Publishing in the Asia Pacific Journal of Management and the editing and review process

1. David Ahlstrom Editor-in-Chief, Asia Pacific Journal of Management Professor – The Chinese University of Hong Kong Shatin, NT Hong Kong SAR, China ahlstrom@baf.msmail.cuhk.edu.hk Publishing in the Asia Pacific Journal of Management and the editing and review process

2. ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT Official Journal of the Asia Academy of Management (regional affiliate of the AOM). Hosted by The Chinese University of Hong Kong with assistance from the University of Texas at Dallas and Texas Christian University) David Ahlstrom Editor-in-Chief The Chinese University of Hong Kong

3. An A Journal—#1 in Management Research in Asia, on Asia, of Asia • Founded by National University of Singapore in 1983 • Asia Academy of Mgmt (AAM) founded in 1998 • Now the official journal of the Asia AoM • 25th anniversary celebration (2007/4th issue) • Accepted into the SSCI  3.35 Impact Factor (for year 2010) was reported in 2011 • About 600 submissions per year, acceptance rate around 10% APJM has featured the work of: • J. Barney, P. Beamish, M. Bond, G.D. Bruton, X.-P. Chen, C. Chen, M.-J. Chen, G. Dess, A. Delios, J. Dunning, C. Hill, M. Hitt, G. Hofstede, R. Hoskisson, M. Kotabe, K. Law, K. Leung, J.T. Li, Y. Luo, S. Makino, J. McGuire, W. Mitchell, M. Peng, G. Redding, A. Rugman, O. Shenkar, D. Tjosvold, A. Tsui, R. Tung, A. Van de Ven, M. Wright, and H. Yeung

4. APJM Editorial Structure (2011) • Editor-in-Chief • David Ahlstrom(The Chinese University of Hong Kong) • Consulting Editor • Mike Peng(University of Texas at Dallas) • Managing Editor • Rachel (Rae) Pinkham(University of Texas at Dallas) • Senior Editors • Michael Carney (Concordia University, Canada) • Shyh-jer Chen (National Sun Yat-sen University) • Fang Lee Cooke (Monash University) • Eric Gedajlovic (Simon Frasier University, Canada) • Yaping Gong (HK University of Science and Technology) • Xu Huang (Hong Kong Polytechnic University) • Takehiko Isobe (Keio University, Japan) • Hicheon Kim (Korea University) • Rico Lam (University of Macau) • Simon Lam (University of Hong Kong) • Seung-Hyun Lee (University of Texas at Dallas, USA) • Jane Lu (National University of Singapore) • Klaus Meyer (University of Bath, UK) • Anil Nair (Old Dominion University, USA) • Alfred Wong (Lingnan University, Hong Kong) • CS Wong (The Chinese University of Hong Kong) • Daphne Yiu (The Chinese University of Hong Kong) • Michael Young (Hong Kong Baptist University) • Kevin Zhou (University of Hong Kong)

5. Basic APJM Operations • Decentralized editorial structure – Editor-in-Chief – Senior Editors – Consulting Editor – Managing Editor (some copy editing) – Website / submissions management in Chennai, India – Copy editing in Texas and The Philippines – General support from Springer Publishing in New York.

6. Special Issues of APJM Gifts and Favors in Asia 2013 (planned) Poverty and Entrepreneurship in Asia 2013 (planned) Innovation in India 2014 (planned)

7. Perspectives, Review, and Commentary articles • Perspectives launched in 2005: • M. Peng and R. Tung (2/2005) • 2006: P. Beamish, E. Tsang, H. Yeung, K. Meyer • 2007: C. Hill, G. Dess, G. Bruton, D. Ahlstrom, M. Wright, C.M. Lau, G. Hofstede, K. Singh, A. Rugman • 2008: J. McGuire, R. Mudambi, K. Asakawa, J. Dunning, M. Carney • 2009: M.-J. Chen, K. Meyer • 2010: J.Q. Zhou, M.Peng • Reviews & Commentaries launched in 2006 • J. Mathews: Dragon multinationals (1/2006) • Commentaries: J. Dunning, R. Narula (“The Empire Strikes Back”) • 2007: Lee & Oh; Quer et al., debate on Meyer (2006) • 2008: Tong & Li, Yang & Li, Li & Peng, Harzing and Xu et al. (on IB rankings) • 2010 : Tony Fang – Going beyond Hofstede and culture in Asia research. • 2010: R.Bhagat – on theory in Asia

