Knowledge sharing of three things

KNOWLEDGE SHARING OF THREE THINGS

Nury EffendiFaculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Padjadjaran

Lokakarya FEB – Unpad, Garut, 22 – 23 Januari 2014

Motto of Universitites

Motto Wikipedia: A motto is a phrase meant to

formally summarize the general motivation or intention of a social group or organization. A motto may be in any language, but Latin is the most used in the Western word. The local language is usual in the mottoes of governments. In informal ways, it can be a rule or slogan someone follows, or lives their life by.

Motto of Universitites in the US (selected)

Universities of Arkansas: Veritate Duce Progredi (To Advance with Truth as our Guide).

Boston University: Learning, Virtue, Piety. Brown University: In deo speramus (In God we

hope). University of California: Fiat lux (Let there be

light). University of Colorado: Let your light shine Cornell University: I would found an institution

where any person can find instruction in any study (Ezra Cornell, 1865)


University of Florida: Civium in moribus rei publicae salus (The welfare of the state depends upon the morals of its citizens).

Georgetown University: Utraque Unum (Both and One).

Harvard University: Veritas (Truth). Indiana University: Lux et Veritas (Light

and Truth). University of Kentucky: Dream,

Challenge, Succeed.


Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Mens et Manus (Mind and Hand).

University of Michigan: Artes Scientia Veritas (Art, Science, Truth).

New York University: Perstare et Praestare (To Preserve and to Excel).

Northwestern University: Quaecumque sunt vera (Whatsoever things are true).

The Ohio State University: Disciplina in civitatem (Education for Citizenship).


University of Oklahoma: Civi et reipublicae (For the citizen and for the state).

University of Pennsylvania: Leges sine moribus vanae (Laws without morals are useless).

Princeton University: Dei sub numine viget (Under God’s power she flourishes).

Stanford University: Die Luft der Freiheit weht (German, The wind of freedom blows).

University of Washington: Lux sit (Let there be light).

Motto of Universitites in UK (selected)

University of Birmingham: Per Ardua Ad Alta (Through efforts to high things).

University of Cambridge: Hinc lucern et pocula sacra (From here, light and sacred draughts).

Durham University: Fundamenta eius super montibus sanctis (Her foundations are upon the holy hills).

King’s College London: Sancte et sapienter (With holiness and with wisdom).

London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE): Rerum cognoscere causas (To understand the causes of things).

Motto of Universitites in UK (selected)

University of Lancaster: Patet omnibus veritas (Truth lies open to all).

University of Leicester: Ut vitam habeant (So that they may have life).

University of Manchester: Cognitio, sapientia, hvmanitas (Knowledge, wisdom, humanity)

University of Sussex: Be Still and Know Staffordshire University: Create the

difference

Motto of Universitites in the Netherlands (selected)

Erasmus University: Main port of knowledge Groningen University: Verbum domini lucerna

pedibus nostris (The word of the Lord is a light for our feet).

Leiden University: Praesidium Libertatis (Bastion of Freedom).

Universiteit Maastricht: Leading in Learning. Radboud University Nijmegen: In Dei Nomine

Feliciter (May we proceed with happiness in God’s name).

Wageningen University: For quality of life.

Motto of Universitites in Belgium (selected)

Vrije Universiteit Brussel: Scientia vincere tenebras (Conquering darkness by science).

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven: Sedes sapientiae (Seat of wisdom).

Universiteit Gent: Inter Utrumque (In Between Both Extremes).

Motto of Universitites in Australia (selected)

Australian National University: Naturam Primum Cognoscere Rerum (First, to learn the nature of things).

Curtin University: Make Tomorrow Better. La Trobe University: Qui cherche trouve

(French, Whoever seeks, finds). Macquarie University: And Gladly Teche

(English, And gladly teach). Monash University: Ancora imparo (Italian, I

am still learning)

Motto of Universitites in Australia (selected) University of Adelaide: Sub Cruce Lumen

(The light of learning under the Southern Cross).

The University of Melbourne: Postera Crescam Laude (We grow in the esteem of future generations).

University of New South Wales: Scientia Manu et Mente (Knowledge by Hand and Mind).

