Accounting Research Journal

Demystifying the challenges involved in publishing a high quality taxation paper

Adrian Sawyer
Article information:
To cite this document:
Adrian Sawyer , (2014),"Demystifying the challenges involved in publishing a high quality taxation paper",
Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 27 Iss 1 pp. 7 - 18
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-08-2013-0050
Downloaded on: 31 January 2016, At: 00:33 (PT)
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 00:33 31 January 2016 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 13 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 492 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
John Passant, (2014),"The Minerals Resource Rent Tax: The Australian Labor Party and the continuity of
change", Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 27 Iss 1 pp. 19-36 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-08-2013-0058
Raihana Mohdali, Jeff Pope, (2014),"The influence of religiosity on taxpayers’ compliance attitudes:
Empirical evidence from a mixed-methods study in Malaysia", Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 27 Iss 1
pp. 71-91 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-08-2013-0061
Julie Harrison, Mark Keating, (2014),"The deductibility of Sarbanes-Oxley costs incurred by Australasian
companies", Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 27 Iss 1 pp. 52-70 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
ARJ-09-2013-0064

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:294800 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1030-9616.htm

Demystifying the challenges Challenges in

publishing a
involved in publishing a high taxation paper
quality taxation paper
Adrian Sawyer 7
Department of Accounting and Information Systems,
College of Business and Law, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 00:33 31 January 2016 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to offer strategies that can enhance the likelihood of
successfully developing an idea through to publication in a high-quality journal. The paper also seeks
to demystify what lies behind the editorial and review processes that form part of that journey.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper is based on the author’s 20⫹ years’ experience as a
journal editor, editorial board member, ad hoc reviewer and author.
Findings – Successfully publishing in high-quality journals is a combination of a well-developed idea,
meticulous planning and execution of the research, a thorough review of the target journal’s scope and
expectations, attention to detail in drafting the paper and reasoned and reflective responses to guidance
and recommendations from editors and referees, supplemented by some good fortune and natural
talent.
Practical implications – This paper is intended primarily to be a resource that demystifies what lies
behind the process for researchers seeking to develop their profile as an author of high-quality papers
in high-quality peer-reviewed journals with a focus on the discipline of taxation. In this regard its
primary intended audience is thesis students and those relatively new to academia.
Originality/value – Existing contributions to the literature concerning the publication process are
numerous, but few studies offer a succinct summary for new and emerging researchers in mind,
especially those undertaking taxation research.
Keywords Publishing, Editors, Academic journals, Refereeing, Taxation research
Paper type Viewpoint

1. Introduction
In this paper, I offer my experiences on what I believe editors and referees are looking for
in a high-quality tax paper. The paper will traverse four main areas. The first concerns
conceptualising, researching and writing a paper targeted at an international
peer-reviewed academic journal. The second is from the perspective of an editor, where
I will draw on my 14 years of experience as an editor of the New Zealand Journal of

The author wishes to acknowledge the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions for
improving an earlier version of this paper.
Accounting Research Journal
This paper is a revised version of the Plenary Address given to the Fourth Queensland Tax Vol. 27 No. 1, 2014
Researchers Symposium at Queensland University of Technology on 28 June 2013. It reflects the pp. 7-18
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
personal views and opinions of the author, which may not necessarily be held by other academics 1030-9616
with experience as a referee and journal editor. DOI 10.1108/ARJ-08-2013-0050
 ARJ Taxation Law & Policy (NZJTLP)[1]. Third, the paper takes the perspective of a referee,
as it is helpful for an author to be familiar with the role and influence of a referee on the
27,1 future direction of a paper. Fourth, the paper offers some examples of both good and bad
practices from my experiences as a referee and an editor.
It would be misleading to suggest that all aspects of the publication journey can be
put down to following a rational process based on meticulous planning. Publishing is
8 much more an art than an exact science. There is an element of luck involved, possibly
with the material gathered when collecting the research data, but more likely in the
refereeing process. There are certain things an author can do to enhance their chances of
publication. While guidance for successfully publishing in high-quality journals is
prevalent in disciplines, such as, education, medicine, science and applied sciences
(Mckenzie et al., 2012) much less is available in the broader disciplines in which tax
researchers would typically work, such as accounting, economics or law (Moizer, 2009;
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 00:33 31 January 2016 (PT)

Mertz, 2012). When it comes to focussing on taxation as a discipline in its own right,
there is a relative dearth of guidance to assist new researchers with the journal
publication process. With this focus in mind, this paper seeks to demystify the process
of successfully publishing academic research, which is a critical element to a successful
academic career. Within academia, the push for more publications in high-quality
journals is a common feature globally, which highlights the importance of the topic of
this paper because tax academics are not immune from the pressure to publish in
high-quality journals.

