Common mistakes made in submissions to leading advertising journals

I recently acquired a book edited by David W. Stewart and Daniel M. Ladik titled, “How to Get Published in the Best Marketing Journals.” While I would very much enjoy seeing a similar book (or article) published focusing specifically on issues related to advertising journals it is, perhaps, not surprising, that I found the advice in the book to have a high level of applicability to advertising. Having now edited the International Journal of Advertising for a significant period of time I felt this would be a good time to draw on some of the best advice from the Stewart and Ladik book while adding a few thoughts of my own. I want to stress at the outset that I am grateful for the large number of high-quality papers we are able to publish at IJA. However, the hardest part of the Editor’s job is rejecting papers, as I am always cognizant of considerable time and effort that goes into making a submission. Thus, it is worth examining what can go wrong.

Stewart and Ladik (2019), start out by providing the output of a survey of editors of 39 SSCI marketing journals they had conducted, including myself. In asking about the most common mistakes when trying to contribute to knowledge, they found that editor responses converged around four points: 1) grammatically unapproachable manuscripts are a problem; 2) arguing that simply identifying a gap in the literature represents a sufficient contribution to the literature; 3) not putting the study in the context of ongoing literature, and 4) not clearly identifying the intended audience. The focus on contribution is often critical at highly respected journals as many submitted papers are well constructed. While I will focus on a few other common mistakes a little later in this Editorial, I would emphasize that clearly articulating contribution is critical.

In my experience, the Stewart and Ladik list is right on the mark in terms of identifying issues that reviewers very commonly identify with contribution. It remains the case that reviewers are very impatient with papers with significant writing or grammatical issues, and such papers start out with little chance as reviewers expect good writing as a prerequisite. With respect to identifying a gap, most papers do this, but it is those that successfully argue why the gap needs to be filled that succeed. As for context, academic science is cumulative and builds on prior research and, as a result, it is necessary to make it clear where a study fits in and how it can be subsequently built on to expand knowledge. As Stewart and Ladik note, storytelling and emphasizing how the article is relevant is paramount. Finally, the intended audience and who the study would actually impact should be emphasized.

In terms of my own experience beyond writing issues and clearly articulating the contribution of the research, there are three other areas I would like to touch on as common reasons for rejection. I should mention that these (and other) points are effectively touched on in the Stewart and Ladik book, which I think is highly worthwhile reading for anyone wishing to publish in high quality marketing and advertising journals as it incorporates the views of many leading scholars based on many, many years of experience.

Conceptual/theory development issues

A very common reason for a paper to get rejected is that the conceptual framework is not strong enough or effectively linked to the hypotheses. While IJA is very interested in contributions to management, society, and policy, as well as theory, as a highly respected academic journal, providing a strong theory base behind research is critical. In my experience, reviewers closely scrutinize this aspect of papers. IJA has been fortunate recently to publish some key papers with exceptional conceptualization (e.g., Sohn and Choi 2019; Park and Ryu 2019), and I have to say that such papers really do stand out in the review process.

Methodological issues and external validity

All too often after reviews come back and I see reference to a paper’s method having a “fatal flaw.” These flaws may be related to the sample, measurement, or analysis. In the case of the sample, and going back to the above discussion of contribution, there is a need for the sample to representative and large enough to make generalizations to some other population. With measurement, the issue is to use measures that capture the constructs outlined in hypothesis development. In my experience, “fatal flaws” in analysis are less common, given the strong training that many authors have in methods, but occasionally a technique is used inappropriately. Something that really makes an impression from time to time is when a multimethod study avoids these types of pitfalls (Yoon and Kim 2019).

Weak introductions or discussion sections

I am making an inference here based on having seen thousands of reviews over the years, but papers greatly increase their chance of success up front if they capture the reader’s attention to make a strong case for why the paper is important right up front. While it may be fatiguing after long data collection and writing efforts, making sure the first few pages of the paper tell a compelling story can improve the chances of success. Similarly, discussion sections are important, and I see some instances where they appear to be more of an afterthought. Strong attention should be paid to the discussion as it is a key example of storytelling. A good example of a paper with a highly effective introduction and discussion is Bergkvist and Zhou’s (2019) review of cause-related marketing which developed a framework based on the review and also provided directions for future research.

Parting comment

After writing this up, it occurs to me that I am addressing the negative side of the equation in publishing in advertising by focusing on mistakes. I will make a point of following up with a subsequent editorial on proactive strategies that can be taken to avoid such mistakes and enhance the chance of publishing.