University of Queensland: Scientia ad Labore (Through knowledge and hard work).

University of Western Australia: Seek Wisdom.

Motto of Universitites in Malaysia (selected)

Universiti Malaya: Ilmu Punca Kemajuan (Knowledge is the Key to Success).

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia: Ilmu Memimpin (Knowledge Guides).

Universiti Putra Malaysia: Berilmu Berbakti (With Knowledge We Serve).

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Kerana Tuhan Untuk Manusia (By the Name of God for the Mankind).

International Islamic University of Malaysia: Taman Ilmu dan Budi (Garden of Knowledge and Virtue).

Motto of Universitites in Indonesia (selected)

Institut Pertanian Bogor: Searching and Serving the Best. Institut Teknologi Bandung: In Harmonia Pregressio

(Progress in Harmony). Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember: Cerdas Ulet Kreatif

(Intelligent Tough Creative). Universitas Indonesia: Veritas Probitas Iustitia (Truth,

Integrity, Justice). Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia: Leading and

Understanding. Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS): Mangesthi Luhur

Ambangun Nagara (Javanese, Using Wisdom to Build a Nation).

Bitcoin

Bitcoin, features Bitcoin is an innovative payment network and a new

kind of money. Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate

with no central authority or banks; managing transactions and the issuing of bitcoins is carried out collectively by the network.

Bitcoin is open-source; its design is public, nobody owns or controls Bitcoin and everyone can take part.

Through many of its unique properties, Bitcoin allows exciting uses that could not be covered by any previous payment system.

Bitcoin, features Dikenal sebagai Crypto-currency. Diperkenalkan pertama kali di tahun 2009 oleh Satoshi

Nakamoto (nama alias, bukan nama sebenarnya). Dalam transaksi, bitcoin tidak menggunakan perantara,

atau tanpa bank. Selain itu, tidak ada komisi atau biaya administrasi untuk tiap transaksi. Setiap pembeli juga tidak perlu memberikan nama asli. (Sehingga cenderung marak dipakai untuk bisnis ilegal).

Bitcoin bisa dimiliki siapa saja. Bisa dengan cara instan dengan membeli dari pedagang Bitcoin, atau dengan cara mencari (manambang) dengan bantuan piranti atau software khusus.

Bitcoin, features Bitcoin adalah mata uang digital yang bisa dipakai di

dunia maya maupun nyata. Bitcoin bukan sekedar angka-angka uang seperti di

PayPal atau semacam e-wallet, namun juga ada bentuk fisiknya juga (melalui konversi ke mata uang standar).

Berbeda dengan alat pembayaran biasa, Bitcoin mampu menembus sekat negara tanpa harus terikat dengan regulasi di setiap negara. Oleh karena itu, Bitcoin bisa menjadi mata uang dunia dan bukan hanya suatu negara.

Idenya muncul untuk merespon krisis keuangan global.

Risiko Bitcoin Nilai Bitcoin sangat berfluktuasi, tergantung dari

mekanisme pasar. Pada bulan Desember 2013 1 keping Bitcoin dihargai sekitar 6 juta rupiah dan pada tanggal 6 Januari 2014 nilainya menjadi USD 1034 atau lebih dari Rp 12 juta. Nilai tertinggi yang pernah dicapai untuk 1 BTC adalah USD 1200

Bitcoin dapat dicuri meskipun penggunaannya kembali (oleh si pencuri) akan dapat dilacak.

Saat ini Bitcoin dilarang di China, Malaysia Dapat dipakai untuk transaksi ilegal maupun money

laundering. Mata uang BTC tidak ada yg menjamin nilainya kecuali

mekanisme pasar.

Peredaran Bitcoin Saat ini mata uang digital Bitcoin telah

beredar sebanyak sekitar 12 juta keping dengan nilai nominal sekitar 70 triliun rupiah di seluruh dunia.

Peredarannya akan dibatasi menjadi maksimal 21 juta keping pada tahun 2140.

Bitcoin di Indonesia Masih dikaji penggunaannya oleh BI Sejauh ini ada dua merchant (di luar

Jawa) yang mau menerima BTC. Kemungkinan adalah: Artabit dan Bitcoin Indonesia.

