My research experience

1. My research experience Shaomin Li Old Dominion University sli@odu.edu

2. Contents • A long-term plan • Theory construction • Writing • Publishing

3. Life stage of academic career • Assistant professor • High-quality journal articles • The “tomatoes and lettuce” argument • Conference presentations • Associate professor • More journal articles • Conference session organizing • Full professor • Books • Journal editing activities • Invited articles/speeches

4. Theory construction • The objective of academic research • Why we do research • develop theory? • test other’s theories? • explain what we observe? • predict? • What is social science? • The triumph of positivism (Auguste Comte)

5. The simple view of scientific method • a large number of observations => • theory creation (explanation) => • generalization (prediction). • The problem of observation

6. Two logical systems • Deductive reasoning • Inductive reasoning

7. The problem of induction • Deductive arguments are truth-preserving. • Inductive arguments are not conclusive. • Attempt to solve the problem of induction • It seems to work • Probability: a circular argument

8. Falsificationism: conjecture and refutation • Falsificationist (Karl Popper): scientists do not begin by making observations, they begin with a theory. • Falsifiability as a criterion for theories • Degree of falsifiability • The more fasifiable a theory is, the better. • Fasilificationism and progress in science

9. “Asian management” or management in Asia? • What is the difference between journalistic articles and academic articles? • Each field of academic research has its unique • Perspectives • References • Analytical tools

10. Example: International business • Perspectives (Fundamental assumptions) • Firm’s (player’s) preference (objective) (profitability, cost saving, etc.) • Constraints by production technology, social institutions, and national boundaries • Endowment and resources availability • Universal human rights • Social justice and equity

11. Example: International business-2 • References/theoretical frameworks • Comparative advantage • Factor endowment theory • Transaction costs theory • Institutional theory • New trade theory • …

12. Example: International business-3 • Analytical tools • Mathematical modeling • Statistics • Case study • Logical deduction • Inductive Synthesis • literature research • Is there an Asian management theory?

13. Summary • Social science = theory + research methods + statistics • deduction and induction • The wheel of science

14. Theory Wheel of Science deduction induction Hypothesis Statistical testing Observation

15. Research topic • New/original • Important and non-obvious • Doable • Timing/acceptance

16. Writing* *This section is based on seminar given by William Starbuck

17. Writing is difficult… • Academic life is great except you have to write and deal with journal editors and reviewers… • Jimmy Carter’s principle in writing • Why is it difficult • Ideas are complex • Hard to be objective • Writers vs. readers • Dealing with editors and reviewers is key

18. Just get on the keyboard and start typing! The additional excuse for authors whose native language is not English: • “My English is poor…”

19. Introduction and conclusion • They are the most important parts • Introduction • Entice readers • Convey authority/credibility • Conclusion • Summarize the key contributions • Show readers they did not waste their time… Psychological research shows that people remember conclusions best and introduction 2nd best.

20. Start seductively • According to Starbuck (2006): • Tell a story • Defend an implausible statement • Contradict an authority • Contradict common sense The “Important and not-obvious” principle (Li)

21. How to build authority/credibility • Why YOU? • Show your command of the literature • Authoritative • Novel • Insightful

22. Layout clearly what you will do • Always keep in mind: • Readers have little clue about what you want to write about. Why should they read your paper? • In the introduction • Tell them what you are going to do and why; • Then briefly describe what you did. • give an outline of the paper.

23. Conclusion • Summarize you contribution • What you find • Why they are important • Theoretically • For practitioners • Do not be negative about your research • Make an imprint on the reader • Highlight the significance and non-obvious nature of your study (an ironic twist)

24. According to Starbuck (2006): ALL Conclusion Introduction + =

25. “Mr. Dickens, you can’t say it was the best of times and the worst of times! Publishing* *Based on seminar given by William Starbuck

26. Changes in academic publishing from 1980 to 2006 • 1980 • 900 libraries would buy any book. • Sale of 1200 copies could be breakeven. • Between 1980 and 2006 • Many new journals appeared. • Libraries reduced their purchases of books to buy journals.

27. Changes in academic publishing from 1980 to 2006 • 2006 • 600 libraries buy any book. • Breakeven sales volume can be around 600, depending on typesetting methods. • Additional copies can be printed in lots of 20.

28. The importance of journals • Proceedings give little visibility. • Articles are more useful than books for younger researchers because of speed and circulation. • But publishing in journals is difficult because of these anonymous reviewers!

