Getting published (not only) in IJWBR

Citation

Orth, U.R. (2007), "Getting published (not only) in IJWBR", International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 19 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijwbr.2007.04319baa.001

Getting published (not only) in IJWBR

Getting published (not only) in IJWBR

Manuscript quality and journal quality

In theory, submitting quality manuscripts to any journal should be a win–win situation: the authors get their work published and receive the recognition that comes with a paper in a peer-reviewed and refereed journal. As the quality of the manuscripts increases so does the journal's quality. In turn, even past articles (which may have failed to achieve higher standards required for nowadays acceptance) will benefit from the recently acquired higher reputation of the journal. Simultaneously, a higher journal reputation, expressed in better rankings, greater impact factors, etc. will attract better quality submissions, thus continuing the upward spiral. While such a self-boosting process is – of course – each editor's dream, it should also motivate journal contributors to submit quality manuscripts from an "investments" perspective. Yet, after serving many years as a reviewer for submissions to academic journals and conferences, and during my brief tenure as Chief Editor for IJWBR it appears to me that a substantial number of authors still lack understanding of what exactly is required to create a quality manuscript that meets standards for publication. No condescension is intended. Instead, the following hints and practical exercises are intended to help contributors in getting their work to publication. Thanks to Eric Arnould and Linda Price for compiling the basics (Arnould, 2006).

Positioning your paper

Title and introduction section are the key tools for properly positioning your paper. In selecting your title be as short and concise as possible. Those few words may be all potential readers will ever read of your article. A well-crafted title serves two major functions. First, it attracts attention, possibly by using catchy phrases and playing with words. Second, it informs the reader for what is to come by using key terms and referring to core concepts that are the essence of the paper. Authors may further want to emphasize a specific geographic area, express their expertise in a special field (e.g. "a cross-cultural examination of…"), or communicate a particular technique (e.g. "an application of structural equation modeling"). Creating a title that adequately serves all functions well is no simple task. However, a well-crafted title ideally not only attracts interested readers but also captures the essence of what this paper really is about.

In your introduction you should focus on and highlight how your research contributes to the current body of knowledge in wine business. This includes introducing your domain (e.g. "package design"), stating your purpose, and drawing explicit links to key research. When stating your purpose be as specific as possible, e.g. "to improve our understanding of how buyers utilize visual design elements in concluding upon wine brand personality". When drawing explicit links to key research you should focus on two questions: (1) What is known about this phenomenon from past research? and (2) What is unknown, that is, the gap in knowledge that prevents researchers or practitioners to take the next steps. Again, be as specific as possible and do not refer to articles that are only loosely related to your work. For example, you could state, "Given the paucity of research examining how generic holistic package design is related to generic consumer impressions, managers are left without guidelines on how to utilize wine package design for communicating brand identity". Here, you also need to make a statement why this gap is an important problem. In sum, the introductory section helps frame the problem your research addresses, familiarizes the reader with basic concepts, and prepares them for the following sections.

Research goals and objectives

If the introduction is set up properly, stating your objectives should naturally flow from the research gap identified before. In some cases, it may be necessary to first state long-term programmatic objectives. To continue the package design example you could state that your goal, or broad problem area, is "to generate insight into how managers can use wine package design for achieving brand management objectives". Then, state the immediate objective(s) of the current research. Think of this narrower objective as the means of filling the gap in current knowledge you identified earlier. For example, "(1) To identify holistic package design characterized by underlying generic design factors", and "(2) To relate holistic prototypical package designs to generic consumer response in terms of brand personality dimensions". Be as realistic as possible and do not overstate your contribution. This objective is the standard that reviewers will employ for evaluating the following sections and your manuscript as a whole.

