10/24/2017

Editor’s View: Writing up your

research for publication

Richard Baskerville, Regents’ Professor

Georgia State University,
Atlanta, Georgia USA

Research Professor, Curtin University,

Perth, Western Australia

Editor Emeritus, European Journal of Information Systems

Open Rubric
1
 10/24/2017

From:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php/tellafriend.php?comi
cid=798

“What do you want me to know?

Why should I care?
Why should I believe it?”
Ray Paul, Editor Emeritus EJIS

2
 10/24/2017

Plan
• Part 1: Mechanics
– Scientific reporting: Technical or Creative Writing?
– Perspectives: The audiences & “their” parts of the paper
– The organization and the red thread
• Part 2: The Paper
– The introduction: how to motivate the readers
– The literature review: establishing a gap
– The methodology: real science
– The findings: compelling, not boring
– The discussion: establishing a contribution
– The conclusion: the supported claims
– The abstract
– The appendix
– Avoiding Bugs

Part 1: Mechanics

SCIENTIFIC REPORTING: TECHNICAL

OR CREATIVE WRITING?

3
 10/24/2017

The Audience Size vs. Text Size

Size of Text

Full Text

Partial Text

Abstract

Title

Size of Audience

Workload
Your reader (Inversely Proportional) You

Work Done by
the Author

Work Done by
the Reader

You Your reader

4
 10/24/2017

PERSPECTIVES: THE AUDIENCES &

“THEIR” PARTS OF THE PAPER

Perspectives
• The owner and publisher
• The editor
• The reviewer
• The reader
• The author

5
 10/24/2017

The owner and publisher

If lots of staff demand my articles, their libraries will

subscribe and/or pay download fees

The editor

If lots of academics cite my articles, my impact

factors will rise and more researchers will submit
their best research to me

(Your first, and maybe your

only audience)

6
 10/24/2017

The reviewer
I might learn something new about my topic or
about reviewing. This could help me in writing my
own research. Maybe I can suggest cites to my
work!

(Experts: your second, and

maybe your only audience)

14

Reviewers will Answer

• What is the purpose of the paper?
• Is the paper appropriate?
• Is the goal significant?
• Is the method of approach valid?
• Is the actual execution of the research correct?
• Are the correct conclusions drawn from the
results?
• Is the presentation satisfactory?
• What do we learn?

(From Smith 1990)

7
 10/24/2017

15

Reviewers will Recommend

• Categories of recommendations:
– (1) Major results; very significant (fewer than 1 percent of
all papers).
– (2) Good, solid, interesting work; a definite contribution
(fewer than 10 percent).
– (3) Minor, but positive, contribution to knowledge
(perhaps 10-30 percent).
– (4) Elegant and technically correct but useless. This
category includes sophisticated analyses of flying pigs.
– (5) Neither elegant nor useful, but not actually wrong.
– (6) Wrong and misleading.
– (7) So badly written that technical evaluation is impossible.

(From Smith 1990)

The reader

I might learn something new about my topic that I

can use in my own research.

(Experts and non-experts:

your third audience, and the
ones you need to reach the
most.)

8
 10/24/2017

The author
If my article gets accepted and published, I might get
rewarded, promoted, tenured or have my workload
adjusted.

18

THE ORGANIZATION AND THE RED

THREAD

9
 10/24/2017

The red thread (fil rouge)

(A warp thread holding a garment together)

• The introduction motivates the research question or

purpose
– That’s why people should care.
• The literature review shows the gap
• The methodology shows the rigor in the science
– That’s why people should believe you.
• The findings answers the research question or
purpose
– That’s what people learn from you
• The discussion explains the contribution
– How (findings) adds to (satisfied motive) and (filled gap)
• The conclusion pronounces the main claim

Simple Red Thread

20

Intro

Lit Rev

Findings
Method

Discussion Conclusion

10
 10/24/2017

21

A venerable mistake

22

Every paper is an argument

(Weston, A. (2000). A rulebook for arguments (3rd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett)

• Sound logic: Write like a debater

• Every claim is backed:
– Previous research
• Published in places as equally respectable as the
proposed venue
– Empirical evidence
– Argumentation proceeding from the above

11
 10/24/2017

23

The Toulmin Model of an Argument

Steven Toulmin (1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press

(Qualifier)
Claim
(Rebuttal)
Warrant
(Backing)

Support
(Rebuttal)

