Journal of Business Logistics, 2014, 35(1): 116

Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

Editorial
A Trail Guide to Publishing Success: Tips on Writing Inuential
Conceptual, Qualitative, and Survey Research
Stanley E. Fawcett1, Matthew A. Waller2, with Jason W. Miller3, Matthew A. Schwieterman3,
Benjamin T. Hazen4, and Robert E. Overstreet5
1

Weber State University

University of Arkansas
3
The Ohio State University
4
Auburn University
5
Air Force Institute of Technology
2

ublishing in top journals is difcult. Common challenges undermine authors attempts to explain and inuence their discipline's understanding and practice. We identify and describe these roadblocks to publishing success. We also benchmark best practice in management,
marketing, and supply chain journals to provide a trail guide for writingand publishinginuential conceptual, qualitative, and survey
research. Given equinality in research, our trail guide should not be viewed as the only way to craft excellent, inuential research. However, if
we agree on the basics, we can (1) increase consistency in the review process, (2) reduce publication cycles, and (3) begin to roll back the
length of articles.
Keywords: theory development; storytelling; conceptual; qualitative; methodology

INTRODUCTION
Publishing in top journals is difcult. It is also highly rewarding.
Successful authors know that the publishing process is often a
long, uphill, and potentially perilous journey. The rstand most
importantstep in the journey is ideation; that is, coming up with
an interesting research question that, if well answered, will inuence how we think and act (see Davis 1971 or Fawcett and Waller 2011a). Research questions guide the early phase of the
knowledge-discovery journey, including choice of informing theory, research method, and data sources. A successful journey,
however, requires the endurance of meticulous execution, rened
thinking, and great storytelling. These markersquestion, theory,
methods, data, and storysignal whether you are on the path to
making a valid and valuable contribution. Because the publication
success rate is low (often under 10%) and the process is arduous
and time consuming, we seek to provide authors some tips to
make the journey a little easierand less career threatening.
Before sharing the tips, let us share how we derived them. As
editors at the Journal of Business Logistics, we have delimited
reviewer comments and concerns to help us proactively screen
papers for t and readiness. One result: A 50% desk-reject rate.
Our goal here is twofold.
1. By desk rejecting articles that have no chance to survive the
journey to print, we save authors 6090 days of review cycle
time they can use to reposition and improve their research.
2. We reduce the burden on JBLs review team.
Corresponding author:
Stanley E. Fawcett, Business Administration, Weber State University, WB 267, Ogden, UT 84408, USA; E-mail: stan.e.fawcett@
gmail.com

In all but egregious cases of poor t, we have tried to provide

authors with a reasonable review so they can move their work
forward. This proactive screening has given us a real appreciation for the roadblocks that impede authors progress to publication. Table 1 summarizes the common signs that authors are on
a perilous path to rejection and acts as a publishing trail guide.
Of note, reviewers who identify three or more major-level danger
signs typically recommend rejection. Beyond fatal methods
aws, the most common and perilous combination of issues
identied by reviewers is a lack of justication, poor theoretical
grounding, and scarce contribution.
Of course, the objective of the peer-review processat every
stagegoes beyond gatekeeping. At JBL, our immediate goal
is to collaborate with authors to help them make a meaningful
contribution to theory and practice. Our end hope is to provide
society a real return on its research investment by promoting and
publishing research that improves value creation in industry and
informs teaching at all levels. To do this, we must do more than
merely help authors avoid the so-called rejection roadblocks. We
must provide tips to help authors conceptualize and tell a convincing story from start to nish. With this in mind, we benchmarked best practice in top-tier management, marketing, and
supply chain journals to draft trail guides in three areas: conceptual theory building, qualitative investigation, and survey
research. Why develop trail guides for these three domains? Two
issues motivate our efforts:
1.

We want to encourage more high-quality conceptual and

inductive research. Trail guides help dene the standardized
language and acceptable methods for authors and reviewers
alike to determine and communicate quality (see Pratt 2009).
2. We receive high volumes of survey research. The methods
sections often fail to describe in a clear and easy-to-review

S. E. Fawcett et al.

Table 1: Warning signs that authors are wandering down a perilous path
Signs of publishing peril
First impression
Abstract
Does not identify research question
Does not explain why the research question is important
Fails to describe the methods used
Does not communicate ndings and contributions
Writing Style
The paper is formatted for another journal
The paper is poorly written and very hard to read/understand
The length-to-contribution ratio is poor
Justication
Authors fail to state the research question up front
Authors dont articulate why the question needs to be addressed
Authors neglect to clearly show that extant research is inadequate
Theoretical Grounding
The paper reviews the literature, but is not grounded in theory
Authors dont synthesize theoretical perspectives
Authors dont articulate theoretical conversation they are joining
Authors use dangling or disjointed theory
Hypotheses/propositions do not emerge logically from theory
Methods
Authors dont justify research method
The paper inappropriately employs acceptable method
The paper fails to provide adequate description of methods
The paper goes into too much description of methods
Authors rely on an inappropriate data source
Findings and Discussion
Findings and discussion are detached from the data
Findings and discussion are clearly incomplete
Findings and discussion are not very interesting
Contributions
Authors dont articulate clear theoretical implications
Authors neglect managerial implications
Contributions are poorly dened or simply insufcient
Limitations and Future Research
When shared, limitations and future research lack substance

format what was done to assure robust results. Reviewers

often ask for clarications that should have been included in
the initial submissiona fact that lengthens submission-todecision lead times.

Tips

Take the time to write a clear abstract. It is the rst thing a

reviewer reads and sets a rst impression that either sells or
undermines your research

Dont create cognitive dissonance. Look at recent articles.

Invest in a good copy editor
Tell a clear, concise, and compelling story
Finding a gap is not sufcient. Some gaps dont need to be
closed. Provide a real So, what? to motivate your
research
Identify theories that truly inform research, citing key articles.
Explain connections without reiterating the obvious, identify
potential limits, and derive succinct hypotheses/propositions/
extensions

Make sure your method is appropriate for addressing your

research question. Explain your methods clearly and in
sufcient detail. Follow established procedures and make it
easy for reviewers to see what youve done
Concisely discuss ndings, always drawing conclusions from
your analysis. Seek feedback via friendly reviewers

Demonstrate how your research contributes to theory and

practice. Be explicit and thoughtful

Be substantive or leave off entirely

struct is conceptualized and operationalized) (Yadav 2010). Conceptual research can address a wide range of entities including
constructs, domains, processes, and theories (MacInnis 2011).
Why do conceptual research?

TIPS FOR CONDUCTING AND WRITING UP

CONCEPTUAL RESEARCH
Conceptual research is scientic inquiry that relies on abstract
thinkingas opposed to empirical, data-driven researchto conceptualize, delimit, and solve real-world problems (Corley and
Gioia 2011; MacInnis 2011). Conceptual research is often associated with the discovery phase of scientic progress (i.e., introducing a new theory), but it also serves an important role in the
justication phase of scientic progress (i.e., revising how a con-

As evidenced by citations and best-paper awards, conceptual articles can make a real, disproportionate impact on knowledge discoveryand a disciplines maturity and contribution (Yadav
2010; MacInnis 2011). Conceptual research helps us see the world
and decision-making phenomenathrough new lenses, enabling
us to nd new trailheads for existing and emerging problem-solving quests. Once these research opportunities are identied,
subsequent empirical research moves us further down the knowledge-discovery path. Conceptual research is thus synergistically
intertwined with empirical research, with Yadav (2010) stating,

A Trail Guide to Publishing Success

When one key element in the mix of contributions is removed or

altered signicantly, knowledge development processes are likely
to be affectedoften in unanticipated ways (p. 5). A discipline
that struggles to produce high-quality conceptual research may be
opting for the slow lane to knowledge discovery and dissemination.
When is conceptual research appropriate?
Conceptual research can bridge many knowledge gaps, but it is
particularly tting in the following three scenarios.
1.

