Tips from the AEs of JAMS
In this issue, AEs share their No.1 advice for future JAMS authors and common mistakes made by authors during revisions.
1. What would be your #1 piece of advice to authors submitting to JAMS?
Micheal Haenlein (ESCP Business School, France): My most important advice would be to think of the main contribution of your work and state it clearly. Which decision maker does what differently after having read your research than before? Decision makers can include a large range, from managers to public policy makers or consumers. In general, the more decision makers your research impacts, the higher their status, and the larger the change in their decision, the more important your work is and the bigger your contribution.
Anders Gustafsson (BI Norwegian Business School, Norway): Academic publishing is challenging in many ways but underlying it all is a balance between rigor and relevance. We always expect rigor from any type of research but if feels as though rigor is more emphasized than ever. This development is in many ways natural given the increased global competition and a greater access to data and the development of new methods and techniques. However, I do not think we have the same focus on relevance and what that implies. If there is one advice I would give to any researcher that intends to publish in JAMS it would be to think hard about the relevance question. What would anyone do differently based on your research? This is the essence of the “so what?” test—and the cornerstone of making your work truly relevant.
Academic publishing often emphasizes rigor—strong theory, clean methods, and solid data: and correctly so. But JAMS expects more than technical excellence. Your work must also be relevant—it must matter. Relevance, in this context, means demonstrating real-world consequences: changing how people think, act, or make decisions in marketing and beyond. In fact, the most impactful papers do not force a tradeoff between rigor and relevance—they achieve both. Rigor earns your seat at the table; relevance keeps you in the conversation.
To ensure your manuscript passes the “so what?” test, consider the following:
o Practical implications: What can managers, policymakers, or consumers do differently with your insights?
o Challenge assumptions: Does your research confront prevailing beliefs or dominant practices?
o Create usable knowledge: Can your findings be distilled into frameworks, tools, or strategic recommendations?
o Demonstrate contextual importance: Why does this matter now—in this industry, market, or cultural moment?
o Embed relevance in the narrative: Don’t relegate implications to the final paragraph. Weave them throughout.
Publishing in JAMS is about making a contribution that is not only publishable, but purposeful. So, before you submit, ask yourself: If someone reads my paper, what will they do differently tomorrow?
Conor Henderson (University of Oregon, USA): When advising junior colleagues about JAMS submissions, I frame it this way: Imagine an AI trained on all published marketing articles. How would the addition of your paper to the AI’s training set enhance this AI's usefulness to researchers and practitioners? The most valuable contributions typically: resolve discrepancies in existing literature, challenge conventional wisdom, or illuminate new or previously overlooked issues that will meaningfully influence future research or marketing practice. Make the contribution clear (see Ander’s advice on how to do that).
I also encourage consumer behavior faculty to adopt the marketer's perspective in their framing. Rather than saying "consumers get upset when a brand does X," consider "a marketer's customers get upset when they do X." This subtle shift helps situate the paper better for JAMS and reminds us that marketers are people too, whose professional effectiveness and wellbeing improve when the issues they face at work receive high quality attention from academics who have the time and training to think deeply about those issues.
2. What has been the biggest reason for a desk rejection from JAMS?
Micheal Haenlein (ESCP Business School, France): Contrary to what many authors believe, the main reason for rejection is not a slight imperfection in the analysis, missing one robustness check, or having minor data issues. The central reason for desk rejection is either an unconvincing idea or a bad fit with JAMS. If your work merely replicates what has been done before in a different context or adds slight nuance to a widely known fact, it is probably a bad fit. Similarly, if the topic is very theoretical with no clear link to the behavior of any decision maker, JAMS might not be the perfect outlet for your work.
3. What has been the most commonly made mistake during the revision process?
Micheal Haenlein (ESCP Business School, France): I see two major issues: First, authors sometimes do not address several comments or only superficially. The review team is there to help you, and the people we send your article to are experts in your domain of study. In nearly all cases, the comments they raise are justified and questions any knowledagble reader would ask. So, addressing them in good faith and to the best of your abilities strengthens your manuscript. Second, many authors copy and paste large manuscript sections into the revision notes, which is usually inefficient. Instead of simply repeating what the manuscript says, highlight the nature of the main changes and how they address the comments raised.
Dennis Herhausen (Vrije University, The Netherlands): (also based on my own experience as author): I believe the most common reasons for a desk rejection from JAMS are lack of relevance, theoretical value, and/or managerial insight.
Impactful manuscript must go beyond methodological soundness to create knowledge that influences how others think and act:
1) Relevance – Does the manuscript address a real-world marketing problem in a timely and meaningful way?
2) Theoretical Value – Does the manuscript extend, refine, or challenge existing theory in a non-obvious and insightful manner?
3) Managerial Insight – Can practitioners use the findings of the manuscript to make better decisions?
Consequently, common patterns in desk rejections include:
o Theory without application: Papers that are technically strong but disconnected from practice.
o Incremental work: Manuscripts that offer only small extensions of existing ideas without new insights.
o Poor problem framing: Research that studies behaviors or outcomes without situating them in a broader managerial or market challenge.
o Implications buried at the end: Relevant insights should be integrated throughout, not confined to a final paragraph.
If a manuscript does not clearly address the real-world implications of the research—be it for managers, policymakers, or consumers—it risks a desk rejection. Relevance is not an afterthought; it should be the cornerstone of the manuscript.
When preparing a submission, the key question is thus not only is this rigorous? but also does this matter, and to whom? and just as importantly: Will the reader know that it matters from the very first page?
David Griffith (Texas A&M University, USA): Failing to see revision as a chance to rethink the entire manuscript limits the potential for meaningful improvement.
Revision is a crucial step in the scholarly process, meant to help authors clarify their message, strengthen their arguments, and refine the overall structure of their work. However, to me, the most made mistake during revision is viewing the reviewer teams’ comments as a checklist, rather than focusing on deeper, more meaningful improvements to content. Success is found in building a holistic revision. Below are what I see as three key reasons why this happens—and why it matters.
1. Misunderstanding What “Revision” Means: An opportunity to revise is not simply an opportunity to address concerns made by the review team, but rather an opportunity to build a stronger manuscript overall, working to increase the work’s contribution to the literature. It is an opportunity to completely rethink how the authors approach the phenomenon of study.
2. Avoidance of Big Changes: It’s much easier—and more comfortable—for authors to fix issues identified by the review team, as opposed to changing the authors entire perspective of addressing the fundamental phenomenon of study. Many authors avoid making major changes because they have high levels of investment in how they approached the topic originally. Further major changes require more effort, more critical thinking, and the acceptance a different path forward with the project. Reluctance to change can prevent real growth and improvement in a manuscript.
3. Lack of Outside Feedback
While authors often solicit input from colleagues prior to initial submission, they often do not engage in this process once a revision is requested - as they will claim that they only need to satisfy the review team. This is a missed opportunity, especially when engaging in the initial revision effort. Authors revising often continue to miss gaps in logic or confusing sections. Without outside feedback regarding the first major revision, it’s easy to overlook content problems. While true that a revision must work to accommodate the review team’s concerns, as the first-round revision is often substantive, outside feedback can be extremely helpful to secure a next round revision request.