29. What we know about reviewers • Reviewers tend to agree about the criteria for judging manuscripts. (Gottfredson, 1978) • But they agree much more weakly about the qualities of specific manuscripts. • Evaluators’ judgments of manuscripts’ quality correlate only 0.24 with citations to the published papers. • Reviewers’ judgments of papers’ quality correlate only around 0.25 to 0.3 with manuscripts’ true value. (Starbuck, 2005)

30. about reviewers-2 • Reviewers give positive ratings to papers that support their beliefs and vice versa(Mahoney, 1977). • When they reject papers that do not support their beliefs, reviewers attribute the discrepant findings to poor methodology. • Journals are very likely to reject papers they have already published. (Peters & Ceci, 1982)

31. about reviewers-3 • Because each reviewer makes unreliable judgments, pairs of reviewers disagree with each other. • Reviewers’ judgments correlate between 0.1 and 0.4. • Because reviewers say “Reject” more, they are much more likely to agree to reject than to agree to accept. • Although some journals publish more top-quality articles, the differences between journals are unclear and gradual.

32. A correlation of 0.25 Source: Starbuck (2006)

33. Source: Starbuck (2006)

34. “It is commonly known and a constant course of frustration that even well-known refereed journals contain a large fraction of bad articles which are boring, repetitive, incorrect, redundant, and harmful to science in general. What is perhaps even worse, the same journals also stubbornly reject some brilliant and insightful articles (i. e., your own) for no good reason. . . . bad papers are submitted in such vast quantities . . . the small fraction of them that gets accepted may outnumber the good ones.” Rousseeuw (1991)

35. According to authors… • Some reviewers are insulting. • Some are ignorant. • Reviewers make inconsistent demands. • Reviewers are biased. • However, • authors must accommodate and please these ignorant, biased, and often rude anonymous reviewers who contradict each other.

36. Journal selection • Publication is not much better than random shooting •  you must keep shooting with many bullets (papers). • If you choose a journal, you should try to cite articles from that journal. • Study journal ranking and impact, and citation impact. • Where do you want to build your reputation and visibility?

37. Journal selection-2 • Other factors • Review quality • Editor (passive vs. active) • Review cycle time • Acceptance rate • Pick a journal before you start to write, then match its style: • Tables? Statistical tests? • Quantitative versus qualitative? • Propositions? Flow diagrams? • Density of references?

38. Journal selection-3 • There are many new journals. Should you send papers to them? • Depends on your • Stage of career • Productivity • Confidence

39. Journal selection-4 • Can you submit one manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously? • No. • But you should develop more papers from one project. • Lower ranking journals do not always mean easier acceptance. • Try best journals first.

40. Initial submission • Double check editor’s and journal’s name. • Minimize errors. • Check the references. • Language editing. • Follow up with your submission • Phone call is better.

41. How to deal with review comments • “Reviewer is always right.” • Respond as coolly as you can. • Wait at least two weeks before you do anything. Some experienced scholar wait six weeks.

42. Deal with review comments • Regard reviewers’ comments as data about (a) your writing and (b) how readers are likely to react to your writing. • Reviewers’ comments are not judgments about the quality of your research.

43. Revise • If the reviewers misunderstand you, write it more clearly. • If they suggest you are ignorant, show your knowledge. • But you might really be ignorant! • If they say you used the wrong methods, explain why you used the methods you did. • But the reviewers might know better methods!

44. Revise-2 • Authors must thank the reviewers, even if they are rude… • Lock-in the editor and reviewers. • Their reviews, especially after R&R mean that editors and reviewers have invested their time and effort in your paper. • Communicate with the editor—call is effective. Email to layout your revision plan.

45. Starbuck’s advice: always revise • Good data about readers are hard to get. Colleagues are too supportive, too tactful. • Reviewers think they are saying something intelligent. • If they appear to be stupid, they may have stated their concerns poorly, or you may not be interpreting their remarks correctly. • At least make some change(s) in response to every comment of every reviewer. • But, do not do everything they ask.

46. Starbuck’s advice: send it back to the same journal • Repeated revision can create a contract. • With your revision, send an elaborate point-by-point explanation of how you dealt with each comment by each reviewer. • The editor will send this explanation to the reviewers themselves. • You can argue with the reviewers but do so tactfully. • Look for loopholes in their comments. Juxtapose their inconsistent demands.

47. In conclusion • Academic life is great except that we have to publish papers… • Write diligently, be prolific and high standard • Shoot good journals as often as you can • Don’t be discouraged by rude reviewers • Be nice when you review and edit journals