2. An author’s perspective: preparing, researching, writing and

responding
Authoring a paper involves much more than writing. I cannot emphasise enough the
importance of preparation before commencing drafting and writing a paper. By
preparation, I mean thinking about the area of research and recognising, as an author,
your strengths and weaknesses (for example, research methods, areas within the
discipline, determining gaps in the literature and previous experiences with writing).
Preparation also includes reviewing material already collected or needed to be sourced
and what you as the researcher already know about the literature. It should also include
contemplating where to disseminate the research (both initial presentation and feedback
sources, plus the final publication outlet). Consideration of whether this is to be a sole or
joint-authored work should also commence at this point. When one is new to academic
writing, I encourage co-authoring with an experienced colleague to not only be able to
learn from the colleague’s experience but also to have a co-author to cooperatively work
through the submission and review process.
Comparative analysis or mixed-methods/cross-disciplinary research may necessitate
joint work. I would suggest that there is an inverse relationship at work – the greater
your preparation, the smoother the process of drafting and writing the paper (and
perhaps even eventual publication but not necessarily so). Brainstorming may also
prove to be fruitful, including discussing ideas with colleagues. Furthermore, while
handwritten drafts/thoughts may help, it is important to extract thoughts from the mind
onto “paper”, so to speak, via your keyboard; avoid procrastination whenever possible.
The planning process should give rise to matters to review in relation to research
methodology and selection of research methods. Will the research, for example, be
empirical, doctrinal, case study, blackletter law or policy analysis (or some combination
 of these)? Does your target journal prefer a particular research method? What methods Challenges in
are appropriate to the research approach? What are your relative strengths and
experiences with these methods?
publishing a
If you are unsure then I suggest working through any one of numerous invaluable taxation paper
works on research methods in taxation; I would suggest McKerchar (2010) and Salter
and Mason (2012). I frequently refer my graduate students to these works at an early
stage of their research projects/theses proposal preparation. While I have specifically 9
mentioned these two books, other business research methods texts are available and
should be referred to as appropriate. Another book that I recently came across is an
excellent source on writing proposals by Punch (2011). If you wish to adopt a mixed
methods approach, consider carefully how to incorporate them to achieve the aims of
your research. Seek guidance from experienced researchers, if necessary, even if they are
not to be co-authors.
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 00:33 31 January 2016 (PT)

The process of researching should continue in earnest, including thoroughly working

