How to publish in Q1

international journals
Professor Noel Scott

Griffith Institute for Tourism

Outline
1. Have a strategy.
2. The invisible college
3. Writing and submitting your paper
 1. STRATEGY

Griffith Institute for Tourism

Why publish?
• Your body of knowledge needs adding to, for it
to grow and develop.
• An academic creates new knowledge.
• Process of writing clarifies your thinking.
• Feed back from reviewers helps you learn to
think and write = excellent professional
development.
• You are joining a conversation with people like
you around the world.
• You and your institution needs you to publish.
4
A professor……

is an internationally
recognised expert in an area
of research?
Identify your discipline and research
area
• Discipline: physical–biological–psychological–
sociological
• novelty: create new vs review published data or info
• technology: develop new vs use existing methods
• scope: study a single case vs a sample
• mode: observe vs intervene
• methodology: qualitative vs quantitative (info vs
numbers)
• ideology: objective vs subjective (positivist vs
interpretivist)
• politics: neutral vs partisan
• utility: pure vs applied
Hopkins, W. G. (2002) Dimensions of research, Sportscience, 6.
Origin of theory
Costa, A. C., Fulmer, C. A., & Anderson, N. R. (2018). Trust
in work teams: An integrative review, multilevel model, and
future directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2),
169-184. doi:10.1002/job.2213

• Cognitive and affective trust (psychology)

• Repeat interactions (Game theory)
• Multilevel phenomena
• Dark side of trust
• Need for longitudinal designs
How To Spot that Great Idea
• Look for conflicting empirical findings, can these be resolved
by new theoretical arguments?
• Look for lack of empirical findings – new constructs and new
explanations?
• Look for inconsistent theoretical explanations – Contexts?
• Look for serious limitations in current models – can they be
extended in interesting ways by new theoretical constructs
and arguments?
• Challenge simplistic models (particularly direct effects -Black-
box- models)
• Challenge simplistic normative prescriptions
• Investigate an interesting practical conundrum
• You can rarely spot a great contribution from data already
collected. It is possible but extremely hard.
Have a plan
• Have a whiteboard ‘portfolio/program ’ of
what one or two things will you be known
for, over the next 3-5 years. This is a long
term, sequenced, planned program of
articles. These ‘things’ could include
cutting edges of one or two
methodologies, too.
• Don’t focus on just one area, and have a
balance between long term planned
research and opportunistic research
 No one has done this?
It may not be interesting, new or significant?

• If it is an interesting idea, what does it add

to the literature?
• Don’t follow blindly what has been
published in the past in top journals – they
may contain serious flaws.
Getting to the cutting edge?
• Focus on a methodology or theory or
concept. Something!
• Determine best practice in original
discipline.
• Align PhD supervision in this area.
• Write a book or literature review in this area.
• Understand the research network in this
area.
• Work in a small group rather than
individually.

http://cluster.cis.drexel.edu/~cchen/citespace/
 2. THE INVISIBLE COLLEGE

Griffith Institute for Tourism

Engage in ‘conversations’
• Four or five real life people or writers of
articles
• Listen before you speak (ie have lots of
references)
• Connect with points already made
• Be interesting - add to the conversation in a
way that quickly grabs people’s attention
• Be polite to those professional colleagues
(Huff 1999)
15
Engage in ‘conversations’
• Grab opportunities for one-on-one talks at
conferences / university visitors
• Volunteer to review articles in your area for
conferences and even journals
• Use conferences to build networks and trial
out articles with conference paper reviewers
and some people in the track audience there
- see next slides

16
As Huff (1999) puts it...
• Scholarly work is rooted in the lively exchange of ideas -
conversation at its best
• Identify the people, topics and specific works that are the
foundation of the conversation you intend to join…
• ‘The objective is to establish your location in the social
space of scholarship as a first step towards becoming
more actively involved’.
• Nevertheless, ‘… each scholar should try to answer
questions that genuinely perplex him or her. They will
enjoy the process of scholarship and care less about the
vagaries of publication’ [ie rejections]

17
Go to conferences
• Latest developments compared with articles
• Target two or three in a row
• Target one or two tracks
• Arrange to meet informally with key people
(even beforehand), go to Meet the Editors
• Thank them afterwards by email, with hopes (but
not firm plans) for the next conference
• Give before expecting to receive e.g. article,
bibliography