8. Perspectives, Reviews, andCommentaries – new ideas • We look for manuscripts that provide an interesting review of a topic (not just a basic listing of articles), or provide some review along with presenting a new look at the topic (perspectives). Or, for the commentary paper, some topic that clarifies a research or theory-related topic. • These papers get read and cited as they are relatively easy to read and understand. • Not journalistic articles, and not predictions about the future (beyond say one year). Predictions are not research, unless they are grounded well in past data. • For information on making contributions through reviews and other theory-related work, see: • Corley & Giola. 2011. Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a Theoretical contribution? AMR, 36(1), 12–32.

9. 1 Editorial Development 1.2 Author Country of Origin of Manuscripts Submitted

11. ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT -- 2010 Key Performance Indicators • · 464 submissions (up from 348 in 2009), closer to 600 in recent years (2011-12) • · 13% acceptance rate; ~10% in 2011 (down from 20% in 2009) • · Page budget: 180 pp/issue (2011) • · 41 articles published in 2010, 41 in 2011 • · 33.5 days average submission to first decision time • · 7,229 institutions with exposure via 278 online deals (up from 5,413 in 2009) • · 107 Institutional Subscriptions • · 124,225 total downloads in 2010 (up 29% from 96,443 in 2009) • · Top-downloaded article of the Year: “Disney’s Successful Adaptation in Hong Kong” by Jontathan Matusitz • · 1,159 table of contents alerts (up from 979 in 2009) • · 2010 Impact Factor: 3.355 (first Impact Factor for APJM) • · Ranked 18/140 in Management, just behind SMJ & Personnel Psychology

12. APJM Statistics and Editorial Process • Annual submissions: Now over 600 papers annually– Organization Science territory – Up 5X in 5 years (from around 100 papers in 2004-05). • Upon receiving a new submission, we act in about a week 1) Review and possibly desk reject (or recommend a later submission) or 2) Action Edit it myself (then I select reviewers) or 3) Assign to one of my Senior Editors (who may still desk reject themselves) • Desk rejection rate about 50%, plus some desk rejections from the senior (action) editors. Important here is the ‘aims and scope’ (more on that later). But sometimes I give an author to submit again if they fix a bunch of obvious problems (see next lecture for more on those ‘obvious problems’) • Acceptance rate: around 10-12% • Average turnaround (1st round): about 60-90 days

13. 1 Editorial Development 1.1 Editorial Manager – Editorial Status Summary During the peer review process, submitted manuscripts go through one or more revision stages leading up to acceptance or rejection. The table below, summarizes the activity for the journal office between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2010. Only “Original Submissions” have been taken into account. The rejection rate for 2010 is calculated as the number of rejected manuscripts in 2010 compared to the total number of decisions in 2010, which is defined here as the number of rejected manuscripts plus the number of accepted manuscripts.

14. APJM Editing and Reviewing • Action editor is usually one of APJM’s Senior Editors, though it could be the Chief Editor or someone else assigned to handle the paper. • The action editor assigns (usually) two reviewers and manages the review process (more on that later also). • If a paper makes it past the (initial) desk of the Editor and action editor, it has an ok chance of getting accepted eventually.