Problem is not Conducive to Empiricism. Many routes to

inquiry, such as challenging the assumptions that underlie theories we use to explain supply chain management (SCM) phenomena, are not well suited to empirical investigation. For
example, if we sought to advocate real options theory (Bowman and Hurry 1993) rather than transaction cost economics
(TCE; Williamson 1985, 1991) to explain insourcing versus
outsourcing, rhetorical techniques such as reviewing the logical consistency of each perspective, evaluating the epistemological assumptions driving each perspectives predictions,
and reviewing empirical evidence might offer the best route
forward (Whetten 1989). Similarly, syntheses of existing
research streams to refocus inquiry are not conducive to
empirical investigation (Yadav 2010). For example, emerging
research notes that: (1) empirical efforts to operationalize trust
constructs is highly inconsistent and (2) calls for new construct development (Seppanen et al. 2007; Jones et al. 2010;
Whipple et al. 2013).
2. Emerging Phenomena. Conceptual research is an excellent
vehicle for addressing emerging issues for which empirical
data may not be available due to the nascent nature of our
insight into the phenomena (Sutton and Staw 1995). For
example, given sparse data availability, Ellram et al. (2013)
conceptually examined the phenomenon of factor market rivalry (Capron and Chatain 2008; Markman et al. 2009). By
allowing us to explore emerging phenomena, conceptual
research enables us to: (1) improve the timeliness and managerial applicability of our work and (2) move beyond reporting new phenomena to play an active role in shaping the
conversation via sensegivingthe process of shaping other
academics and practitioners understanding of the phenomena
(Maitlis and Lawrence 2007).
3. New Paradigms. Conceptualization is a means for introducing new, perhaps radically different, concepts that can provide
the impetus for altering a disciplines established paradigms
(Kuhn 1996). In the context of new theory, Kilduff (2006)
states Theory papers succeed if they offer important and original ideasTheoryin the form of big ideas that can lead
to new research questions (p. 252). Through disciplined
imagination (Weick 1989), conceptual research allows scholars to examine phenomena using a series of thought experiments to identify innovative relationships and connections. By
exploring uncharted terrain, we can devise solutions to problems yet to be fully articulated by practitioners (Weick 1989).
Such theoretical prescience helps us discern what we need to
know and inuence resources to problems that will impact
organizations in the future (Corley and Gioia 2011).

How should conceptual research be crafted?

Given the breadth of forms and the exploratory nature of conceptual research, let us acknowledge up front that it is impossible to
provide a precise trail guide for crafting conceptual research (Kilduff 2006). Even so, several best practices demarcate a generalized path (see Table 2). In the following discussion, we focus on
four issues that affect construction of the story and the ultimate
credibility and contribution of a conceptual article.
1.

Classify and Highlight Contribution. Reviewers often view

conceptual articles skeptically, wondering, What is the real
contribution? To preempt this comment, explicitly classify
and state your contributions. Do this briey up front and in
greater detail in your conclusions. MacInnis (2011) suggests
an eight-category typology of conceptual contributions.
Table 3 summarizes this typology using examples from the
broader management literature and highlights how you might
make each type of contribution explicit.
Part of telling a compelling story is articulating the degree of
originality of your work. Of course, it is impossible for each
conceptual article to revolutionize the discipline; however,
you need to carefully articulate how your research diverges from
or extends extant thinking (Kilduff 2006). You might also nd
value in describing the utility of your research using Corley and
Gioias (2011) categories of scientic and practical utility. Specically, scientic utility is perceived as an advance that
improves conceptual rigor or the specicity of an idea and/or
enhances its potential to be operationalized and tested, whereas
practical utility is seen as arising when theory can be directly
applied to the problems practicing managers and other organizational practitioners face (Corley and Gioia 2011, 1718). Conceptual research that can shape the academic and practitioner
discourse on emerging problems can make a greater impact by
helping to bridge the theory-practice gap (Waller et al. 2012).
2. Push Theoretical Boundaries. To really make a contribution,
you need to push the boundaries of existing thought by: (1)
challenging how we currently view the world and/or (2) shining a spotlight on what we need to know. To do this, pursue
novel strategies when crafting your arguments. It also helps to
view conceptual research as the process of sensemaking (Weick 1979) and sensegiving (Corley and Gioia 2011). This
entails going beyond explaining why the phenomena happened
to developing sound arguments for how we should think about
the phenomena and their interrelationships moving forward.
Impactful conceptual research responds to Corley and Gioias
(2011) lament that, theoretical contributions in management
and organization studies have not done an adequate job of
anticipating [emphasis added] the important conceptual, as
well as practical, needs of societys now most prominent membersbusiness and social organizations (p. 20).
3. Theorize and Write with Precision. Clarity in theorizing and
writing is essential for all research, but especially when crafting conceptual articles (Whetten 1989). Specically, you
should: (1) express clear denitions for constructs and mechanisms theorized to bring about the expected relationships
between constructs, (2) delimit the boundary conditions under
which the constructs and mechanisms operate, and (3) provide
an explanation for expected relationships by explaining why

S. E. Fawcett et al.

the posited mechanisms bringing about these relationships

should be present (Hedstr
om and Ylikoski 2010; Suddaby
2010). Furthermore, you should make explicit the aspects and
assumptions of the different theoretical lenses you draw from
to form your arguments (Meehl 1990). Finally, you can go a
long way toward improving reviewers reaction to your
research by developing precise predictions and propositions,
especially regarding moderated (Goldsby et al. 2013) and curvilinear (Pierce and Aguinis 2013) effects. Such precision
invites us to think about boundary conditions and paves the
way for more stringent and insightful tests of our theories.
Good conceptual papers are written to clearly, concisely, and
compellingly explain important, but underexplored decisionmaking phenomena.
4. Borrow Theory Appropriately. Borrowing constructs and theories from other disciplinesboth horizontally and vertically

is common in organization science (Whetten et al. 2009).

SCM is no exception (e.g., supply chain capital (Autry and
Grifs 2008) and supply chain identity salience (Min et al.
2008)). Such borrowing offers several benets, including
improved explanation, enhanced legitimacy of borrowers discipline, and increased interdisciplinary connectivity. However,
before borrowing constructs or theories, you must verify that
the construct or theory has a similar function (Morgeson and
Hofmann 1999) in the new setting.
To summarize, conceptual research occupies a vital place in
todays knowledge ecosystem, and can motivate needed empirical research. Our lack of conceptual research hampers SCMs
ability to advance knowledge. Yet, well-executed conceptual
research could give us an opportunity to get out in front of
instead of lagging behindreal-world challenges!

Table 2: Best practices for crafting conceptual articles

Trail marker
Story Markers
Emphasize
contribution
Push theory
boundaries

Theorize with
precision

Borrow theory
appropriately

Structural Markers
Make use of tables
Employ gures well

Discussion

Tell a compelling story by explicitly highlighting contributions. Dont bury the lead by abusing conceptual
freedom in format. Avoid tangents that obfuscate your contribution. Continually ask, How does this paper
contribute?
Conceptual research should challenge and extend existing theory, not simply to rewrite itauthors should
push back the boundaries of our knowledge (Whetten 1989, 491)
Pursue novel strategies when crafting arguments, exemplied by Weicks (1979) summary: In the
organizational theorizing that follows, we will not be timid about speculatingstriving for interest (Davis
1971), utilizing incongruity as perspective, anthropomorphizing, reifying, inserting hyperbole, waxing
discursive, glossing, improvising, examining alternatives to positivism, reframing, intuiting, and any other
tricks that help counteract sluggish imaginations (p. 26)
Articulate clear denitions for constructs and mechanisms theorized to bring about the expected relationships
between constructs; delimit the boundary conditions under which the constructs and mechanisms operate and
provide an explanation for expected relationships (Hedstr
om and Ylikoski 2010; Suddaby 2010)
Make explicit the aspects and assumptions of the theoretical lens utilized to structure arguments. Meehls
(1990, 112) distinction between core and periphery elements of a theory works well to accomplish this task
Develop more precise predictions such as curvilinear and moderated relationships to lay the groundwork for
more stringent tests of theory. Remember, we have more condence in theories that survive challenging tests
vis-a-vis theories that are subjected to comparably weak tests (Meehl 1990)
Vertical borrowing is the use of concepts that were formulated at a different level of analysis, and
horizontal borrowing, is borrowing [that] involves the use of concepts that were formulated in a different
social context, can offer several benets including 1) improved explanation of a disciplines phenomena, 2)
increased legitimacy of the borrowers discipline, and 3) increased interdisciplinary connectivity (Whetten
et al. 2009, 540)
Borrowed constructs and/or theories must be functionally equivalent. That is, borrowed constructs must
produce theoretically equivalent outputs (Morgeson and Hofmann 1999). Similarly, borrowed theories must
have similar underlying mechanisms theorized to bring about the relationships between constructs (Chen
et al., 2005)
Articulate why borrowed constructs and/or theories exhibit functional equivalence. If functional equivalence
cannot be established, scholars should explain how the theory is modied to t into the SCM context
Tables provide a concise way to convey a large amount of information
Tables are especially effective when juxtaposing competing arguments
Figures can provide a holistic representation of scholars models and visualize key relationships inherent in
theory. However, the boxes (constructs) still require denition and the logic underlying the arrows
(theoretical mechanisms) should be fully articulated in the text (Sutton and Staw 1995; Thomas et al., 2011)