18
Conference paper and
presentation
• Present the key, interesting ideas, not the whole paper
• Eye contact (don’t read) and ‘hook’ them with something
interesting and focussed
• 1 slide/1-2 minutes, agenda, numbered, 7 lines x 7
words, no white light, last slide has conclusion
• Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse
• Same for later journal article? No! Title is different too,
and check with Editors of US/UK journals if they allow
prior conference publication
• Show both with different titles on CV?
• Don’t overdo conferences 19
 3. WRITING

Griffith Institute for Tourism

Tips about writing:
• Schedule clear blocks of time for research and work long
hours
• Get teaching under control (few new units, for example),
stay away from writing books (they are scholarship, not
research) and only do consulting if it will lead to
publishable research
• Find a mentor who publishes and knows the ropes e.g.
where to publish
• Do joint research with overseas colleagues who have a
publication record
• Write in a team.

21
 LITERATURE REVIEW

Griffith Institute for Tourism

Types of literature review
Paradigm funnel

Nairn, A., P. Berthon & A. Money (2007)

Learning from giants. International Journal
of Market Research, 49, 257-274.
Charting and tables
A technique for synthesizing and interpreting qualitative
data by sifting, charting and sorting material according to
key issues and themes

• 1. familiarization;
• 2. identifying a thematic framework;
• 3. indexing;
• 4. charting; and
• 5. mapping and interpretation
Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3
Article 1 X X
Article 2 X
Article 3 X X
Article 4 X
 Keyword analysis

Benckendorff, P. J. (2009) Themes and Trends in Australian and New Zealand Tourism
Research: A Social Network Analysis of Citations in Two Leading Journals (1994–2007).
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 16, 1-15.
Citation analysis
• Citation analysis
• Co-author analysis

Kim, Y., K. S. Savage, R. M. Howey & H. B. Van Hoof (2009)

Academic foundations for hospitality and tourism research: A re-
examination of citations. Tourism Management, 30, 752-758.
ENDNOTE
 TEAM ARTICLES

Griffith Institute for Tourism

Team writing
• Have a written plan for co-authors and
possibly other colleagues, with:
– target readership of a journal e.g. applied
mathematicians - ‘three or four real-life people’
says Brown
– statement of aims
– Contributions and implications
– outline of the paper’s structure/sections
– when it will be ready
– details of authors (in order, I suggest)
30
Write a team paper...
• Start with a team planning synopsis
• Expand the structure in that synopsis down to
three hierarchical levels, with main points in
each section
• Rough out title, introduction, etc
• Set yourself a deadline of two equivalent days to
write the first draft
• Write the other three drafts, send it off, revise it
happily (or revise, recast and try elsewhere if
rejected)

31
Joint authorship issues I
• The minimum requirement for authorship
should accord with the 'Vancouver
Protocol'. Authorship is substantial
contribution in all three of:
– a) conception and design, or analysis and
interpretation of data;
– b) drafting the article or revising it critically for
important intellectual content; and
– c) final approval of the version to be published.
• That is, all authors must want to see and
have seen the last version

32
Joint authorship issues II
• In your career, use supervisor first (but not first author?),
then other mentors, then joint grant applications...
• Each person must bring some thing to the table to be
‘win-win’, and all must be interested in the topic
• Commit to a fast turnaround with each other (eg 7 days)
• Assume ownership while it is on our desk, that is, revise
each others’ material
• If a co-author cuts out some thing, don’t revive the old
text - if the idea still seems OK, rewrite it (Huff 1999, p.
22)
• Who will be first author? (Do not always be 2 or 3)

33
 WHAT JOURNALS TO TARGET?

Griffith Institute for Tourism

Two questions by reviewers and other
readers about any article

• What is this paper about, what is its

goal?
• Why does it matter to me as a reader?
(Day 1996)

35
Thus, think ‘audience’
• ‘the most common cause of outright
rejection before entering the review
process is that the paper is not suited to
the journal’ (Day 1996)
• know the editor and his or her editorial
board, their work and show this
knowledge

36
That is, target a journal’s readers
(through its reviewers)
– target readership of a journal - ‘three or four real-life
people’ says Brown, or at least writers of key articles
that you have read and whose ‘conversation’ you are
joining
• e.g. applied mathematicians
• e.g. academics, advances in general areas of
marketing, in many countries but primarily Europe
= EJM; or practitioners = MIP
• aim at a ‘reasonably’ high journal but have a
backup so you are not devastated when you are
knocked back

37
The aim: build a long term relationship with
the journal...

• understand journal’s aims, editorials and Notes for

Contributors (plus first and last issues in a year,
when a new editor takes over, and the home page)
• refer to other articles in the journal, especially
editor’s and editorial board members’ (correctly
named)
• get references about your field and an exemplar of
your type of article from past issues of the the
journal