through the literature for the subject area plus the research methodology portion of the
paper. Databases can be an invaluable tool but may prove to be a “minefield” if you are
unfamiliar with using them. Seek assistance from a librarian or colleague who is
experienced with using them. Look closely at published work that employs the research
methods you wish to use to see how they incorporate discussion of those methods in
their paper. One area of debate is that of blackletter law research. While there is usually
little comment on the use of the method in blackletter law research, personally I believe
that a brief comment is justified.
If human ethics clearance is needed ensure this is secured before undertaking the
research data-gathering phase. Then gather the data, analyse the cases, documents,
legal materials, survey or interview instruments and apply the research methods to
them. Follow the recommendations for pre-testing any empirical instruments. Ensure
you are familiar with any statistical techniques you need to employ and seek assistance
if necessary. Check your work thoroughly and scrutinise your results with a sceptical
mind. If necessary, undertake further data analysis, testing and the like. Perhaps seek
guidance from an experienced colleague as to whether there are any deficiencies or gaps
in your analysis.
Writing drafts of your paper will take time. Depending on your writing skills, your
experience at writing in an appropriate manner for your academic/practitioner/
policymaker audience (but ultimately the publication outlet’s audience), and how
extensive your analysis of the literature is, it may take three to four drafts, or even more,
before you are satisfied with the paper. Once you reach this point, you should be ready
to allow a trusted colleague to read your paper and provide you with feedback. Even
after ⬎ 20 years, I would typically have at least three drafts (sometimes five or more)
before submitting a paper for presentation at a conference or submitting it to a journal.
Seek feedback from a trusted colleague who at a minimum you can rely upon for
critical yet constructive comments of your work, primarily from a technical content
viewpoint and also from a grammatical and word smithing perspective. Above all,
ensure that the paper is coherent in its structure, arguments and analysis. Ask your
colleague to see whether you have established what you sought to achieve, and where
possibly identify areas that they believe an editor or referee will question. Critically
assess your drafts and the comments received. Ensure you make appropriate
acknowledgement in your paper for any assistance you have received.
 ARJ If time permits seek, to present your work at a Department/School seminar or
research symposium to gather feedback from those that should largely comprise a
27,1 supportive audience. Where funds permit, seek to present at an appropriate conference/
symposium to gather further feedback. This should all assist in reducing the concerns
that a referee may raise and hopefully give you more confidence about the quality of
your research work. Also a conference presentation can give you a timeframe/due date
10 to work towards.
When considering your target journal, you need to consider a multiple of factors,
such as the journal’s ranking, is it domestic or international, its subject matter of
interest, research methodology, reputation in terms of administrative systems
(especially turnaround time) and audience interest in the paper. While it is important to
aim high (e.g. for an “A” Journal), do not strive beyond what your paper is capable of
achieving. For instance, if your paper is best suited for a “B” journal then this may be the
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 00:33 31 January 2016 (PT)

best target for a “home” for your paper and it may be futile to pursue an “A” journal; do
seek advice if you are unsure. While your Department/School will no doubt want
high-quality publications (and these are essential to career progression), not all research
work will achieve this standard. You will often find you may end up having to go to a
lower-ranked outlet for publication. If you want a particular audience for your paper,
consider carefully the likely audience of the journal.
Ensure that you check the style formatting of the target journal, along with the types
of papers that come within its scope. This should be an exercise of revisiting the
preliminary assessment made at the time the research commenced concerning whether
it remains an appropriate outlet. Seek guidance from colleagues if unsure, and even
contact the editor of the target journal with an abstract before formally submitting your
paper. Ensure you have looked at some past issues of this journal, checking for content,
research methods of published papers, methodological perspectives and, importantly,
the standing of the journal (whether this be journal rankings, the quality of the editorial
board, citation indices and the like).
The traditional approach outside of the USA is that a paper is submitted to only one
journal at a time for consideration; it should only be submitted to another journal either
after it is withdrawn or rejected as a result of the review process. In contrast, in the USA,
it may be acceptable to have multiple submissions of the same paper to various journals.
Finally, submit the paper to the editor of the journal, including copies of any empirical
instruments, following the guidance provided by that journal for the submission of
papers. You should ask for confirmation of receipt of your submission from the editor.
Now it is a matter of waiting as the refereeing procedure can take anywhere from one to
three months. If you have not heard anything after three months, then send a polite email
to the editor enquiring about the paper’s progress, and perhaps, if necessary, continue to
follow-up in this manner on a two-month cycle.

3. An editor’s perspective: the general manager

One way to view the editor of a journal is as a general manager of the contribution to
knowledge process with respect to a particular publication outlet. The following process
is based on my NZJTLP experience concerning making the initial judgment about
whether a paper should be sent out to referees:
• Has the author previously contacted me? This involves checking for any prior
correspondence.
 • Has the author attempted to follow the journal style guidelines? I may decide to Challenges in
send it back to the author for reformatting, if they have made no attempt or a
minimal attempt to follow the style guidelines.
publishing a
• Acknowledge receipt of the paper to the corresponding author. If they are a “new”
taxation paper
author, then I would seek confirmation that the paper has not been published or is
under review elsewhere for publication – if the response is “yes”, I will usually
decline (based on copyright and associated issues). 11
• Complete a preliminary read of the paper.
• Provide the corresponding author with my initial decision as to whether I will
reject the paper on the basis that it is unsuitable (with reasons provided), or
requires some changes before it can go out for review, or confirm that as editor I
will be sending it out for review. I advise the author that I will keep them informed,
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 00:33 31 January 2016 (PT)

