Technovation ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Technovation
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation
Editorial
Improving impact of research papers
a b s t r a c t
This editorial aims to assist authors in maximizing the impact of their work. While the editorial is written specifically for the journal Technovation, many
items of advice are equally applicable to other publishing outlets. While the value of any article is its unique core contribution, the best way to present an
article's core value is quite consistent and is the focus of this editorial.
A series of requests, suggestions and observations are provided
to assist authors in making an article more likely to maximize its
impact and contribution. Although there is an increasing ex-
pectation in most institutions to publish more frequently, few
high-quality outlets have increased the number of articles they
publish each year. For example, Technovation's submission levels
moved from fewer than 200 articles in 2005 to over 700 articles
submitted annually by 2014. However, fewer articles are accepted
as Technovation has substantially raised quality expectations and
does not publish articles outside the core-area of technology in-
novation, entrepreneurship and technology management. Over the
last ten years, the number of new publishing outlets has increased
significantly partially offsetting the effect of a relatively constant
number of printed spots in the existing population of higher im-
pact journals.
The current publish or perish mentality driven by rating systems
and measurement instruments has resulted in an over focus on
getting research papers accepted for publishing, without accom-
panying concern of publishing work that maximizes impact. Pro-
fessors should note that once tenure is obtained the evaluation of
quality quickly moves from how many papers published to what is
the quality and impact of each paper. Ranking systems are moving
towards a focus on quality as opposed to quantity. Examples in-
clude focusing on citation rates (Times Higher and Financial Times)
and impact (UK Research Exercise.) Having indicated the reasons
to focus on raising impact as opposed to just getting published,
insights from the review of thousands of Technovation papers and
of other journals and articles are offered.
1. Consistency is Beautiful – be Beautiful – the more con-
sistency there is from one article to another – the easier it is to
read. Mastery of consistency in management article writing is
exceptionally evident in Harvard Business Review. As they
provide consistency in both format and writing style, the ar-
ticles are much easier to read as the reader just focuses on
content. The more inconsistent articles are in format and style,
the more the reader has to place attention on interpreting ar-
ticle format instead of article content. Authors that use the
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.02.003
0166-4972/& 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
& 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
habits and conventions of the target journal, give the reader a
much easier task. This helps the reader get value from and
appreciate an article. For example, in Technovation – footnotes
are not used. It is best not to ask the reviewers or editors to
remind you of this – let them focus on other things that will
help your paper be all that it can be. Looking through the most
recent issues of a journal illustrates what is consistently done
and not done.
2. Assume Readers are jet lagged, tired and in a rush-make the
reader's job easy – reviewers and readers have less time and
attention than you would like them to – it is advisable to make
their job easy. We want readers to enjoy our articles and what
the article has to offer. Easy reading is accomplished by not
only following a consistent format, but also by constructing the
Abstract such that the reader can see what the article is about –
question answered, technique/method used, context, con-
tributions to theory and practice. Through out the paper make
use of headers and sub-headers to guide the reader. This also
allows the reader to consider the content in the order he/she
prefers. Some people prefer not to read an article from start to
finish. For example a reader may want to consider the practical
– managerial and policy-implications of the paper before un-
derstanding what the research question is (the presence of
appropriate headers and sub-headers makes this possible).
3. State Contribution clearly and Repeat – if something is really
important, it is important to state it clearly and often to state it
more than once. The Abstract is a good place for one to two
sentences about the contribution. The Discussion and conclu-
sions section should also have the contribution clearly stated. It
may even be appropriate to make a statement regarding a
paper's contribution in the Introduction of the paper. If a con-
tribution is made in passing, the reader can overlook it. How-
ever by introducing the contribution in a clear manner and
introducing it in more than one place, the contribution is un-
likely to be overlooked. For example, use text like this paper
makes an important novel contribution to the literature by …
indicating …. This is important because….
