Download PowerPoint presentation - Slide 1

Document Sample
Download PowerPoint presentation - Slide 1 Powered By Docstoc
					A Tale of Two
Carol Saunders
University of Central Florida
Stages in the Publication Cycle
I.      Starting
II.     Planning
III.    Executing the study
IV.     Preparing for submission
V.      Submitting
VI.     Monitoring the review process
VII.    Revising
VIII.   Receiving the decision
I. Starting
 Motivation
  “N  matters. N+2 is needed for tenure.”
   Paul Gray
  It’s fun!
 Develop a line of work for
  which you become recognized
  as an expert
 “Quick and dirty” ???
  New directions
  Only quality work
II. Planning
 What do you want to know?
 Why is this important?
 Who is your target audience?
 Research design issues
     Theoreticalbase
     Constructs and their operationalizations
     Methodological approach
     Sample
     Analysis
III. Executing Study

 The easy part?????
 Analyzing the data may not be as you
  had planned
IV. Preparing for Submission
   Avoid hot-off-the press submissions
     Present at workshops
     Have colleagues review
     Write and rewrite
 Find the right home
 Do your homework
 Consider hiring a language editor
 Review (and learn)
     Considerations in
     Finding the Right Home
 Target audience of journal
 Methodologies used in journal articles
 Type of articles published in journal
 Editorial board of journal
 Quality of journal and article
 Message you want to send
 Turnaround time of journal
 On your university’s “Publish” list
Do Your Homework

 Check out   the journal
 Read its mission statement and
  instructions to authors
 Check out articles
 Target audience?
Mission of MIS Quarterly
The editorial objective of MIS Quarterly is
 the enhancement and communication of
 knowledge concerning the development of
 IT-based services, the management of
 information technology resources, and the
 economics and use of information
 technology with managerial and
 organizational implications.
Write and Rewrite!
   Writing is VERY difficult but we become
    better with it over time (although it does
    not become easier!)
     Do not re-create the wheel
     Find a paper that you like (from a top journal)
      and study why it is written that way
     Have your heroes that you copy and learn
 V. Submitting

 Use  specified format
 Follow instructions about
 Nominate reviewers and editors
  when given an option
 Be sure to get confirmation of
VI. Monitoring the Review Process
  Make   sure your paper has been
  If available, use journal tracking system
  Follow up if you haven’t heard anything
   Three months forinitial inquiry (or less)
   Approximately every month thereafter

  Be   polite!
VII. Revising
 Can doesn’t mean should
 Respond to each point
     Make changes
     OR provide reason for not changing

 Provide editor with response to reviews in
  desired format
 Be TIMELY!!!
 Consider a strategy document
VIII. Receiving the Final Decision

Good news

 Celebrate
 Take  care of details
 Update your CV
 Celebrate when it is published
 Plan your next project: Go back to
  Starting Stage
Not So Good News
 Put  it the letter in a drawer
   for a week or so
 After a week or so, carefully read
  rejection letter and plan how to
 Go back to Starting Stage
A Tale of Two Manuscripts:
 Started in Mid June 2001 with
  Premkumar and Saunders
 Ramamurthy joined in October 2001
 Questionnaire development – Fall
 Interviews – January-April 2002
A Tale of Two Manuscripts:
 What do  you want to know?
  “What factors influence a firm to
   choose a particular market structure
   for procurement of a product?”
 Why is this important?
 Who is your target audience?
Planning: Theoretical Base
Internal Economy: Structure &   External Economy:
Processes                       Environment
Asset Specificity              Capacity/Munificence
Transaction Frequency          Concentration
Performance/Ambiguity          Uncertainty
Decision-making Process        Turbulence
Internal Polity: Structure &    External Polity: Environment
Processes                       Culture
Dependence/Power               Regulation
Transaction Climate            Power/Dependence on
Trust                          external actors
Planning: Theoretical Base

             Supply Chain      IOS Technology
INTERNAL   Integration (SCI)       Support

Planning: Methodology
 Survey   & structured interview (1-2
 Previously used measures
 Product   level of analysis
Planning: Sample
 22 manufacturing firms (of 30 contacted)
 Four procurement executives from each
   Responsible for different types of
       Direct – 67%