with a normal review period of 6-8 weeks, but this can be shorter or longer,
depending on the circumstances. It is important to remember that good referees
are busy people too!
• Select the referee(s) – I seek the referees for their experience, expertise and
knowledge of the subject area, not because either I want to have a paper
recommended for rejection or any other particular recommendation. I also need to
ensure they have no conflicts of interests in being a referee for this paper. From
time to time, I will select a new referee and, thus, will seek to ensure they
understand what is expected of them when they referee for the NZJTLP.
• Assuming there are no conflicts and they are able to be referees, I will send each
referee a “clean” copy of the paper with all author identification details removed.
Usually I will also send the referee report cover sheet to form part of the referee’s
report, and invite each referee to prepare a report (or email). I also invite them to
send back a copy of the paper marked up with changes on it.
• Follow-up with referees near the deadline and update the author(s) on progress.
• If issues arise, I may need to select a new referee and work through the process
again with this referee and keep the author informed about progress.
• As an editor, once I have the reports and recommendations, I will review these and
pass these on to the corresponding author for their consideration (I remove the
referee’s identity from each report, plus any comments that I consider are
unnecessary to go to the corresponding author). I will ask the author to confirm
with me their plans for the revisions of the paper once they have had time to review
the reports. If the report(s) recommends rejection, I will ask them whether they
wish to withdraw the paper or make a case as to why I should not accept the
referee’s recommendation to reject the paper.
• Depending on the outcome, I will manage the process with the corresponding
author until I make a final decision concerning their paper’s future with the
journal.

Based on my experience as an editor, ⬍ 5 per cent of submitted papers have come back
with only minor (often mainly editorial) changes that do not require the author to revise
and resubmit. Thus, for most papers, revisions are effectively the norm. If you have
 ARJ prepared rigorous and clearly written work, and taken earlier feedback on board, you
will maximise your chances of only having to make relatively minor revisions.
27,1 The process described above may differ for special or themed issues of a journal. In
such cases, there will probably be a guest editor(s) who manages the process. Deadlines
may differ, as may the process for review of the papers for that issue of the journal. In
such cases, I would recommend you follow the advice of the editor for that particular
12 special/themed issue.
Try not to become overly anxious if you receive a recommendation for major
revisions; these revisions may be realistically achievable. It is often worthwhile sharing
the referee reports with a trusted colleague along with your proposed response before
contacting the editor or after you have raised your point of view with the editor and
received their response. It is worthwhile setting out in a clear format a “response to
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 00:33 31 January 2016 (PT)

referee report” detailing what you have or have not done (with the reasons why) to each
of the referee’s comments. If there are aspects of the review you disagree with I would
recommend that you seek clarification with the editor on such issues, and in your
response to each issue/recommended revision, set out reasons why you disagree with
those particular issues raised in the referee’s recommendations. The editor will make the
final call as to what happens and whether you will need to make these changes, whether
they can be relaxed to some degree, or some compromise sought. Even with a
recommendation for rejection, in your response to the editor you can ask them to
reconsider the recommendations in the light of your response. However, ultimately, the
decision is the editor’s to make.
You should try to address the revision to your paper in a timely manner (within
one-two months), otherwise the paper could date (and potentially require further
revision) or the editor may change. Assuming you are willing to revise the paper, I
recommend that the author send in a revised paper with the changes (marked up with
track changes if they are significant) plus a summary sheet of how they have responded
to the referee’s comments, one by one. A table format can be useful for doing this. Again,
the editor makes the decision about acceptance. In some cases, a further “revise and
resubmit” may be recommended, but this suggests that eventual acceptance is probable
rather than only a possibility.
If you have conflicting referees’ reports (and this does occur reasonably frequently),
then the editor should provide guidance for how you should proceed. If not, then ask the
editor for guidance or set out in your initial response how you as author propose to
respond to the issues raised. Seek confirmation that this approach will be acceptable to
the editor.
What if you disagree with the path the editor wishes you to take after a dialogue or
the recommendations are still for major revisions? It may be that this is the time to
withdraw the paper from this journal and contemplate what to do next. Should you look
to send it somewhere else and restart the process, or leave it aside for some time and
come back a fresh or perhaps even discard it entirely? I would recommend seeking
guidance from a trusted experienced colleague before finally deciding what you will do.
Assuming you wish to persevere, then revise the paper and resubmit it to the editor.
Assuming you have addressed every issue to the editor’s satisfaction (or if they advise
it is going back to the referees for their review, to the satisfaction of the referees), then the
editor should recommend it for acceptance and let you know when it is likely to appear
 (that is, the particular issue of the journal). Often there will be further style and Challenges in
copyediting to be done by the editor and their support staff (or those of the publisher).
Later, you should receive proofs for checking prior to publication, for which you need
publishing a
to check carefully, make any minor changes and corrections and sign off on. Then return taxation paper
everything to the editor in a timely manner. In due course, the paper will be published
and you have made it! Ensure that you reward yourself in some way and do let your
colleagues and Head of Department/School know. Consider whether it is possible to post 13
information about your paper (or an extract thereof) on the Social Science Research
Network (SSRN) or a note about it on your LinkedIn account. I would recommend that
you enquire about how much of your paper can be made available through such sources
with the journal editor. You should also lodge a copy of the final accepted paper in your
University’s internal reporting system or repository.
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 00:33 31 January 2016 (PT)