4. Do Not Repeat – Unless it is Important you do – having
2 Editorial / Technovation ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
indicated the importance of repeating the contribution, it is
worth stressing that little else is worth repeating. Some au-
thors have a tendency to repeat details. For example, the
Method is important, however, it is not something that one
should repeat the details of. The novelty and implication of the
findings is what readers are truly interested in. In summary, it
is critical that an idea or fact is only repeated in an article if it is
very important to stress that specific idea or fact.
5. Who will get Excited and Why – some articles are rarely read,
while other articles are read carefully and frequently. A great
article is approachable. It is sent to the correct audience and
presented in a way that grabs and holds the attention of the
reader. Most importantly, its hold on the reader is truthful. That
is, the article states what it will deliver in the Abstract and the
Introduction and then delivers as promised. While having a title
and abstract that misleads the readers in regards to the content
of the article may drive higher levels of article downloads, the
readers who fall into this trap becomes offended that their
time has been wasted. Occasionally an author indicates, that
they expect the reader to work out if this is a paper is relevant
and what the implications and contributions are. This may
make the author’s initial job easier – less thinking and writing
required. However, as this strategy typically leads to a desk
reject such an approach is short sighted and inadvisable. Au-
thors need to state how their work is and is not generalizable.
By doing so, the article can connect to the audience that will
benefit from the research’s contribution.
6. Innovate on Knowledge Not on Format – unless a journal
suggests otherwise, the appropriate article structure is: In-
troduction, Literature review (setting of context), Method, Re-
sults, Discussion (contribution of work), and Conclusion. The
focus is on Literature review and Discussion as these two sec-
tions offer context – why the research is important – and
provide an understanding of the research’s contribution to
understanding theory and practice. Further details are offered
in Sun and Linton (2014).
7. Focus on Value – Focus on the parts of the paper that provide
value. The more value an idea or topic has the more con-
sideration it should have.
8. Question in the First Sentence – academic research papers
should answer a single question. Only one question should be
considered as this is not only what readers expect, but the
length and format of papers make it difficult to do more. Oc-
casionally a paper is submitted with eight pages of text before
the question is introduced. Such a tactic loses most readers.
Some readers will give up if they are unable to find the paper’s
question in the first paragraph. Ensure you do not lose your
readers – place your research question in the first line of the
introduction. At first this may seem difficult to achieve, but it is
an important habit that gets easier with practice.
9. Show a Gap and Close-it – paper's answer a question that has
not yet been answered. It is insufficient to state that an im-
portant gap exists. Show that the gap exists and state why it
should be closed. Outlining a gap involves terse references to
the literature. The relevant previous literature must be ac-
knowledged – both seminal and recent. However, the author
should not describe each article to the reader.
10. What is really new about you work – social science journals
typically do not publish papers that replicate earlier research.
Consequently, statements such as this work offers further sup-
port to or the findings agree with the results of are uninteresting
to most editors. The author needs to clearly state what is in this
research that has never been considered before. It is insufficient
to suggest that previous work never considered a specific
context studied in this paper. For example, the diffusion of cell
phones in Timbuktu. If the context is the novelty an
explanation of why this context requires special consideration,
what other situations does this context generalizable to, and
how this understanding impacts our view of the underlying
theory is needed. For example, do other technologies or loca-
tions need to be considered to obtain insight into special cir-
cumstances for which other theoretical frameworks are
important.
11. Use as Few Words as Possible – but Be Very Clear – a paper
should use as few words as possible, but be very easy to un-
derstand. Sometime authors try to be brief by referring to items
indirectly. This creates confusion for the reader. The reader is
unable to ask the author questions (as he/she would during a
presentation) and the author is unable to see if the reader looks
confused (as he/she would during a presentation). Clarity and
brevity are achieved through consideration of the logical flow
from section-to-section, paragraph-to-paragraph and sen-
tence-to-sentence. Each item must lead to the next. For ex-
ample, having considered the results and associated hypothesis
the implications to theory and practice are now considered in the
Discussion.