Revision involves proposing changes to

an existing entity

Delineation involves sketching and

delimiting an entity

Revision

Delineation

Integration explains connections among

previously unconnected phenomena

Advocacy supports a position/conclusion

Refutation challenges a position/

conclusion

Integration

Advocacy

Refutation

Williamson (1993) challenges concept of

calculative trust

Gulati (1998) advocates use of network

theory in interrm relationships

Barney (1991) integrates conditions for

resources to produce sustainable competitive
advantage

Differentiation involves articulating why

Chase and Tansik (1983) differentiate
an entity should be distinguished under a between pure services, mixed services, and
more ne-grained classication
service factors based on customer contact

Newbert (2007) summarizes the empirical

testing of the resource-based view

Cooper et al. (1997) describe why SCM

differs from logistics

Williamson (1991) adds shift parameters to

TCE to account for embeddedness of
exchanges in different social contexts

Porter (1985) ideates value chain to show

how rm activities t to create value

Example of contribution

Differentiation

Summarization Summarization involves reviewing past

work on an entity

Identication involves proposing new-tothe-world entities

Description of contribution

Identication

Contribution
type

Table 3: Typology of conceptual contributions adopted from MacInnis (2011)

Establish that the entity exists and warrants examination

Describe the similarities and differences between old and new
entities
Delineate how new entity provides a springboard for future
research
Articulate what is inadequate with current conceptualization
Reasons include inconsistent empirical ndings, unrealistic
assumptions, and/or changes in the external environment that
render old view inadequate
Compare new and old entities to illustrate how the new entity
addresses the rationale(s) provided for the revision
Articulate why the entity is important for study
Clearly outline the logic and assumptions made to delineate
the entity
Articulate why summarization of entity is needed and logic for
completing the summarization (i.e., what was included and
excluded and what was the time frame of the analysis)
Provide a means to easily display and communicate ndings
Explain why different dimensions of the entity are distinct. For
example, theorize that each dimension has different
relationships with outcomes, distinct antecedents, or should be
measured differently
Articulate why differentiating entity is important. For
example, explain why differentiation claries inconsistent
ndings or paves the way for new research
Articulate why synthesis of previously unconnected phenomena
accounts for existing knowledge (i.e., substantial explanatory
power is not lost in the pursuit of parsimony)
Explain how integrated perspective enables new insight, such
as providing an explanation for increased ndings
Explain how integrated perspective increases parsimony
Clearly articulate premises that form the basis of arguments
Provide multiple, credible sources to support arguments
Adopt various rhetorical strategies
Same characteristics as advocacy articles

Desirable article characteristics and author actions

A Trail Guide to Publishing Success

5

TIPS FOR CONDUCTING AND WRITING UP

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Qualitative research as scientic inquiry relies on storytelling to
make sense of real-world dilemmas. Qualitative research allows
informants to tell their stories and derives meaning from patterns
that emerge within and across stories. Gephart (2004) noted,
Qualitative research starts from and returns to words, talk, and
texts as meaningful representations of concepts (p. 455).
Although associated with the inductive process of building/
extending theory, qualitative research can be used deductively to
test theory. Qualitative research can be conducted from many
perspectives, including case study, ethnography, grounded theory, and hermeneutics (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Spradley 1979;
Eisenhardt 1989; Yin 1994; Thompson 1997).
Why do qualitative research?
Qualitative research provides profound insight into complex,
multifaceted phenomena. By enabling: (1) a deep dive into reallife experience as well as (2) expanded, exible exploration,
qualitative research yields uniquely interestingand impactful
contributions to knowledge discovery (Strauss and Corbin 1990;
Yin 1994; Pratt 2009). Consider, for example, Bartunek et al.s
(2006) nding that qualitative research is overrepresented in
AMJs survey regarding the most interesting management-related
articles published in the past 100 yr (Pratt 2009, 856).
Qualitative methods enable us to delve into the hard-to-perceive-and-harder-to-resolve quandaries that hinder SCMs primary goal: value creation! (see Fawcett and Waller 2011b). Yet,
only 1020% of recent research published in leading SCM journals employs qualitative methods. In a sense, we persist in wearing blinders on our quest for enlightened management practice.
This is one reason some practitioners view academic research as
esoteric, irrelevant, or even counterproductive (Ghoshal
2005; Flynn 2008). Too often, we misperceive or merely scratch
the surface of decision makers most pressing and perplexing
problems (Eisenhardt 1989; Miles and Huberman 1994; Ellram
1996). Well-executed qualitative research could expand our
research horizons, demarcating meaningful paths for deductive
inquiry and putting us on a fast track to evocative knowledge
discovery and dissemination.
When is qualitative research appropriate?
Qualitative research is best suited for building new theory or
elaborating existing theory. Both Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin
(1994) note that qualitative research is particularly valuable for
exploring contemporary issues where the focus is on exploratory
what, how, and why questions. Simply stated, qualitative
research ts when existing theory does not tthat is, when
existing theory offers no feasible answer or explanation for the
phenomena or relationships of interest (Eisenhardt 1989).
As a quest for discovery, qualitative research is needed when
we lack holistic and meaningful understanding of how complex,
real-life value-creation systems or processes work (Yin 1994). For
example, Miles and Huberman (1994) emphasize qualitative
researchs ability to help us ll in the blanks related to sense and

S. E. Fawcett et al.

decision making, noting that qualitative research explicates the

ways people in particular settings come to understand, account for,
and take action (p. 9). Pratt (2009) concurs, noting that qualitative
research provides rich detail about the goings on within the
lives of the informant (p. 857). Pratt (2009) summarizes that,
Qualitative research is great for addressing how questions
rather than how many; for understanding the world from the
perspective of those studied (i.e., informants); and for examining
and articulating processes (p. 856).
How should qualitative research be crafted?
Qualitative researchers face real challenges as they strive to publish in top journals. Pratt (2009) observed an underlying challenge,
noting, there is no accepted boilerplate for writing up qualitative
methods and determining quality (p. 856). Pratt (2009) explains,
Unlike quantitative ndings, qualitative ndings lack an agreedupon signicance level. There is no magic number of interviews or observations that should be conducted in a qualitative
research project (p. 856). Table 4 shows the breadth of
approaches to qualitative research in management and supply
chain journals. Even among qualitative researchers, arguments
arise regarding which path is right for conducting and communicating valid qualitative research. In many instances, equinality in
qualitative research exists. However, as Pratt (2009) warns, just
because there are many paths to good qualitative research, this
does not mean that all paths are good ones (p. 857). In scanning
the paths that have led to success in top journals, we found four
aspects of construction that build a safer bridge to publication.
Each element is critical to building a credible and compelling
story.
1.