       Indirect – 33%

   Dealt with different suppliers
 84 respondents
 142 different products
Supply Chain Integration & IOS
Technology Support
   Need for SCI?
     Without: Only   3 of 11 paths are significant at
     With: 9 of 12 paths are significant
   Chicken or egg
     No previous empirical validation
     Practitioner support for SCI ->IOS Technology
     Poor model fit: IOS Technology Support ->SCI
   Other Findings
 E-Marketplaces
   Low use
   Risks with unknown vendors for direct production
   Price reduction not worth risk
   Good for commodity products
   Resistance to change

   Risk of information exposure with trading partner
   Inability to control flow of information once it leaves
Preparing for Submission and
Submitting: Supply Chain Integration

 Submittedto ICIS as Research in
 Progress, 2002
  Rejected because the   analysis was not

 Papersubmitted to MISQ on 10/23/02
 and acknowledged
Monitoring the Review Process
Dear Ms. Syverson:
Our above manuscript was submitted on 10/23 and the AE seems to
   have been assigned on 11/25. But, when we track our manuscript
   we note that it has not (even) been sent out for review. We were
   wondering why there is so much delay. Can you please let us know
   what the status is?
Thanks and best regards.

I do apologize for the delay in the processing of your manuscript. The
   latest delay was that I was out of the office for the last couple weeks.
   Your manuscript will go out to the reviewers on or before January
   2nd. Because reviewers are given three weeks to complete a
   review, the due date for the reviews will be January 23. Again,
   please accept my apologies for the delay. Please let me know if you
   have any other questions.
 Monitoring the Review Process
Ms. Jennifer Syverson:
I have been tracking the progress of our manuscript through the review
   process and find that two (of the three) reviews came around
   January 26th.
We were wondering about the third review that is still not in (almost 6-7
   weeks beyond the deadline!). Would appreciate a response from
   you. Thanks and regards.

I'm terribly sorry that I have not responded to your inquiry about your
   manuscript sooner than this. After some discussion, the senior and
   associate editor have decided not to wait for the third review. The
   associate editor should have the review completed within the next
   week or two.
Thank you for your patience and please let me know if you have any
   other questions.
Receiving the Intermediate
 04/15/2003
 Associate Editor recommendation: REJECT
     “Does  not make a compelling and distinctive
    addition to prior work”
     SCI – causality, poor operationalization, not
     Product level of analysis
   Senior Editor recommendation: REVISE
 The role of institutionalism
 “These past weeks I have been scratching my
  head and tried out few more models using EDI
  technology Support and Web Support for IO
  Integration to address some of the concerns
  raised by referees on the operationalization of
  IOS technology support.”
     the
        relationship between Web technology support
     and SCI is negative while SCI-EDI link is positive.
 EDI and WEB technology support as the
  "mediator" to SCI.
 Dual causality
                               EDI Technology
INTERNAL                 +

             Supply Chain
INTERNAL   Integration (SCI)
                         _      Web-based
    RESUBMITTED: 10/25/03
    (about 6 months turnaround)
Ms. Jennifer Syverson:
We submitted electronic document file attachments of the revised version of our
   above manuscript along with "Responses to SE, AE, and the Three
   Referees" on the 14th of October, 2003. We have not yet received your
   acknowledgment. We would appreciate if you would let us know if these
   have been sent out for the 2nd round of review. If you want the .pdf versions,
   I can send them out to you as well. With best regards.

I have your paper... unfortunately, there is a labor problem at Minnesota (strike)
   and Jennifer is on the picket line. So, she has not been available for the
   past ten days. I will shortly look at your revision and then initiate the
   review... I have been swamped with writing SE letters on the 70 submissions
   to the MISQ special issue for which this week is the self-imposed deadline
   for first round decisions. Bottom line is that I have your review and I will get
   to it soon.
V. Sambamurthy
Monitoring the Review Process

I understand that you have conveyed your apprehensions
to Jennifer about the delay on your paper's review. About
two weeks ago, I asked the Associate Editor to proceed
without a review from the delinquent reviewer..

I am awaiting a recommendation anytime now... my
apologies for the delay and the consequent anxiety that
you might have incurred.