Nada KobeissiAssociate ProfessorManagement Department Long Island University, Post Campus New York, USA

A Road Map to Publishing in Academic Journal

SELECTING A TOPIC.

A good topic is one that create curiosity in the reader’s mind. Topics are interesting when their propositions challenges normal

expectation. A study focused on showing a good phenomenon to be bad would create curiosity because it challenges initial assumptions.

If you cannot guess the ending (results) of a particular paper, then the authors have made an effective topic choice. For example consider this title: “The Effects of Leader Displays of Happiness on Team Performance.” A reviewer could guess the contents of the ending— or, at least, the contents of the Results section— because of the intuitive nature of the topic.

Finally, a topic should be actionable: it should offer insights for managerial or organizational practice. Research has relevance when it can generate insights that practitioners find useful for understanding their own organizational realities, especially if it concerns variables that are within the control of managers.

FROM THE EDITORS. PUBLISHING IN AMJ—PART 1: TOPIC CHOICE Academy of Management Journal 2011, Vol. 54, No. 3, 432–435.

Selecting a Topic (cont’d).

When selecting a topic keep in mind that : Selecting a topic that is too familiar may result in a study that is

perceived as a marginal extension of an existing literature. Selecting a topic that is too mature raises concerns about a

contribution that is viewed as too redundant. Selecting a topic that is too similar to others in the existing literature

may be seen as too overlapping.

When selecting a topic keep in mind the following types of questions Does the topic Test, Build or Extend a theory? Does the topic add to previous knowledge or create a entirely new

direction?

FROM THE EDITORS. PUBLISHING IN AMJ—PART 1: TOPIC CHOICE Academy of Management Journal 2011, Vol. 54, No. 3, 432–435.

Selecting a Topic (cont’d).

When selecting a topic keep in mind the following types of questions :

How important is the proposed topic to the existing knowledge? What are the scientific contributions that your research will makes to the existing literature?

What is the relevancy of the topic and research questions to different readership groups (public, managers, policy makers, academics)?

Is the data available? What scientific research methodologies and measurement procedures will you use to capture high-quality data for addressing the main research questions?

What are the appropriate target journals for your paper?

Will your research be mostly empirical or theoretical?

David J. Ortinau. Writing and publishing important scientific articles: A reviewer's perspective. Journal of Business Research. 64 (2011) 150–156.

ORGANIZING YOUR PAPER STRUCTURE & COMPOSITION

A paper should have the following sections:1. Title and Abstract2. Introduction3. Literature Review4. Theory and Hypotheses5. Methodologies6. Results and Findings7. Discussion - Theoretical, Managerial, &

Policy Implications8. Conclusion -Limitation and Future

Research Direction9. References, Tables and Appendix.

1- TITLE & ABSTRACT

Try to have creative but accurate title which describes what story the article is trying to communicates.

Avoid having too long title. Good title should be between 8 to 10 words.

Make sure that the key variables or the topic focus are included in your title.

Remember that the title determines how your article gets indexed. So your title should briefly and accurately identify the main focus of your paper.


Tips on how to write a paper. Timothy M. Johnson. J AM ACAD DERMATOL. 2008. VOLUME 59, NUMBER 6

1- Title & Abstract (cont’d)

Compose a good abstract in order to draw attention to your article and convey feelings of importance, relevancy and curiosity in the reader's mind.

Remember that the content and quality of the abstract often determine whether your article gets read by others.

Your abstract should concisely (briefly, accurately and precisely) describe the importance of the problem (research question) you are trying to investigate.



1- Title & Abstract (cont’d)

The abstract should highlight one or two key findings, key contributions, and offer catchy (attractive) implications.

The abstract should follow the structure and format required by the specific journal.

Avoid including any acronyms or abbreviations in your abstract (i.e. make sure to spell entire words).



Example: Tile and Abstract

GETTING THEM TO THINK OUTSIDE THE CIRCLE: CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, CEOS' EXTERNAL ADVICE NETWORKS, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE

By: MCDONALD, MICHAEL L.; KHANNA, POONAM; WESTPHAL, JAMES Academy of Management Journal. Jun2008, Vol. 51 Issue 3, p453-475.

