Writing For Scientific Journals

After a highly public launch failure, Jeff Wilke (then CEO of Amazon Retail) distrusted every part of my team’s product. Here’s how I advocated for my team and product when my executive was angry: My team had screwed up the logic to display or hide a button on a web page. For technical readers, the young engineer working on it made a direct database check each time the web page was displayed. This worked just fine in testing but failed immediately under high load. Jeff was understandably frustrated with us and became skeptical about everything else we had built given that we had made this rookie mistake. This caused him to question the entire product and push us to rebuild it or shelve it entirely. Rebuilding the product would have been labor-intensive and wasteful, so I eventually leveled with him. I spoke directly, confidently, and calmly. My argument was reasonable but firm. I said, “Look, we screwed up the implementation of a button on a web page. Absolutely a terrible mistake, and if you want to punish us for it, I understand. But the technology behind the button works just fine. Don’t throw out the working technology because we messed up a button.” The important thing was that I wasn’t fighting the blame. I accepted it—but I stood up against what would have been a wasteful next step and an unfair judgment of the technology based on one miss. After I made my case, Jeff said, “That’s a pretty good argument.” He stopped pushing us to discard the technology, and he even became less upset about the problems because I wasn’t denying them. Here’s why my argument was effective: 1) I accepted blame. He knew I wasn’t denying the problem. 2) I remained calm. Emotion triggers more emotion. 3) My point was simple and firm. When you disagree with someone in a calm, agreeable manner, people will often match you. They will calm down and be able to discuss solutions, rather than just express emotions. This works because most people don’t want to be seen as ranting jerks—especially in professional settings. If they lash out at someone who is calmly stating reasonable points, they look like they’ve lost control. “Strong” leader types never want to appear out of control. Thus, if you are calm, they usually have to remain calm with you. This is an effective strategy, but it takes practice. Here are some tips to improve your responses to angry people: → Talk yourself through your response to emotional prodding before the meeting. Visualize the discussion and practice your responses. → Decide in advance: “If this escalates, I will become more quiet, calm, and firm in response.” By deciding your response in advance, you can avoid escalation. → You can always employ this technique, even if the situation has escalated. If needed, ask for a break and come back when you are feeling calmer. Readers—how else can you deal with upset executives or bosses?

 Your manuscript just got rejected again  ⤷ Here's why (& how to fix it) Most manuscripts get rejected by their first journal. But rejection doesn't mean failure It means you need a better strategy Dr. David Cook's comprehensive guide breaks down the publishing process into actionable steps. Here's what actually works: 𝟭. 𝗪𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘆, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝗽𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 ↳ 15 minutes daily beats waiting for "big blocks of time" ↳ Use outlines → rough drafts → refined versions ↳ Set ambitious (but realistic) deadlines 𝟮. 𝗦𝗲𝘁 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 ↳ Decide author order before writing begins ↳ Define each person's responsibilities and timeline ↳ Clarify contribution expectations upfront 𝟯. 𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 ↳ One person manages the master document ↳ Collect suggestions via tracked changes ↳ Integrate feedback yourself to avoid inconsistencies 𝟰. 𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 ↳ Use guidelines like CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA ↳ Craft titles that grab attention (not afterthoughts) ↳ Write focused discussions, not rambling ones 𝟱. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝗳𝘁𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 ↳Tools like EndNote, Mendeley, Zotero save hours ↳ Easy reformatting for different journals ↳ Prevents citation errors 𝟲. 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 ↳ Consistent formatting matters ↳ Minimize jargon and abbreviations ↳ Have non-authors proofread for clarity 𝟳. 𝗖𝗵𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗷𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 ↳ Match your audience, not just prestige ↳ Honestly assess your work's impact level ↳ Research journal metrics and turnaround times 𝟴. 𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘆 ↳ Editorial teams notice non-compliance immediately ↳ Can trigger automatic rejection ↳ Double-check word limits, format requirements WHEN REJECTED (Because You Will Be) 𝟵. 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘁 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗹𝘆 ↳ Don't let manuscripts sit on your desk ↳ Have backup journals identified in advance ↳ Rejection is part of the process, not personal failure 𝟭𝟬. 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗹𝘆 ↳ Even rejected papers benefit from improvements ↳ Same reviewers might see it again elsewhere Incorporate high-value suggestions before resubmitting ✅ WHEN INVITED TO REVISE 𝟭𝟭. 𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 ↳ Distinguish errors (must fix) from suggestions (optional) ↳ Be respectful even when disagreeing 𝟭𝟮. 𝗚𝗲𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 ↳ Don't revise alone—involve coauthors ↳ Contact editors for guidance when needed ___________________________________________ Subscribe to my free newsletter for AI tips in academic research! 👇 https://lnkd.in/dTZesqZA --------------------------------------------- I'm Muhammad Irfan 🧬 Follow me and hit the 🔔 for more useful insights! Repost, if you find this useful 🔁 ---------------------------------------------