Justication. As Table 1 shows, poor justication erodes

support for research of all types. Qualitative researchers, however, need to take extra care to motivate both their research
question and their method. As always, it is vital to introduce
the research question up front and then clearly articulate why
the research is importantand interesting. You must answer
the question, So, what? You should also demonstrate that
the question has not been adequately addressed in the extant
literature. A brief, well-constructed table can help. The nascent nature of qualitative research questions should make this
easy; however, you must make it explicit. As you do so,
make your case for a qualitative approach. Explain how the
rich data that emerges from qualitative methods will yield
superior insight into the goings on of your phenomena.
2. Theoretical Grounding. Because qualitative research typically focuses on building or extending theory, some researchers neglect to effectively employ existing theory. Even
authors who are using grounded theory methods should
inform their research via proven theoretical paths. Please
remember that after over 50 years of conducting management
research, few destinations remain untouched by theory. Theoretical grounding for qualitative research should, however, be
very concise, addressing the following:

What conversation are you joining? You might, for example,

be interested in exploring the dynamic processes impeding

A Trail Guide to Publishing Success

convergence on a supply chain-wide denition of what constitutes a sustainable product.

What theories inform this conversation? Regarding the denition of a sustainable product, you might note that systems
design, stakeholder, and planned behavior theories inform
system dynamics.
How do these theories inform the conversation? Continuing
on the theme of dening sustainable products, the absence of
a consensus, easy-to-measure denition is likely to confound
diverging stakeholder objectives, reducing the focal rms
inuence on partner choices. These issues may limit a rms
ability to translate good intentions into action.
Why are these theories insufcient? By failing to delineate
the limiting mechanisms and how they work together to
undermine partner commitment, extant theory is unable to
help managers pull the right levers to grow supply chainwide sustainability programs.
Delineating the theoretical path will help you articulate how
you contribute to theory and practice. If you truly venture into
uncharted theoretical territory (i.e., no theory informs your
research), make your case in a clear and compelling way.
3. Methodological Clarity. Although a clearly constructed
methods section establishes the veracity of your research,
many authors fail to succinctly communicate the essentials. A
well-crafted methods section builds the bridge to credibility
as follows.

Describe your context and sample. Context matters. Readers

want answers to certain key questions. For example, what is
your unit of analysispeople, companies, relationships, projects, or events? Have you adopted a purposeful or theoretical sampling approach? (Strauss and Corbin 1990). Are your
cases prototypical or extreme? (Pettigrew 1990). Simply stated, readers want to know how your context and informants
provide unique insight into your research question. Make it
easy for reviewers to trust your informants.
Explain your data collection process. To feel comfortable with
your data, readers need to understand the data collection process. Did you use semistructured interviewsor another observation approach? Provide a copy of your protocol or eld
guide. How many cases, interviews, or observations were
included? Does your data possess depth and richness? That is,
how long did each interview last? Over what period of time
were informants observed? How did your interview protocol
evolve over time? How was the data recordednotes or transcription? Make it easy for reviewers to trust your process.
Make your data analysis transparent. Qualitative research is
only believable to the extent your ndings are trustworthy
(i.e., truthful, applicable, and unbiased) and derive from the
reality of your informants. You can make this reality link
visible by sharing the chain of evidence and walking your
audience through the key analysis steps: (1) what did the
informants say (open coding), (2) what does the theory say
(axial coding, enfolding theory), and (3) how does it all t
together (conceptual brainstorming/modeling). Such a process
is iterative, requiring you to travel back and forth between
the text and theory (Miles and Huberman 1994; Strauss and
Corbin 1990). An overview of the data structure can persua-

sively depict the process (e.g., see Figure 1). Make it easy
for reviewers to trust your ndings.
4. Storytelling. Business writing is storytelling. It strives to
achieve three goals: (1) capture attention, (2) create understanding, and (3) persuade the audience to care. You do this
best by presenting the data. As one Fortune 100 executive
pointed out, If you dont have the data, it is just your opinion (Fawcett et al. 2007, 48). In qualitative research, informant quotes are your data. The challenge is to balance
showing and telling (Golden-Biddle and Locke 2007).
Showing is sharing the thick description (Geertz 1973) that
emerges from your informants. This is where you use quotes!
Showing via quotes provides context and generates meaning.
Pratt (2008) argues that good qualitative research should employ
both power quotes and proof quotes. Power quotes provide
detail, illustrate key points, and are embedded in the text to create a convincing narrative. They bring the story to life. Proof
quotes, by contrast, are short, to the point, and typically shared
via tables (e.g., see Table 5). Proof quotes provide demonstrable
evidence for what you are saying. However, readers should
understand your message without resorting to the table. Finally,
the two types of quotes should be distinct.
Telling involves interpreting your ndings; that is, describing
how the various elements of the story t together. Telling distills
holistic meaning from your data, transforming novel ndings into
theoretical and practical contribution. When you effectively combine showing and telling, you create an interesting and compelling storya key advantage of qualitative methods. By contrast,
a lack of balance between showing and telling throughout your
ndings and discussion undermines the credibility of your
research. The bottom line: Make it easy for reviewers to have
condence in your contributions.
To summarize, qualitative methods are well suited to explore
supply chains more intransigent, complex, and nuanced questions.
Our infrequent use of qualitative research hinders our ability to
perceive the hidden dimensions that exist among value-added players on the global stage. Well-executed qualitative research could
help us explain the dynamic processes (e.g., driving forces, enablers, impediments, and boundary conditions) that will determine
who wins and loses tomorrows competitive battles.

TIPS FOR WRITING UP SURVEY METHODS

Over the past decade, survey research has been the most commonly published research in the supply chain discipline. At JBL,
almost 50% of published articles in the past ve years have been
based on managerial surveys. You might thus ask, Do we really
need a guide for such a frequently traveled path? For a variety
of reasons, the answer is, Yes! In our experience as editors,
we have found that authors and reviewers are unclear about what
should be reported in a methods section. Inconsistency in methods reporting leads reviewers to ask for clarication on essential
points that should have been addressed in an initial submission.
The lack of clarity has a negative impact on submission-toacceptance cycle times. In worse case scenarios, reviewers simply recommend the submission be rejected because the ndings

Org Sci (13)

Senior executives, VPs, and

Directors (5)
Middle managers (2)
Direct employees (1)
Industry professionals (1)
Doctors (1)
Process participants (1)

Senior executives, VPs, and

Directors (3)
Unspecied managers (1)
Academics (1)
Direct employees (1)
Industry professionals (1)
Senior executives, VPs, and
Directors (4)
Professionals and others (3)
Various key stakeholders (2)
Middle managers (2)
Community members (1)
Academics (1)
Informants from paired
organizations (1)
Team leaders (1)
Zoo keepers (1)

SMJ (7)

ASQ (14)

Senior executives, VPs, and

Directors (5)
Direct employees (4)
Middle managers (6)
Academics (3)
Customers (2)
Social services (2)
Priests (1)
Doctors (1)
Government ofcials (1)
Journalists (1)
Pregnant women (1)

Interviewees

AMJ (25)

Management
journals

High: 301
Low: 16
Average: 80.38

High: 336
Low: 15
Average: 64.5

High: 50+
Low: 2
Average: 26.67
ND (1)

High: 390
Low: 17
Average: 81.72

Number of
interviews

High: 3 hr
Low: 40 min
ND (7)

High: 2 hr
Low: 30 min
ND (4)

High: 2 hr
Low: 30 min
ND (4)

High: hours
Low: 5 min
ND (2)
Ethnography 2
7 years. (2)

Interview length

Table 4: The nature of qualitative methods in management and SCM research

Semistructured
(6)
Observation (4)
Unspecied (4)
Open-ended (1)
In-depth (1)
Ethnographic
(1)

Semistructured
(2)
Direct
observation (1)
Open-ended (2)
ND (3)
Semistructured
(5)
Unspecied (3)
Direct
observation (2)
Ethnographic
(1)
In-depth (1)
Open forum (1)
ND (3)

Semistructured
(16)
Open-ended (4)
Ethnographic
(3)
Unstructured (2)
Direct
observation (2)
Structured (2)
In-depth (1)
Group (1)