4. A referee’s perspective: the gatekeeper

Effectively a referee is a gatekeeper with respect to a future contribution to the literature
in a specific area, who is charged with providing guidance to the editor as general
manager. The referee is also acting as a valuable and anonymous developer of the
author’s contribution. However, they should not seek to play the role of judge; this role
rests with the editor alone based on the evidence they have before them with respect to
the paper and the review work of the referee(s) (Di Pietra, 2013).
There are many matters for consideration as a referee. The first key issue is the
process begins when you are contacted by the editor with a request to review a paper.
Typically, a referee will give the request careful thought; do you have the time, the
expertise, and on seeing the title/abstract do you have a conflict (do you know the
identity of the author, for instance?) Unfortunately, in such small circles as taxation,
even without specific identification of the author(s) on the paper, you may know or
suspect whom the author(s) is/are. If this situation has you concerned or you feel unable
to provide a review, then you should not accept the engagement. However, it is
impractical to decline for such reasons as an absolute rule, especially when the field of
tax academics researching in a given areas will usually be relatively small; you may find
you cannot review anything within your fields of expertise.
Assuming acceptance of the engagement as a referee, you will need to note the
timeframes (which you should indicate you could meet), expectations and any guidance
from the editor when preparing your report. Plan your time when you will complete the
review. Personally, I read the paper through first and take notes, before commencing to
work on my report, recommendations and suggested revisions to the paper.
If the referee is a member of the editorial board or a regular reviewer for the journal,
they should be familiar with the expectations of the journal, the readership and the
quality of manuscripts. If they are a new referee, they may seek guidance from the editor.
However, the referee should never communicate or share the paper with anyone else
other than the editor. Normally, referees are not to communicate with fellow referees,
which would almost be impossible to do under the double blind review process.
A referee will be looking for whether the paper fits within the journals aims and
scope, and they will take into account guidance received from the editor, will read your
paper carefully, and evaluate what you, as the author, say you will do (and whether you
actually did this). They will check the robustness of your methodology, the
appropriateness of the research method(s) you have used, the quality and limitations of
 ARJ the findings/analysis, the conclusions you have drawn and limitations of the work.
Perhaps of most importance is whether they are of the view that your paper makes a
27,1 significant contribution to the literature to warrant publication (whether in this journal
or elsewhere). Referees will evaluate whether the paper is of sufficient quality to meet the
standing of the journal (but in receiving the paper from the editor this matter has
probably been considered already, at least by the editor). A referee should not direct
14 their criticisms at the author(s), but rather at the content of the paper. I would expect that
an editor will intervene in such circumstances if this is not the case you should bring this
to the attention of the editor.
The referee will provide their comments, usually both general and specific, and
sometimes provide this directly onto the paper. They will also provide their
recommendation to the editor, including whether they are willing to review a revised
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 00:33 31 January 2016 (PT)

paper at some future time. A good referee will provide some guidance for the author in
revising the paper thereby enabling it to be publishable (unless they recommend
rejecting the paper). Recommendations will usually be along the lines of the following
(some journals will have variations):
• accept for publication (subject to minor editing);
• revise and resubmit with minor changes;
• revise and resubmit with major changes; or
• reject (with reasons provided).