Attention #Journal #Editors! Given the recent #FrancescaGino #scandal at Harvard Business School, there is an urgency to improve #research #credibility. This article, just published, describes things we can do NOW that do not require much time, effort, or money, to help minimize future #retractions and scandals. For example: 1️⃣ Encourage or Require Data and Code Sharing. Editors can implement a policy that strongly encourages (or requires) authors to submit replication datasets and analysis code as supplementary materials. This supports verification and reuse without requiring financial investment or infrastructure beyond what most journal platforms already offer. 2️⃣Adopt and Promote Badges for Open Practices. Editors can offer badges (e.g., for open data, open materials, and preregistration) as visual incentives for transparency. These badges cost nothing but can powerfully signal credibility to readers and reviewers. 3️⃣Ask Reviewers to Comment on Transparency. Editors can modify reviewer forms to include a checkbox or question on whether the manuscript meets basic transparency standards, such as reporting sample sizes, exclusions, and robustness checks. This minimal addition raises awareness and accountability without slowing down the process. 4️⃣Publish Editorials That Set Expectations. Editors can write brief editorials or editors’ notes that articulate the journal’s commitment to research credibility and encourage authors to follow best practices. This sets a cultural tone and aligns expectations without requiring policy overhauls. 5️⃣Encourage Submission of Replication Studies. Editors can explicitly state in the journal’s aims and scope that replication studies are welcome, especially those that test boundary conditions or use different samples. This small change encourages cumulative science and helps legitimize replication as a valued scholarly contribution. 6️⃣Promote Methodological Transparency in Author Guidelines. Revise the journal's author instructions to require detailed reporting of study procedures, including recruitment, exclusions, measures, and statistical methods. Providing a checklist or link to reporting standards (e.g., #APA’s JARS) helps authors comply without confusion. 7️⃣Create a Fast-Track for Methodologically Transparent Studies. Offer a streamlined review process for papers that meet predefined transparency criteria, such as open data and preregistered protocols. This creates an incentive for authors to adopt best practices and reduces reviewer burden. Academy of International Business (AIB) HR Division - Academy of Management ONE Division, AOM AOM STR - Strategic Management Division AOM Organization & Management Theory Division (OMT) AOM TIM Division Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management Eastern Academy of Management AOM ENT Division EUROPEAN ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT Ellen Granberg Sevin Yeltekin Iberoamerican Academy of Management Management Faculty of Color Association (MFCA) Eddy Ng

Arguing a case is not about oratory — it’s about precision and preparation Over time, I’ve realised that effective advocacy lies not in oratory, but in the presentation of facts merged seamlessly with the applicable law. I want to share my practice of preparing notes for final oral arguments, particularly in suits and appeals (though the approach is similar for writs). 1.Start with the Issues Begin by identifying the issues framed and the onus of proof on each. Everything that follows must flow from this foundation. 2. Map the Record Scan pleadings, evidence, and documents carefully. Note the exact paragraphs and page numbers that support the issues where the onus lies on your side. Precise marking of relevant portions keeps the argument anchored and helps you hold the Court’s attention. 3. Engage the Judge While arguing, ensure the Court is following your path. Phrases like “Has your Lordship got it?” or “Please see page 47, paragraph 9” are not interruptions, they help you and the Judge remain on the same page, literally and mentally. 4. Merge Law with Facts Never argue facts in isolation. State the proposition of law, cite the authority, and merge it with your facts. This discipline keeps submissions precise and persuasive. 5. Anticipate the Other Side If time permits, become your own devil’s advocate. Identify the strongest points for the opposite side, and prepare your legal response. And if, after full preparation, you find the law is clearly against you — make a gracious concession. It saves the Court’s time and earns you credibility. For me, this “surgical” approach ensures that the Judge rarely misses the point and that I rarely lose track of mine. #Advocacy #CourtroomSkills #LitigationStrategy #LegalPractice #Preparation #OralArguments #TrialLawyers