38
Exercise
• In ones or twos, prepare a one- or two-page
‘team synopsis’ of an idea of your own, from a
reader’s perspective, for distribution to co-
authors and other colleagues, following Day’s
(1996, p. 93) outline on next slide
• Use ‘who, what, where, why, when?’ to check for
precision

39
 TITLE, ABSTRACT,
INTRODUCTION AND
CONCLUSION

Griffith Institute for Tourism

Getting cited is not easy
• About 50+% of articles are never cited
• Of those that are cited:
– 55% are cited only 1 time
– 24% 2-4
– 9% 5-9
– 3% 10-14
– 3% 15-25…. (Brown)

41
What an abstract should have
• The abstract is important for citations and should cover:
– a short theme sentence to orientate the reader
– what was the aim?
– why did you do it, that is, why is it important?
– what did you do and what happened (methodology)?
– what were the results/findings (patterns in the data)?
– what is your work good for:
• conclusions/contributions that filled what gaps (covered
in third point above?)?
• implications for theory and practice (details, not waffle)?

42
How to write titles
• Title should be a short, snappy and informative sentence
about the findings with keywords in it e.g. ‘Decision
analysis helps wheat agribusiness management’
• Put some keywords in the title, preferably having one at
the start; and make the title stand out in a table of
contents of a journal.
• Add key concept to title.
• But do not be too smart-alecky e.g. ‘More than a one
night stand’

43
Introduction of article starts the
conversation
• Grab their attention with a ‘hook’
• Reference lots of relevant people - join the
conversation by showing you have listened to
them
• It is in effect an executive summary to give the
reader an enticing glimpse of what is to come,
and is not a ‘mystery story?’

44
An introduction in six points
1: establish field, assert its centrality, state
current knowledge gap briefly (parent theories)
2: summarise previous research
3: indicate important gap or raise question
4: state purpose of present research (to
address 3)
5. say briefly what your contribution is
6: outline of paper

45
Discussion and conclusion of an
article
• No new data not in results
• Summarise what has been done and found, and
emphasis the contributions, enhancing their
significance even more.
• Relate contribution to prior literature – use
citations.
• ‘Tie everything together’, that is, say some thing
almost new that is integrative
• Link back to the research problem/focus
outlined in the introduction
46
Griffith Institute for Tourism
 WRITING: STRUCTURE AND
STYLE

Griffith Institute for Tourism

The keys to writing...
• A Use exemplars,
• B The first draft is not written first - the
structure/table of contents is written first
• C Then write the first draft quickly - two full
days should see it written down; certainly
some big blocks of time are needed for all of
this first draft writing process plus a self-
imposed deadline

49
A Use exemplars
• An exemplar is a document already in the
literature that accomplishes the kind of task you
are trying to accomplish in an effective way. An
exemplar is used for insights into how something
is done - eg how much background to give, how
much detail to give, how many examples to give
- and not for what to do for that must come from
you
• Exemplars give you the ‘rules of the game’ - you
can break them but should have reasons for
doing so

50
B Essence of structure/table of
contents
• If possible, follow the pattern expected by the
reader, that is, lit. review and new framework,
methodology, results, discussion, conclusions
and implications
• Use heading numbers to two decimal place
levels for planning purposes, even if the journal
does not (by the way, headings should be
informative, i.e. long-ish)
• Consider mind maps to plan comprehensively
• Use a theme or topic sentence at the start of
each single-idea paragraph
51
An article is expected to cover five parts of a
structure (Day 1996):
Part 1 This part answers ‘What is the paper about?’
Research problem(s) (‘The aim of this study…’)
Delimitations of scope (sometimes put into Part 3)
Part 2 Background/literature review
Part 3 Methods
Part 4 Analysis of data
Part 5 This part answers the crucial question ‘Why does it
matter?’
Conclusions from findings related to gaps in the the body of
knowledge in Parts 1 and 2
Implications for theory, that is, speculations
Implications for managers and for public and organisational
52
policies
In other words, Day says...
Draft these five parts to fit 3,000 to 6,000 words
(check with notes for contributors and exemplars),
starting with the easiest part:
– 1 introduction using AIDA, that is, ‘an executive
summary’ (400 - 1000 words) -
– 2 relevant literature. and gaps (400-1000 words)
– 3 methods with justifications etc.
– 4 analysis related to the gaps
– 5 contributions/implications of findings related to
the literature (20%), and for practice and further
research
• finally, link back to the introduction