Essentially the paper will need to make a substantial and original contribution to
knowledge, demonstrate sufficient rigour and should be exposed to peers prior to
publication. As an author ensure you have taken a close interest in the people involved
with the journal (potential reviewers, the editorial board and the editor(s)) and that you
have not forgotten any of the basics (for example, journal guidelines, paper length, a
polished piece of work, comprehensive references and clear motivation).
What is meant by the phrase “double blind (peer) review”? This means that the
reviewers/referees of the paper will not get to know the identity of the author(s), and the
author(s) will not get to know the identity of the reviewers/referees. Only on publication
(assuming this occurs) will the reviewers/referees know whom the author(s) is/are, but
at no time should the author(s) know who the reviewers/referees were. The editor only
knows the identity of the authors and the reviewers/referees. The idea is that everyone
should get a similar and unbiased review.
Furthermore, by this approach, editors of academic journals attempt to keep the
quality of articles in their publications high and assure that poor quality research is not
published. Referees are usually unpaid for their work (as are most editors, although they
may receive editorial assistance from their department/school or the publisher). Referees
do this work for the prestige it brings and for being able to perhaps more altruistically
be a “gatekeeper” to uphold the quality of the literature in a particular area within the
context of a particular publication outlet.
This outline of the double blind reviews is the “theory”. In practice, to remove all
traces of the author(s) from a paper may cause the paper to be assessed as having gaps
in the literature (especially if the author has already published in the area) and a
reviewer/referee may determine, in seeking to fill in the “gap”, who has authored the
paper. Many reviewers will know or suspect the identity of the author(s) but are still able
 to prepare an “unbiased” report to the journal’s editor. This is especially so in taxation in Challenges in
Australasia with a relatively small number of researchers in a given field. Furthermore,
many papers have already been exposed to audience at conferences or on various
publishing a
research networks, revealing the identity of the author. There remains an on-going taxation paper
debate over whether double blind reviews are superior to situations where the reviewer
at least knows the identity of the author(s) and whether the process is unfair (Alexander,
2013). 15
5. Early career reflections
If you are working on, nearing completion or recently completed your PhD or a major
research project, then you will have a wonderful rich source of material for developing
for publication. In the rare instance your project/thesis may be selected as being suitable
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 00:33 31 January 2016 (PT)

to be published as a book[2], this is a wonderful endorsement for your work. I was

fortunate to have my doctorate published in the form of a revised and updated
monograph by Fiscal Publications in the UK (Sawyer, 2009), but this is but one possible
way to disseminate your research. In other situations, you may have been able to publish
as you go and already have exposed your research and published from your thesis. On
completion of your thesis, you are at the position when you should be looking to
disseminate your research through publication if you have not done so already. This
places you at an advantage over someone that has yet to gather that data or material.
Having confidence in your research work is crucial and publication provides a vital
litmus test. Remember once your PhD has passed the examination process, then parts (if
not all of it) should be publishable. Publication of your research is critical if you wish to
make a contribution to your field and is an essential component of being an academic in
creating and disseminating knowledge.
When I started as an academic in the early 1990s, I was working on my Master of
Commerce (MCom) degree (comprising papers and a thesis; Sawyer, 1993a), and was
fortunate to be able to publish from the thesis and extend this through some consultancy
work. This was in part due to the subject matter (effective tax rates) and timing. The
New Zealand Treasury was researching in this area at the time, and the New Zealand
Society of Accountants, as it was known at the time, was interested in the disclosure
issues with respect to tax reconciliation and imputation; see Sawyer (1993b and 1994).
After six years as a full time academic, I commenced the process of my doctorate
(Doctor of Juridical Science) for my first sabbatical leave at the School of Law at the
University of Virginia. Following completion of my course work, on a part time basis
over the next eight years, I eventually submitted my dissertation in 2006, survived my
oral defence, and was awarded my degree in 2007 based on a revised thesis (Sawyer,
2007). Concurrently, while working on the Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD), I sought to
advance my career, and present and publish work that related to my doctorate as well as
in other areas. I encourage my thesis students to seek to present and expose their work
to a wider audience, and if possible, publish parts of their work, prior to completing their
doctorate. While this may slow down the progress of your PhD, it gives you vital
feedback on your research and confidence in your work’s quality and importance (which
can in turn be useful when pressing ahead with your PhD).
It is important not to expect that everything you work can be published in a
high-quality journal. It may not be of sufficiently high-quality for a particular journal,
your work may struggle to find a “natural home”, or you may be unlucky with the
 ARJ referee(s) that reviewed your paper. Alternatively, many have aimed too high for a
particular paper; publishing in a lower ranked journal or a specialist journal is arguably
27,1 better than not being published at all. However, whatever path you take, your overall
goal should be to produce high-quality publications.
Make a note that each article needs to be a standalone contribution and is not merely a
“cut and paste” of individual chapters of your PhD. It may be necessary to create a
16 background understanding to the material in the paper which may therefore require parts of
your initial chapters (1 and 2 usually) in the paper before adding the particular chapter
material (suitably adapted to meet the journal’s style) that will form the focus of the paper.
Experienced academics do not expect that their work will routinely be published in
A*/A journals[3]. If for every six to seven papers as a newer academic you get one into
an A*/A journal, or in a journal that is highly rated by your colleagues, you have been
very successful. The quality of the journal that you publish in is also frequently linked
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 00:33 31 January 2016 (PT)