V. Sambamurthy
  Receiving a Final Decision
  10/23/02 - 4/12/04
“…Though one of the reviewers
 recommends that the paper be revised,
 and the other recommends major
 revisions, the associate editor is not
 optimistic about the paper’s prospects for
Receiving a Final Decision
10/23/02 - 4/12/04
…I agree with the associate editor that
there are problems with the current
conceptualization and level of

   On the basis of the reviews and the
associate editor’s recommendation, I
am, regrettably, rejecting your
Starting Over

 Clarify product level
 Simplifying model
 Do a better job of writing up the

 Keep   the controversial message!
                                        Results of the Structural Equation Model
                                           (Premkumar, Ramamurthy, Saunders)

              x2                                                                                        MODEL FIT STATISTICS
                                                                                                        2 = 19.6 (df = 10, p = .034)
                             0. 031n.s.                                                                 2 /d.f. = 1.96
                                                                                                        GFI = .98
              x3             0.034n.s.                                                                  AGFI = .82
                                                                         h1             -0.241**   h2   NFI = .98
                                                                                                        CFI = .99
                                                                                                        RMSEA = .090
                             0.184*                                                                     RMSR = .018
                                                                                                        x 1 = Asset Specificity
                                                                                                        x 2 = Transaction Frequency
                             0.142**                                                                    x 3 = Description Complexity
              x5                                                                                        x 4 = Transaction Complexity
                                                                                                        x 5 = Mutual Dependence
                             0.125**                                                                    x 6 = Trust in Supplier
                                                                                                        x 7 = (Product) Technology Uncertainty
              x6                                                                                        x 8 = Volume Uncertainty
                                                                                                        x 9 = Supply Market Dynamism
                                                  0.165**              -0.202***                        x 10= Supply Market Fragmentation

                                                                                                        h1 = Extent of Supply Chain Integration
              x7                                   x9                           x 10                    h2 = IOS Technology Support
NOTE:   ***   - p < 0.01;   ** - p   < 0.05; * - p < 0.10;   n.s.   - not significant
Results of the Structural Equation Model – SC_INTEG as Mediator
            to Two I/O Technology Support Constructs
              (Premkumar, Ramamurthy, Saunders)

                -0.05n.s.                                                              h2
                                                                 0.18**                                          MODEL FIT STATISTICS
                                                                                                                  2 = 49.89 (df = 24, p < .015)
    x3           0.20***                                                                                          2/d.f. = 2.08
                                                   h1                                                            GFI = .95
                                                                                                                 AGFI = .81
                                                                                                                 NFI/NNFI = .95/.89
    x4                                                          -0.11*                 h3                        CFI/RFI = .97/.81
                                                                                                                 RMSEA = .087
                                                                                                                 RMSR = .049
                 0.19***                                                                                         x 1 = Focal Firm’s Asset Specificity
                                                                                                                 x 2 = Supplier Firm’s Asset Specificity
    x5                                                                                                           x 3 = Transaction Frequency
                 0.94***                                                                                         x 4 = Description Complexity
                                                                                                                 x 5 = Transaction Complexity
                                                                                                                 x 6 = Focal Firm’s Dependence
    x6                                                                                                           x 7 = Trust in Supplier
                 0.14**                                                                                          x 8 = (Product) Technology Uncertainty
                                                                                                                 x 9 = Volume Uncertainty
                                                                                                                 x 10 = Supply Market Dynamism
                                                                                                                 x 11 = Supply Market Fragmentation
                                  -0.69***           0.19***              -0.41***
                 0.27***                                                                                         h1 = Extent of Supply Chain Integration
                                                                                                                 h2 = EDI Technology Support
    x8                              x9                    x10                   x 11                             h3 = Web Technology Support

NOTE: *** - p < 0.01; ** - p < 0.05; * - p < 0.10; n.s. - not significant
Ten out of 11 paths from Antecedent Variables to SC Integration and both paths from “SC integration” to EDI and WEB IO Tech Support are significant.
Overall “Fit” of the model to the data is also very satisfactory
          Figure 1. Research Model

                                                          EDI IOS
ASSET SPECIFICITY:                                      TECHNOLOGY
  Supplier Firm’s            +                              USE
   Focal Firm’s