12. Beware of Acronyms – while acronyms can offer readers a
shortcut, acronyms often create confusion. Authors often use
too many acronyms for terms that occur infrequently. If a term
is used less than five times, it is better to spell the words out
entirely. If a term does not appear for an entire page of typeset
text, it is best to remind the reader what words are associated
with the text. No matter how obvious an acronym may seem to
the author the acronym should be spelled out the first time in
the following manner – Management Of Technology (MOT). If
you have more than five acronyms, many readers will be
confused. Instead of an acronym one can highlight a concept by
placing the word in italics. This brings attention to the term as
being special/commonly used in the paper without over-
whelming the readers with too many acronyms.
13. Don't get too Personal – phrases such as In our opinion, we
believe, I suggest are seen as either weak or arrogant – neither is
a good approach to take. Some authors go one step further and
refer to the authors as we, although there is a single author. In
summary, many technical journals require authors to be non-
personal as scientific work is not an opinion and therefore
should not be written in the personal language associated with
opinions.
14. Move Away from Doctoral Training – many authors write in
the style of PhD programs. That is, place a tremendous focus on
Method and Results. While the research question and research
implications is not the focus of PhD programs, the question and
its implications to theory and practice are what is important in
academic journal articles. In summary, what worked well at
the start of one’s academic career is no longer the key to
success.
15. Don't Submit Prematurely – ask yourself Is the paper ready for
publication? Ask this question to others also. Pressure to pub-
lish often results in authors trying to produce many articles
from a single subject or case. Most journals find this approach
unattractive. A sign that one is falling into this trap is feeling a
need to indicate that the article is exploratory and/or to suggest
that future research and studies are needed before one can rely
on the outcomes of this paper. When I see discussion of ex-
ploratory research my question is has the author run out of time
and/or does the author hopes to write many papers with limited
extra ideas and efforts.
16. Obtain as much Feedback as possible – feedback is critical.
Present at conferences. Ask colleagues to read and comment on
your work. Some authors worry that their ideas will be stolen.
While possible, it is highly unlikely that your work will be
stolen. Feedback is important early on to ensure that the
 Editorial / Technovation ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 3

method – data collection and analysis – is appropriate. Feed- big opportunities are taken. Besides Sun and Linton (2014) edi-
back is important towards the end of writing to ensure that the torial on the relation between structure and impact; other edi-
paper is clearly written and to get advice on the apparent torials intended to assist authors are on the topics of: desk rejects
generalizability and implications (to theory and practice), (Linton, 2012) and reviewing (Linton, 2009)
thereby, broadening the readership and/or impact of the paper.
17. Motivate the Future – answering one question, often leads to
new questions and/or reminds us of the importance of ques- References
tions that are related to the answered question. Express and
encourage these questions. Such discussion lays the ground- Linton, J.D., 2012. How to get your papers rejected (or not). Technovation 32 (1),
work for future research-both yours and others. Authors of 6–8.
Linton, J.D., 2009. Reviewing: the unsung heroes of excellent journals and pub-
follow-up papers will refer to your earlier work and how it calls lications. Technovation 29 (1), 1–4.
out for the need for further study. Sun, H., Linton, J.D., 2014. Structuring papers for success: making your paper more
18. Learn by Doing – review other people's papers as much as like a high impact paper than a desk reject. Technovation 34 (10), 571–573.
possible –weaknesses in the writing of others is easier to
identify and learn from. One can also pick up lessons, tactics
Editor-in-Chief, Technovation: the Journal of Technological Innova-
and strategies for being a more effective writer and gain pro-
tion, Entrepreneurship and Technology Management
ficiency in responding to reviewers.
Jonathan D. Linton 1
Power Corporation for the Management of Technological Enterprises,
Integrating these concepts into your writing will place you
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
further ahead in terms of producing papers with more impact.
Furthermore, it will help move you forward as it is difficult to
identify small opportunities for improvement of writing until the

1
Head of Science Technology Studies Laboratory, National Research University
Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia