On p-values (Dawn Iacobucci)

Theory

• Lack of theory is the most frequent reason for rejection. After reading your paper, we should have a better understanding of “Why?” your phenomena occur (explanation), or “How?” (mechanism, process) or “When” (and “when not?),” that is, under what conditions, what are the moderating variables, what are the boundary conditions, etc., abstraction). It is not enough to have identified some interesting data. There needs to be a theoretical contribution, beyond the extant literature. Same applies for qualitative papers—play up theory, play down application. If the research is about “brand communities and social influence” in consumption of HDTV’s, don’t make the paper about HDTV’s.

Data

• p < .05. Yes it’s arbitrary, but it’s convention. Do not interpret non-significant results, and do not claim p = .15 as borderline. Do not interpret p < .01 as more significant. If database is huge (e.g., n > 1000), lower p to .01.
• You need to have a significant interaction before testing simple effects (see JCP special issue on methods).
• Think before you ‘mediate’ (not every paper needs a mediation analysis, not even those positing process explanations).
• For qualitative data, there can be diminishing returns; for example, instead of 7, would 3-5 interviews suffice? If the 7 interviews elaborate different nuances of a point, by all means include them.

Organization of the paper

• Be cognizant of your paper’s “Contribution-to-Length” ratio. When you think your paper is perfect and ready to send off for submission, go back through, tighten it up, deleting another 20% of the manuscript—doing so will force you to prioritize the arguments you’re making. Book chapters are the vehicle for interesting tangents; in journals, get to the point.
• Early on (1st para? 1st page?) the reader should know: what are you doing; why are you doing it; what’s your contribution.

Stylistic issues

• Replace “subjects” with “participants,” “respondents,” or “informants” (except where the term is technical, e.g., “between subjects”). Apparently “subjects” is no longer appropriate.
• Use plural, neuter pronouns ("they" not "he" or "she").
• If necessary, hire a copy editor (or a grad student from your university’s English department) to comb through your paper for readability prior to submission.

Dealing with reviews

• Try to interpret reviews with the following attitude, “Reviewers are not necessarily wrong; something you said was confusing.”

Miscellany

• Arguments regarding a paper that amuse the editor but are not persuasive:
  
  “My colleagues liked this paper!”
  “My coauthors and I really believe in this research!”
  “It’s our best work yet!”
   
• Improve your chances by having tough friends read the paper prior to submission. Don’t ask them to say, “Oh, that’s a nice paper.” Ask them to tell you why they’d reject the paper if they were a reviewer.
• The "Reflections" section is by invitation only. Please do not submit manuscripts to this section.

*For “bigger picture” philosophies, read all the editorials.