These notes are taken from a presentation by Professor Robert Faff, the editor of Accounting & Finance Journal.
Focussing on the PhD, what examiners are looking for is what editors are looking for. And so, what are examiners looking for? Examiners are looking for publishable theses, acceptable approaches and research. The PhD will be much more wordy and have appendices that don’t see the light of day in publication, but if the phd looks like it will end up as publishable work. As a phd candidate, paint the examiners into a corner to show that the work is publishable – and of course if the work has been published then it is easily shown to be publishable and that makes it easier for the examiner to pass the phd.
There are several things that editors are looking for:
-
Contribution, contribution, contribution – to theory and practice. This is probably the primary thing, that is a paper’s ‘contribution’ is the most important thing. Now this is easy to say but so hard to put into practice and just nail this.
-
Fit with the scope of the journal – does the paper fit the scope of the journal and the type of paper that the journal publishes?
-
A paper that is provided with an analytical basis rather than descriptive will be preferred (or at least it will be for a journal like Accounting and Finance).
-
Citability -this is a side effect of where we are in the world of research, but if the paper increase the journal’s citation metrics, if it will show that the paper fits with the journal, then you’re in.
-
Polish/professional presentation – be sure to submit a final finished paper, a style that shows that the author has cared about the way in which you’ve crafted the paper. If the paper doesn’t present well, then the reviewer’s question is all about whether the research is also lackadaisial (the duck theory – if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it’s a duck)
-
Internal consistency – is the PhD or paper internally consistent
-
Evidence of workshopping/feedback on the results that have been received
Overall a quality of the paper that is at a sufficient level, noting that contribution is important. As an editor he noted that there are more and more desk rejects from editors these days. Papers do need to have an analytical basis rather than being just descriptive – you need a theory to underpin what you are looking at.
Motivation for the paper and the research is really important. As an author you need to answer ‘what’s new’ and ‘so what’. In this context, he noted an earlier review comment:
“What incremental contribution does the current paper make to this area of iterature? For example, the fact that the paper investigates Country ‘X’ data with no good reason, leaves me feeling unsatisfied about the real contribution of this paper. What is it about Country X’s market that will provide useful insights on the research question that we don’t already know from other existing studies?”
Finally, don’t make overstated claims in your paper that are not supported by your paper.
Note: taken at RHD Colloquium.