53
Part 2: background/ literature
review
• Means to an end, not an end in itself
• Start with a mindmap or table of contents, then
write the first of four types of drafts
• Build on the parent disciplines from the
introduction
• Be analytical and not merely descriptive : create
expectations of a position in a debate and then
fulfil them
• Research issues ‘grow’ in controversial and/or
unresearched areas
54
Steps in a review
• summarise other researchers’ key findings
appropriate to the research problem, e.g.
‘ambulance services but not health workers’
• synthesise by making sense of where the past
has brought us, by themes rather than by
researcher, e.g. ‘they focus on stress vs
rewards’, not ‘Smith said…Jones said…’
• analyse by highlighting contributions or flaws
influencing this research, e.g. ‘work is stressful
and rewarding’ = this research

55
Typical deficiencies of a
literature review
• Exclusion of landmark studies
• Out-of-date material ( a sign of a
previously rejected article!)
• Adopting a parochial perspective
• Not critical, ie, too much ‘Smith said..,
Jones said…’
• Not discriminating between material
relevant and irrelevant to the project
• Lacking synthesis (Bruce) 56
What on earth is this about?
• The first group go out and they try to get
the other group out. When the second
group is out, the first group is in. The
second group goes out and tries to get the
first group out...
(Adapted from Rose 1985, p. 45)

57
Be chunky and linky I
Chunkiness. The concept of a ‘chunk’ can help summarise
some of the discussion above. As shown in the
Introduction, the whole thesis is one big chunk of an idea.
But each part of the thesis should be a chunky part of the
whole thesis, with links to other parts. For a start, each
chapter should have its own role within the thesis such as
Chapter 2’s identification of the research issues about
which data is collected in Chapter 3. Each chapter has
section and subsection chunks with a numbering system
that reflects their interrelationships (such as 3.2, 3.2.1 and
3.2.2). Then each subsection has chunks of paragraphs
within it, sometimes indicated with run-on headings.

58
Be chunky and linky II
Next there are individual paragraphs. These
usually have a linker word at the start such as
‘Next’ or ‘Furthermore’. These linkers lead the
examiner from already-digested ideas into new
ideas. Each paragraph deals with one idea
which is introduced and summarised in a theme
sentence near the start. Finally each sentence
has one small idea, with the most important
aspect of it presented at the start of the
sentence after the linker. In these ways, the
thesis has a string of interrelated and clear
chunks of ideas.
59
 ‘First tell them what you are
going to tell them, then tell
them, and then tell them what
you have just told them’
When all these chunks are interlinked, your
communication with the reviewer can be easily-
followed

60
Another example of a paragraph
• In her role as housekeeper, the woman's work lay in
managing the household (Elkin 1957). [theme sentence
that summarises what the whole paragraph is about]
She was given an ‘allowance’ for groceries and other
needs (Bulbeck 1998, p. 30).[expands on a point
related to the theme sentence] This [good linker,
similar to ‘as well as, in addition, however’, and
‘thus’] reliance warranted the expected responsibility for
household tasks such as cooking. These [good linker
again] tasks were viewed as the woman’s role and
allowed the male to focus on being the economic
provider. [this sentence appropriately ties the whole
paragraph together - but it is not always possible]

61
Another example with headings, of this
easily-followed chunkiness
• the hierarchy of paragraphs from a side heading with a
number, through a side heading without a number, to a
run-on heading that leads into two or three paragraphs of
text
• the headings are quite long and descriptive, rather than
terse one- or two-word announcements
• some text follows each heading, for example, even
though the second side heading closely follows the first,
there is some text between the two headings
• the text reads as though the headings were not there,
that is, the reader can skip the headings and still not
miss the argument
• the text outlines the topics to be covered in each section
before going into the details of those topics. 62
C How do you do all this interlinked
‘chunking’ ?
• First, have a table of contents of the sections
(with numbers to two decimal points at first, even
if not wanted by the journal) for the article
• Then have main ideas for each section of the
article - these become the core of each section
• Then have positions/ideas within each main idea
above - these become the run-in headings and
the theme sentences in each section
• Then and only then - start writing the first draft!

63
Style: Don’t lead with authorities, be wary of quotations
and put first things first

• Hofstede (1999, p. 231) said, ‘There are

five dimensions of culture.’
• There appear to be five distinct aspects of
culture, as claimed in Hofstede’s (1999, p.
231) ‘There are five dimensions of culture.’
• There are five aspects of culture (Hofstede
1999).

