University of South Florida

What a fabulous SIOP conference—informative sessions, good networking opportunities, and excellent desserts (a criterion for success held by many). We also had a great turn out for our TIP-TOPics student representative meeting. Not only did we get to meet in person and exchange ideas, but we even managed to twist a few arms…uh, we mean gently persuade a few more of our readers to represent their programs! Thanks to all for making the meeting a success.

Through opportunities like the recent SIOP meeting and interactions with folks in a variety of capacities, your TIP-TOPics editors keep a finger (or two) on the pulse of student issues. (Basically, that means we go around regularly bugging students to find out the issues of interest to them.) Lately, a lot of journal/publishing questions have been popping up. So, we decided to devote the first two segments of this column to demystifying the process of publishing research in scientific journals.

With adages such as "publish or perish" echoing in university hallways, it seems obvious why academicians would be interested in publishing. But we were initially concerned that our practice-oriented readers would have little reason to be interested in a column about publishing. Upon hearing from several editors of top journals, however, our fears were allayed! If you’re interested in an academic OR an applied career in I-O, this issue holds important information for you.

To whet your appetite, the In the Spotlight portion of this column shines on various methods for equipping students with important publishing-related skills and information. We’ve also included some "places to go" to find more in-depth information. Next, our guest columnist, Travis Tubre, reports answers to publishing questions that everyone’s been wondering about. As always, TIP-TOPics went directly to the source. That’s right, in the You Know, I’ve Been Wondering… segment, Travis reports the skinny from none other than Kevin Murphy (our past SIOP president and editor of the Journal of Applied Psychology), John Hollenbeck (editor of Personnel Psychology), and Ken Smith (editor of the Academy of Management Review). This is definitely an all-star line up that you don’t want to miss! The segment describes the publication process and offers a variety of insights from these seasoned veterans. Finally, taking a cue from Kevin Murphy’s recent SIOP Presidential Address, the TIPs for Balancing Life and Graduate School segment of this column emphasizes the importance of work-family conflict issues.

In the Spotlight

O.K., lots of people want to get their research published, but what makes some people more successful than others? That sounds like a topic for training, doesn’t it? Although I-O programs rarely conduct formal semester-long seminars on "how to publish," training opportunities do exist. This issue’s spotlight shines on a few current methods for training students to publish their research in scientific journals.

Local workshops represent one popular method for disseminating publishing pointers. One university recently cosponsored an interdisciplinary "Successful Scholarly Writing" workshop in conjunction with the national Text and Academic Authors Association. This structured workshop covered a variety of topics including the following: evaluating the quality of various journals, understanding editorial processes, tricks of the (publishing) trade, and tactical publishing decisions (e.g., when to take on a coauthor).

Other academic institutions invite well known speakers to advise on the topic of publishing. For example, the management department at one university recently hosted a visit by John Hollenbeck who talked about publishing in I-O Psychology/HR Management and discussed the editorial process at Personnel Psychology. During this visit, Dr. Hollenbeck also stopped by the university’s I-O psychology department for informal talks and interactions with faculty and graduate students. Certainly, formal presentations and informal visits like these provide excellent opportunities to ask questions and gather useful information about publishing.

Finally, training on the topic of publishing is often provided at conferences and conventions. For instance, useful publishing pointers were revealed during SIOP’s most recent doctoral consortium. Ann Marie Ryan (Michigan State University) provided a talk entitled "Integrating Research and Practice: Killing Two Birds with One Stone or Just Killing Two Birds." This presentation addressed many issues that are especially relevant for practice-oriented individuals interested in publishing research that is conducted in the field. In addition, Dr. Hollenbeck (busy guy!) provided a luncheon speech entitled "The publishing process at Personnel Psychology: Your role as an author and reviewer." This portion of the doctoral consortium offered an in-depth description of the publishing process at Personnel Psychology as well as an explanation of how and when a student might begin to consider adopting the role of ad hoc journal reviewer.

In summary, if you’re itching to publish that thesis or dissertation, publishing pointers are available—you just have to look for them and take advantage of the appropriate opportunities when they come your way. It is worth noting that these opportunities don’t always appear in all of the usual places (e.g., your school’s I-O conference area or the psychology department lecture hall). The first example that we provided was a very useful interdisciplinary workshop, and the second example involved an expert presentation on publishing in a university’s management department.

Now, suppose you still can’t locate any available training on the topic of publishing (even after you search beyond your own industrial and organizational backyard). Do not panic. The fact is, there are a few places where you can go to gather useful facts on your own. Several of these sources are listed below:

Go to the journal. If you are trying to decide where to publish your research, check out the front and back covers of each journal that you’re considering. You might be surprised at how much relevant material is there. Many journals include a mission statement, a list of editorial board members, a specification of the number of manuscripts to send, and information about where authors should send submissions.