Interview type

Organization and social

movement (1)
Field (1)
Transformational leadership
(1)
Resource dependence (2)
Prospect (1)
Behavioral theory of the rm
(1)
Goal setting (1)
Institutional (2)
Flow (1)
Neo-institutional (2)
Social movement (1)
Structuration (1)
Systems justication (1)
Resource dependence (1)
Dynamic capabilities (1)
Social foci (1)

Identication (2)
Institutional (2)
Structuration (1)
Organizational justice (1)
Practice and organizational
discourse (1)
Boundary (1)
Institutional maintenance (1)
Implicit voice (1)
Stigmatization (1)
Stakeholder (1)
Collective identity resurrection
(1)
Authenticity and role identity
(1)
Agency (1)
Justice (1)
Dynamic capabilities (1)
Strategic noise (1)
Demand-driven innovation (1)
Environmental complexity (1)

Type of theory

Empirical analysis
(1)
Case study (6)
Inductive (2)
Multiple cases (1)
Qualitative (4)
Ethnographic (1)
Longitudinal (2)

Case study (4)

Grounded theory
(3)
Ethnographic (2)
Survey (2)
Supplemental (2)
Analytic abduction
(1)
Multiple cases (1)
Cross-case (1)
ND (1)

Case study (3)

Interpretive (4)
Archival (4)

Case study (12)

Grounded theory
(8)
Interpretive (6)
Multiple cases (3)
Survey (1)
Archival (1)
Phenomenological
(1)

Method

8
S. E. Fawcett et al.

General managers (1)

Unspecied managers (2)
Functional managers (2)
S&OP leaders (1)
Senior executives, VPs, and Directors
(6)
Top management teams (3)
Middle managers (2)
CPO appointments (1)
Procurement professionals(1)
Off-shoring ofcers (1)

JOM (5)

POMS (4)

Plant managers (2)

Engineers (2)
Presidents (1)
Persons involved in experiential
strategy (1)

Senior executives, VPs, and Directors

(8)
Middle managers (4)
Specialized employees (3)
Scientists (1)
Doctors (1)

JBL (9)

JSCM (13)

Middle managers (3)

Specialized employees (2)
Chief executives (1)

Interviewees

Decision Science
(6)

SCM/OM
Journals

High: 105
Low: 12
Average: 45

High: 157
Low: 8
Average: 35.75

High: 54
Low: 25
Average: 38.6

High: 121
Low: 8
Average: 45.56

High: 74
Low: 8
Average: 40.75
ND (2)

Number of
interviews

1.5 hr
ND (3)

High: 2 days on-site

visit
Low: 45 min
ND (1)
High: 9 hr
Low: 1 hr
ND (1)

High: 6 hr
Low: 45 min
ND (1)

High: 2 hr
Low: 40 min
ND (1)
Ethnography
2 years (1)

Interview length

Semistructured (2)
Open-ended (2)
Structured (1)
Questionnaire (1)

Semistructured
(12)
Group (1)
In-depth (3)
Open-ended (3)
Unstructured (1)

Semistructured (4)
Direct
observation (1)

Semistructured (4)
Open-ended (2)
Unstructured (2)
Direct
observation (2)
Ethnographic (1)
Semistructured (4)
Open-ended (4)
In-depth (3)
Group (1)
ND (1)

Interview type

Dynamic capabilities (3)

Contingency (2)
TCE (2)
Information processing
(1)
RBV (1)
Stakeholder (1)
Game (1)
Relational development
(1)
Force eld (1)
Social network (1)
Service science (1)
Structural inertia (1)
Systems (1)

Relational coordination (1)

Swift and even ows (1)
TCE (1)
Dynamic capabilities (1)
Resource advantage (1)
Contingency (1)
Contingency (1)
Force eld (2)
Market orientation (1)
Systems (1)
Network (1)
TCE (1)
No formal theory (4)
resource-based view
(RBV) (2)
RBV (1)
Information processing
(1)

Type of theory

Case study (3)

Regression (1)
Grounded theory
(1)

Case study (11)

Multiple cases
(3)
Grounded theory
(1)

Case study (5)

Multiple cases
(1)

Case study (5)

Grounded theory
(3)

Case study (4)

Grounded theory
(1)
Field study (1)

Method

A Trail Guide to Publishing Success

9

10

S. E. Fawcett et al.

Figure 1: An example of an overview of data structure.

are unbelievable. Further, methods sections have grown dramatically longer in recent years. We have received submissions
with methods sections over 3,000 wordswithout tables! By
contrast, 3,000 words is the maximum article length accepted by
the Journal of the American Medical Association.
As you craft your methods section, you should ask, What do
readers (including reviewers) really need to know in order to nd
your results reliable? In a sense, your methods are on trial.
From this perspective, be sure to elucidate the following:
1. Sample Frame and Characteristics. Why did you choose
your sampling frame? What was your unit of analysis? What
was the source of your contact information? Most importantly, what qualies your informants as expert witnesses?
Given low response rates, many authors have begun to look
to crowdsourcing panels (e.g., Mechanical Turk, Qualtrics,
Zoomerang). Reviewers are rightfully skeptical of these compensated informants. If you are condent your panel is good,
you need to state and defend your rationale. Authors are also
tapping international settings where managers have yet to be

surveyed to death. Global informants may be excellent;

however, reviewers may lack condence in their testimony.
Share enough detail to allay reviewer concerns. A concise
table that describes appropriate informant characteristics may
be helpful. Readers need to be comfortable that your witnesses are credible.
2. Data Collection/Questionnaire Administration. How was
your data collectedby post or electronically? Did you proactively employ techniques to improve response rates? If so,
what did you dopre-announcement, precommitment, multiple waves? Dillman and colleagues (Dillman 1978; Dillman
et al. 2009) total and tailored design methods are often considered the standard for improving response rate. Be sure to
indicate how many informants you targeted; how many
responded with complete, usable information; and what your
response rate is? You may also want to comment on why
your response rate is sufcient.
Given the relatively low response rates often reported today
(below 10%), reviewers have become increasingly concerned

A Trail Guide to Publishing Success

11

Table 5: Representative proof quotes related to behaviors that promote interorganizational trust
Dimensions of trustworthiness
Specic behaviors and practices
Skill enhancement
Collaborates on valued initiatives
Helps us improve capabilities via shared
insight

Information sharing; that is, shares critical

information

Empathy
We know where we stand. Decisions are
fact based, fair
Listens to us and is receptive to our ideas
and suggestions
Perform to promise
Access to senior management to discuss
relationship
Honors its order and relationship
commitments
Interpersonal relationship; that is, buyers
develop good relationships

Representative proof quotes

Expectation that we participate in comanaged inventory allows up to collaborate and
build trust; work together on department design and promotional planning; creates
a challenge and thats a good thing. I like a challenge; Theyve helped us become a
better company. Share insight, experience, scanning; share feedback about trends in
the marketplace; we participate on the supplier collaboration board; seeking to
move toward more collaboration
Provides great detailed data; information systems are far better than anybody elses
system; information system is hugely benecial to us; so much of it is open sharing
of data; the level of information they share; provides us the best information to
manage our business
Is exible with their programs to help us manage inventories; generous with their
time; When a glitch occurs, gives us time to improve; They are understanding
when we face a major challenge; Flexible with ideas and willing to adjust when
necessary; They treat us with respect. It is refreshing to work with them; They treat
people the way they want to be treated
We have access to senior managers to nd out where they are going; senior managers
are widely accessible; trust seems to be goodwe have open access to executives;
we can get to executive pretty easily; when they make a commitment, they follow
through; It is nice to be paid on time
Collaboration is the key. Some buyers just get this. The collaborative spirit makes it
easier to do business; rely on us; ask for our input; give us autonomy; we view
them as the retail arm of our company; we have a great deal of trust for our buyer;
Wonderful people to work withperhaps too nice at times; Respond to questions in
a timely manner; very appreciativethey say thank you a lot; they are willing to
spend the time to build the relationship

Source: Adapted from Day et al. (2013).

with two types of survey-related bias: nonresponse bias and common methods bias. Be sure to report how you addressed each of
these concerns.