15. Some observations on what APJM wants (and does not want) • Very Important: Read, understand, and follow the ‘Aims and Scope’ of APJM And see Ahlstrom, 2010 , issues 2 and 4, also; Ahlstrom, 2011 – issue 2 Aims and Scope: The Asia Pacific Journal of Management publishes original manuscripts on management and organizational research in the Asia Pacific region, encompassing Pacific Rim countries and mainland Asia.APJM focuses on the extent to which each manuscript addresses matters that pertain to the most fundamental question: "What determines firm success?" We seek to publish empirical or conceptual research which improves a broad understanding of this issue. APJM endeavors to be the major vehicle for exchange of ideas and research among management scholars within or interested in the broadly-defined Asia Pacific region. • Avoid common (initial) missteps. These include bad formatting, big spelling mistakes (e.g. misspelling words in the title, abstract and headers). • Do not submit textbook-type chapters, consultant reports, or magazine articles. • Do not submit “how-to” articles for managers and supervisors • Just putting “management” or “manage” in the title does not make your paper a ‘management’ paper. Your paper should contribute significantly to the academic field of management – based on the IV, DV, theory, and contributions.

16. Aims and Scope of APJM – Some Specifics • APJM publishes original manuscripts related to: • Management research (both macro and micro) • Asia Pacific region (broadly defined) • East of Istanbul, west of Alaska, south of North Pole, and north of New Zealand’s South Island. Also Asia-related databases (e.g. Chinese or Indian diaspora). • Broad question of interest • As noted -- what determines organizational success? What helps researchers to better approach and understand that question. • Articles should be based on or utilize theory • Theory/conceptual papers? YES (ask a question about management and international business theory; ask a question about a substantive topic, perhaps ask a question about methods and/or research design, perhaps ask a question about public policy) • Qualitative papers? YES • Quantitative papers? YES • Mixed Methods? YES • Data from outside of ‘traditional management’? YES • A combination of AMR + AMJ + JIBS + JMS with an Asia Pacific focus (see Sutton & Staw, 1995 ASQ; Ahlstrom, 2010 APJM – issues 1, 2 and 4)

17. What do journals (especially APJM) want? Writing Style:Clearly written papers have a better chance of acceptance. As James Bailey, the editor of the Academy ofManagement Learning and Education (AMLE) says “as a general rule, reduce your first draft by 25%. Writing is hard work; give it its due!” Edit Carefully:Bailey also adds that most papers chances of publication are hurt by unprofessional presentation, improper organization, numerous grammatical and spelling mistakes, not formatting the paper properly and omitting citations. On formatting.Do not single space. Do not submit a textbook-style chapter (a lot of how-to and bullet points, etc). Do not use only numbered footnotes as references. Pay attention to APJM style (about the same as AMJ). Absolutely, positively have a research questionor thesis statement. Try to state that very early, in the first page or even the first paragraph, if possible. Double check to make sure you have a one stated clearly (see Ahlstrom, 2010 APJM – issue 2) Do not hedge.Make the question clear and direct -- two parts if necessary, one for the substantive topic (e.g. can boards change in Chinese family firms, including the CEO and what is the effect on firm performance); and a related question for theory might be can firms change and under conditions of institutions and other cultural conventions that militate against major firm change (i.e. a question for theory in change management, strategy formulation, etc.). See www.mikepeng.com Make sure you have read the journal to which you are sending your paper. If APJM, then be familiar with APJM’s aims and scope, format, and try to cite recent workfrom APJM (from that year and the year before, if possible).

18. What do editors at APJM want specifically? • Clear Research Question (or thesis statement) • What [variables] determine (or is likely to be related to) firm success? • About improving organizational performance or helping researchers in that endeavor (see APJM Aims & Scope) • Clearly stated research question– do not hedge, ask your question directly and specifically. A good question can have two or more parts (see next slides and other presentation). • Make your question about your dependent variable (outcome) which is also a management-related DV