#A_clear_structure_is_stronger_than_a_perfect_memory. Almost every advocate has experienced this. You prepare the case thoroughly. You know the facts. You know the law. But during arguments, a question from the court, an interruption from the other side, or an unexpected development breaks your flow. And suddenly, an important point is forgotten. Many lawyers assume this happens because they did not prepare enough. But often, the real problem is different. They prepared information, but not a structure. When an argument exists only as scattered notes or ideas, it becomes difficult to navigate under pressure. That is why every argument should have a clear roadmap: What are the facts? What is the issue? What does the law say? How does the law apply? What relief is being sought? Once this structure is clear, you are far less likely to lose your way. Even if interrupted, you know exactly where to return. The most effective advocates do not depend on memory alone. They depend on organisation. Because courts do not expect perfection. But they do appreciate clarity. And a well-structured argument helps both the advocate and the court stay focused on what truly matters. #CourtroomWisdom #AdvocacySkills #LitigationLife #LegalPractice #LawyersOfLinkedIn #CourtroomTips #YoungLawyers #ProfessionalGrowth #LegalCareer #EffectiveAdvocacy

Every lawyer should study how federal Judge Jennifer Dorsey writes. She takes dense, technical disputes and makes them feel easy. Two recent rulings show exactly how to write when the law is complicated, the facts are tangled, and the stakes are high. Here’s how every lawyer can steal her best moves. 1️⃣ Fix the Scope in a Single Line Open by defining exactly what the court needs to decide, and what it doesn’t. That one line calms the reader and corrals the argument that follows. Place it right before your first heading so it frames everything downstream. 2️⃣ Write Headings That Argue, Not Label Headings are your most‑read lines. Make them carry a conclusion and a reason. If someone skimmed only your headings, they should still understand who should win and why. 3️⃣ Use a Simple Comparison to Orient the Law When two lines of authority point in different directions, show the reader where your case sits between them. One short comparison can replace pages of exposition. 4️⃣ Let Opponent Concessions Carry Weight Quote the one admission that bridges your rule to your result. Then build around it. Readers trust the other side’s words. 5️⃣ Distill Dense Text to One Unifying Thread When you face long contractual or statutory language, don’t paraphrase every clause. Identify the feature that unites the list and make that the point sentence. Then show, briefly, why your facts don’t fit. - I’m Joe Regalia—law professor and legal writing trainer. Follow me and tap the 🔔 to stay updated on every post.

Final Checks Before Submission to a Journal (or Easing the Path to Publication) The fastest way to have a paper rejected is to NOT CONFORM with the editor's requirements for submitting. So. Before submitting a manuscript, I run through a structured set of checks to make sure the work is ready for review. 1. Ensure Theoretical Contribution & IS Centrality * Is the contribution theoretical (not just applied)? Top journals expect papers to advance IS theory, not merely apply existing frameworks in new contexts. * Is the IS context central, not peripheral? The IS lens should be indispensable—not just a backdrop. 2. Construct Clarity & Alignment * Are definitions and operationalizations aligned? Each construct should be explicitly defined and consistently measured. * Have you validated constructs? Through measurement models, convergent/divergent checks, or robustness tests. 3. Methodological Rigor * Are the methods appropriate for the theoretical claims? (e.g., qualitative for theory building, quantitative for testing). * Is sampling and data reporting transparent—sample size, response rates, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and biases? * Is the analysis transparent—fit statistics, diagnostics, missing data handling, robustness checks? * Is the work replicable? Provide enough detail (and data/code if possible, subject to policies). 4. Manuscript Structure & Clarity * Does the paper follow IMRaD (or equivalent) clearly? Introduction, Theory, Methods, Findings, Discussion. * Is the writing clear, active, and free of jargon, redundancy, and passive constructions? 5. Formatting & Style Compliance * Does the manuscript follow the journal’s style guide (formatting, citation style, page limits)? * If over length, trim or move detail into appendices or supplements. 6. Submission Tasks * Is the cover letter ready? Include editor’s name, manuscript title, originality statement, contribution summary, and suggested AE (if allowed). * Is the submission set up correctly in ScholarOne (or equivalent portal)? All authors listed with accurate affiliations, originality declarations confirmed. * Have you run ethical checks (plagiarism screen, overlap statement, etc.)? 7. Supplemental Materials * Appendices and supplementary files: include robustness checks, instruments, or code, but ensure the main manuscript is self-contained. Having a checklist like this helps to keeps you focused on the papers content: theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, clarity, and compliance. It also simplifies the submission process - and saves time on the editor's side - bc it means that they can process your manuscript more easily, see your work's merits, and identify the right review team for your work! Best of luck! #academicjourney