Nonresponse Bias. For years, the standard approach was to

compare responses across waves (see Armstrong and Overton
1977). However, comparing early to late respondents is not a
particularly strong test of nonresponse bias. You create more
condence in your data if you track your respondents and
then compare them to nonrespondents. One approach is to
compare demographics of respondents to nonrespondents via
a source like Dun & Bradstreet. Alternatively, you increase
reviewer condence in your data if you go back to your nonrespondents (typically via phone) and collect comparative
demographic and response data. Wagner and Kemmerling
(2010), however, note that direct comparisons between
respondents and nonrespondents possesses it own limitations,
including difculty and potential loss of anonymity.
Common Method Bias. Given the costs of data collection,
most survey research relies on a single respondent to provide
responses for both dependent and independent variables. This
reality creates common method concerns. Many approaches
have been suggested for mitigating as well as for assessing com-

mon method bias (see Podsakoff et al. 2003). Recently, concerns have been expressed about the use of post-hoc statistical
tests to evaluate the presence of common methods variance
(Richardson et al. 2009). Rindeisch et al. (2008) strongly recommend a priori approaches to diminish common methods concerns (e.g., multiple respondents, avoiding biased language,
survey design, and using concrete constructs). A mix of a priori
and post hoc approaches enables you to make the strongest case
for your data. A third approach involves using hard data from
nancial reports for dependent variables, mitigating one level of
common methods bias. Be sure to explicitly and specically tell
the reader how you assured that common method bias does not
undermine your research. Readers need to have condence in
your data.
3. Scale Development. The measures you use dene and determine the value of your potential theoretical and managerial
contributions. That is, as Churchill (1979) notes, scales have
a GIGOGarbage-In-Garbage-Out affect on research outcomes. For established constructs, you should adoptand
perhaps adaptexisting scales that have proven to be reliable
and valid. For new constructs, you should develop new mea-

12

S. E. Fawcett et al.

Table 6: A Consolidated approach for communicating measurement validation

Construct/item
Willingness
Frequent, open information sharing among
supply chain members
Use of cross-functional and supply chain
teams
Senior level managerial interaction among
supply chain members
Sharing of technical expertise with
customers and suppliers
A willingness to share information among
supply chain members
Connectivity
Current information systems satisfy SC
communication requirements
IS applications are highly integrated w/in
the rm and the supply chain
Adequate IS linkages exist with supplier
and customers
Collaboration
My rm shares resources to help suppliers
improve capabilities
Strategic objectives are jointly developed by
supply chain partners
Supplier performance is monitored and is
the basis for future business
The principle of shared rewards and risks
governs SC relationships
Value-added resources are shared among
supply chain members
Customer satisfaction
Responsiveness to customer requests or
unexpected challenges
On-time delivery/due-date performance
Overall customer satisfaction
Productivity
Cost of purchased items
Inventory performance (e.g., cost, levels,
turns)
Overall product and supply chain costs
(productivity)
Overall product quality
New product development capability (e.g.,
cost, time, uniqueness)
Transportation costs
Growth
Sales growth in the last three years
Market share growth in the last three years
Growth in return on assets (ROA) in the
last three years
Protability (single measure construct)

Mean (SD)

Standardized
loadings

4.60 (1.57)

0.80

3.83 (1.46)

0.80

4.21 (1.64)

0.76

4.24 (1.41)

0.75

4.56 (1.56)

0.84

3.30 (1.56)

0.78

3.44 (1.4)

0.83

3.64 (1.41)

0.71

3.67 (1.47)

0.62

4.00 (1.43)

0.77

4.62 (1.39)

0.57

3.74 (1.34)

0.80

3.96 (1.44)

0.76

4.68 (1.37)

0.82

4.66 (1.45)
4.64 (1.36)

0.84
0.87

4.56 (1.47)
4.47 (1.51)

0.68
0.69

4.33 (1.21)

0.88

4.15 (1.47)
3.61 (1.36)

0.74
0.72

3.86 (1.56)

0.63

4.97 (1.31)
4.85 (1.31)
4.76 (1.29)

0.94
0.93
0.60

Average
variance
extracted

Composite reliability
(rho, omega)

Mean shared
variance

0.62

0.89

0.30

0.60

0.82

0.29

0.50

0.83

0.41

0.71

0.88

0.34

0.53

0.90

0.37

0.70

0.87

0.03

4.50 (1.37)
Source: Adapted from Fawcett et al. (2011).
Notes: v2 (d.f.) = 1400.028 (570); CFI = .91; IFI = .91; RSMEA (90% CI) = .046 (.043.049); NCP (90% CI) = 830.028 (723.978943.747). All loadings signicant at p < .001.

A Trail Guide to Publishing Success

13

sures using standard psychometric scale development procedures (Bagozzi and Philips 1982; Anderson and Gerbing
1988; Dunn et al. 1994). This process involves assessing previous measures, scanning relevant literature, and seeking managerial input (e.g., interviews, case studies). A Q-sort
procedure can help improve the quality of your scales (Moore
and Benbasat 1991; Li et al. 2009). Be sure to: (1) identify
the original source of existing scales and (2) specify your
scale-development procedures for newly developed scales.
Readers need to trust you started your research with good
scales.
4. Measurement Validation. Before readers can truly buy-in to
your measures, you need to persuade them that your measures
are reliable and valid. The following metrics for testing construct reliability and validity are rather well accepted.

analysis as a note to this table (see Table 6). By consolidating

these items in a single table, your readers can quickly assess reliability as well as face, convergent, and discriminant validities.
They will also have an idea of the activity level associated with
each item and construct. Readers need to know they can believe
the results of your analysis.
5. Method Selection. Most survey data are analyzed using one
or more of many multivariate techniques (e.g., ANOVA,
Regression, Structural Equation Modeling). Regardless of
your choice of technique, you need to assure the reader that it
is appropriate. Know the techniques assumptions and verify
that your data ts. For instance, covariance-based structural
equation modeling (CB-SEM) is susceptible to nonnormal
data. If you are using CB-SEM, check and report on the multivariate normality of your data.

Finally, CB-SEM has been a very popular approach to analyzing survey data among SCM researchers over the past decade.
Today, JBL is receiving more manuscripts that use partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). PLS-SEM is
most often used when data is nonnormal or the sample size is
small. Some methodologists, however, express concern that the
use of PLS-SEM is problematic. R
onkk
o and Evermann (2013)
suggest that PLS: (1) does not correct for measurement error, (2)
is not a consistent or efcient estimator, (3) cannot be used to
test for overidentication restrictions needed to rule out endogeneity, and (4) returns results that are, at best, equivalent of using
OLS regression with weighted composites. With this in mind,
Muthen and Muthen (2012) describe an approach for correcting
for nonnormal data when using CB-SEM. Given this continuing
debate, authors need to clearly discuss their rational for choosing
PLS-SEM over CB-SEM.

