direction

Can you briefly outline the audience and philosophy of Management Decision, and say what contributions you are looking for?

Management Decision focuses on – guess what – management decisions! And all the stuff that surrounds decision making in management – organizational structure and culture and strategy, understanding customers...we take quite an eclectic approach. I like to encourage different ways of looking at problems. I believe above all in application and communication – we are in the communication business. Papers need to be readable and interesting, and contributing to making the world better managed. Business and management is a really important field, which affects people's quality of life.

I note that you also publish history in the form of Journal of Management History. How does this dovetail with your editorial philosophy?

If we don't understand our roots, we can't easily make sense of the present and the future. The Journal of Management History invites reflective papers on management theory which inform what's going on today.

General publishing issues

Contemporary academic life is known for its high workload. Academics these days have to publish research papers, develop new courses for home and increasingly for overseas markets, write distance learning guides, attend course team meetings, provide substantial feedback to student assignments often using special forms (no more scribbling in illegible red pen), keep detailed records of everything in order to have an audit trail in the case of inspections, manage course budgets, solicit funds, keep abreast of progress in their subject, take part in regular peer reviews and self assessment exercises, oh yes, and teach as well. So, do you have any tips for how academics can find time to write decent papers?

I don't underestimate how hard it is. If I am writing a paper I have to make space for myself. I tend to do it like an appointment – if I have a board meeting due to last 10 til 4, people can't see me during that time. Similarly, if I want to crack the structure of a paper, I try to make an appointment with myself, and just block a half-day out. You can't do it unless it gets to the top of your priority list, and you can't make decent progress unless you have some time to get focused. Other than that – the obvious rules apply. Plan what you want to say. Stick to the point – don't try to go off on several tracks. Write a framework. Make time to edit – a lot of papers I get are kind of brain-dumps of ideas and data – they need a full edit. You will have to do it anyway at review stage and you are taking a big chance that the reviewers will be able to see something of merit and ask for a revision. So block out a half-day appointment just to polish it up and make sure it's coherent and reads well. Sorry, but there are no real short cuts – you have to put the time in.

It's often said that papers get rejected because they haven't targeted the right journal or understood its requirements. Would you care to comment on this?

A guy I used to work with in Australia years ago used to tell a story about how he got a mailshot for a lawnmower. It was a beautifully constructed card, with great copy, following all the copywriting rules – lead with a benefit, short sentences, all that stuff. It was a great offer – money off, trade in on your old lawnmower, warranty. As he said – if I hadn't lived on the 12th floor of an apartment building, I might have bought one! Moral – if you get your target wrong, you have blown the whole thing. Classic rule of direct mail, and classic rule of getting a paper published. You have to do some homework on the publication you are submitting to.

What is your view of the fact that quality in academic publishing is now being seen by many academic institutions as getting published in an ISI [Thomson Scientific] Citation Index listed journal?

It's shortsighted. First, ISI is still very skewed towards sciences. Second, ISI isn't some kind of charitable enterprise existing just to serve the academic community, as some seem to think. Thomson Organization has done a fabulous job in creating the ISI brand and as a publisher and a marketer, I take my hat off to them. Nearly a third of our portfolio is ISI-listed, which for a publisher in our field is very good going, believe me. But if scholars want journals to be inclusive, to be applied, to be readable – this isn't any of what citation indices measure. They measure citations in other ISI-listed journals. It's a nicely measurable, valid, but essentially unidimensional measurement of quality.

What percentage of submissions do you reject outright, what percentage go to reviewers, and what percentage end up being published?

About 30 per cent of submissions make it into review, and about 20 per cent get published. I filter out material I don't think stands a chance, or doesn't fit our editorial strategy, but once it's in review, I try to work with the authors and the reviewers to get it into shape. It may take a few times round the review and revision cycle. So about a third of what we get, goes into review, and about two thirds of what goes into review makes it through eventually to publication. If I can, I will try to refer papers which don't fit with MD to other publications, both within and outside our portfolio. I hate to just dump an author – I know how much work goes into writing a paper!

Assuming that an article is accepted, how long does it take, on average, between submitting a manuscript and publication?

Very rough guide – you should get review comments back within four or five weeks. You should not sit in a queue to be published for more than six to nine months. So you should be published, if all goes fairly smoothly and you attend sharply to revisions, 9-12 months from submission. I run a relatively short forward inventory for a scholarly social sciences journal. I'd like to shorten it further.

Quality variables

I suspect I'm not alone in experiencing that when I try and write in an academic context I am craftily disguising the fact that there's a paper in there somewhere if only I could find it. Similarly, it's sometimes difficult when reading academic papers to determine what the author thinks they're about. How can one counter this search for a general purpose? 

Write a purpose statement! Write, "The purpose of this paper is...", then do what you say you will do. And please tell us why it's important, or novel, or valuable. What's in it for the researcher and the practitioner?

How can the double blind review process be managed to ensure quality whilst at the same time avoiding the negative effects, which often cause anxiety to authors, such as unconstructive, negative or just vague comments?

Well, this is where editors need to add value and not just be a mailbox. We have to read our reviewers' comments and help the author. If there are obvious contrasts (make it shorter vs make it longer, for example) you have to mediate. I used to filter or re-word critical comments made by reviewers, but I tend to leave them nowadays – though I might remind an author that it isn't personal!

How can authors make reviewers' lives easier, and their own, in not having their papers rejected or requiring much revision?

Look at what the journal publishes. Take time to clean and polish a paper before sending it. Always spell check and proofread meticulously – a cast-iron guaranteed way to annoy reviewers is to show them they are spending their scarce voluntary time with an author who can't be bothered to even run a cursory spellcheck over a paper! Make your arguments coherent. Don't disguise weaknesses – flag them. If your sample size is small – say so. Don't try to fool the reviewers by running a million stat tests on poor data – it doesn't work. Just be straight. Find what's of value and sell it to us and the reader.