23p.

Abstract: This article contributes to the social networks literature by examining how corporate governance factors influence CEOs' external advice-seeking behaviors. We incorporate insights from social networks research into an agency theory perspective to predict, and demonstrate empirically, that governance factors recommended by agency theory increase CEOs' tendencies to seek out advice contacts who are likely to offer perspectives on strategic issues that differ from their own; these advice-seeking behaviors ultimately enhance firm performance. Accordingly, this article also contributes to the corporate governance literature by describing how and why CEOs' advice networks mediate the effects of governance factors on firm performance.

http://web.ebscohost.com.libproxy.rpi.edu/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2/dV0+njisfk5Ie46bdIrqevTbSk63nn5Kx95uXxjL6orU2tqK5JsZawUrGtuEqvlr9lpOrweezp33vy3+2G59q7ULCvrkywqrRLpOLfhuWz44ak2uBV4OvmPvLX5VW/xKR57LOxSrSos1G0r6R+7ejrefKz5I3q4vJ99uoA&hid=15




Example: Tile and Abstract

WATCHDOG OR LAPDOG? A BEHAVIORAL VIEW OF THE MEDIA AS A CORPORATE GOVERNANCE MECHANISM.By: BEDNAR, MICHAEL K. Academy of Management Journal. Feb2012, Vol. 55 Issue 1, p131-150. 20p. 5 : Abstract: This study begins to provide a behavioral view of the media and corporate governance by showing how firms enact largely symbolic governance changes with respect to board independence that essentially protect managerial interests, yet still elicit positive responses from the media. I show why this media response is important for firm leaders by examining how more favorable media coverage may affect CEO job security, executive compensation, and board composition. To the extent that largely symbolic actions affect media coverage, this study raises questions about the effectiveness of the media as a governance control mechanism.

http://web.ebscohost.com.libproxy.rpi.edu/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2/dV0+njisfk5Ie46bdIrqevTbSk63nn5Kx95uXxjL6orU2tqK5JsZawUrGtuEqvlr9lpOrweezp33vy3+2G59q7ULCvrkywqrRLpOLfhuWz44ak2uBV4OvmPvLX5VW/xKR57LO1SrCotlGzqqR+7ejrefKz5I3q4vJ99uoA&hid=15




2- INTRODUCTION

Good articles start with strong introductions.

Remember that you only get one chance to make a first impression, and in academic publishing the introduction to your article is that chance.

A strong introduction increase the likelihood that a reader will make a decision to continue to read your article or decide not to read the remaining part of your article.

Keep in mind that if the reviewers are interested by the research question, appreciate its importance, and understand how your study advances knowledge about your topic then they are more likely to look for reasons to recommend that your article gets a chance for revision. However, if reviewers are not excited after reading the introduction, they are more likely to look for reasons to reject your paper.

EDITOR'S COMMENTS: REFLECTIONS ON THE CRAFT OF CLEAR WRITING. Academy of Management Review. 2012. Vol. 37. No. 4. 490-501.

2- Introduction (cont’d)

A good Introduction should be no longer than 3 pages double spaced and it should:

"Sell the unique, 'value-added' contribution within the first page of your paper in order to keep the reader's attention and focus.

Answer how will you solve the problem(s) that you have identified in your paper.

Give a brief overview of how your approach differs from earlier approaches and why it is superior.


2- Introduction (cont’d)

A good introduction should briefly answer the following three sets of questions:

(1) Who cares? What is the topic or research question? why is it interesting? And why it matters for both theory and practice?

(2) What do we know, what don’t we know, and so what? What are the key theoretical perspectives and empirical findings that justify or support your topic or question? What major (unanswered) puzzle, controversy does this study address, and why does it need to be addressed?

(3) What is new (contributions) in your study? How does your study fundamentally change, challenge, or advance previous scholars’ understanding?

FROM THE EDITORS PUBLISHING IN AMJ—PART 3: SETTING THE HOOK. Academy of Management Journal 2011, Vol. 54, No. 5, 873–879

2- Introduction (cont’d).Who Cares, So What, What is New.

