This editorial, “Publishing in AMJ—Part 5: Crafting the Methods and Results,” authored by Yan (Anthea) Zhang and Jason D. Shaw, is a crucial installment in a seven-part series offering advice for enhancing the quality of submissions to The Academy of Management Journal (AMJ). While authors may be tempted to “relax their concentration” when writing the Methods and Results sections, considering them less important than other parts of a manuscript, the editors unequivocally state that these sections “often play a major role in how reviewers evaluate a manuscript”. High-quality Methods and Results sections are not merely perfunctory; they are critical for convincing audiences that theoretical arguments are supported and send “positive signals about the conscientiousness of the author(s),” potentially swaying reviewers toward a revision request rather than a rejection.
Based on an evaluation of decision letters for rejected manuscripts, the authors identify a remarkably consistent set of major concerns, which they summarize as “the three C’s”: completeness, clarity, and credibility.
For the Methods section, the “three C’s” encompass:
- Completeness: Authors must provide a detailed account of data collection, construct operationalizations, and analysis types, including the “hows, whats, and whys” of research procedures. This allows readers to evaluate strengths and weaknesses and, ideally, replicate the study.
- Clarity: It is imperative to clearly explain what was done, avoid vague language regarding adapted measures, and provide justification and empirical validation for modifications. Clear justification for variable coding decisions is also essential.
- Credibility: Authors should address why a particular sample was chosen, summarize conceptual definitions before describing measures, explain why specific operationalizations were used (especially when alternatives exist), and justify model specification and data analysis approaches.
Similarly, for the Results section, the “three C’s” highlight:
- Completeness: This includes providing tables for means, standard deviations, and correlations to offer an overall picture of the data, which is critical for judging the credibility of findings. Authors must also explicitly specify the unit of analysis, sample size, and dependent variable for each model, especially when these vary.
- Clarity: Authors should directly link their findings to the study’s hypotheses, clearly stating whether each hypothesis is supported or not, often by summarizing the hypothesis before reporting results. All results, whether statistically significant or not, and whether supporting or opposite to predictions, must be addressed directly and clearly.
- Credibility: Authors need to demonstrate why their interpretations of results are correct, for instance, by plotting significant interaction effects. Employing supplementary analyses and robustness checks can address concerns about “cherry-picking” findings. Furthermore, authors should demonstrate the practical importance of statistically significant findings, going beyond mere significance to explain their real-world relevance.
In conclusion, Zhang and Shaw urge authors to invest greater care in crafting their Methods and Results sections, emphasizing that following the “completeness, clarity, and credibility” framework is a fundamental “recipe” for success in the review process.
Reference:
Zhang, Y., & Shaw, J. D. (2012). From the editors: Publishing in AMJ—Part 5: Crafting the methods and results. The Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 8-12.