Get on the web. Nowadays, most journals have web pages that include a wealth of relevant information. For example, the Personnel Psychology and Journal of Applied Psychology web pages include mission statements, manuscript evaluation criteria, and journal contact information, in addition to lots of other useful details. The Academy of Management Review web page even offers an overview of the review process, a detailed style guide for authors (including writing tips), answers to Frequently Asked Questions, and journal statistics (e.g., percentage of articles returned without review, percentage of articles rejected with review, average review time for various decisions, etc.). Most journal homepages can be accessed from the "I-O Web Sites" portion of the SIOP web page (http://www.siop.org).

Other publishing information is also available via the TIP portion of the SIOP web page. In the spirit of this issue’s TIP-TOPic, we posted a reference list that includes many valuable guides to publishing and scholarly writing. Check it out when you get a chance!

Refer to TIP-TOPics Volume 36, Issue 1. In other words, read on—the next section of this column includes lots of need-to-know information about publishing!

Texas A&M University

To many graduate students and less experienced academics, the publication process seems like an abyss. There is a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding about what actually occurs between the submission of a paper to a given journal and its eventual return. Nietzsche once said that if you gaze into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you. Perhaps, then, there is something to be learned by examining the publication process in more detail.

In an attempt to clarify some of the mysteries of this process, Dawn Riddle, Lori Foster, and I came up with a list of commonly asked questions and sent them to the editors of a few major I-O and business journals. We asked these editors for answers and input about what goes on behind the scenes at their journals. In the segment below, we present feedback and suggestions from John Hollenbeck (Personnel Psychology), Kevin Murphy (Journal of Applied Psychology), and Ken Smith (Academy of Management Review).

We all know (or at least this author knows) that the publication process can be humbling, disheartening, frustrating—just about any negative adjective can be used here. However, our sources indicate that this need not always be the case if one understands the process and works within its boundaries. In the segment below, we present the questions asked of the journal editors, common themes across their answers, and selected responses where appropriate.

Our first question asked the editors to briefly explain the publication process from the receipt of a manuscript through publication (or rejection) of the paper. We asked about issues such as determining who will review the submission, and how long various aspects of the process usually take.

The basic editorial process was very similar across the three journals. Once the paper is received, the editor makes an initial determination about whether the paper is appropriate for the journal and whether it will be sent out for review. If the editor decides that the paper will be sent out for review, he/she must make a decision about who will review the paper. All of the editors indicated that they use a combination of editorial board members (or consulting editors) and ad hoc reviewers. An ad hoc reviewer is someone who is not committed to the journal’s editorial board and therefore contributes fewer reviews per year than an editorial board member.

Generally, reviewers for a particular manuscript are selected for their perceived expertise in the major subject matter of the paper. In fact, Ken Smith pointed out that he uses the reference section of the paper to "cross check" his database of reviewers. At Personnel Psychology, nearly every paper that is eventually published will be reviewed by at least one academic and one practitioner. When the reviews are returned, the editor generally reads the paper and the reviewers’ comments, then makes a decision whether to accept, reject, or request submission of a revision. The average initial decision time for the three journals ranges from about 35 to 70 days.

When a revision is requested (and very few manuscripts are accepted without revision), it is up to the author to decide whether he/she wants to make the suggested changes and resubmit the manuscript for another round of reviews. Revised and resubmitted manuscripts are sent through a process similar to the one just described for original manuscript submissions. Once a manuscript gets accepted, it generally goes to the publishers, who work with the authors and the printers to get it in final form. Dr. Hollenbeck reported that, from this point, it takes 6–9 months for the article to appear in Personnel Psychology. It is important to note, however, that this time frame may vary from journal to journal.

Our second question focused on the most frequent reasons why manuscripts are rejected. We also asked the editors about common mistakes that inexperienced authors make and suggestions on how to avoid these errors and improve the likelihood that submissions will be accepted.

As suggested above, some percentage of manuscripts are returned/re-jected without review. The most frequently cited reasons for this outcome were sloppy formatting (i.e., not in proper APA format) and inconsistency with the intended content and/or mission statement of the journal. According to all three editors, papers that are rejected after being sent out for review are commonly denied because their contribution to the field is too small. Our respondents added that it is important for a manuscript to make a convincing case that others should be interested in the research write-up. Dr. Smith suggests authors go through five to eight revisions (e.g., conference presentation, peer review) prior to submission to ensure the author has met this goal and not submitted the paper before it is ready. The importance of getting feedback from more experienced peers was also a common sentiment across the three editors.

Statistical and methodological problems (e.g., method concerns, small sample sizes) were cited as additional reasons for rejection, as were a lack of interesting ideas and just plain sloppy work. Failure to tie the work to the existing literature is also a common problem. This is magnified by the fact that reviewers are chosen based on their familiarity and expertise with the existing literature. Excluding relevant work published by an author who just happens to be reviewing the paper can be a fatal mistake. Dr. Hollenbeck pointed out that Mike Campion published an editorial in the Autumn 1993 edition of Personnel Psychology which provides a "Reviewer Checklist" that can be very helpful to prospective authors.