64
More style bits
• Power of first position in sentences and
paragraphs
• Dr vs Oct. are different
• US (adjective) vs United States (noun)
• No adjectives and adverbs (that is, no value
judgements)
• nine cf 10, 9 or 10 ( and no numbers at the start
of a sentence)
• No one-sentence paragraphs
• Use short sentences (often about 2 lines
maximum)
65
Other style issues
• Style Manual including referencing
OR
• Journal of Marketing home page
http://www.ama.org/pubs/jm/info/info3.asp
• Chicago Manual of Style: The Essential Guide for
Authors, Editors, and Publishers, University of
Chicago Press (find through www.google.com) .

BUT EACH JOURNAL HAS ITS OWN STYLE

66
Summary points about a
literature review
• Keep the right psychological orientation - it is a
discussion with a knowledgeable colleague about what
others have written in relation to your research problem
[i.e. a conversation]
• Have a plan: start comprehensive and end specific
• Emphasize relationships with your research problem
• Use a skeleton outline about these relationships
• Review the literature; don’t reproduce it!
• End each section with a summary that gathers up what
has been said and sets forth its significance in terms of
the research problem
67
Part 3: Methodology of data
collection
• Justification of methodology
• Mastery of body of knowledge of
methodology
• What steps followed and why, with some
evidence that they were followed
• Validity and reliability
• Ethical considerations

68
Part 4: Analysis of data
• Patterns in the data
• link (independent) text, and tables and
figures
• Sections for each RI/hypothesis
• Do not refer to the literature in results
section
• Start with brief description of subjects

69
Part 5: Conclusions and
implications
• Link findings to the literature for each
RI/hypothesis, identifying and emphasising
CONTRIBUTIONS
• Conclusions and implications are different
• Implications for theory
• Implications for policy and practice
• Limitations discovered and minimised
• Further research (based on delimitations of
scope in introduction, if you have them)

70
 REDRAFTING, SENDING OFF
AND REVISING
Griffith Institute for Tourism
At least four, increasingly
detailed types of drafts
1 getting started
2 getting it together - cut and paste, linkers
3 readability - cumbersome expressions,
power of sentence position, speller check+,
ask a colleague to read it, read it aloud
4 editing - journal requirements, references
are there and correct, figures and tables
(Lindsay)

72
Sending it off after co-authors and critical others
have checked it, to the latest Editor...
• First page (single space), that will be removed:
– title
– authors and affiliations
– address of corresponding author
– abstract (and acknowledgments, if any)
• Second page (double space usually):
– title but no names
– abstract, and then the Introduction onwards
• Allow 8-12 weeks before checking on progress
(or about 4 weeks if no acknowledgment of
submission) 73
Things that annoy editors
• No abstract
• No conclusions
• Nothing new
• Incomprehensible – poor spelling
• Author’s name is obvious
• Incorrect format and style
• Not following journal submission
requirements
74
Things that annoy reviewers
• all the above, plus:
• names spelt incorrectly, especially
reviewers
• Incorrect references
• Typos
• Seen it before (if their earlier comments
are not incorporated into this version for
this journal)

75
List of reviewers’ criteria from Johnston

• title - short, snappy and serious

• abstract - includes findings
• intro - signposts of journey, objectives, underlying idea
• lit. review - knowledge of, use of, up-to-date
• model - flows from lit., sensible, useful
• data - instrument, methods, summary of results
• discussion - related to model
• conclusion/implications - what’s the CONTRIBUTION?
so what? what next?
• references - style, all there