19. Some Specifics: Ask good research questions and (building on that) specify your contributions, both in the Introduction (briefly) early and in the Discussion section • Some Sample Research Questions: • --How do organizations make strategic choices during the time of fundamental and comprehensive institutional transitions? (Mike Peng AMR 2003) • --What determines foreign market entry strategies? (Klaus Meyer and colleagues SMJ 2009) • --The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of downsizing announcements on market returns; we are especially interested in the outcomes of large downsizing actions where losses of important human capital are likely. (Mike Hitt and colleagues SMJ 2004) [note – this could also be framed as a question, ‘what are the outcomes of large downsizing actions where (under conditions of) losses of important human capital are likely (big layoffs)]. • --This article focuses on a key question: Why do strategies of firms from different countries and regions differ? This is the very first question among the five most fundamental questions in strategic management raised by Rumelt, Schendel and Teece. (Mike Peng APJM 2002) • --To assist Western managers involved in these situations, we offer a culturally based approach to transferring management knowledge in Russia. That is, how does management knowledge transfer [in this case, to Russia, but also generally speaking], mediated by cultural variables (note theory and substantive topic both there). (Sheila Puffer and colleagues AME 2005)

20. Research questions – Scott Shane’s The Illusions of Entrepreneurship

21. A few more sample research questions (with implied contributions to theory) • In entrepreneurship, Davidsson and Wiklund (1997) asked: Is culture associated with differences in rates of new firm formation [i.e. do different countries have different levels of entrepreneurship] after controlling for economic/structural factors? – Note that question includes important moderators that were not included in earlier studies and thus represents an important extension (theory contributions) of previous research. • Another research question by entrepreneurship scholar Scott Shane (1993) in a well-known paper asked what effect does national culture have on rates of innovation? – That paper deals with different countries and culture measures with innovation rates.

22. Albert Einstein As Albert Einstein is reported to have said, “good questions should be clear, uncomplicated, and have an answer.” So, when a manuscript states that it is going to “examine innovation,” there is no answer to that statement -- it is certainly not a research question. Anotherbad ‘question’ we get sometime at APJM is ‘will China or India have the biggest economy in the world in 2040 ?’ That is a question, but it is not one that can be answered with any degree of certainty or accuracy (it is a forecast about the future, and the rather distant future at that). Another author wanted to ask ‘what do opinion leaders believe about the future in China?’ That is a research question, but it is basically a poll and summary of expert predictions. This is thus not very interesting in terms of management and IB theory, maybe for the psychology of expertise and / or forecasting, but they have their own theories and research about this, which differs considerably from management and organizational theory.

23. A General Thesis Statement • Using history more accurately in management and IB research. • Other social science fields use history more -- e.g. sociology {comparative history}, economics, psychology {historiometry – personality or IQ of historical figures, need for achievement in society (McClelland, 1960) etc.}. • Management only occassionally uses – usually military history examples (for strategy, decision-making). • My paper in APJM (Ahlstrom, Lamond & Ding, 2009) asked if past applications of history were accurate and if not, how can we use history and historiography (historical research) more effectively, as have other fields

24. Overcoming those hurdlesIt is easier to write a general thesis statement than a research question for more conceptual papers such as that 2009 paper (Ahlstrom, Lamond & Ding, 2009 in APJM). But try to be sure you have a research question or a thesis statement. Try to avoid very general, wishy-washy (so-so) statements such as “we will investigate” or examine or explore something. See Ahlstrom, D. 2010. Clearing the first hurdle at the Asia Pacific Journal of Management. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, V27(Numbers 2 and 4) for elaboration of the theme of avoiding desk rejection and formulating clear research questions / contributions, etc.

25. A Summary: A working list of generic approaches to research papers… • Straight Replication of well-known theory and hypotheses, but in Asia. But make sure there is some justification for that replication. That is, there may be questions about some theory’s validity when brought into an Asian context. But don’t just say that, give evidence for that validity problem. • Replication and extension (why was it needed, or what is different about the research site – e.g. China and guanxi and the process of social influence). New mediators or moderators may be the focus here in the improvement of existing theory (e.g. culture as a moderator, or a mediator that thus identifies a mechanism between the main independent variable and its dependent variable).

