From R&R to DOI: From Inspiration to Impact

Dear TIP readers¹,

When I launched this column, I noted two (purely self-serving) goals: discipline and community. I have realized that the discipline required to write a regular column is a much heavier lift than I originally thought. Sticking to a writing commitment is a humbling reminder of the gap between intent and action, and it has made me appreciate those² who consistently publish their work. As for the latter goal, it has been a joyful experience to chat with Traci Sitzmann from the University of Colorado Denver about her work on religiosity and the gender wage gap (Sitzmann & Campbell, 2021). Dr. Sitzmann shared with me some interesting “behind-the-scenes” context that I have woven into this issue.

Based on our conversation, I cover three themes that capture the journey of most research ideas: (a) what could/should inspire research, (b) how to navigate publishing a particularly controversial topic (which could be more challenging the usual), and last (c) how to address the “So what?” factor of your published research (answer to which helps minimize the classic research–practice gap).

What Could/Should Inspire Research

For those just beginning their research journey, the most daunting question may not be how to research but what is worth researching. I believe there’s a psychological aspect to the research we choose to conduct. More often than not, our scientific inquiry mirrors our experiences. After all, however cliché it may sound, research is often “me-search.”

One reason my conversations with Dr. Sitzmann resonated with me so strongly is that her religiosity and gender inequity research somewhat illustrates this idea of me-search. While running experiments on facial expressions, she noticed strong reactions of disgust to images of women breastfeeding, especially among highly religious participants. This unexpected pattern sparked the idea behind her work. Growing up in a Catholic school and family, she observed how values were imposed and how she was denied graduating with honors due to (perceived) disregard for religious norms. These personal experiences became relevant later as a lens for interpretation and theory building. Dr. Sitzmann’s story offers a lesson for students and early career researchers to be a keen observer of one’s experiences and surroundings. It is likely that a seed of our research idea lies somewhere there!

Before I jump into the next theme, I want to acknowledge that me-search is not the only valid path. If we only research what we personally experience, our collective knowledge of the field will be tragically siloed. So, observation of others’ experiences could be a great source of research ideas, too. This is where research as an empathy exercise comes in! As a huge cinephile, I find a perfect example in actors. They need not have lived a character’s specific tragedy to portray it convincingly; they just need to use their skills to play it.³ Similarly, as researchers, we are capable of exploring topics far removed from our own lives because it forces us to approach research and data as rigorous observers.

Yet, beyond this, there is another more practical way of choosing a topic: the “So what?” factor that I discuss later in this article. It is about choosing your research topic based on the problem(s) it could solve. It shifts the focus from “What am I interested in?” to “What does the field of I-O psychology need?” If the answers to both questions overlap, there’s nothing like it! But, if they don’t, it’s not the end of the world (so long as you have covered one of them).

How To Navigate Publishing a Particularly Controversial Topic

Assume you have successfully picked a topic that you like and/or that solves an important problem; however, it is controversial. This section will be particularly helpful as we move on to discuss how to publish it.

If you skim through Sitzmann and Campbell (2021), you will quickly realize that it contradicts long-standing management scholarship that treats religiosity as a benign force; the study, in fact, establishes that religiosity exacerbates gender discrimination, and, thus, the gender wage gap. You can imagine the challenges faced in getting it published!

During our conversation, Dr. Sitzmann generously outlined the process of preparing, revising, and publishing the manuscript, and the timeline from its initial submission to publication. She also talked about handling earlier rejections and responding to reviewer feedback. The research was first submitted in October 2018, faced multiple rejections, and was eventually published in 2021 after substantial revisions, including adding new data and rewriting significant portions of the manuscript.

Rather than viewing initial rejections as evidence that the idea was flawed, she interpreted them as a signal that the work was misaligned with prevailing assumptions—and therefore potentially important. She repeatedly emphasized the role of empirical evidence in maintaining academic integrity when addressing criticism. I believe that the insights from our conversation will be helpful to you, especially those who are in the middle of their R&R process. Overall, Dr. Sitzmann recommended rigorous evidence gathering, openness to critique, and resilience in the face of rejections, but here are some specifics:

• Treat reviewer disagreement as a signal to strengthen your theory, not abandon it. There are ways to do this; for example, collect more data, integrate additional disciplinary perspectives to indicate robustness of your argument, and/or rewrite portions of your manuscript to improve your argument’s clarity.
• Let the data do the persuading, not you. Although being defensive is a first natural reaction to any feedback, don’t defensively reframe your argument or soften conclusions just because that’s an easy way to get your manuscript accepted.