24

The Toulmin Model of an Argument

Steven Toulmin (1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press

• Major parts:
– Claim: The point being argued.
– Support: Persuasive reasons: Evidence, proof, data, arguments, or grounds. May consist
of facts, statistics, expert opinion, examples, explanations, and logical reasoning.
– Warrants: Underlying assumptions. Generally accepted beliefs and values, usually
unstated and implied.
• Optional parts
– Qualifiers: Arguments are rarely certain, the claims rarely absolute.
– Rebuttal: Refutation of opposing claims and alternative explanations of supporting
evidence.
– Backing: Evidence to support the warrant
• Five Categories of Claims
– Claims of fact.
– Claims of definition.
– Claims of cause.
– Claims of value.
Adapted from Chas Swadley (2006), Oklahoma University
– Claims of policy. http://students.ou.edu/S/Charles.R.Swadley- 1/argumentation.htm who
draws on Nancy Wood's Perspectives on Argument, 2nd ed. (pp.161-72)

12
 10/24/2017

25

Part 2: The Paper

THE INTRODUCTION: HOW TO

MOTIVATE THE READERS

The introduction motivates

(That’s why Ray should care.)

• Top journals publish “interesting research”

• What makes a research report
“interesting”?

13
 10/24/2017

27

Denying some part of the assumption

ground
“All interesting theories, at least all interesting social
theories, then, attack the taken-for-granted worlds of
their audiences. An audience will consider any particular
proposition to be worth saying only if it denies the truth
of some part of their routinely held assumption-ground. If
it does not challenge but merely confirms one of their
taken-for-granted beliefs, they will respond to it by
rejecting its value while affirming its truth. They will
declare that the proposition need not be stated because
it is already part of their theoretical scheme: ‘Of course.’
‘That's obvious.’ ‘Everybody knows that.’ ‘It goes without
saying.’
(Davis, 1971, p. 311)

The Davis Rhetoric

• “(1) The author articulates the taken-for-granted assumptions
of his imagined audience by reviewing the literature of the
particular sub-tradition in question ("It has long been thought .
. .").
• (2) He adduces one or more propositions that deny what has
been traditionally assumed ("But this is false . . .").
• (3) He spends the body of the work proving by various
methodological devices that the old routinely assumed
propositions are wrong while the new ones he has asserted
are right ("We have seen instead that . . .").
• (4) In conclusion, he suggests the practical consequences of
these new propositions for his imagined audience's on-going
social research, specifically how they ought to deflect
research onto new paths (Further investigation is necessary
to . . .).”
(Davis, 1971, p. 311)

14
 10/24/2017

29

The Davis “Interesting Index”

30

Example: Davis 1971 Introduction

(First Paragraph)
“It has long been thought that a theorist is
considered great because his theories are true, but
this is false. A theorist is considered great, not
because his theories are true, but because they are
interesting. Those who carefully and exhaustively
verify trivial theories are soon forgotten, whereas
those who cursorily and expediently verify
interesting theories are long remembered. In fact,
the truth of a theory has very little to do with its
impact, for a theory can continue to be found
interesting even though its truth is disputed — even
refuted!”
(Davis, 1971, p. 309)

15
 10/24/2017

31

THE LITERATURE REVIEW:

ESTABLISHING A GAP

The literature review shows the gap

• This too is an argument
– Claim: an important gap exists
– Claim: gap can be theorized
• Comprehensive
– Focus on referred literature: high quality refereed journal articles
• Yes…and high quality books if widely cited
• No…forget obscure stuff, especially if its yours
– Subject area (a table can help)
• Seminal works
• Recent works
• Works commanding relevant future research
– “Kernel” theories
• Must be justified
• Mainly seminal works and “conditioning” works
– Methodology
• No…cover briefly in methodology section

16
 10/24/2017

33

THE METHODOLOGY: REAL SCIENCE

The methodology shows the rigor

in the science
(That’s why Ray should believe you.)
• Use methods that are well-described in the
referred literature
– Reduces your burden
– Only describe adaptation
• Describe and justify empirical provenance
– Sample, sampling procedure
– Data collection
– Case settings, history, selection basis

17
 10/24/2017

35

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?
f=1887

36

THE FINDINGS: COMPELLING, NOT

BORING

18
 10/24/2017

The findings answer the research

question or purpose
(What Ray learns from you.)

• Still an argument
– Must compel the reader to believe your
results
• Know and rebut the “vogue” complaints
– E.g., Quantitative tests for mediation vs
moderation
• Use of data windows in qualitative studies
to increase authenticity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDNCkcC47eQ

38

THE DISCUSSION: ESTABLISHING A

CONTRIBUTION

19
 10/24/2017

The discussion explains the

contribution
• How (findings) adds to (satisfied motive) and
(filled gap)
• Explain the contribution in terms of literature
cited earlier in the paper
– Our study [confirms, supports] previous …
– Our study [extends, elaborates] previous …
– Our study [contradicts, conditions] previous …
• Use care: reviewers may be vested in the debunked
– Our study breaks new ground ….
• Limitations and future research
– Not actually that different
– Good site for treating impossible reviewer comments

40

Why reviewers may be deeply invested

in theories you disprove…

From: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1144

20
 10/24/2017

41

Conditioning Existing Theory

• Conditioning, rather than contradicting a
theory means setting new boundaries around
the range of phenomena to which the
preexisting theory applies.
• The proposed theory applies to the range of
phenomena beyond this newly discovered
boundary.
• Yes….its a finesse, but an practical one.