26. Some more general approaches to a paper • Extending or clarifying theory. One well-known researcher argued groupthink was just a special case of social proof and conformance. I don’t agree, but that is a possible advancement/clarification of theory. It goes beyond just adding a moderator or a mediator to a study. This would be a longer, conceptual or theory-building paper in AMR. • Case Studies. A detailed and well-conducted case study can help to describe a phenomenon or clarify categories. Usually done with a research program (research stream) that is newer and less developed. See Van de Ven. 2007. Engaged Scholarship., also the work of Robert Yin on cases and qualitative research (helpful for true exploratory research) • Identifying indigenous constructs -- e.g. supplication in China – see APJM senior editor Rico Lam’s paper in APJM 2010, issue 3. • Identifying key conditions or variations on established theory (e.g. Authority and Social Proof in China Vs. commitment / consistency in the West as primary influence principles).

27. A few more approaches to a paper • Integrative Review (e.g., meta-analysis – e.g. how do firms grow? How do firms grow in a transition economy? Emerging economy?). Note that meta-analysis is now being used with other statistical techniques to better explain causation (see the work of Michael Carney on business groups and family business performance in Asia, in AMJ and SMJ – both likely forthcoming). • Develop a new theory to explain an old phenomenon - compete one theory against another – e.g. Equity vs Expectancy Theory, or one paradigm against another -- Dispositional (personality, etc) Research vs. Situational Research. • Identification of a new phenomenon – is guanxi different from similar social psychological constructs? Don’t just say it is, try to show that it is. • Develop a grand synthesis – integration of transaction costs and information theory (see Boisot & Child, ASQ 1988) • Develop a new theory that explain a relatively new phenomenon (e.g., why do well-established firms and other organizations fail after so many years of success? -- the work of Clayton Christensen and disruptive innovation) • Interpretive or narrative study (usually exploratory, or explanatory)

28. Quick examples: A paper focusing on new Moderators and Mediators Basic model: Guanxi  increased likelihood of ‘yes’ to a request. (i.e. compliance) Model with Mediatoradded (specifies the mechanism by which the variable operates): Guanxi increased Liking relationships increased compliance (yes) Guanxi  increased trust  increased compliance with a request (yes) If you add a ‘condition’ or ‘situation’ such as a culture variable to the study, then you are adding a moderator. Both new moderators and mediators can represent contributions to theory for your paper.

29. Are you still there ? Questions / Comments ?

30. Writing for APJM (and some other journals) • Some journals insist that the contributions for theory and practice are directly related to needs of North American researchers. At APJM, we do not insist on this, though good mainstream contributions may be helpful to your study (especially getting it cited). • Framing of your study (its research question and positioning it the literature) and writing contributions must be done with care. See Meyer et al., 2009 SMJ for a good example of how this is done. • Examine the papers of researchers who have made their work on a specific international- or country-topic widely relevant (e.g. raising a focus to emerging economies, or strategies in transition economies). • We welcome papers on a variety of topics, but they must be relevant to an audience of management and international business researchers. Relevance for managers is certainly welcome, but avoid ‘how-to’ papers (e.g. the ‘how to’ of quality control), or of papers that are targeted primarily to managers and supervisors (or consultants).

31. Writing for APJM • Papers on, for example, finance topics may be of interest to APJM (e.g. governance, corporate investment), but they must be made relevant to management / strategic management scholars, not to just finance scholars. Dividends for example could be relevant, but there would have to be contributions to management (for example, corporate governance or strategy). Just reviewing research on dividend payout and then payout ratio would be relevant, but it possibly could be -- if you think so, then try to make it relevant to management research or researchers). • Papers strictly on operations management / operations research or MIS probably do not fit APJM’s aims and scope. You can try, but if the main contribution of your paper is better queuing methods or a new model for local equilibria in a mass production setting, then it probably would not fit our aims and scope. • See my editorial articles for APJM (2010) – Volume 27, issues 1, 2, and 4, and also Ahlstrom, 2012, issue 1 for more information on what APJM typically publishes (and would like to publish).

