Insights from JAMS Area Editors
We interviewed three prominent Area Editors (AEs) from the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (JAMS) to gather their expert advice for authors submitting to and revising manuscripts for JAMS.
Shailendra P. Jain University of Washington, Seattle, United States
Abhijit Guha Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, United States
Andreas Eisingerich Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
(Note: Prof. Eisingerich fully concurs with and endorses the collective feedback provided by Prof. Jain and Prof. Guha.)
1. What would be your #1 piece of advice to authors submitting to JAMS?
Be able to state, in one or two sentences, what we will know after reading your paper that we did not know before (novelty/originality) and why knowing it matters (importance/significance/relevance). Novelty alone is not enough; a new construct, context, mediator, or moderator does not automatically constitute a contribution. The strongest JAMS papers change how we understand an important marketing phenomenon or make us reconsider something we thought we already understood. (Shailendra P. Jain)
There is massive (massive) upside to presenting the paper a few times before a JAMS submission. If one cannot win over scholars when the authors have the opportunity to present their paper and then respond to any objections raised, then the review process is unlikely to go well. Such presentations identify many obvious gaps and may well make the subsequent JAMS review process smoother. (Abhijit Guha)
2. What has been the most commonly made mistake during the revision process?
Treating a revision as a checklist rather than as an opportunity to rethink the paper. Authors sometimes respond diligently to every reviewer comment yet leave the manuscript's underlying problem unchanged. Ask what the reviewers' comments collectively reveal about the paper. Often several seemingly different comments point to one deeper issue—the contribution is unclear, the theory does not discriminate among competing explanations, or the evidence does not fully support the claims. Fix that underlying problem, not just the individual comments. Also, I am double dipping here but sometimes the authors submit an empirical manuscript with an impressive array of studies thinking the strength of the package will successfully ‘sell’ the paper to the review team. This is not a safe assumption. Of course, rigor matters. But it matters in all three areas: novelty/originality, importance, and demonstration of the framework at work. An impressive empirical package will not be able to compensate for lack of novelty/originality and importance of the research. (Shailendra P. Jain)
This is the area I struggle with the most. I agree with the comments above. In addition, I think the authors do not need to chase down every point made by the reviewers. I think they need to do as SJ says (above), fix the underlying problems that the review team has surfaced. But the key to a good paper would be not only to execute on what the review team suggests, but also to strategically decide which points will not / should not be executed on. The onus is on the authors to fully clarify which points they are not executing on and why, and why these (non execution) actions will actually strengthen the paper. This is where having a senior, experienced scholar (either as a coauthor or as a sounding board) is very (very) helpful. (Abhijit Guha)
3. What has been the biggest reason for a desk rejection from JAMS? Note: the EICs make desk rejection decisions.
An insufficiently compelling contribution for the journal, rather than an obviously “bad” paper. Many desk-rejected manuscripts are competently executed. The problem is that the incremental knowledge gained is too small relative to what the literature already knows. Before submitting, authors should be self-critical and ask: What is the closest existing work, and what can my paper explain that this work cannot? Second, is the explanation/phenomenon I offer important and consequential enough? If these answers are difficult to articulate, reviewers and editors are likely to have the same difficulty. (Shailendra P. Jain)
Two additional thoughts
Authors sometimes think their job is to convince editors and reviewers that they have done a great deal of work. It is not. The job is to convince the reader that the paper has taught them something new and consequential. More studies, more analyses, and more pages cannot substitute for that. (Shailendra P. Jain)
Do not short change/overlook the quality of writing and reporting. Proof-read multiple times before submitting, fix every minor and major issue (commas, spelling errors, etc.), make sure the references are thoroughly audited, and data and analytics are fully, thoroughly, and transparently reported. (Shailendra P. Jain)
Previous Tips & Editor Insights
Catch up on earlier advice and interviews from the JAMS editorial team:
https://www.ams-web.org/spotlight/x1pe6xoz54vmosyt37xc342p42n0wc
https://www.ams-web.org/spotlight/x1pe6xoz54vmosyt37xc342p42n0wc-2d7wn
