From R&R to DOI: Navigating Systemic Pressures of Research Publication

Dear TIP Readers,

The SIOP annual conference often leaves me with a flood of information and a renewed awareness of where the field of I-O psychology is moving. I intentionally waited to write this piece until after returning from the SIOP conference as it felt fitting for the current column about the realities of publishing. There were a handful of sessions that, I thought, the readers of this column would appreciate (e.g., designing and conducting replication studies, open science in I-O psychology, publishing your research, discussion on the state of theory in the field). It was reassuring to see these topics discussed at the conference, and that the “R&R to DOI” column is part of a broader and timely conversation in the field!

In the last column, I focused on how research ideas move from inspiration to impact and briefly discussed the “publish or perish” culture. In this column, therefore, we will explore why it exists and how to maintain research integrity as one navigates such culture. My intent is not to be provocative or controversial, but to surface a reality that is often felt but seldom discussed openly.

A-Journal Counting

Once an idea enters the publication process, it encounters a broader set of forces, such as journal rankings, reviewer expectations, and the often-unspoken rules that shape scholarly success. To better understand these systemic pressures, I spoke with Dr. Herman Aguinis from the George Washington University School of Business—an expert in the field whose publication and editorial experience give him a unique vantage point on how academic publishing works in practice. I discussed with him, specifically his “An A is an A” article (Aguinis et al., 2020) that addresses the pressures of publishing in top-tier journals that early-career individuals experience.

Aguinis et al. (2020, p. 136) appears to argue that “A-journal counting” evaluates scholars primarily by whether they publish in a small set of top-tier journals. It is intended to make research evaluation more standardized and offer a common benchmark for hiring and promotions in academia. However, this system creates a highly competitive, zero-sum publishing culture that forces faculty to compete with one another, departments to compete internally, and schools to compete with other schools, which can distort research priorities. Additionally, the article flags serious consequences to the field: (a) it may discourage work that is important but less rewarded in elite outlets, such as replication studies, null results; and (b) it may also reinforce inequality, because success in publishing can depend partly on training, mentorship, institutional resources, and professional networks. Although addressing a will require more targeted and systemic effort, I unpack b in this column, along with practical ideas for how to do research work despite such pressures.

Navigating Systemic Pressures

Dr. Aguinis noted that performance management is widely considered broken, and academia is no exception. The idea of studying A-journal counting, therefore, stemmed from wanting to inspect a performance management system in academia as an industry like any other. He stressed that successful performance, that is, sustained publishing in top journals, depends on deep expertise in research methods, and framed it as a prerequisite to be a published researcher. He said,

The best surgeons know their tools. … So, if you want to be the best in your field, you should know your tools. In our field, these tools are research methods … And that’s not just data crunching or data analysis. 

Scientific Rigor

Taken together, my conversation with Dr. Aguinis pointed to key practical insights for researchers seeking to publish in top journals.

1. Successful research should reflect early alignment among theory, design, sampling, measurement, analysis, and proposed implications. Therefore, consider designing your research with publication standards in mind.
2. Practices like reporting effect sizes, confidence intervals, preregistration, sharing supporting materials (e.g., analysis syntax, codes), and explaining analytic decisions increase trust, and subsequently favorable editorial decisions. Therefore, prioritize transparency.
3. Pressures to publish increase unethical behaviors (e.g., selective reporting, HARKing1 [Kerr, 1998; Murphy & Aguinis, 2019]), but they damage your credibility as well as that of the field. So, avoid questionable research practices at all costs!
4. Mismatches between theoretical claims and design choices are a common reason for rejection, so match your methods to your research hypotheses.
5. Top journals prioritize theoretical contributions, yet they should be linked to meaningful problems. Therefore, balance methodological and theoretical rigor of your work with its practical significance.
6. Editors respond positively to manuscripts that clearly fit into a broader program of inquiry. Build a coherent research program so that your work is a part of cumulative, connected studies rather than an isolated “one‑off” paper. 

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Our conversation would have been incomplete without a discussion of AI use in research. Dr. Aguinis described AI as a powerful research assistant, but only in the hands of experts. Specifically, referring to his very recent work (Aguinis, 2026), he noted a set of four principles we should follow when using AI in our research process:

7. Trust but verify AI output; know your methods: AI is only as good as its user; implement guardrails; and explicitly consider situations when AI fails.

Transparency

 Without verification and clear guardrails, AI can amplify errors rather than improve your work. Therefore, use AI cautiously and acknowledge its use.

What I took from our conversation is that publishing in A-journals still matters for an academic career, but journal labels are only proxies for intellectual value. Dr. Aguinis advises us to aim high but prioritize meaningful contribution. Specifically, keep in mind:

8. Strong manuscripts explain not only whether relationships/effects occur but how and why they occur by clarifying mechanisms, boundary conditions, and alternative explanations. So, hone your research methods and analysis skills.