to funds that may be made available to you to undertake further research, and form part
of promotion applications and annual performance reviews. Thus, whether or not you
are in favour of a journal-ranking system, your academic career is likely to be
significantly influenced by some form of quality assessment.
Be willing to have a number of trusted colleagues or leading researchers see your
pre-submitted work and invite them to provide you with feedback. Be realistic in your
expectations, as they will be busy people too, and possibly could be a potential reviewer
if you seek an expert in the area. (In such a situation, they will now be unlikely to be a
reviewer given their association with reviewing your pre-submitted research). Ensure
that you acknowledge them in your work prior to submission to a journal. There is also
a view that if you have received feedback from a number of eminent researchers in the
field, and this appears in the acknowledgements, this may favourably dispose the editor
towards your paper. However, it may also reduce the potential field of referees and some
editors are not well disposed towards name-dropping; consequently, proceed with
caution. Nevertheless, seeking out such input at this time may reduce some of the
disappointment later on, alert you to issues that need addressing prior to submission,
and refine your expectations for the paper. Acknowledge your PhD supervisors in your
work (and consider a joint publication with them).
Do not expect to always be successful; you need to be prepared for your work to be
rejected. Learn from what the referees and editors advise you, and “revise and
resubmit”, try elsewhere, or leave for a period and come back to your paper fresh. In
many cases you will eventually publish a much better paper than that which you
originally submitted. Importantly, do not accept criticism as an indication of failure,
rather take stock of the comments, seek guidance from colleagues and mentors and see
how you can work this into a revision of the paper. Determine how you will respond to
the referee and incorporate their feedback in your response to the editor. In some cases,
it may be not worth pursuing the research for an academic journal and either developing
something for another audience or leaving it alone and moving on (and perhaps coming
back to revisit the paper at some later time). On the positive side, celebrate your
successes; many Departments/Schools have a system to publicise their staff members’
publication successes, especially that of more junior staff.
As an editor with many years of experience, I receive a range in the quality of
submissions, from papers that are excellent to those that are questionable where I feel I
need to reject them from the start. In all cases, I seek to provide some feedback and
 guidance to the authors. Where I see potential, I tend to err on the side of seeking input Challenges in
from referees where the subject matter is outside my expertise. Papers that do not follow
the recommended suggestions, I have outlined earlier in my address, tend to “struggle”
publishing a
through the review and publication process, and frequently do not make it to being taxation paper
accepted for publication. Authors that respond reasonably when they disagree with
referees’ comments receive a fair evaluation from me as editor. The majority of papers I
have received as referee have been publishable, although frequently with 17
recommendations for major revisions, and in this way, you can become part of the
important process of academia – the creation and dissemination of knowledge.