The following are examples of convincing arguments for the importance of your research topic:

Example 1: Gaps (weakness) in the literature suggest the need to develop an alternative, or competing methodological or measurement approach for investigating a particular concept or idea, relationship, or phenomenon. In your introduction you need to present clear and convincing

discussions explaining why it is important to correct the existing weakness in the literature.


2- Introduction (cont’d).Who Cares, So What, What is New.

Example 2: There exist an empirical controversy in the literature regarding the true relationship(s) between the variables under investigation (for example between income inequality and growth). This paper will provide an explanation of why the controversy needs to be resolved, including a concise discussion of the competing theoretical rationale underlying the differences.

Example 3: Empirical evidence suggests a need to expand an existing theory. Your introduction should clearly identify the weaknesses of the existing theory and explain how the proposed expansion will improve that theory. The paper will therefore add value to the understanding of that theory as well as contribute to the related literature.


2- Introduction (cont’d)Final Thoughts from the Experts

Just because a gap exists in the literature does not necessarily make the study interesting or worthwhile. Many authors write the introduction by stating that there is a gap but end there, without clearly explaining why filling this particular gap is important and interesting, or why this contributes to our enhanced understanding of the particular phenomenon.

Hollenbeck (2008) noted that the two most effective ways to frame a contribution are through “consensus shifting” and “consensus creation.”

Consensus shifting occurs when authors identify widely held assumptions (e.g. negative relation between corruption and growth), proceed to challenge them, and describe the implications for ongoing research.

Consensus creation occurs when authors show a lack of consensus (agreement) in the literature (e.g. gun control and violence) and either clarify the lines of debate or resolve the conflict.

FROM THE EDITORS PUBLISHING IN AMJ—PART 3: SETTING THE HOOK. Academy of Management Journal 2011, Vol. 54, No. 5, 873–879.

3- LITERATURE REVIEW

The function of a literature review section is to provide further detail and clarify the story line of the research focus.

Provide convincing arguments supporting your position.

Provide clear discussions of the debate surrounding each of your key variables as well as any known relationships between them.


3- Literature Review (cont’d)

The literature review should provide justification for your research. When preparing your review you should demonstrate the following: That there are gaps in the knowledge about your topic that require a

closer investigation. That your research will fill this gap by adding knowledge and

understanding about your topic. That your research contribution is original and hasn't been previously

done. That you have analyzed and critiqued the theories or methodologies in

the field and that you know the main arguments related to your topic. That you have considered how the available research and existing

literature support your research; how it contradict your research; and how your research will resolve the difference?

http://www.library.arizona.edu/help/tutorials/litreviews/whatis.htmlhttp://library.queensu.ca/webedu/grad/Purpose_of_the_Literature_Review.pdf

http://www.library.arizona.edu/help/tutorials/litreviews/whatis.html

You should be able to demonstrate where your research fits into the existing body of knowledge

What you have learned from previous theory on the subject How the subject has been studied before What are the weaknesses in previous research.

In Summary, a literature review is a report designed to assess the literature related to your selected research topic. The review should describe, summarize, evaluate and clarify related literature. It should give a theoretical basis for the research and help you determine the nature of your own research.

When preparing the review select a limited number of works that are central to your area rather than trying to collect a large number of works that are not as closely connected to your topic area

http://www.library.arizona.edu/help/tutorials/litreviews/whatis.htmlhttp://library.queensu.ca/webedu/grad/Purpose_of_the_Literature_Review.pdf

3- Literature Review (cont’d)



4- THEORY & HYPOTHESES

This is the heart of the paper. The objective is to provide a clear road map outlining step by step how you arrived at your theory. Explain how you are going to add value to the research topic and why these specific hypotheses make sense individually and why they also fit together to form a coherent conceptual framework.You need to ground your hypotheses in relevant theories. This involves the following 3 steps:1- Positioning your hypotheses in relation to related research. It is important to cite relevant prior works in building your arguments, but you also want to make sure that you are developing your own new insights (knowledge and understanding). Just citing prior studies does not constitute logical arguments. Citations should be used to demonstrate various elements of the logic of your

own argument, and to explain how your work fits into the literature on that particular topic.