Upskilling

Dr. Aguinis highlighted a limitation in I‑O psychology and management training, where most doctoral programs provide just 4 to 5 years of training (far less than the extended apprenticeships common in fields such as biology). To address this issue, he recommended:

9. Using practical tools such as checklists and flowcharts designed to support researchers (see Aguinis [2025] and Leong & Austin [2023] for related resources, and numerous free online tools available on his website). These tools are specifically designed to guide scholars through key steps in the research process, from initial planning and design to data analysis, interpretation, and reporting.

Importantly, these tools can be used iteratively throughout a research project and adapted to different types of studies, helping novice and experienced researchers alike to reflect on their choices and avoid common pitfalls. Especially for graduate students, Dr. Aguinis advises engaging in as many research projects as possible to be able to learn and develop research and analysis skills. To become a top performer, he recommends:

10. Considering and expanding in three areas (see the CORE model of performance; Marshall et al., [2024]): Capacities (C): possessing the required knowledge, skills, and abilities to do the research; Opportunities (O): demonstrating that you can do research; and Relationships (RE): leveraging one’s professional network and connections to be able to collaborate, seek support, and so on. The more you have these three, the higher and better your performance will be.

As promised, I want to revisit the issue of inequity for researchers from non‑Tier 1 institutions, who may not have access to resources and networks that a small set of scholars from elite institutions do. They disproportionately dominate A-journal publications. When questioned about such inequity of access, Dr. Aguinis shared a few tips that may help resolve it. He noted that the conferences, such as those of SIOP and the Academy of Management, could serve as venues for meeting potential collaborators from other institutions and are in fact resulting in an increasing number of multi‑institutional research collaborations. Especially postpandemic, virtual collaborations are normalized and have extended beyond national boundaries and time zones. He encouraged junior scholars to:

11. Proactively reach out to senior researchers as most senior scholars are willing to support their early‑career colleagues. It is a sure-shot way of extending one’s reach and access to top researchers in the field.

Reflections and Next Steps

We all operate in this research publication ecosystem, so the pressures are inescapable (more so for some than others). Although it will take a while to dismantle the “publish or perish” culture (and practices like A-journal counting), we could, by ensuring that we conceptualize, conduct, and publish high-quality research, play our part to change things from within the system. Careful attention to scientific rigor and transparency in our research, and our continuous upskilling as researchers will help us change things faster!

As our conversation was nearing its end, I was curious about Dr. Aguinis’s motivation for investigating publication practices. His response reflected a desire to improve research practices through research itself. It was a reminder that improving the system is not separate but a part of our scholarly task. It also reinforced a broader lesson that is worth noting: Although we pursue the research questions that most interest us, we also have a responsibility to stay vigilant about the state of our research practices and think critically about the systems within which we work.

This column focused on the pressures that shape publishing and how to navigate them. Assuming you have published successfully, the next logical step is to disseminate your research work. Ensuring that research reaches the audiences (that can use it and/or benefit from it) is as important as producing it. Besides fellow researchers and practitioners, the target audience could be organizational leaders, policy makers, and other stakeholders, depending on the scope and topic of your published research.

In the following column, I will speak with Dr. Piers Steel, who is a professor in the Organizational Behavior and Human Resources area and is the Brookfield Research Chair at the Haskayne School of Business at the University of Calgary, Canada. We connected during the 2026 SIOP conference when we discussed his dissemination efforts for a free, open-science, cloud-based platform, Hubmeta, which Dr. Steel and his colleagues developed with the goal of increasing efficiency of meta-analytic research. This next conversation will explore why dissemination matters, what it looks like in action, and how researchers can think more intentionally about the consequences and reach of their work. So, 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 editorial support; however, the interview transcript analysis and insights are original.

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

Note

[1] HARKing is “presenting a post hoc hypothesis… as if it were, in fact, an a priori hypotheses.” (Kerr, 1998, p.196)

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

Aguinis, H. (2025). Research methodology: Best practices for rigorous, credible, and impactful research. SAGE.

Aguinis, H. (2026). Method-driven theory advancements and AI implementation. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-026-00851-0

Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196-217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4

Leong, F. T., & Austin, J. T. (Eds.). (2023). The psychology research handbook: A guide for graduate students and research assistants. SAGE.

Marshall, J. D., Aguinis, H., & Beltran, J. R. (2024). Theories of performance: A review and integration. Academy of Management Annals, 18(2), 600-625. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2022.0049

Murphy, K. R., & Aguinis, H. (2019). HARKing: How badly can cherry picking and question trolling produce bias in published results? Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(1): 1-17. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s10869-017-9524-7