6. Concluding observations
In this paper, I tried to keep my observations relatively generic of the challenges
involved in publishing high-quality papers, within the context of taxation, focussing on
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 00:33 31 January 2016 (PT)

the perspective of a sole author. The importance of publishing papers in high-quality

journals is vital to the career of any academic, especially in the current academic
environment. These observations reflect my experiences from ⬎ 20 years as an
academic. I attribute my success largely to my mentors and colleagues, as well as to
taking opportunities as they arose, and to be fair, having some good fortune along the
way, along with putting in the “hard yards”. I have had some wonderful co-authors that
have opened up opportunities for research to be published, accepted an invitation to
become an Editor of the NZJTLP and being invited onto a number of editorial boards for
international journals. Other academics no doubt will have similar experiences but,
depending, in part, on their areas of expertise and location, they could no doubt offer
other valuable contributions and insights.
Without experiencing the highs and lows of submissions for publication in academic
journals, one is not equipped to be an editor or referee. However, once you have
demonstrated the capability of a competent author who has been published, then you
may also reasonably expect to have an opportunity to be a referee. When you receive
your first invitation to review a paper, this should not be turned down lightly, nor
accepted without careful consideration, as the quality of your work will be duly noted by
the editor and taken into consideration when the editor contemplates utilising you as a
referee again. When you receive such an invitation, you should be in a position to draw
on your experiences as an author. High-quality publications in a good journal (or
journals) and positive experiences of refereeing from the perspective of an editor, may in
the future lead to the opportunity for further refereeing work, and potentially an
invitation to join an editorial board or board of advisors for a journal.

Notes
1. Further details of the NZJTLP, a double-blind peer-reviewed journal that publishes
high-quality research dealing with all aspects of tax policy and law, is available from the
publisher (Thomson Reuters). It is published four times a year.
2. For example, ATTA seeks to invite submissions of recently completed PhDs and SJDs for
review by a panel for potential selection to be published as a book jointly by ATTA and CCH.
3. For examples of current lists of journal rankings, see those by the Australian Business Deans
Council (ABDC) and the Council of Australian Law Deans (CALD). The Excellence in
Research for Australia (ERA) list is no longer current. The ABDC recently released its 2013
rankings of journals, which has seen more tax journals being ranked “A”.
 ARJ References
Alexander, D. (2013), “A critical review of the double-blind review: the second look”, EAA
27,1 Newsletter, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 17-18.
Di Pietra, R. (2013), “Reviewing and being reviewed: developing our paper with ‘anonymous
reviewers’”, EAA Newsletter, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 13-16.
McKenzie, H., Fogg, C., Drahota, A., Halson-Brown, S., Stores, R. and Dewey, A. (2012), “How to get
18 published”, South Sudan Medical Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 17-20.
McKerchar, M. (2010), Design and Conduct of Research in Tax, Law and Accounting, Thomson
Reuters, Sydney.
Mertz, E. (2012), “Publishing your work: the joy of editing PoLAR”, Political and Legal
Anthropology Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 4-10.
Moizer, P. (2009), “Publishing in accounting journals: a fair game?”, Accounting, Organisations
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 00:33 31 January 2016 (PT)

and Society, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 285-304.

Punch, K. (2011), Developing Effective Research Proposals, Sage Publications, London.
Salter, M. and Mason, J. (2012), Writing Law Dissertations: an Introduction and Guide to the
Conduct of Legal Research, 2nd ed., Pearson, London.
Sawyer, A.J. (1993a), “Company average effective tax rates: a conceptual framework within the
New Zealand experience”, A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Commerce in Accountancy, University of Canterbury.
Sawyer, A.J. (1993b), “The current “As You Please” disclosure of average effective tax rates: policy
issues and the need for reform and consistency”, Research Report for the New Zealand
Society of Accountants, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.
Sawyer, A.J. (1994), “An analysis of the ‘Tax Gap’ of listed public companies in New Zealand:
1984 – 1993”, Consultative Report for the New Zealand Treasury, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch.
Sawyer, A.J. (2007), “Developing an International (World) tax organisation for administering
binding rulings and APAs – the way forward”, SJD (Doctor of Juridical Science), University
of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville.
Sawyer, A.J. (2009), Developing a World Tax Organisation: The Way Forward, Fiscal
Publications.

About the author

Adrian Sawyer has over 20 years’ experience as an academic researcher, including 15 years as
a journal editor for the New Zealand Journal of Taxation Law and Policy, and numerous years
as a reviewer of papers for journals based in Asia, Australasia, Europe and North America.
Adrian Sawyer can be contacted at: adrian.sawyer@canterbury.ac.nz

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints