How to get Published in the Best Management Journals
Show Less

How to get Published in the Best Management Journals

Edited by Timothy Clark, Mike Wright and David J. Ketchen Jr.

This much-anticipated book is a comprehensive guide to a successful publishing strategy. Written by top journal editors, it introduces the publishing process, resolves practical issues, encourages the right methods and offers tips for navigating the review process, understanding journals and publishing across disciplinary boundaries. As if that weren’t enough it includes key contributions on open access, publishing ethics, making use of peer review, special issues, sustaining a publications career, journal rankings and increasing your odds of publishing success. This will be a must read for anyone seeking to publish in top journals.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 14: The reviewers don’t like my sample! What can I do?

Brian K. Boyd


Let me start with the caveat that most of what I write is macro empirical research. While my examples will draw from strategy articles, the concepts are applicable to other management specialties, and other disciplines as well. I have served on a wide variety of editorial boards, including those with both a generalist (e.g., Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Management, and Journal of Management Studies) and a specialist (e.g, Organizational Research Methods and Strategic Management Journal) focus, as well as those with interdisciplinary (e.g., Corporate Governance: An International Review) and international (Management and Organization Review) emphases. And, given my background, the vast majority of papers that I review are empirical. Regardless of the focus, one question consistently surfaces when I read a new manuscript: “If I were to design a study to test these research questions, is this the ideal sample?” As the answer is most often “No,” the second question is whether the sample is adequate. In some cases, the answer is still “No,” other times it is the grudging acceptance of an imperfect, yet workable sample. In the majority of cases, though, the answer is “hard to tell,” as authors may not provide sufficient information about the sampling process or characteristics of the data. Depending on the severity of the reviewer’s concerns, sampling issues can be a “fatal flaw” that triggers a rejection, or enough of a problem to render an entire Results and Discussion section moot.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.