These recommendations come with a caveat, though. Distinguishing between mindless obsession with getting published (escalation of commitment) and a legitimate chance of publication (grit) is often incredibly difficult while you are in the middle of your R&R process. It is a complex decision-making process because the “correct” choice only becomes clear in hindsight.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the very exercise of R&R should reinforce methodological rigor and iterative refinement of your work. I acknowledge that it’s easier said than done, but think of it as stress testing your idea, which will only make your work stronger!

How To Address The “So What?” Factor

My work mantra is based on Karl Marx’s (1819–83) philosophy, practice without theory is blind; theory without practice is sterile. A hallmark of rigorous research isn’t its complexity but its utility. Note that, in the real world, you may be pressured to choose between intellectual curiosity (What am I interested in?) and utility (What does the field of I-O psychology need?).⁴ However, Pasteur’s Quadrant (Stokes, 2011) challenges this bifurcation. The central theme of Pasteur’s Quadrant is that the most impactful work is “use-inspired basic research” as it seeks to solve problems (utility) while aiming for understanding (curiosity).

Dr. Sitzmann’s article explains the “So what?” factor of her research well; she has noted practical applications of her findings in the article and offered recommendations to organizational leaders and policymakers. While discussing the importance of articulating practical implications of research, she recommended engaging with a broad network, such as non-I-O friends and family. Doing so, she noted, will likely help in clarifying the practical significance of your work and clearly communicating this “So what?” factor.

Note that, in her case, articulating the utility of her research findings was not an afterthought. It evolved, through dialogue with her coauthor Elizabeth Campbell from the University of Minnesota, her own continuous reflections on the findings, and repeated attempts to explain the work to people who did not already share the same theoretical and/or methodological priors. So, if you are struggling to answer the “So what?” question, actively test the significance of your work through dialogue with others (especially non‑I‑Os). Having to repeatedly explain your work to them will help clarify its significance and could bring an interdisciplinary lens to it.

Taken together, these themes illustrate a research journey from inspiration to ultimate impact. Last, I must thank Dr. Sitzmann for sharing her reflections with me so candidly, as well as inadvertently seeding the idea for my next column!

A Sneak Peek Into the Next Column

As I was watching the interview recording, reading through the transcript and summary, and this work-in-progress draft, a broader issue caught my attention. During our conversation around theme two, Dr. Sitzmann noted that being housed in a management program came with explicit and implicit pressures to publish in a narrow set of top‑tier journals (in order to be taken seriously as a management scholar). And, for her, it meant rebranding her scholarly identity and learning an entirely new publication ecosystem. I want to build on this idea and, therefore, will explore the tension between systemic pressures and practical habits required to maintain research integrity (while publishing successfully).

For the next column, I will be talking to Herman Aguinis from the George Washington University School of Business, specifically about his “An A is an A” article (Aguinis et al., 2020). The article addresses systemic/macrolevel pressures in the publication space. My hope is that, as a former editor-in-chief of Organizational Research Methods and a prolific author in the top-tier I-O psychology and management journals, he will open the “black box” of the peer review process and share strategies for navigating revisions successfully. Stay tuned!

Author Note

Share your comments, feedback, or your “publication stories” by emailing bharati.belwalkar@gmail.com or reaching out via LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bharatibelwalkar/.

I acknowledge using Microsoft Copilot for the title and Google’s Gemini 2.0 for editorial support; the transcript analysis and insights are original.

Notes

¹ R&R = revise and resubmit; DOI = digital object identifier.

² I see your discipline, and I am officially in awe of it!

³ Couldn’t help sharing some examples: Tom Hanks’ Chuck Noland in Cast Away, Meryl Streep as Sophie Zawistowski in Sophie’s Choice, to name a few.

⁴ Although I note that some I-Os (e.g., Nancy Tippins, Gary Latham, and, in recent times, Nick Koenig, to name a few) never seemed to have faced this issue as their work strikes a perfect balance between curiosity and utility—applied research or evidence-based practice in a true sense!

References

Aguinis, H., Cummings, C., Ramani, R. S., & Cummings, T. G. (2020). “An A is an A”: The new bottom line for valuing academic research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(1), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12578

Sitzmann, T., & Campbell, E. M. (2021). The hidden cost of prayer: Religiosity and the gender wage gap. Academy of Management Journal, 64(4), 1016–1048. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.1254

Stokes, D. E. (2011). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.