High-performing teams argue purposefully. I’ve seen this over and over in my career. While others get over-emotional and reactive during disagreements, the best teams disagree 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺. There are 6 steps to having effective “arguments” at work: 𝟭. 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝗹𝗲𝘀 In any debate, it's vital for participants to understand their roles. Are you there to make the final decision, offer fresh ideas, or passionately defend your viewpoint? Clear roles ensure everyone knows their purpose and contributes constructively to the discussion. 𝟮. 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀 Rather than fixating on individual positions, effective arguments focus on common interests. Identify shared goals and objectives that can guide the conversation toward a collaborative solution rather than a divisive one. 𝟯. 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗕𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 Before challenging an idea, strive to enhance it. Encourage team members to develop and strengthen an argument before attempting to deconstruct others' viewpoints. This approach promotes a more robust and constructive debate. 𝟰. 𝗘𝗺𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 Strong arguments are supported by data and intuition. It's essential to justify your stance and how you arrived at that conclusion. At the same time, you’re a human being. Combining factual evidence with your intuitive insights adds depth and credibility to your argument. 𝟱. 𝗕𝗲 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 This may seem obvious, but: Effective debate requires a willingness to have your mind changed. Enter the discussion with an open mind, ready to consider and allow yourself to be moved by the better argument if it arises. This demonstrates intellectual humility and promotes a culture of continuous learning. 𝟲. 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗦𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀 Effective arguments need constraints. They keep them on track and prevent them from becoming unproductive or overly emotional. These constraints could include: • time limits • sticking to certain topics • not allowing the conversation to become too personal The goal is to enter with many ideas and emerge with the best one. – Remember: iron sharpens iron. Strong teams don’t shy away from arguments. They embrace them, stay in them, and ultimately push each other to higher ground and bigger possibilities.

🎓PhD Scholars, Struggling with Manuscript Submission? Publishing isn’t just about writing—it’s about effectively navigating the entire submission process. Let's move from Manuscript to Publication using the P.U.B.L.I.C.A.T.I.O.N. framework. 1. Prepare the Manuscript: Ensure a clear structure, logical flow, proper citations, and plagiarism-free content for a strong submission. 🌟 A well-structured paper increases acceptance chances. 2. Understand Journal Guidelines: Align with the journal’s scope, formatting, reference style, and ethical policies to avoid technical rejections. 🌟 Formatting errors can delay publication by weeks. 3. Build Necessary Documents: Prepare a persuasive cover letter, high-quality figures, ethical statements, and supplementary files before submission. 🌟 A strong cover letter captures an editor’s attention. 4. Locate the Right Journal: Choose a journal based on impact factor, audience, review timeline, and legitimacy (avoid predatory journals). 🌟 A well-matched journal speeds up acceptance. 5. Initiate the Submission Process: Register, upload formatted files, verify metadata, and check plagiarism before submission. 🌟 Incorrect details may require resubmission. 6. Check for Editorial Screening: Editors assess clarity, originality, and compliance—poorly written or off-topic papers face desk rejection. 🌟 A strong first impression improves your chances. 7. Address Peer Review Feedback: Respond point-by-point, justify revisions, and stay professional in disagreements. 🌟 A well-structured response letter convinces reviewers. 8. Tweak & Resubmit if Needed: If rejected, analyze feedback, improve, and resubmit strategically. 🌟 Revisions based on feedback strengthen your paper. 9. Issue Proof Corrections: Check typeset proofs for typos, formatting, and citation accuracy before final approval. 🌟 Final errors can affect credibility. 10. Official Publication Online: Once published, share your DOI, update ORCID, and track citations. 🌟 Visibility boosts readership and impact. 11. Notify & Promote Research: Increase visibility by sharing on LinkedIn, attending conferences, and engaging with peers. 🌟 More engagement leads to higher citations. Mastering the submission process can save time and increase acceptance rates. What’s your biggest challenge in getting published? Let’s discuss this in the comments!💬 hashtag #ResearchMadeEasy #LiteratureReview #PaperPublication #Journal #Ethics #Indexing #Impact #Phd #PhDLife #AcademicPublishing #ResearchTips #AcademicSuccess