42

THE CONCLUSION: THE SUPPORTED

CLAIMS

21
 10/24/2017

The conclusion pronounces the

main claim
• Concise statement of fulfilled purpose
• Final point on the red thread
• Avoid dependence on “implications” or
claims unsupported by the study

44

THE ABSTRACT

22
 10/24/2017

45

The abstract
• Using _________ methodology, this study
finds _________. This contribution is
important because __________.
• Not a teaser, it is an elevator pitch.
• Just the facts. Got 5 facts? List
and define all 5.

46

For example
The ubiquity of computing is necessarily disseminating computer
expertise more widely. As a result, organisational IT expertise no
longer resides solely in its information systems divisions. Is the
increase in user IT expertise making them better partners in systems
implementations? In this study we report a questionnaire-based
survey of 79 companies with enterprise systems projects. It is a
sophisticated survey because it matches responses from each
company’s IS department with those of its user departments. The
research finds that IT competence held jointly by developers and users
significantly improves user satisfaction. The results also indicate how
joint leadership in systems development projects is also a positive
effect. This finding is a timely addition to the IS success literature
because many users are increasingly motivated and competent to
serve as full partners in IS development. Developers can no longer
restrict these experts to service merely as a requirements vehicle and
expect to achieve the same levels of success as those who regard them
as partners.
Baskerville, R. (2009) The EJIS editorial organisation and
submissions. European Journal of Information Systems 18(1).

23
 10/24/2017

47

THE APPENDIX

48

The Appendix
• Device for managing length
• Increasing use of online appendices
• Sometimes download automatically with
online article access
• Rule: Details unnecessary to compel the
concluding claims
• Paper should stand alone without the
appendices

24
 10/24/2017

49

AVOIDING BUGS

Avoiding bugs
• Length Use of tables and figures
• Use of headings and sub-headings
• Citations and references
– Avoid interrupting sentences
• Text Reuse or Self-plagiarism

25
 10/24/2017

51

Length
– Find a model and mimic it
– Trading off work between the author and the
reader
– Short, active case, helps you to be clear
– Don’t be afraid of “useful ambiguity” (Peter
Checkland)
– Length can irritate reviewers

Use of tables and figures

• Forces an organization on backing
– Should clarify and simplify
– Not complicate
• Central mechanism for reducing length

26
 10/24/2017

Use of headings and sub-headings

• Learn how to use styles
• Follow publication style: The document should
look like a publication in the venue at hand
• Avoid sub-heading depth greater than 3 levels
– Otherwise, consider a table
• Consider numbering headings for review, even
where not publication style
– Conveys the organization

Citations and references

• Use a reference/citation manager
• Follow publication style

27
 10/24/2017

Text Reuse or Self-plagiarism

• Tool based editorial scrutiny
– iThenticate
– Splat
• Turning up data and case reuse, also papers drawing separate conclusions
for different audiences (such as practice vs. academic).
• Some resources:
– Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2009). Self-plagiarism or appropriate textual re-use?
Journal of Academic Ethics, 7(3), 193-205.
– Bird, S. J. (2002). Self-plagiarism and dual and redundant publications: What is
the problem? Science and engineering ethics, 8(4), 543-544.
– Scanlon, P. M. (2007). Song from myself: an anatomy of self-plagiarism.
Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification,
57.
– Samuelson, P. (1994). Self-plagiarism or fair use. Communications of the ACM,
37(8), 21-25.
– Collberg, C., & Kobourov, S. (2005). Self-plagiarism in computer science.
Communications of the ACM, 48(4), 88-94.
• Advice: Each journal deserves original text.

References:
• Davis, M. (1971). That's interesting.
Philosophy of Social Science, 1, 309-344.
• Smith, A. J. (1990). The Task of the
Referee. Computer, 23(4), 65-71.

28
 10/24/2017

Editors View: Writing up your

research for publication

Richard Baskerville, Regents’ Professor

Georgia State University,
Atlanta, Georgia USA

Research Professor, Curtin University,

Perth, Western Australia

Editor Emeritus, European Journal of Information Systems

58

29