From R&R to DOI

¹Dear TIP readers,

The intent behind writing this column is purely self-serving, but it needs two things: discipline and community. A commitment to writing this column for a year forces me to be disciplined about exploring the topic (I want to explore) and helps create a space for discussing it with a larger I-O community (because I suspect a typical TIP reader will be interested, too).

The Origin Story

Back in 2017–2018, as a recent I-O doctoral graduate, I was working with my dissertation advisor, Dr. Jerome Tobacyk from Louisiana Tech University, to publish my research. I clearly remember it was January 25, 2018, when we received a request for revision of our already revised submission. I read the editor’s email that started with “this revision is a substantial improvement over the last submission. At the same time, some key issues remain,” and I sighed. I couldn’t tell if I was on my way to becoming a published author or succumbing to the sunk-cost fallacy if I continued. Besides being confused, I was also getting frustrated with (what seemed at the time) the endless revise-and-resubmit cycle and long waiting periods in between.²

Sensing my confusion/frustration with this arduous process, my advisor recommended I read a book titled Most Unappreciated: 50 Prominent Social Psychologists Describe Their Most Unloved Work, edited by Robert Arkin, who is a renowned social psychologist at Ohio State University. The book, therefore, is a fascinating collection of personal and professional insights into the processes and even politics of research. And oh my gosh, it was exactly the thing I needed at that time!³

The book highlighted stories from eminent social psychologists who shared their personal and professional insights about their least appreciated or misunderstood work, which failed to have the anticipated impact or were influential for the wrong reasons. The contributing authors, like Carol Dweck, Philip Zimbardo, and Susan Fiske, to name a few, have shared their stories generously.

Granted, it took me a while to realize that the book was not only an interesting read but also a concealed teaching tool. Such that, at times, it was a hilarious respite from my own publication horror, but more importantly, it was incredibly validating. Reading about authors’ struggles made me realize, if it happened to them, who am I to whine about it? It was that shift in perspective I didn’t know I needed.

The Column

Although my dissertation publication story had a happy ending as we published it⁴ (Belwalkar & Tobacyk, 2018), the related struggles were all in all a valuable experience. Thereafter, I published other research (and let some research lines go), and every publishing experience has been different. The idea for this column was born from these experiences and this book. So, running the risk of authoring a column that mimics this book, I aim to kick off similar conversations with I-O researchers and scientist–practitioners here.

This column is my attempt to find what makes research publishing feel meaningful, even when the metrics of success are slow to come. Additionally, this column is my commitment to building an intentional habit around that exploration, so my plan is simple. I’m going to talk to I-O mentors, colleagues, acquaintances, who may be some of you, and I will write about what I hear and learn.

The upcoming articles in this column will showcase challenges and struggles of conducting research, what makes good research, and what one should consider versus avoid when trying to publish their work. Each article in this column will include either (a) a story behind a seminal I-O piece directly from the author(s) and what made it successful; (b) an essay on an I-O researcher or scientist–practitioner discussing their underappreciated or highly criticized work, the factors that contributed to its underappreciation/disapproval, and the insights they gained from the experience; or (c) just my musings on all things publication.

The First Look

In the next column, I will be sharing what I learn from my conversation(s) with Traci Sitzmann, who is a professor of management at the University of Colorado Boulder. In SIOP’s Demystifying the SIOP Award Process webinar in June of this year, she shared her experience publishing her recent work in the Academy of Management (AOM; Sitzmann & Campbell, 2021) on religiosity and the gender wage gap. She was incredibly candid about how arduous her journey was, and I figured it’d be worth exploring her story further.

Through this column, my hope is that not just me but you, especially graduate students and early career academics, will also find more resilient and perhaps more joyful ways to be a scholar. If this introduction piqued your interest, I hope you’ll check out my next article on Dr. Sitzmann’s AOM experience.

Please feel free to share your comments, feedback, or your own “publication stories” to bharati.belwalkar@gmail.com, or reach out to me on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bharatibelwalkar/.

Notes

1 R&R = revise and resubmit; DOI = digital object identifier. I have used Google’s Gemini, an AI assistant, to come up with this title and all three section headings.

2 I don’t know how you all—those who publish their work frequently and enjoy doing so—do it.

3 Shout out to my advisor, who, I bet my life on it, has never once been mistaken for Reviewer #2!

4 Finally!

References

Belwalkar, B. B., & Tobacyk, J. J. (2018). Toward a tripartite model and measurement of proactive personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(5), 529–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1480488

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