You should clearly show how your paper builds upon that literature, by explaining what has already been done and why what you are proposing in your paper is a logical and important contribution that extend prior work.

FROM THE EDITORS. PUBLISHING IN AMJ—PART 4: GROUNDING HYPOTHESES. Academy of Management Journal 2011, Vol. 54, No. 6, 1098–1102.

4- Theory & Hypotheses (cont’d)

2. Developing a clear, logical argument explaining why the main variables are related in the proposed way. A hypothesis is a claim that Y, a dependent variable, is systematically related to X, an independent variable. The objective is to persuade the readers that the claims made in your hypotheses are plausible. Offer explanation how your claim (hypothesis) correspond with established

theory; offer empirical evidence supporting claims similar to what you state in your

hypothesis. So if it has been shown to occur in similar circumstances, then it should also apply in the present circumstances. However make sure that you have a logical rationale.

Combine insights from multiple theories to explain clearly why addressing this research question requires using these theories and how exactly the theories will be joined in a way that creates a unique contribution to the research topic.


4- Theory & Hypotheses (cont’d)

3- Creating a sense of coherence in the relationships among the proposed variables. One of the biggest problems in the development of an effective theory section is explaining why you have selected this specific set of variables and not others.

The key is to address the question of why these variables (and only those variables) were selected.

Provide explanation of how your variables fit together in a way that creates a strong and coherent theoretical contribution and doesn’t leave the reader wondering why other variables weren’t included.

Show how your proposed hypotheses are linked a way that creates an overall contribution to the topic.


4- Theory & Hypotheses (cont’d)Insights from ReviewersReviewers have identified three common mistakes that authors makes when grounding their hypotheses:

1- Lack of specificity. This occurs when the authors use logical explanation from a theory that is very broad and apply to a more general domain than that of their specific hypotheses.2- Fragmented theorizing. This happens when authors have a model with several hypothesized relationships, where each relationship is supported by logic drawn from a different theory. They provide various theory that are not integrated into a coherent and cohesive explanation.3- Stating the obvious. If a hypothesis states the obvious or makes a claim that is common knowledge, then, although it is true, it is also likely no to be important.


5 - METHODOLOGIES

In this section you need to provided detailed information about the following aspects of your paper:

Describe in details your sample, the specific data, and collection procedures used for investigating and justifying the relationship between the various hypotheses.

Describe the various elements that affect the data collection processes.

Providing detailed information is very important in assessing the quality of the data you used in testing your hypotheses. It is also important in conveying the strength of the scientific process you used in analyzing your data.


5 – Methodologies (cont’d)

For example your method section should provide answers to the following questions:• Is the method qualitative, quantitative, or mixed?• Is the investigation survey or experimental dominant?• Is the data cross-sectional or longitudinal in nature?• What specific procedures does the study implement for data collection?• From whom and when are the data collected?• What type of sampling procedure is employed?• What is the sample size? What is your unit of analysis?• How does the study assess nonresponse bias, or missing data?• How each construct (key variable) is identified and measured?



The following are three general design problems identified by reviewers as common sources of paper rejection:

(1) Mismatch between research question and design. Example using a cross sectional data to analyze a research question which involves aspect of change. Cross sectional data are mismatched with research questions that implicitly or explicitly deal with causality or change.

FROM THE EDITORS. PUBLISHING IN AMJ—PART 2: RESEARCH DESIGN. Academy of Management Journal. 2011, Vol. 54, No. 4, 657–660.


(2) Measurement and operational issues (i.e., construct validity). The degree to which an instrument measures the characteristic being investigated. The extent to which the conceptual definitions match the operational definitions.

For example if you are trying to investigate whether an educational training program improves creativity among children. Then does the specific measurement you have designed actually measure your construct/concept of creativity? Is your data actually measuring creativity or something related to creativity such as intellectual ability?

If you did not establish a good measurement for your concept then your findings do not convey a confidence that you have actually tested what you have proposed to test in your paper.



(3) Inappropriate or incomplete model specification. Make sure that you include proper key control variables

based on the expectation that these variables might be correlated with the dependent or independent variables.

