International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 340–342
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
Editorial
The basics of writing a paper for the International Journal of Project
Management
Miia Martinsuo a,∗, Martina Huemann b
a
Tampere University, Finland
b
WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria
In our previous editorial, Is the International Journal of Project
Management the Right Choice for Publishing Your Excellent Research?
(Huemann & Martinsuo, 2020), we summarized the general state and re-
cent increase of the International Journal of Project Management’s (IJPM)
impact factor. This uptick has been reflected in both the continuous in-
crease in the number of paper submissions it receives and its elevated
quality standard for said papers. This implies that getting a paper into
the review process requires an excellent topic and careful attention to
quality before an initial submission is even made. When there are sev-
eral papers competing for the editors’ attention, getting the basics right
becomes the determining factor in whether the paper can be sent for re-
view. We as editors have repeatedly seen cases of good papers rife with
basic and preventable errors. If the basics are not in order, it is very dif-
ficult for editors to determine whether the actual content of the paper
is worth further consideration.
Our previous editorial covers general issues concerning what types
of papers fit IJPM’s scope and how authors can align their papers with it.
To complement the issue of scope alignment, in this editorial, we have
compiled a list of basic issues that we encourage authors to consider
when drafting their manuscripts. These issues may well be relevant to
other journals as well.
1. Write for your audience
Writing is about communicating with a certain audience (Huff, 2009;
Patriotta, 2017). IJPM is focused on project management, project orga-
nizing, and project business, so its readers (and reviewers) have some
familiarity with previous research in this field (Huemann & Martin-
suo, 2020). Surprisingly, we often get paper submissions that do not
analyze previous project management research, thereby failing to re-
port on readers’ current knowledge and deduce new research needs.
How can such papers convince the audience when the audience knows
more about the subject than the authors?
While the journal warmly welcomes input from other disciplines and
domains, authors must sufficiently analyze the relevant project manage-
ment research in their submitted paper in order to position their own
work within the discourse. Similar issues may be covered in other pub-
lication channels and disciplines; while such research must also be re-
viewed, where project management audiences are concerned, the topic
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: miia.martinsuo@tuni.fi (M. Martinsuo).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.08.001
Available online 13 August 2020
0263-7863/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
and the literature must specifically cover the project management do-
main. For example, the framing of the paper and literature review would
look very different if the paper is written for project management audi-
ences compared to if it is written for innovation or construction man-
agement audiences. Authors need to show that they know what the on-
going conversation in project management is to ensure that their paper
engages in that conversation (see Huff, 1999, about writing as conver-
sation).
2. Justify and frame a novel contribution
Engaging in an ongoing conversation does not only mean acknowl-
edging earlier research but adding something new to the conversation.
Authors need to justify and frame their intended novel contribution in
their introduction. Justification requires clearly outlining why their re-
search is needed. In order to ensure that the contributions in the paper
are novel, authors need to show that they know what research has taken
place regarding their topic over the past few years. Sometimes we get
papers that build on theoretical assumptions developed 30–40 years ago,
but they do not mention empirical evidence from the recent past (i.e., 3–
5 years). How can a paper contribute to an ongoing debate and promise
novelty if it does not acknowledge the most recent research?
Many research topics in project management and organizing have
changed dramatically in light of recent developments (e.g., alternative
theoretical explanations, digitalization and other technological devel-
opments, globalization, political and legal changes, use of standards,
and learning). The intended novel contribution has to be framed in the
light of the current state of knowledge about the matter (see Huff, 2009,
about conducting a literature search and review). Before sending a pa-
per on for review, we check whether the paper cites recent research and
contributes to a current debate in management journals generally and
project management specifically. The study needs to be positioned in
a topical debate, and the novelty of the research has to be framed in
the introduction section. The introduction convinces the reader that the
paper is relevant and will offer something new to the field.
3. Tell a story with your paper
Reading previously published work will illustrate the very simple
logic and structure typical of almost any scientific journal in manage-
M. Martinsuo and M. Huemann
ment. Academic writing has certain conventions, and following those
conventions will promote the readers’ understanding of the authors’
message (Patriotta, 2017). Authors should structure their story in a
simple, logical manner and build novel arguments very carefully. We
repeatedly get paper submissions that, for example, do not have a
proper literature review, confuse methods with results, lack a discus-
sion section, or fail to critically evaluate their research validity. Some
authors have a hypothetical-deductive approach but the paper may lack
a testable model or justifications for their hypotheses. In some qualita-
tive studies, authors do not justify the method, or it conflicts with their
chosen scientific paradigm, or they completely omit their analytical tac-
tics. How can a paper tell a logical story if the argumentation is not built
via sound scientific practices?
