Introduction

The introduction should clearly state the objectives of your research at the start of the manuscript. Usually, you can accomplish this task by clearly stating your research question. Explain what you want to achieve. Also explain who will benefit from your research (i.e., your ultimate target audience). It is usually not best to tease the reader. Tell the reader what you found and why it is important. If you make critical assumptions, do not try to hide them. Tell the reader why you made those assumptions and how those assumptions limit your conclusions.

Editor's Biases

The editor would like to promote particular types of research (Click here for more information).

Consider The Reviewers Viewpoint

How to Review an Article (Click here for more information).

Objectives

Different manuscripts have different objectives. We evaluate a manuscript based on both the quality and difficulty of the objective as well as the extent to which objective was achieved. Here are some possible objectives (in alphabetic order) and what you would need to do. Remember, these are just a few examples of possible objectives and how to approach them. Also see other types of manuscripts. Note that, it is desirable to have the potential to observe, test and replicate manuscript claims. 

Develop A Normative Theory

You develop a theory that provides conditions when apparently inferior alternatives are shown to be optimal. This type of research requires a high level of rigor and logic. You would need to show that firms often face the conditions when the theory is appropriate. You might also examine why firms have not already taken these alternatives (e.g., changes in technology, changes in regulation, changes in cost structures).

Develop New Normative Tools

You develop a tool that some managers or consultants would find valuable. You should compare your tool to existing tools and show that your tool (at least under some conditions) outperforms existing tools on common measures of performance (e.g., forecasting, simplicity of use, outcome measures, etc.)

Discover An Empirical Regularity

You discover an empirical regularity or discover that some published findings seem to generalize across a wide variety of situations. This type of research needs to establish that the generalization holds. It is also useful to explore the implications for marketing and explore whether the research suggests new previously unknown actions.

New Method Development

You develop a new method that allows better decisions or extraction of information that ultimately produces better decisions. The new method should lead to firms taking better actions than existing methods. This type of research requires you to compare your new method with existing methods. You need to establish some superiority on some criteria or conditions when your method performs better.

Propose New Descriptive or Positive Theories

You develop a new explanation for an existing and observed phenomenon. If there are existing explanations, you provide proof that your explanation has more explanatory power. It is important to argue why the phenomenon requires explanation and how this explanation might change the actions of some decision-makers.  Positive theories must be testable (i.e., have refutable implications).

Substantive Empirical Comparisons

You compare more successful companies with less successful companies and make conclusions. This type of research requires you to pay careful attention to the quality of your data, the rigor of your analysis and the validation of your results.

Theory Testing

You test either an existing theory or a new theory. This type of research requires you to develop competing implications for the different theories and show that your theory explains or predicts better than alternative theories.

Exposition

Good ideas are often simple. When you prepare a paper for submission, please try to make it as readable as possible to as broad an audience as is feasible. The easier it is for reviewers and editors to read your paper, the more likely they are to recognize your contributions (Hauser 1989).

Do not try to hide the paper’s weaknesses. It is better to discuss them and point out potential solutions, than have the reviewers uncover them.

Some Rules-of-Thumb

1. Tell the reader what will be learned from the manuscript.

2. Avoid Ambiguous Terms
3. Avoid Buzzwords
4. Avoid Jargon
5. Avoid Stringing Nouns Together
6. Be Direct
7. Be Specific
8. Define All Terms
9. Do Not Digress
10. Do Not Make Exaggerated Claims
11. Do Not Skip Stops
12. Read Your Paper Out Loud
13. Simplify Whenever Possible
14. Use Active Voice
15. Use Standard English
16. Work On Readability

17. Write In An Interesting Manner
18. Tell the reader what was learned.

19. Avoid Acronyms

Reference on Readability

Prior Editor’s Comments

References

Hauser, John (1989) Editorial.  Marketing Science. 8 (1).

©2003 University of Florida