Make sure you check whether potential mediating variables might also be affecting the causal relationship between variables. i.e. you need to make sure you describe and measure the process by which variable A is affecting variable B.


5 – Methodologies (cont’d)Further Insights from Reviewers

Reviewers cited the following major concerns when rejecting manuscripts. They summarized them as “the three C’s”: completeness, clarity, and credibility. Completeness: Authors failed to provide a complete description of the ways

they obtained the data, the operationalizations of the constructs that they used, and the types of analyses that they conducted. It is important that authors explain in detail not only what about what they have done, but why they made certain decisions. They should disclose the hows, whats, and whys of their research procedures.

Clarity: Authors failed to clearly explain what they have done. A typical, very common, problem concerns descriptions of measures. It is important to provide a justification for why certain measures were chosen and why they are valid measures.

Credibility: Authors failed to explain why they chose a particular sample. Why they chose a particular measure, why they controlled for a particular variable, and what and why a particular approach was used to analyze the data.

FROM THE EDITORS. PUBLISHING IN AMJ—PART 5: CRAFTING THE METHODS AND RESULTS. Academy of Management Journal 2012, Vol. 55, No. 1, 8–12.

6- RESULTS–FINDINGS

This section focuses on presenting your empirical findings. Provide a straightforward description of your findings. Present

the key results that support either the acceptance or rejection of each tested hypothesis.

Support your description with evidence from summary tables and figures displaying the data and test results.

Make sure you display all the relevant data structures and statistical test results and clearly label each summary table.

In this section you do not need to offer detailed discussions about insights, implications of your results, or explanations why the results came out as they did (this information is to be provided in the Discussion section of your paper).


6- Results–Findings (cont’d)

Make sure you include a table for means, standard deviation, and correlations. This is critical for judging the credibility of findings. In reporting results, it is also important to specify the unit of analysis, sample size, and variables used in each model.

Relate your findings to the study’s hypotheses. What the results indicate with respect to the focal topic of the study.

Make sure you report all results directly and clearly. All results significant or not significant, supporting or not supporting your hypotheses should be reported.

Make sure you provide correct interpretations of your results. When necessary include supplementary analyses and robustness

checks.

FROM THE EDITORS. PUBLISHING IN AMJ—PART 5: CRAFTING THE METHODS AND RESULTS. Academy of Management Journal 2012, Vol. 55, No. 1, 8–12.

7- DISCUSSION

In this section you need to precisely identify and clearly discuss the scientific information revealed by your data analysis and test results. You need to provide evidence that your findings offer new or different scientific information about the research problems (or questions).

What kind of insight (understanding) can one obtain from your findings? What is the link between your findings and your research topic? What kind of contributions do your findings make in advancing the theory and our understanding about the specific topic.

Explain why your findings are important. What are their implication on the theory. Why they need to be added to the existing literature on the topic?

Avoid overselling any contribution, or exaggerating the actual findings and their implications, if the data results cannot accurately support your claim.

Explain under which conditions your findings do and do not apply.David J. Ortinau. Writing and publishing important scientific articles: A reviewer's perspective. Journal of Business Research. 64 (2011) 150–156

7- Discussion (cont’d)Insights From the ReviewersReviewers have made the following suggestions for writing an effective discussion section Makes a point of revisiting the study’s original theoretical motivation and answer

the underlying theoretical question(s). Address the so what? Question. Examine the results of hypotheses tests in a comprehensive way. Create a unified,

theoretically grounded discussion of the studies’ new contributions. Instead of identifying implications for each result, a better strategy might be to focus on what the findings mean collectively.

Explain What do the results tell us about underlying theoretical constructs, principles, and their relationships? When do these patterns emerge, and in what context? How do they refine appreciation of the underlying theory?

Provide a bridge between a study’s findings and the larger literature. Explain why the findings are important and worthy of dissemination (in the form of a published article). Explain how your study changes, challenges, or advances the existing theoretical understanding.

FROM THE EDITORS PUBLISHING IN AMJ–PART 6: DISCUSSING THE IMPLICATIONS. Academy of Management Journal 2012, Vol. 55, No. 2, 256–260.