The paper’s core idea or contribution should appear in the title of the
paper. The title should always be simple and informative, and it should
distinguish the paper from other papers. All papers need an abstract,
an introduction, and a conclusion. Empirical papers tend to flow clearly
from an introduction and literature review to methods, results, discus-
sion, and conclusions. Even if scientific papers in management have a
similar structure, each paper has a very unique storyline in terms of
how it builds its novel argument. Irrespective of the methodology or
approach of a paper, it is important that the story flows logically and
is in line with the chosen research strategy. Like all stories, scientific
articles have a beginning and an end—it is important to ensure that the
promises made in the beginning are fulfilled in the end in a coherent
and fluid manner.
4. Clearly delimit the scope
All papers should have a unique scope (i.e., what is included and
what is purposely excluded from the study), purpose (i.e., task to be
completed or problem to be solved in the research), and goal (i.e., in-
tended outcome and contribution achieved through the research). The
scope, purpose, and goal should be derived from a need—a justification
for why this research is relevant and important. Citing a lack of previous
research rarely suffices as a need because it might mean that the authors
are unaware of previous research or that their topic is irrelevant. The
rationale should stem, for instance, from an observed problem, an in-
terest in improving performance, or a new kind of situation or context
that is poorly understood. We see many papers with a too broad scope,
with a very vague purpose and goal statement, or with multiple pur-
pose and goal statements that are not aligned. How can readers grasp
the core idea of the paper if the authors do not explicate it from the very
beginning?
All papers include choices that imply the purposeful inclusion and
exclusion of factors—in other words, the paper scope. These choices
may be self-evident to the authors, but they are not to the readers.
Therefore, it is crucial that authors write out their scope—including the
studied phenomenon, concepts, empirical context(s), and methodologi-
cal issues—and explain why they made these choices. This is important
because it reduces the breadth of the necessary literature review. Empir-
ical contexts can be delimited to a certain project type (e.g., construc-
tion, product development, organization change), project perspective
(e.g. owner, contractor, supplier), and level of analysis (activity, sub-
project, project, program, portfolio, parent organization). These choices
focus the review and the writing, both regarding the previous research,
the authors’ own empirical study, and the communication between the
two. Choices regarding scope also keep the paper length manageable.
5. Ensure validity
When publishing research, we as editors seek results that are rel-
evant, reliable, and credible—in other words, valid. We consider the
validity of the research as early as our readings of the authors’ choices
made regarding the studied phenomenon, its relevant concepts and con-
structs, and its framing through previous literature. In empirical work,
341
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 340–342
validity appears in terms of how the phenomenon is treated in an em-
pirical setting through method and context choices, data collection, and
analysis. Additional validation work occurs when authors contrast their
findings with previous research, write up the results, and prepare a dis-
cussion section. Some paper submissions to IJPM lack any consideration
of research validity. It is very typical that the review process reveals a
need to add a clear description of the assumptions underlying the study
to the introduction (delimitations). A separate paragraph concerning re-
search evaluation must often be added to the conclusion section (i.e., re-
search validity and limitations). How can readers trust and potentially
build on the research if the authors do not report their own assumptions
and assessment of their research validity?
Authors need to think carefully about the phenomenon they are
studying, how the phenomenon becomes manifest in something identi-
fiable or measurable, and how they can credibly study the phenomenon.
They need to think about the assumptions underlying their research de-
sign and their approach. They need to consider the reliability of their
data sources, including their (possible) informants. All research is sensi-
tive to the assumptions researchers make; choices made regarding both
hypothetical-deductive and qualitative studies will affect whether the
results are valid. So, indeed, validity issues must be considered up front
before the empirical research even begins. It is equally important to
conduct the empirical study in a valid way, provide enough background
about the sources of data, write up the procedures to enhance validity
in the methods section, and critically discuss limitations in the conclu-
sion section. Keep in mind that different methodologies have their own
specific requirements and traditions for validity reporting.