What advice can you give to authors on dealing with reviewers' comments and on revising their papers at this stage?

Don't panic! And always, always, please send a detailed cover sheet saying exactly how you have responded to review comments – or why not! I can't tell you how much easier it makes the review process, and how difficult it makes it if an author doesn't do it, or makes a poor job of explaining what they have done. 

Are there any particular quality issues that crop up again and again with submitted articles, such as lack of structure, poor writing style, inadequate referencing?

Carelessness, as mentioned above – it just shows an author either doesn't care, or doesn't have the brains to figure out how much they will annoy a reader. Lack of clarity about what they are trying to achieve. A research paper, which is really an essay – no empirical data of any kind. Old references, making it look like a paper has been round the houses for a couple of years. Weak conclusions. A good conclusion should restate the main points. My rule of thumb is – at least 5 per cent, and more likely 10 per cent of total words written should be a conclusion. In a 5,000-word paper, I'd expect 500 words of strong conclusion.

Do you have authors who have problems with English, and how do you overcome this?

Yes we do, and it's a tricky one. I sometimes suggest that an author teams up and maybe joint-authors with a native English speaker, if possible. We help out with our copy-editing people as best we can, but we are an English language publisher and it's incumbent on the author to submit in good English.

Looking through copies of your journal, I'm struck by the use of headings, and the way they act as signposts to the reader. Do you have any tips to authors about their use?

The word "signposts" is key. That's just what they are. A paper will usually split naturally into, say, eight or so sections. Use headings to delineate these natural section breaks and signpost the reader through a paper. 

Dissemination

Getting something published is only the first step in dissemination. What advice would you give to authors on continuing to ensure that their work becomes known to their peers?

The peer-reviewed scholarly journal is seen as the be-all and end-all of publishing for many academics. But if you've written a paper for a scholarly journal, why not adapt it for a trade magazine? One of my favourite magazines is the marketing and advertising trade publication Admap – it publishes nice crisp two to four page papers, and there's usually at least one by an academic in there, based on some research, and I always think – good on you! That's smart personal promotion, as well as, presumably, a genuine wish to bring ideas to practitioners. Any good journal paper can give rise to a follow-up for the same journal, or a different one; one or two cut-down papers from the trade press; and a conference paper or two. I think it's a good exercise to find an angle where a story or feature could be published in the news media too – it helps sharpen the idea of "what's interesting or novel about this paper?". So you might aim to get something in the press, and maybe an interview on the radio or TV. Why not?

In the electronic age, many journal articles are retrieved via search engines. What tips do you have for ensuring that an article maximizes its search hit potential?

Write a good descriptive title. Think about who will be retrieving the paper and what search term criteria will be used. If your key audience is people looking for information about employment practices in retailing, write that term in your abstract, if not in your title. That way you will be picked up by searches. Increasingly, published material is picked up by the web search engines like Google. Again, make sure you have your key retrieval terms in your header information – your abstract, title and keywords. But most of the time, people will see a list of titles when they put in a search term. That's what sells your paper.

Emerald editorial philosophy

John, you have a dual role – as well as being editor of Management Decision, you are also a director of Emerald, making key publishing decisions for the company. So, if I may, I'd like to end by asking you some questions in your publisher capacity.

Do you gain specific insights from your dual vantage point as both Editor and Publisher?

The editorial process of collecting, refereeing and improving papers is one of the absolute centrepieces of the publishing process. I play a role as an editor because I love it, but also because it informs my decision making as a director, and particularly as functional head of our supply chain. I guess it's a bit like running a good restaurant – you need to know your way around a kitchen! It means that when I talk to our editors, I can do so with a proper hands-on understanding of the role.

Are there times when the two roles conflict?

No, not in our firm. We deliberately run a policy where we are funded on subscription income rather than advertising or any kind of underwriting from institutions. Our shares are privately held, by people who work in the firm. We aren't part of any other wider institution, or conglomerate. We don't get subsidies from government or anyone else. That means we aren't under any kind of pressure or conflict to compromise what we do editorially. It's a very good capital structure in which to run a scholarly publishing company.

You place great value on Emerald as a brand. What are Emerald's brand values and what's in it for authors to be loyal to the Emerald brand?

Brand values...we try hard. We listen. We are professional. We are friendly. We think a lot about what we do. We are inclusive. We encourage excellence and scholarship in our community. We want to be the "publisher of choice" for authors in our field – that means, if we have a journal in an interest area, we'd like people to come to us first. Coming to Emerald says – reliably good service, timeliness, friendliness, high dissemination, and real appreciation.

What do publishers gain from having a customer-focused approach to authors?

Authors are a valuable, scarce resource, like customers. As a publisher, we try to manage our authors to be satisfied with our interactions with them. If they are, they will write for us again, and they will refer others to write for us. And they will be more inclined to use Emerald journals for their own research and direct their students to us. We gain everything from treating our authors as valued customers. There's no downside.

Some authors might be wary of being published electronically, given the "anyone can publish on the Internet" mentality. Can you comment on this?

Being published on the Web – by a publisher – gives you the same rigours and disciplines that being published in hard copy – by a publisher – does. That is to say, your work is verified, categorized, permanent and reliable. That's part of the important value-added things a publisher brings. In short, someone other than the author thinks this work is of value. There's no difference in that respect between hard copy and the Web, except that it's easier to post any old rubbish on a website. That's why you need to get published by a publisher!

Editor's note

John Peters was inteviewed in 2004.

Visit the information page for: Management Decision

..

 |  |