Conceptual framework

Whether you name it "Theoretical Framework", "Literature Review", or "Development of Hypotheses" section, this is where readers get familiarized in detail with how you build upon past work, what your research will make possible, and how your research makes feasible a solution to the problem you have previously delineated. Lack of a conceptual framework is the most common reason for rejection of manuscripts submitted to IJWBR. Obviously, you are not the first to present research in your domain. Many others have investigated design, brand impressions, or consumer affective or cognitive responses to design. The key point is that you present a concise focused literature, not great undigested swathes of previous thought. Particularly, you need to discuss and define your central constructs (i.e. holistic package design and brand personality), justify why you expect the relationships you will explore, and cite the primary sources in the extant literatures that address this topic. Do not forget to explain key differences between your research and previous studies. e.g. state, "Key differences to previous studies lie in (1) the combined use of both a consumer and a designer sample, (2) the use of aggregated ratings for wine package designs as unit of analysis rather than individual responses, and (3) the examination of systematically assembled package designs that are representative of the design elements commonly used for creating and differentiating wine packages". Otherwise reviewers may ask themselves what the contribution is made by your research, the novelty criterion. Introducing just one more example for consumers' positive response to more attractive package designs simply is not enough. Include further and supporting evidence for why what you examine is important, e.g. package design (1) is present at the time when consumers make the purchase decision at the shelf, and (2) is affordable to wineries who cannot afford other means of marketing communications such as advertising.

If you have not done so in the previous sections, here may be the place to include one figure that summarizes the links between core model components. Remember that figures (or tables for that matter) do not speak for themselves. At minimum, they require an explanatory legend, possibly a few more and clarifying sentences in the text section. This is especially true if the figure does not represent a causal model. These are usually represented by boxes and arrows with causality imputed as flowing from left to right. Lastly, make sure all parts in the framework link together logically and are concordant with each other.

Methodology

Write a rationale outlining what you do to address the research goals and objectives (the procedure), why you chose this approach, and how it makes feasible a solution to the problem you stated. Think along the following (or similar) lines, "The methods that best enable us to address these research questions are derived from research on experimental aesthetics." "High-resolution digital images of wine bottles were selected as example stimuli to ensure that consumers and design professionals responded to identical stimuli." "A population that permits us to address our research question effectively consists of consumers between 18 and 75 years of age who are more or less involved with wine." This section must convince the reader (and the reviewers, of course) that you have applied the most appropriate procedures, and that you have taken all necessary precautions to exclude potentially distorting influences. Impressions evoked with the reviewers that you fail to oversee the implications of your methods and procedures, that you use arbitrarily selected or previously un-tested measures, or that your sample is inadequate, almost certainly lead to rejection.

Findings, discussion, and conclusions

This section is devoted to summarizing your findings, making an impact statement, and outlining limitations of your research. First, describe your key findings as they relate to the goals and objectives introduced at the beginning of the paper. Each aim (identified at the beginning) should have an outcome statement here. A statement as to why that outcome is important should follow each outcome statement. For example "Identifying generic types of wine package design is important because it shows that consumers receive and respond to holistic designs (the "Gestalt") rather than to any specific design element. You conclude with a statement of the collective impact of your work, how it advances wine business research and management in your field as you claimed was needed in the introduction section. For example "The finding of systematic relations between key types of holistic package designs and generic brand personality dimensions is important because it provides marketers with knowledge on how to use package design for achieving desired brand personalities". Make sure you distinguish clearly between what you have found (the results, possibly in numbers and scores) and what you think those results mean.

Second, lead the reader through the synopsis of the data with special attention to what the implications are for both research and wine business management. Be concise and to the point by avoiding extraneous or irrelevant findings. A crucial aspect for any manuscript to get published is how generalizable the findings are, namely the extent to which the findings (and conclusions) can be extended beyond the context of this research. Contexts are of fundamental importance in developing and testing theories. Simply put, a theory is a story about why actions, events, structures or other occur. In testing theories, academic research abstracts, generalizes, explains, synthesizes and idealizes from contexts (Sutton and Staw, 1995). Contexts thus not only give stories veracity and texture but are additionally essential for understanding (and future use) of the research findings. For example, merely introducing the specifics of a marketing strategy for Barossa Valley wines or segmenting visitors to tasting rooms in the Loire Valley based on their demographics contributes very little to the body of knowledge in wine business research and management. Results of those studies may be of interest to students looking for case studies in strategic planning or market segmentation. They are irrelevant, however, even for students without information on how to develop and implement successful strategies and effective means of targeting segments. As a general rule, stand back and ask yourself "What can others learn from this work" others meaning both researchers and practitioners.