6. Think and rethink the novel contribution
One of—if not the most—demanding aspects of writing a scientific
paper is identifying the novel contribution it makes and writing it up in
a way that convinces the readers. As suggested, the promise of a novel
contribution should be made in the introduction of the paper. However,
authors often start to think about their contributions in the final hours
of writing. This can manifest as a very superficial and thin outcome that
is merely focused on conclusions about the empirical results or descrip-
tions of practical implications. A practical contribution is not necessarily
novel or inspiring, and it is not sufficient for a scientific journal such as
IJPM. In some cases, the contribution intent expressed in the introduc-
tion does not match the contribution summarized in the conclusions.
How can the paper succeed in the review process and impact the scien-
tific community if its most important aspect—its novel contribution—is
not thoroughly prepared, developed, and reported?
What we seek are novel contributions in the light of the extant re-
search; this requires careful design and good preparation. Last-minute
additions are rarely enough. Authors must spend time thinking about
and rethinking their contributions beginning in the first steps of their
research. They must determine how their contribution is unique and
communicate this to readers. Some scholars advise that authors start
their writing work from the contribution. Seeing and finding the con-
tribution when it has been added as an afterthought may require that
the entire paper be rewritten to ensure the revelation of the contribu-
tion flows logically from the analysis. When writing up the contribution,
authors need to support the readers’ sensemaking process, which may
differ dramatically from the authors’ process (Patriotta, 2017).
7. Take care of the simple technicalities
IJPM has clear guidelines that authors should follow when writ-
ing and submitting their work (https://www.elsevier.com/journals/
international-journal-of-project-management/0263-7863/guide-for-
authors). Editors and reviewers appreciate it when certain basic issues
have been resolved before the first submission so they can focus on
content instead of technicalities. Very often, we send papers back for
very simple technical reasons: missing page numbers, illegible tables or
M. Martinsuo and M. Huemann
figures, single-spaced text, dysfunctional within-file hyperlinks, author
names in the file names or the manuscript, poor grammar, etc. Why
would editors send a poorly prepared manuscript for review? How can
reviewers offer constructive feedback on the content and core message
of the paper if the text, figures, and tables are incomprehensible?
Authors are responsible for making their paper complete and so easy
to read that editors and reviewers do not need to pay attention to techni-
calities. For authors who do not speak English as their native language,
we recommend that they employ a language editing service before the
first submission so that reviewers are not distracted from the actual pa-
per content. As we follow a double-blind review procedure, all files sent
for review must be anonymous (the submitted files must not reference
the authors’ names). The cover letter and the title page are visible only to
the handling editor, so these may include the authors’ names. Acknowl-
edgements that might reveal the authors’ affiliations or home countries
can be included in the title page, as this is not sent for review. The
main manuscript, including figures and tables, should be submitted in
a single text file (e.g., MS Word). The basic layout for IJPM paper sub-
missions is simple: numbered pages, double-spacing in the main body of
the text (tables and figures can be single-spaced to ensure readability),
clear and readable figures and tables included in the manuscript file,
no hyperlinks within the manuscript (they may not function properly
when converted to a pdf file in the editorial system), and a consistent
name–year reference style. Authors must check the pdf file and complete
a checklist of requirements before completing the paper submission. To
342
International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 340–342
submit a revised manuscript, we recommend submitting both a “revised
manuscript” (with tracked changes on to show the main revisions) and
a clean “manuscript” (a revised paper with tracked changes turned off).
The IJPM Guide for Authors offers further instructions concerning sub-
missions of manuscripts and their revisions.
With this editorial, we hope to help authors prepare their
manuscripts such that they have a greater likelihood of passing the ini-
tial editor checks and surviving IJPM’s review process. With its increased
submission rates, only the best-prepared submissions will be sent for re-
view. While the review process may improve the quality of the articles,
the authors themselves must promote their papers’ readiness for review
before and during the writing process. We encourage forthcoming au-
thors to plan their publications and contributions early in their research
process to ensure novelty, quality, and success in the review process.
References
Huemann, M., & Martinsuo, M. (2020). Editorial: Is the International Journal of Project
Management the right choice for publishing your excellent research? International
Journal of Project Management, 38(5), 310–312.
Huff, A. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication. USA: Sage Publications.
Huff, A. (2009). Designing research for publication. USA: Sage Publications.
Patriotta, G. (2017). Crafting papers for publication: Novelty and convention in academic
writing. Journal of Management Studies, 54(5), 747–759.