Reliability. For over 30 years, Cronbachs alpha has been

routinely used to provide evidence of reliability. Cronbachs
alpha is a measure of internal consistency (i.e., how related
each item is to the group) and is generally considered acceptable if the item loading is .70 or greater (.60 for exploratory
constructs) (Nunnally 1978; Chin and Newsted 1999). More
recently, because alpha assumes that measures are tau equivalent, the reliability of Cronbachs alpha has been questioned
(Bentler 2009; Sijtsma 2009). Revelle and Zinbarg (2009)
argue that alpha is a a poor estimate of internal consistency
and in some cases a gross overestimate (p. 153). Some
methodologists now recommend using composite reliability
(aka, rho or coefcient omega) to measure internal consistency. Further, composite reliability is considered to be more
consistent with the partial least squares algorithm than alpha
(Henseler et al. 2009). Acceptable bounds for composite reliability are consistent with those for alpha.
Validity. Two types of validity should be assessed: convergent and discriminant. Both can be measured in different
ways. We recommend you use commonly accepted methods.
For instance, satisfactory evidence of convergent validity
exists when items load on the intended construct (with standardized loadings greater than .50) and the average variance
extracted (AVE) for the items in the construct exceeds .50
(Fornell and Larcker 1981). A signicant critical ratio provides additional substantiation (Gefen and Straub 2005).
For discriminant validity, all items should have higher loadings on their assigned construct than on any other construct.
Further, the mean shared variance should be below .50 (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Alternatively, the square root of the
AVE for each construct should be greater than any correlation
estimate (Fornell and Larcker 1981; Gefen and Straub 2005).
So-called rules of thumb for acceptable cutoffs (e.g.,
AVE > .50) should be viewed as guidelines rather than as
dogmatic requirements.
A common question is, How can we best communicate our
measures are reliable and valid? Remember, your goal is to
make the readers life as easy as possible. We thus suggest you
array your key statistics in a single table. Include the following:
measurement item, mean, factor loading, composite reliability,
AVE, and mean shared variance (see Table 6). You may want
to include the core t statistics for your conrmatory factor

To summarize, survey research will continue to contribute

to our grasp of complex SCM problemsespecially when used
as part of longitudinal and multi-method research designs (practices we have actively promoted; e.g., see Fawcett and Waller
2011b). Improved, more consistent reporting of our methods will
help us meet the believability burden of proofeven as better
reporting reduces the burden on readers.

FINAL THOUGHTS
Wed like to close with a few brief points.
1.

Inclusive Toolset. As the supply chain discipline moves

into new and uncharted territoryone inuenced by technological revolutions, geopolitical evolutions, and economic
integrationwe will encounter remarkable opportunities to
explore and to contribute (both to theory and practice). To
do so, we need to more effectively incorporate all of our
investigative toolsincluding conceptual and qualitative
investigative techniques.
2. Great Communicators. A characteristic common to many
great leaders is the ability to communicate and to persuade.
They tell a story that captures attention and motivates action.
To make a difference in theory and practice, we must
become better storytellers. In the context of scholarly journals

14

storytelling includes reporting what we have done succinctly

and in a way that conveys credibility.
3. Benets of a Trail Guide. A trail guide is exactly thata
guide. Our recommendations should not be viewed as the only
way to craft conceptual, qualitative, or survey research. Equanality exists in research and invites creativity. But, not all paths
are productive and some are risky. If we can agree on the
basics, we can achieve at least three goals: (1) increase consistency in the review process, (2) reduce publication cycle times,
and (3) begin to roll back the length of articles.
4. Appreciation. We would be remiss if we did not thank the
many travelers who have begun to mark the best-practice trail
through the wilderness of methodological ideas. Without their
work, we would have had nothing to benchmark. We are also
grateful for the hundreds of authors and reviewers who have
prompted our thinking and motivated this effort.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Sebastian Brockhaus, A. Michael Knemeyer, and Ayman Omar for providing feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. The synthesis of reviewer comments as
well as the comments about publishing in JBL belong to the editors. However, we are deeply grateful to our co-contributors for
their help in benchmarking best practice across management,
marketing, and supply chain disciplines.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J., and Gerbing, D. 1988. Structural Equation
Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended TwoStep Approach. Psychological Bulletin 103(3):41123.
Armstrong, J.S., and Overton, T.S. 1977. Estimating
Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys. Journal of Marketing
Research 14(3):396405.
Autry, C.W., and Grifs, S.E. 2008. Supply Chain Capital: The
Impact of Structural and Relational Linkages on Firm
Execution and Innovation. Journal of Business Logistics 29
(1):15773.
Bagozzi, R.P., and Philips, L.W. 1982. Representing and
Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic Construal.
Administrative Science Quarterly 27(3):45989.
Barney, J. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive
Advantage. Journal of Management 17(1):99120.
Bartunek, J.M., Rynes, S.L., and Ireland, R.D. 2006. What
Makes Management Research Interesting, and Why Does It
Matter? Academy of Management Journal 49(1):915.
Bentler, P.M. 2009. Alpha, Dimension-Free, and Model-Based
Internal Consistency Reliability. Psychometrika 74(1):137
43.
Bowman, E.H., and Hurry, D. 1993. Strategy Through the
Options Lens: An Integrated View of Resource Investments
and the Incremental-Choice Process. Academy of
Management Review 18(4):76082.
Capron, L., and Chatain, O. 2008. Competitors ResourceOriented Strategies: Acting on Competitors Resources
Through Interventions in Factor Markets and Political
Markets. Academy of Management Review 33(1):97121.

S. E. Fawcett et al.

Chase, R.B., and Tansik, D.A. 1983. The Customer Contact

Model for Organization Design. Management Science 29
(9):103750.
Chen, G., Bliese, P.D., and Mathieu, J.E. 2005. Conceptual
Framework and Statistical Procedures for Delineating and
Testing Multilevel Theories of Homology. Organizational
Research Methods 8(4):375409.
Chin, W.W., and Newsted, P.R. 1999. Structural Equation
Modeling Analysis With Small Samples Using Partial Least
Squares. In Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research,
edited by R. Hoyle, 30842. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Churchill, G.A.J. 1979. A Paradigm for Developing Better
Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing
Research 16(1):6473.
Cooper, M.C., Ellram, L.M., Gardner, J.T., and Hanks, A.M.
1997. Meshing Multiple Alliances. Journal of Business
Logistics 18(1):6789.
Corley, K.G., and Gioia, D.A. 2011. Building Theory About
Theory Building: What Constitutes a Theoretical
Contribution? Academy of Management Review 36(1):1232.
Davis, M.S. 1971. Thats Interesting! Towards a
Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of
Phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1(4):309
44.
Day, M., Fawcett, S.E., Fawcett, A.M., and Magnan, G.M. 2013.
Trust and Relational Embeddedness: Exploring a Paradox of
Trust Pattern Development in Key Supplier Relationships.
Industrial Marketing Management 42(2):15265.
Dillman, A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total
Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., and Christian, L.M. 2009. Internet,
Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys. The Tailored Design Method.
3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Dunn, S.C., Seaker, R.F., and Waller, M.A. 1994. Latent
Variables in Business Logistics Research: Scale Development
and Validation. Journal of Business Logistics 15(2):14571.
Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Agency Theory: An Assessment and
Review. Academy of Management. The Academy of
Management Review 14(1):5774.
Ellram, L.M. 1996. An Application of the Case Study Method
in Logistics Research. Journal of Business Logistics 17
(2):93138.
Ellram, L.M., Tate, W.L., and Feitzinger, E.G. 2013. FactorMarket Rivalry and Competition for Supply Chain Resources.
Journal of Supply Chain Management 49(1):2946.
Fawcett, S.E., Magnan, G.M., and Ogden, J.A. 2007. Achieving
World-Class Supply Chain Collaboration: Managing the
Transformation. Tempe, AZ: Institute for Supply
Management.
Fawcett, S.E., and Waller, M.A. 2011a. Making Sense Out of
Chaos: Why Theory is Relevant to Supply Chain Research.
Journal of Business Logistics 32(1):15.
Fawcett, S.E., and Waller, M.A. 2011b. Moving the Needle:
Making a Contribution When the Easy Questions Have Been
Answered. Journal of Business Logistics 32(4):29195.
Fawcett, S.E., Wallin, C., Allred, C.R., Fawcett, A.M., and
Magnan, G.M. 2011. Evaluating Information Technology as
a Competitive Enabler Over Time: Insights From the