32. At APJM, we often receive manuscripts that have the word “management” or “managerial” in the title (such as “…managerial accounting,” or “managing your network’s traffic flow”), but contain little else about the management discipline or management research. The authors are commonly surprised when these papers (often well constructed) are rejected. The reason for this is APJM does not publish papers that are focused exclusively (or near- exclusively) on making contributions to other disciplines, such as finance and accounting, economics, or production and operations management, to name a few such manuscript topics . • We expect that submissions to APJM will address theory in management and organizations, which include the broad array of interests represented in the academic management community. Papers that utilize some theory and methods from finance to address governance issues or marketing to inform entrepreneurship, for example, would possibly be representative of research at the intersection of management and allied disciplines and could be suitable for APJM (e.g., Aaker, 2007; Arthur, 1996; Davidsson & Wiklund, 1997; Raman & Fisher, 1996). • Simply including the word “manage” or “management” in the manuscript’s title does not qualify it as a management paper. The research question asked, the dependent variable explained, the contributions of the paper, and its research site are all crucial to whether a manuscript might be suitable for APJM and fit the journal’s aims and scope (Ahlstrom, 2010b, 2011a).

33. On the aims and scope of APJM and other journals: APJM - A particular focus on "What determines firm success?” Articles with results and implications for researchers and managers working on and in Asia-Pacific are welcomed (this contrasts with mainstream North American and U.K. journals which would ask for implications for a much more general academic and management audience, but in practice usually means Anglo-American (i.e. “This paper gives interesting results, but its ‘only about China’. It needs to be generalized.” But sometimes, its tough to generalize it beyond lessons for emerging economies. This is the type of comment I have seen from reviewers several times). JIBS–Cross country comparisons; cross boarder activity studies (multinational and transnational business activities, etc.) JWB– Articles that are primarily of interest and use to international executives, thus practical implications are important. MIR– scholarly contributions covering recent developments in International Business and MNCs, Intercultural Management, and strategy (a more macro focus). IBR– The emphasis is on empirical papers. Journal emphasis is on producing very definitive empirical results on international business topics. Implications for North American researchers not as important as a more general, yet sometimes international journal such as Organization Studies (can send Organization Studies a paper on China, but the results have to generalize more than with IBR). Compare with APJM -- more like JIBS (and AMR, AMJ) and IBR

34. Journal Positioning (con’t) AMP -- articles aimed at the non-specialist academic reader, not practicing managers (i.e. business academics, consultants, MBA students and BBA students). The articles rely on evidence as opposed to theory or opinion for their arguments. All articles are fundamentally based on or grounded in research evidence, which can be quantitative or qualitative, but not on opinion (research summaries for general audiences – more ‘empirical’ than Business Horizons). What are the arguments, debates, mistakes (see ‘goal’ papers in 2009 AMP). Journal of International Management–Scholarly treatment of issues in the management of global enterprises, global management theory, and practice; and providing theoretical and managerial implications. Both micro and macro topics covered; even higher level theory papers (about culture’s effects, etc) are published. Business Horizons– articles should be grounded in scholarship or a study, yet are presented in a readable, non-technical format accessible to a wide business audience (particularly for MBAs, executive education, and managers). Articles about single country environments and topics are published, even if the implications for North American researchers are limited to “that’s good to know about that country.” MOR – Management research on China / China-related research sites.

35. Making APJM even better • On our SSCI (JCR) success: Thank you and congrats!!! • Our second impact factor for 2011 (to be announced in mid-2012) will depend on how SSCI journals published in 2010 cite APJM papers published in 2008-09 • To reach an impact factor of say 2.5, we need about 200 citationsof our 2010-2011APJM articles, cited in (SSCI-tracked) journals during the year 2012. Please try to cite current (2012) APJM articles in your work. • With all your help, as a community of like minded scholars, we can make it happen. Remember, APJM is our journal, let’s all strive to make it as good as possible, and influential.