Although papers that reach the revision stage have a good likelihood of being accepted, some authors fail to respond at this stage of the process. According to our respondents, this failure to revise and resubmit is a mistake commonly made by inexperienced authors. Dr. Murphy suggested that inexperienced authors may tend to interpret decision letters too negatively. He pointed out that the issues raised in the editor’s decision letter can often be addressed and a subsequent revision may be published.

Our third question focused on the amount and type of influence that journal editors have on the direction of the journal.

All of the editors agreed that the reviewers are the actual gatekeepers. While the editor does have some influence on the direction of the journal, the task is so large and distributed that the editor’s role is not completely decisive. Dr. Hollenbeck pointed out that, in terms of submissions, the editor is at the mercy of the authors. Through the accept and reject process, he or she can exercise some control over what is eventually published. Although the editor can decide which reviewers to send a paper to, it is difficult to accept a paper that all reviewers say should be rejected and vice versa. Dr. Hollenbeck also noted that, if one values his or her reviewers and wants to retain their services, it is importance to give deference to their opinions.

Our fourth question focused on how to determine the most appropriate outlet for a given piece of research.

Dr. Murphy suggested using the sources identified in your reference section as an indication of where similar research is being published. Dr. Smith and Dr. Hollenbeck pointed out that the best strategy is to read the major journals in your area. In addition to the published "mission statement," the content of the journal is the most appropriate guide for what future content may be. It should be noted that this strategy can also be beneficial in terms of increasing the likelihood of getting submissions published. Journals vary in their style, level of theoretical and conceptual development, intended audience, and any number of other factors. Familiarity with the relevant aspects of a given journal may reduce the likelihood of rejections due to "poor fit." Using previous work as a guide, it is possible to tailor a paper for a given journal. Dr. Murphy pointed out that this is another area where advice from a more senior colleague can be of tremendous assistance. As noted by Dr. Murphy, "once you get past the top one or two journals in a field, there can be big differences in the difficulty in publishing in and the perceived worth of papers in alternative outlets. Colleagues can often help find the best outlets for a paper."

Our fifth and final question asked about reasons why I-O graduate students who want to become practitioners should be concerned with publishing in scientific journals.

The editors all agreed that there are substantive reasons why graduate students who intend to pursue careers in the applied world would benefit from publishing. Dr. Murphy noted that publication is an opportunity for the student to develop and demonstrate skills (e.g., effective communication) that are critical for success in the applied arena. Dr. Smith pointed out that publication can serve as "an academic test for your practical ideas." As stated by Dr. Hollenbeck, "even though it can be a humbling experience for all of us, publicly holding up our ideas for critical peer review is a great way to hone those ideas and our own skills." Ideas are no less important to the applied world than they are to the academic world. Indeed, practitioners constitute a large portion of the readership of Personnel Psychology. Thus, it seems that some of them must see value in its content. On a more pragmatic note, all of the editors also focused on the value of credibility and the national visibility or recognition that is associated with publishing in major journals. Visibility and credibility are likely to be strongly related to marketability in the applied world.

In conclusion, many adjectives can be used to describe the publication process—humbling, frustrating…and yes, even rewarding and educational. "Mysterious," however, should no longer dwell among the descriptive words associated with journals and publishing. We hope that the information provided in this segment has helped to demystify the publication process.

TIPs for Balancing Life and Graduate School

A picture’s worth a thousand words. That may have been what Kevin Murphy had in mind during the Presidential Address at this year’s SIOP conference. About half way through his talk, a picture of himself and his two children, Michael and Kathleen, flashed onto the screen. Dr. Murphy referred to this photo as a "subtle bit of propaganda" suggesting that conflict between work life (or school life) and a home life is not always inevitable. Subtle (or not), he got his point across. Balance between life and work is as precious as those smiling faces in the photo.

Dr. Murphy’s message was underscored by the number of SIOP sessions and posters related to work family conflict (WFC). We informally tallied the number of WFC-related sessions in the SIOP conference program—five posters, four symposiums, and one Presidential Address! Very impressive! Some of the issues related to WFC that were discussed, included organizational climate, worker attitudes, alternative work arrangements, worker mobility, dispositional variables, demographic characteristics, along with relevant women’s issues. It seems a lot of ground was covered during the conference with a promise of much more to come. Perhaps, then, our TIP for this issue should be "Hang in there…help is on the way!"

If you have any questions regarding this issue, or questions for TIP-TOPics to investigate, or would like to contribute information to our next edition, you can contact the editors via the options presented below.

To contact the TIP-TOPics editors:

Email: Dawn Riddle (riddle@luna.cas.usf.edu) Lori Foster (foster@luna.cas.usf.edu)
Fax: 813-974-4617 / Attn: Lori Foster or Dawn Riddle
Mail: Department of Psychology, BEH 339
University of South Florida
Tampa, Florida 33620-8200