76
How to do revisions
• put them in a drawer for at least one week
• incorporate the reviewer’s ideas ‘with
enthusiasm’ - this kind person has raised your
chances from 20% to 80+%
• review the article in its new totality for continuity
and direction, eg check the abstract and
conclusion
• ask colleagues for their views
• write a polite covering letter for each reviwewer
thanking them and saying how you addressed
their numbered suggestions
• expect two rounds of revisions in the77double
blind reviewing process
Again, the aim: build a long term relationship
with the journal...
• We’ve noted these earlier:
– understand journal’s aims, editorials and Notes for Contributors (plus first and
last issues in a year, when a new editor takes over, and the home page)
– refer to other articles in the journal, especially editor’s and editorial board
members’ (correctly named)
– get references about your field and an exemplar of your type of article from past
issues of the the journal
• get the latest editor’s name and address
• acknowledge everything promptly
• respond with corrections promptly
• supply manuscript and figures precisely to specification
• don’t amend proofs other than printer errors
• and then they will look forward to your next try and ask
you to be a reviewer
78
Rejected? Revise, recast for another
conversation, and try there
Fiske and Fogg’s research about 400+
reviewers’ reports on 153 papers submitted to 7
journals found coefficient of determination
between reviewers = 0.2
‘In the typical case, two reviews of the same
paper had no critical point in common…they
write about different topics, each making points
that were appropriate and accurate. As a
consequence, their recommendations about
editorial decisions showed hardly any
agreement .’
Griffith Institute for Tourism
A review of research about
journals’ reviewers found:
• ‘The process appears defective yet could
be typical of any area where innovations
challenge established ideas. The
conclusions suggest authors view
academic publishing as a human process
supported by networks of kindred
spirits rather than an abstract exercise
pitched at inanimate journals’. So go to
conferences, target journals, collaborate,
etc. (Saunders and Hirst
80 2000, p. 1)
 References
Armstrong, JS 1982, ‘Research in scientific journals: implications for editors and
authors’, Journal of Forecasting, vol. 1, pp. 83-104.
Armstrong, J Scott 1990, ‘Peer review for journals: evidence on quality control,
fairness and inn ovation’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, pp. 1-22.
Australian Government Publishing Service 2002, Style Manual, AGPS, Canberra.
Brown, RF, Rogers, DJ and Pressland, AJ 1994, ‘Create a clear focus: the “big
picture” about writing better research articles’, American Entomologist, vol. 40, no. 3,
pp. 144-145.
Brown, R 1996, Key Skills for Publishing Research Articles, WriteWay Consulting,
10 Kardinia St, Sunnybank 4109, phone 07 3345 4192..
Carson D and Gilmore, A 1998, ‘Editorial’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 32,
no. 3/4, pp. 180-183.
Churchill, GA and Perreault, WD 1982, ‘JMR editorial policies and philososphy’,
Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 19, pp. 283-287.
Day, A 1996, How To Get Research Published in Journals, Gower, Aldershot.

81
Fereday, J and Muir-Cochrane, E 2006, ‘Demonstrating rigor using thematic
analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme
development’, International journal of qualitative methods, vol. 5, no 1, pp. 80-
92.
Fiske, DW and Fogg, L 1990, ‘But the reviewers are making different criticisms
of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewers’ comments’, American
Psychologist, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 591-598.
Frost, P and Stablein, R 1992, Doing Exemplary Research, Sage, Newbury
Park.
Golden-Biddle, K and Locke, K 1997, Composing Qualitative Research, Sage,
Thousand Oaks.
Huff, AS 1999, Writing for Scholarly Publication, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Leedy, P 1989, Practical Research, Macmillan, New York.
Lindsay. D 1995, A Guide to Scientific Writing, Longman, Melbourne.
Perry, C 1997, ‘‘How can I write a journal article in two days? A book review of
Day, A. 1997, ‘How to Get Research Published in Journals’, European Journal
of Marketing, vol. 31, no. 11/12, pp. 896-901
Perry, C, Carson, D & Gilmore, A 2003, ‘Joining a conversation: writing for
EJM’s editors, reviewers and readers requires planning, care and persistence’,
European Journal of Marketing, vol. 37, no. 5/6, pp. 652-667.
Peters, PS 1995, The Cambridge Australian English Style Guide, Cambridge
University Press, Melbourne. 82
Peters, DP and Ceci, SJ 1982, ’ Peer review practices of psychological
journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again, and its open peer
commentary’, The Behavioural and Brain Sciences, vol. 5, pp. 187-255.
Polonsky, M et al. 1998, ‘Perspectives on academic publishing’, Australasian
Marketing Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 63-80
Swales, J 1984, `Research into the structure of introductions to journal articles
and its application to the teaching of academic writing’, in Williams, R. &
Swales, J. (eds), Common Ground: Shared Interests in ESP and
Communication Studies, Pergamon, Oxford.
Saunders, J and Hirst, A 2000, ‘And you thought it was bad: the editorial
process of journals’, AM2000 Proceedings, Acadmey of Marketing Conference,
5-7 July, University of Derby, Nottingham.
Summers, JO 2002, ‘Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in
marketing: from conceptualisation through the review process’, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 405-415.
Vadrajan, PR 1996, ‘From the Editor: reflections on research and publishing’,
Journal of Marketing, vol. 60, October, pp.306

83
 Terima kasih
Professor Noel Scott
Australia
dr.noel.scott@gmail.com

Griffith Institute for Tourism