8- CONCLUSION

In this section try to offer a “mini summary” of the paper: Very briefly reintroduce the objective of the paper, your key findings, and your key contributions.

Remember that your target groups are not only academics. If possible include a section on the practical implications of your empirical findings and what value they offer to other audience, such managers, business, industry, public sector practitioners, policymakers, and students.

For example, discuss what is the impact of your research on the decision making of managers.

Try to provide solutions for contemporary business problems and think what your research means in the real world. What is their implication to real-life business problems.

Where does business research go from here? Food-for-thought on academic papers in business research. Maggie Geuens, Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 1104–1107

8- Conclusion (cont’d)

Your conclusion should also include suggestions about possible future research directions based on your key findings.

Finally since no research is perfect, therefore, it is also important to provide honest discussion about potential limitations influencing your research.

Try to identify the real impact of the limitations on the generalizability of your study's findings and on the scientific contributions to the literature.

David J. Ortinau. Writing and publishing important scientific articles: A reviewer's perspective. Journal of Business Research. 64 (2011) 150–156

9- REFERENCES, TABLES & APPENDIX

Make sure you cite only references that are essential, relevant, or important.

Avoid using outdated old references, unless those articles are important.

Use current articles from credible scientific sources. This sends a signal to editors and reviewers that you are familiar with the recent literature on the particular topic.


Journal of African Business, 12:149–153, 2011 David J. Ortinau. Writing and publishing important scientific articles: A

reviewer's perspective. Journal of Business Research. 64 (2011) 150–156.

9- References, Tables and Appendix (cont’d)

Make sure you double-check that the listed references are accurate and match the references cited in the text of the article.

Make sure that the cited articles truly support your arguments. Don’t just copy the references used by other researchers .

Don’t fill page space with irrelevant references. This creates a negative perception by reviewers who tend to be familiar with those cited articles.

Tips on how to write a paper. Timothy M. Johnson. J AM ACAD DERMATOL. 2008. VOLUME 59, NUMBER 6Journal of African Business, 12:149–153, 2011David J. Ortinau. Writing and publishing important scientific articles: A reviewer's perspective. Journal of Business Research. 64 (2011) 150–156.

SUBMITTING YOUR ARTICLE

Before submitting your article make sure to: Use the correct writing style required by the targeted

journal. Different journals have different formatting requirements and policies. Not properly following the guidelines show lack of respect to the journal and will negatively affect the quality of your article.

Follow the Instructions for Authors. Prepare your manuscript to meet the requirements of the journal at the time you submit it.


Submitting Your Article (cont’d)

Understand the different “personalities” of potential targeted journals.

Journals have unique differences in philosophy, writing style, publishing guidelines, and page/word limitations.

Different journals seek different types of research (e.g., conceptual versus empirical; new innovative versus extensions; controversial versus validating insights; and theoretical versus application)

Make sure your topic appeals to the targeted journals and the prospective journal's editor.



Familiarize yourself with the topics published in a journal, and try to write in ways that the journal encourages.

Read past issues of targeted journals, to gain information about the kind of readers who are targeted by this journal, the topics that had been published, and the predominant style of writing for the targeted journal.

First publications in refereed English journals: Difficulties, coping strategies, and recommendations for student training. Yin Ling Cheung. System 38 (2010) 134–141.


Make absolutely sure that your manuscript is peer reviewed before submitting it to a journal. Never, ever, ever send a manuscript to a journal that hasn't been peer reviewed by people who will give you honest feedback about not just the theoretical contribution but the clarity of your writing.

Proofread manuscripts and, if necessary, use copy editors. Correct spelling and grammar mistakes.

Read the paper aloud. Reading aloud helps to find mistakes.



Do the “Mom Test” . In addition to having your manuscript content reviewed by peers, ask friends and family who are not specialized in your area to read your paper for clarity. If they have no idea what you are talking about, then your writing is not very clear and too complex.

Understand your reader. The reader should be able to understand your key points and follow your logic without having to reread the manuscript.

Leave a written paper for a few days and read it again. If you don't understand any sentence or other part of it, then the reader will not understand either.


THANK YOU

Documents

Knowledge sharing of three things