Lisa Ellram is a co-editor-in-chief of Journal of Supply Chain Management. She conducts the second half of the doctoral consortium here at MWDSI 2009 on publishing.

JSCM’s Mission:

  • special topic forums (esp. to do cutting-edge, latest-topic stuff)
  • broad def. of SCM; encourage other disciplines to submit
  • invited papers from leading scholars in other disciplines: effort to draw readers from other disciplines (good article coming up from Steve Borgatti on social network analysis!), boost citation rate

JSCM contribution areas:

  • not so much modeling!
  • more behavioral
  • strong contribution to theory (remember: theory building is hard to do and hard to publish! Ellram has seen dozens of papers proposing some unified theory of SCM; none got published)
  • relevant methodologies
  • used to have managerial readership; has moved away from that audience; still has some readership among hardcore high-level managerial folks; but still does want managerial contribution pointed out

The Review Process:

  1. Round 1: Editor looks: “should it go out for review? is this the right outlet?” –> reviewers and assoc. editors –> editor
  2. Round 2: AE –> Editor (often journals with no AEs send round 2 back to reviewers)
  3. Round 3: Editor

JSCM aims for 90-day turnaround, publication within year; working on online submission process. JSCM has improved age-weighted citation metric from 3.0 in 2007 to 10.91 in 2008. Acceptance rate is 9-10%

Ellram says you should really read into the reviewers’ comments, make sure you answer everything; don’t just mention and keep it the way you wanted, but fix it! Think interp judging: when you tell a competitor to do something, and the competitor doesn’t adjust, you get cranky! Reviewers are the same! Don’t make reviewers mad!

Have a mix of publications at the different levels of journals. If you send all your stuff to the A journals, you may be sitting at your 3-year review with nothing published yet, just because of long turnaround time. For doctoral students, pubs in B journals relevant to your field are fine! It’s good to have an article or two under review in the A’s. And having something under review is better than nothing! Note: some schools won’t count pubs you wrote as a Ph.D. students, so one could argue that having stuff under review is better than having it already published, since the university that hires you can then get its name on it!

Spreading out pubs among A’s and B’s also helps you get more feedback. You can’t wait for A-list feedback on everything, especially if you want to build on the work. And you can get in trouble for publishing in the wrong places (“Look at this prof; his priorities are all wrong!”)

Big Publishing Advice for Job Hunting:

  • When interviewing, find out what the school’s expectations are! Diff. schools have widely varying rubrics. Expectations can change with simple personnel changes: new pres., even new dean may change the whole focus. The target can change; always aim high, stay off the margin.
  • Have some solo authorships, just to prove you really can stand on your own.

Writing an Effective Paper:

  • review the journal
  • get peer reviews (and expect to do favors in return)
  • proofread (hire a professional editor!)
  • stick to format like glue (don’t give anyone an excuse to nuke you!)
  • never hurts: snag a big-name co-author, esp. one who has gotten published in that journal

Reviewing and Resubmitting:

  • Revision hurts, but do it! It’s work for everyone!
  • Respond respectfully to every point
  • If reviews conflict, ask editor for advice (but don’t bug ’em too much).
  • Revise even if you send article elsewhere; your reviewers may well be working for that other journal, too! If they recognize an unrevised article, kablooie!

Wendy Tate of U Tenn says reviews are always tough. Harden your keester.

Doing Reviews:

  • quid pro quo
  • be timely (get ‘er done!): do some Golden Rule turnaround
  • four a year is a reasonable amount from a given journal (editors: don’t overuse your good reviewers!); Tate does more; maybe think about the fact that 3-4 people read each article you submit, so maybe you should read 3-4 for each article you submit.
  • evaluate and develop: be nice! be constructive!
  • it’s better to say no than to give an inferior review. Don’t take on too many!
  • put it on your vita
  • learn! watch for good ideas!