Donald D. Bergh’s “From the Editors: Thinking Strategically about Contribution,” published in The Academy of Management Journal in April 2003, offers a critical perspective on the process of academic publishing, particularly focusing on how authors can enhance their chances of acceptance by strategically considering the theoretical contribution of their work. Bergh, drawing from his personal journey as an author and later as an editor, reflects on the prevalent mistakes he once made and observes are still common in submissions to the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ).
Bergh’s Early Misconceptions and Rejections When Bergh first began submitting manuscripts to journals like AMJ, he “believed that what mattered most to reviewers and editors was a good, solid study”. He focused heavily on the strength and importance of his research, often paying “little attention to the thought that my studies should have implications for theory”. His initial approach was to “do good studies and then build the theory from the study’s unique features,” essentially assuming that a strong research method was paramount and the theory section could be “molded and shaped to fit the contributions and strengths of a strong research method”. This “build a better methodological mousetrap” strategy, however, “did not fare well at the journals,” leading to numerous rejection letters. He initially interpreted these rejections as reviewers and editors “missing the methodological strengths” of his work, causing him to reemphasize methodological nuances and resubmit elsewhere, only to meet the same fate.
The Realization: Theory and Contribution Matter Over time, Bergh learned that “theory and contribution do matter, and so does rigorous research”. He shares this “painful history” because many current AMJ submissions continue to make these same mistakes, and today’s reviewers are equally “adept at locating and pointing out the errors of this ‘magic in the method’ approach”. His column aims to help authors avoid these pitfalls.
A Strategic Approach to Publishing Bergh proposes reframing the publishing process by borrowing concepts from strategic management literature. He suggests thinking about manuscripts as “firms” that are “competing for limited resources (journal pages)”. Just as a firm’s performance is influenced by its “degree of fit with its environment,” a manuscript’s performance (i.e., its likelihood of publication) depends on its “degree of fit with its environment—in this case, a journal”. This strategic reasoning rests on two critical assumptions: (1) the manuscript must match its journal, and (2) the closer this link, the higher the likelihood of publication.
For a journal like AMJ, Bergh emphasizes that manuscripts focusing solely on “methodological features without an attendant theoretical contribution do not fare well” because “they are not aligned with our environment”. He notes that authors might highlight a better sample, stronger measures, or the addition of a new variable, but often provide “no or little explanation as to why the methodological advance is important”. The crucial question is: “why should the stakeholders of AMJ care about the new methodological feature? What is its value-added?”. For AMJ, the methodological feature must represent “some valuable contribution to theory development”.
Bergh’s Recommendations for Authors This understanding leads to Bergh’s first piece of advice: authors aiming for AMJ or similar journals “need to structure their manuscripts to highlight and explain their empirical and theoretical contributions”. More generally, authors “need to match their manuscripts with their most pertinent environment”. For AMJ, this means offering both empirical and theoretical contributions, as “both of these contributions are necessary for publication in AMJ”.
Recognizing that identifying a contribution is easier than judging its compelling nature, Bergh suggests a strategic framework for evaluating contributions. Borrowing from strategy, he recommends authors evaluate their manuscript’s contributions against three specific tests:
- Valuable: A contribution is valuable if it adds an insight that is “important and relevant for other researchers and/or practitioners”. This means it should “revise or extend theory development” or offer “something new” for managers. Authors must explicitly “argue how the contributions of their manuscripts are valuable,” moving beyond simply adding a variable to explaining “why that addition revises or extends knowledge”. Explaining and justifying the “value-added” is essential to remove doubt.
- Imitable (Specific): This test concerns whether the contribution is “specific to the theory that it is trying to extend or revise”. Authors should ensure that “all reasonable competing explanations of the proposed advance are controlled for” and that the contribution is “different from what can be explained using another theory”. Authors are encouraged to identify how their contributions are “specific to a particular perspective” and articulate how these differences are meaningful.
- Rareness (Originality): This final test addresses whether the contribution is “surprising and unexpected”. It asks if the contribution is merely a “common sense derivation, or does it represent a novel and unique insight?” with originality being a “critical concern”.
Combining these tests, Bergh’s second recommendation is that authors should “identify, explain, and argue for how their manuscripts’ contributions are valuable, specific to the theory they advance, and original”. He stresses the importance of doing “more than just mention the contribution—articulate and defend it”.
Conclusion: Strategic Positioning and Theoretical Contribution as the Deciding Factor Bergh concludes by encouraging authors to adopt a strategic approach to their submissions, viewing the review process as a “competitive exercise”. He believes authors will benefit from “thinking strategically about how to position their manuscripts” rather than taking a “product-oriented approach—like thinking a good methodology will win the day”. He advises authors to “prepare your manuscripts with respect to the dynamics of the competition,” keeping two strategic points in mind: (1) “ensure that its contribution is aligned with a receptive journal,” and (2) “identify and evaluate the content of the contribution so that you can presented and argue for it most effectively”. While “building a better methodological mousetrap may be part of making an AMJ contribution,” Bergh firmly states that “your theoretical contribution is ultimately the deciding factor” for publication.
Reference: Bergh, D. D. (2003). From the editors: Thinking strategically about contribution. The Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 135–138