Third, re-visiting the limitations of your work (e.g. in terms of sample population, focus on some and neglect of other variables, etc.) is very important. Not only does it help readers understand how far your findings can be extended beyond the specific context of your research (see previously, e.g. from the Australian to the US market, from visual stimuli to real wine bottles, or from wine to other beverages). In addition, highlighting what you have and have not examined, the procedures and measures you have employed, and the results you have established under those conditions points readers to areas for future and follow-up research.

Stand back and seek a second (or third) opinion

With your manuscript (that is, the 10th revision) in hand, stand back and ask, "What did I promise" in terms of goals and objectives, and "What precisely, did I deliver by way of findings" Check if your discussion and conclusion cash out the promises you made in the introduction and data analysis sections. Manuscripts need to be written front to back and then back to front again. Considering these questions can help you achieve this.

When you think the paper perfect, give it to a researcher or other person who is willing to provide candid feedback. If it were my work, I would give it to two individuals to read, someone knowledgeable in marketing, and another person outside marketing who simply applies common (business) sense. Solicit their candid feedback on whether your paper makes its case or not.

How to understand and respond to reviews

Almost no manuscript submitted to IJWBR gets accepted "as is". Instead, having gone through the previous exercises, chances are you will receive a friendly letter from the editor highlighting areas for improvement pointed out by the reviewers, and inviting you to revise and re-submit your paper. While by no means a free ride to acceptance, you should view such a classic R&R as "having a foot in the door" allowing you access to the club of authors if and when you can address reviewer comments and concerns satisfactorily.

My personal perspective on my role as editor in this process is to help authors getting published. Besides others, this interpretation involves selecting reviewers who are most knowledgeable in the subject area(s), and who further have a reputation for providing elaborate and constructive feedback rather than destructive one-liners. Admittedly, this task can be challenging and is the reason why I take the liberty to presume that everyone submitting a manuscript to IJWBR is also willing to serve as reviewer.

Forwarding a manuscript through the review process demands time and effort from both the reviewers and the editor. It is most bothersome, therefore, when authors – aving received an encouraging R&R including detailed comments aimed at substantially improving specific issues – decide to be non-responsive or righteous. This is not to say that well-phrased counterarguments have no place and may not sway reviewers. Instead, the issue appears to be one of understanding and interpreting. I found the advice given by a mentor extremely helpful in dealing with (negative) reviewer concerns and comments. "In many cases it is what you have said rather than what you have done that elicits negative reviewer responses". Accordingly, the appropriate response to a negative reviewer comment in cases other than the obvious error or lack of insight is to not insist that she/he is incompetent but to understand that she/he is confused by what you have said. Frequent reasons are that the phrase, sentence, or paragraph in question is incomplete, too tight, badly written (including grammar and expression) or not clear enough (including the use of confusing or inappropriate technical terms). Because your goal as an author must be to make sure readers understand exactly what you have done, what you have found, and why this is important to know (and to publish), the appropriate response is to clarify and improve. In the best of cases, your reviewer will even share their thoughts on what they believe you meant to say given your research objectives.

Having successfully cleared all hurdles outlined in this paper, your manuscript should have very good chances at getting published in IJWBR. I look forward to receiving it.

Ulrich R. OrthChristian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel,Kiel, Germany

ReferencesArnould, E.J. (2006), "Getting a manuscript to publication standard", Design Research Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 21-3.Sutton, R.I. and Staw, B.M. (1995), "What theory is not", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 371-84.

Further readingOrth, U. and Malkewitz, K. (2007), "Package design for creating consumer brand impressions", Proceedings of the 2007 Academy of Marketing Science Conference, 23-26 June, Coral Gables, FL.