A Trail Guide to Publishing Success

Resource-Based View. Journal of Supply Chain

Management 47(1):3859.
Flynn, B.B. 2008. Having it All: Rigor Versus Relevance in
Supply Chain Management. Journal of Supply Chain
Management 44(2):6367.
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D.F. 1981. Evaluating Structural
Equation Models With Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research 18
(1):3950.
Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Culture: Selected Essays.
New York: Basic Books.
Gefen, D., and Straub, D. 2005. A Practical Guide to Factorial
Validity Using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and Annotated Example.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems
16(1):91109.
Gephart, B. 2004. Qualitative Research and the Academy of
Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal 47
(4):45462.
Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad Management Theories Are Destroying
Good Management Practices. Academy of Management
Review 4(1):7591.
Glaser, B.G., and Strauss, A.L. 1967. The Discovery of
Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
Chicago, IL: Aldine Pub.
Golden-Biddle, K., and Locke, K. 2007. Composing Qualitative
Research. 2nd ed Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Goldsby, T.J., Knemeyer, A.M., Miller, J.W., and Wallenburg,
C.M. 2013. Measurement and Moderation: Finding the
Boundary Conditions in Logistics and Supply Chain
Research. Journal of Business Logistics 34(2):10916.
Gulati, R. 1998. Alliances and Networks. Strategic
Management Journal 19(4):293318.
Hedstrom, P., and Ylikoski, P. 2010. Causal Mechanisms in the
Social Sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 36(1):4967.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., and Sinkovics, R.R. 2009. The Use
of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International
Marketing. Advances in International Marketing 20(1):277
319.
Jones, S., Fawcett, S.E., Fawcett, A.M., and Wallin, C. 2010.
Benchmarking Trust Signals in Supply Chain Alliances:
Moving Toward a Robust Measure of Trust. Benchmarking:
An International Journal 17(5):70527.
Kilduff, M. 2006. Editors Comments: Publishing Theory.
Academy of Management Review 31(2):25255.
Kuhn, T.S. 1996. The Structure of Scientic Revolutions. 3rd ed
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Li, X., Goldsby, T.J., and Holsapple, C.W. 2009. Supply Chain
Agility: Scale Development. International Journal of
Logistics Management and Distribution Report 20(2):40824.
MacInnis, D.J. 2011. A Framework for Conceptual
Contributions in Marketing. Journal of Marketing 75
(4):13654.
Maitlis, S., and Lawrence, T.B. 2007. Triggers and Enablers of
Sensegiving in Organizations. Academy of Management
Journal 50(1):5784.
Markman, G.D., Gianiodis, P.T., and Buchholtz, A.K. 2009.
Factor-Market Rivalry. Academy of Management Review 34
(3):42341.

15

Meehl, P.E. 1990. Appraising and Amending Theories: The

Strategy of Lakatosian Defense and Two Principles That
Warrant It. Psychological Inquiry 1(2):10841.
Miles, M.B., and Huberman, M.A. 1994. Qualitative Data
Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Min, S., Kim, S.K., and Chen, H. 2008. Developing Social
Identity and Social Capital for Supply Chain Management.
Journal of Business Logistics 29(1):283304.
Moore, G.C., and Benbasat, I. 1991. Development of an
Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an
Information Technology Innovation. Information Systems
Research 2(3):192222.
Morgeson, F.P., and Hofmann, D.A. 1999. The Structure and
Function of Collective Constructs: Implications for Multilevel
Research and Theory Development. Academy of
Management Review 24(2):24965.
Muthen, L.K., and Muthen, B.O. 2012. Mplus Users Guide. 7th
ed Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Newbert, S.L. 2007. Empirical Research on the Resource-Based
View of the Firm: An Assessment and Suggestions for Future
Research. Strategic Management Journal 29(7):12146.
Nunnally, J.C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGrawHill Book Company.
Pettigrew, A.M. 1990. Longitudinal Field Research on Change:
Theory and Practice. Organization Science 1(3):26792.
Pierce, J.R., and Aguinis, H. 2013. The Too-Much-of-a-GoodThing Effect in Management. Journal of Management 39
(2):31338.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., and Podsakoff,
N.P. 2003. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research:
A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended
Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5):879903.
Porter, M. 1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and
Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: Free Press.
Pratt, M.G. 2008. Fitting Oval Pegs Into Round Holes:
Tensions in Evaluating and Publishing Qualitative Research
in Top-Tier North American Journals. Organizational
Research Methods 11(3):481509.
Pratt, M.G. 2009. For the Lack of a Boilerplate: Tips on
Writing Up (and Reviewing) Qualitative Research. Academy
of Management Journal 52(5):85662.
Pratt, M.G., Rockmann, K.W., and Kaufmann, J.B. 2006.
Constructing Professional Identity: The Role of Work and
Identity Learning Cycles in the Customization of Identity
Among Medical Residents. Academy of Management
Journal 49(2):23562.
Read, D., Jin, Y.H., and Fawcett, S.E. 2014. Trust in Value CoCreation Strategies: Moving Toward a Conceptualization We
Can Trust. Journal of Business Logistics 35(1):9596.
Revelle, W., and Zinbarg, R.E. 2009. Coefcients Alpha, Beta,
Omega, and the GLB: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika
74(1):14554.
Richardson, H.A., Simmering, M.J., and Sturman, M.C. 2009.
A Tale of Three Perspectives: Examining Post Hoc
Statistical Techniques for Detection and Correction of
Common Method Variance. Organizational Research
Methods 12(4):762800.

16

Rindeisch, A., Malter, A.J., Ganesan, S., and Moorman, C.

2008. Cross-Sectional Versus Longitudinal Survey Research:
Concepts, Findings, and Guidelines. Journal of Marketing
Research 45(3):26179.
R
onkko, M., and Evermann, J. 2013. A Critical Examination of
Common Beliefs About Partial Least Squares Path
Modeling. Organizational Research Methods 16(3):42548.
Seppanen, R., Blomqvist, K., and Sundqvist, S. 2007.
Measuring Inter-Organizational TrustA Critical Review of
the Empirical Research in 1990-2003. Industrial Marketing
Management 36(2):24965.
Sijtsma, K. 2009. On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very
Limited Usefullness of Cronbachs Alpha. Psychometrika 74
(1):10720.
Spradley, J. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Strauss, A.L., and Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research:
Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory.
2nd ed Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Suddaby, R. 2010. Editors Comments: Construct Clarity in
Theories of Management and Organization. Academy of
Management Review 35(3):34657.
Sutton, R.I., and Staw, B.M. 1995. What Theory is Not.
Administrative Science Quarterly 40(3):37184.
Thomas, D.C., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., and Brannen, M.Y. 2011.
From the Editors: Explaining Theoretical Relationships in
International Business Research: Focusing on the Arrows,
NOT the Boxes. Journal of International Business Studies
42(9):107378.
Thompson,
C.J.
1997.
Interpreting
Consumers:
A
Hermeneutical Framework for Deriving Marketing Insights
From the Texts of Consumers Consumption Stories. Journal
of Marketing Research 34(4):43855.

S. E. Fawcett et al.

Wagner, S.M., and Kemmerling, R. 2010. Handling

Nonresponse in Logistics Research. Journal of Business
Logistics 31(2):35781.
Waller, M.A., Fawcett, S.E., and VanHoek, R. 2012. Thought
Leaders and Thoughtful Leaders: Advancing Logistics and
Supply Chain Management. Journal of Business Logistics 33
(2):7577.
Weick, K.E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. 2nd ed
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K.E. 1989. Theory Construction as Disciplined
Imagination. Academy of Management Review 14(4):51631.
Whetten, D.A. 1989. What Constitutes a Theoretical
Contribution. Academy of Management Reivew 14(4):490
95.
Whetten, D.A., Felin, T., and King, B.G. 2009. The Practice of
Theory Borrowing in Organizational Studies: Current Issues
and Future Directions. Journal of Management 35(3):53763.
Whipple, J.M., Grifs, S.E., and Daugherty, P.J. 2013.
Conceptualizations of Trust: Can We Trust Them? Journal
of Business Logistics 34(2):11730.
Williamson, O. 1991. Comparative Economic Organization: The
Analysis of Discreet Structural Alternatives. Administrative
Science Quarterly 36:26996.
Williamson, O.E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism.
New York: The Free Press.
Williamson, O.E. 1993. Transaction Cost Economics and
Organization Theory. Industrial and Corporate Change 2
(2):10756.
Yadav, M.S. 2010. The Decline of Conceptual Articles and
Implications for Knowledge Development. Journal of
Marketing 74(1):119.
Yin, R.K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.