   FREQUENCY                    COLLABORATION


                                 -                       BASED IOS
Description Complexity
Transaction Complexity
  Product Technology
 Information Processing Fit
Environmental   Relationship
 Uncertainty    Uncertainty



                                Processing   IT Support for
                                Capability    Procurement
Information Processing Fit
 Cluster analysis – k-means cluster
 Information processing needs
     Interdependent   (more environmental
     Autonomous (less environmental uncertainty)

   Information Processing Capability
     Non-computer    dominant
     EDI dominant
     Internet/web   dominant
   ANOVA: interaction effect
    Preparing for Submission
   Submitted to ECIS, 2002
     “Some    bad news. It was not accepted at ECIS
      conference. You can look at the reviews, which
      are a couple of lines. Most rated it very low. I hope
      this is not the case with our JMIS paper !!!”
   Submitted to DSI, 2003
     “Ithink we need to add more characteristics about
      the technology to fully discuss fit… it became
      obvious to me that there is not enough specificity
      to relate the technologies to our model.”
   SUBMITTED TO JMIS, 2/12/03
6/25/2003 (submitted 2/12/2003)

        As you have requested, enclosed are the three
reviews of your paper submitted to JMIS. The paper is
assigned status of "Revise and Resubmit." However, it is
crucial for you to deal with the objections of Reviewer 2.

      Please enclose notes to the referees.

      Best regards,
      Vladimir Zwass

RESUBMITTED: 10/09/2003 (About 3.5 months turnaround)
Receiving the Intermediate
Please find enclosed three referee reports
  on your revised paper submitted to JMIS.
  As you can see, two of the referees are
  unsatisfied with the revision, with
  Reviewer 3 recommending
  rejection…Based on these reviews, we will
  give you another chance to revise.”

Vladimir Zwass

I just got off talking to Zwass. I explained to him that doing a fit as profile
    deviation is a different theoretical conceptualization of fit compared to
    our conceptualization as Gestalt and matching, and our
    conceptualization is consistent with prior research in this area (V,
    1989; B&V, 1995). I also informed him that it would be difficult to
    switch to a different conceptualization since it may run counter to the
    suggestions provided by Rev2 and Rev1. He agreed with my views
    but insisted that we need to satisfy rev.3 as much as possible. He
    suggested that we address the other two points suggested by Rev 3
    and explain why we did not do profile deviation. Finally, he said if that
    becomes the sticking point and the other 2 reviewers are OK with the
    paper, he may be favorably disposed.

RESUBMITTTED: 5/24/04 (About 41 Days Turnaround)
Monitoring the Review Process
Dear Dr. Zwass:
Could you please provide me a status of the paper (JMIS-
   03-35) "Information Processing View of
   Organizations: An examination of fit in the context of
   supply chain management"

I assume you're referring to the revised paper submitted on
   6/1/04. One of the reviews is still outstanding and
   expected shortly, after prompts. One of the referees
   recommends rejection, which would likely necessitate a
   review by an AE after all the opinions are on hand.

  Vladimir Zwass
Monitoring the Review Process
The reviewers of your paper under review by
  the journal disagreed as to its disposition.
  The paper and the reviews, therefore,
  been transmitted to an appropriate
  associate editor for recommendation.
  Naturally, the contribution of the paper
  itself is the principal criterion for
Revising and Receiving Decision
 Reinterviewed respondents in response to
  concerns raised by Associate Editor
 RESUBMITTED – 12/23/04
 ACCEPTED – 2/01/05
 PUBLISHED – Vol 22(1) Summer 2005
“Information Processing View of Organizations”
  by G. Premkumar, K. Ramamurthy and C.
A Tale of Two Manuscripts
Information Processing          Supply Chain
   Fit                            Integration
 2/12/03 - 2/01/05              10/23/02 - 4/12/04

 Monitoring                     Monitoring
     Tardy reviewer                 Slow receipt (2)
     Diametrically-opposed          Tardy reviewer
      reviews                      Revising
   Revising                         Shift in
     Conferred   with editor        Didn’t satisfy AE
   Decision: Publish              Decision: Reject
                                   Starting Over

 Attend  to all steps of the publishing
 Work steadily.
 The review team isn’t always right.
 If you don’t submit your work it will
  never be published!
 “You learn to write by writing.” Paul

Shared By: