THE RESEARCHER'S EYE
You are reviewing a top-journal manuscript. The empirical results are impeccable, but the theoretical argument is weak. The authors demonstrate that X predicts Y, but not why. Reject, revise, or reconsider the framing?
Usually major revision/reconsideration, provided the empirical phenomenon is important enough. The key issue is not the statistics but the missing explanatory mechanism/theoretical logic.
“Consumers who perceive a brand as authentic are more loyal; therefore, authenticity creates loyalty.” What is the immediate problem?
Correlation ≠ causation. The design must support a causal claim before claiming that authenticity creates loyalty.
Strong research question. Strong data. Weak writing. Can good research survive poor communication?
Technically yes, but publication quality suffers. Research contribution must be communicated clearly enough for reviewers/readers to understand and evaluate it.
Your paper is almost ready. Your senior co-author has contributed very little, but you know their name will make the submission stronger. Do you keep them on the paper?
Not simply because of status. Authorship should reflect substantial scholarly contribution and accountability. If the person has not contributed enough, discuss their role; acknowledgement may be more appropriate.
The Citation Favour: A senior scholar cites your paper and emails: “I'm happy to cite your work. Perhaps you could also cite a couple of my recent papers—they're quite relevant.” Normal academic networking or citation manipulation?
Depends on relevance. Citing genuinely relevant work is legitimate. Adding citations primarily because of pressure, reciprocity, or status is problematic.
A paper has an impressive theoretical framework, 8 hypotheses, and 6 significant relationships. Yet you finish reading and cannot explain what we know now that we did not know before. What is missing?
A clear contribution. The paper may have hypotheses and results without establishing what genuinely changes in existing knowledge.
“Our sample consists of MBA students because they are educated consumers and therefore representative of the general population.” Find the flaw.
Unjustified generalizability. Being educated does not make MBA students representative of the population on all relevant characteristics.
Robust methodology. Significant results. Very incremental contribution. Major revision or reject?
Likely reject or major revision depending on the journal and whether the authors can establish a meaningful contribution. Excellent execution cannot completely compensate for an insignificant question.
A journal asks for three potential reviewers. You know three excellent scholars who work in your area, and one of them is your friend. Can you suggest them?
Yes, if they are genuinely qualified and you disclose any relevant conflict where required. Being a colleague/friend doesn't automatically make someone unsuitable, but journals may have rules against close collaborators or conflicts.
At a conference, someone suggests an idea that significantly improves your paper. Six months later, you publish the revised paper using that idea. Do you owe them anything?
Usually not authorship. If their contribution was simply a suggestion, acknowledgement may be appropriate. If they subsequently make a substantial intellectual contribution to the research, authorship could become appropriate.
A researcher says: “Our findings are robust because the results remain significant after adding 12 control variables.” What should an experienced researcher question?
Whether the controls are theoretically justified. More controls do not automatically mean greater robustness; they can introduce multicollinearity, over-control, or post-treatment bias.
“The relationship was insignificant until we removed three outliers. After removing them, it became significant.” What questions should you ask?
Why were they removed? Were the criteria pre-specified? Are they genuine data errors or legitimate observations? Was the analysis conducted with and without them?
Highly novel theoretical argument. Weak empirical evidence. Is novelty enough to justify publication?
No. Novelty creates potential contribution, but the evidence must credibly support the claims. The appropriate standard depends on the paper's purpose and design.
You submit a paper. Six months later, you receive a rejection with extremely useful reviewer comments. Another journal asks whether the paper has been submitted elsewhere. Can you substantially revise the paper using those comments and submit it?
Yes. Reviewer feedback from a rejected manuscript can inform a new submission, provided the paper is no longer under consideration elsewhere and the work remains yours.
Your manuscript is ready. Your co-author says: “Don't submit yet. Add five more papers from this journal. Editors like to see that you engage with the journal.” Do you do it?
Only if they genuinely strengthen the paper. Strategic engagement with the target journal is legitimate; padding references simply to curry favour is not.
Two papers study the same phenomenon. A: robust methodology, simple question. B: genuinely novel question, relatively simple methodology. Which has greater research potential—and why?
No automatic winner. The strongest answer recognizes the trade-off: novelty creates potential contribution, but methodological weakness can undermine the inference. The ideal paper has a compelling question and credible identification.
“We controlled for age, gender, income, education, tenure, experience, personality, and 7 other variables, so our relationship is definitely not confounded.” Why should this worry you?
More controls ≠ better causal inference. Controls need theoretical justification. Some may be mediators, colliders, redundant variables, or sources of multicollinearity.
The study produces a null result, but that null result challenges a dominant assumption. Is it publishable?
Yes. A theoretically informative null can be valuable—especially with strong design, adequate power, precise estimation, and a clear theoretical rationale for why the null matters.
You discover that a very famous professor has published almost exactly your idea while your paper is still under review. Your data are better, but the novelty claim is now weaker. Do you withdraw, rewrite, or wait?
Reassess the contribution. If the paper still offers a meaningful extension, boundary condition, context, method, or contradictory evidence, revise and position it against the new work. “Someone got there first” does not automatically kill the paper.
You receive a review invitation for a paper written by someone you know. You've met at conferences, exchanged emails and cited each other's work. Accept or decline?
Not automatically a conflict. The key question is whether you can provide an independent review and whether the journal considers the relationship a conflict. When uncertain, disclose the relationship to the editor.
A paper reports p < .05, a large sample, and a sophisticated model. What is the first thing you would want to know before deciding whether the finding is convincing?
What is the effect size and its practical/theoretical significance? Statistical significance alone does not establish substantive importance.
A researcher collects data for 10 variables, finds that X is significantly related to Y, and builds the paper around that relationship. Later, you discover that 20 other relationships were tested but not reported. What should immediately concern you?
Selective reporting and multiple testing. The probability of finding at least one apparently significant result increases when many relationships are tested. The researcher should transparently report the analyses and distinguish confirmatory from exploratory findings.
Three reviewers say: “Interesting, but generic.” Authors respond: “No previous study has combined these variables in this context.” Who is more likely to be right?
The reviewers' criticism is not answered by novelty of combination alone. The authors must demonstrate what the combination reveals that existing knowledge could not explain. “Nobody has done X + Y” is not automatically a contribution.
Your co-author says: “Put my name on the paper. It will help with the journal.” They have given feedback on drafts but have not substantially contributed to the research. What do you do?
Have the authorship conversation. Supervisory status alone does not establish authorship. If they have not made a qualifying contribution, authorship should not be granted merely for hierarchy or publication advantage. If there is pressure or retaliation, seek institutional/journal guidance.
Your paper is accepted. Your co-author wants to upload the accepted manuscript immediately to ResearchGate, your institutional repository and Academia.edu. Can you?
Not automatically. It depends on the publisher's copyright and self-archiving policy, and on which version is being shared. Acceptance does not mean unrestricted distribution.