Want to get your paper published? Please follow this virtuous guidance!

• Published date: 01 April 2020
• Date: 01 April 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12276

Business Ethics: A Eur Rev. 2020;29:245–247. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/beer  

|

  245© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

DOI: 10 .1111/bee r.12276

EDITORIAL

Want to get your paper published? Please follow this virtuous

guidance!

There are numer ous highly inst ructive edito rials with advi ce from

editors in the bu siness ethics a nd business and s ociety fiel ds (e.g.,

Arnold, 2016; Cra ne, Henrique s, Husted, & Mat ten, 2016a; Crane,

Henriques, H usted, & Matte n, 2016b; Crane, Hen riques, Hust ed,

& Matten, 2017; Reinecke, A rnold, & Palaz zo, 2016; Zollo, 2018)

as well as our journa l (Beadle, Sison, & Fontrodona , 2015; Jamali &

Carroll, 2017; Nijhof & Je urissen, 2006). Given t he recent changes in

our editorial tea m and our recentl y updated Aims & Sco pe (Jamali,

Barkemeyer, Leigh, & Sa mara, 2020), we have decide d to take on the

new decade wit h some advice that is likely to be useful f or anyone

pursuing the publication process, but particularly for those seeking

to publish in our jou rnal.

1. Let the virtue of “G ood Counsel” g uide you in the Pre-Review

stage. When th inking about the lifec ycle of writing manuscri pts,

it is very prudent to ask a collea gue to provide pre -review

feedback. Th is can be achieved t hrough “frie ndly review” fr om

peers, or at confe rences and work shops, where yo u can de-

fend the main ide as. It is extrem ely import ant at this early

stage of the writ ing process to have an e xpert or a pee r to

assess your draf t in progress an d your ideas, and to m ake

recommendati ons based on this reading with fr esh eyes. Often

writers become so immersed in the writing process, and so

entangled wit h their ideas an d flow, that they might los e sight

of important anomalies or gaps. Therefore, it is imperative

to invite someone yo u trust to provid e a construct ive and

collegial review of yo ur paper before proceeding t o submission.

If English is not the f irst language of t he author team , then,

please make sure to have a d edicated lang uage reviewer as

well. This prework demonstrates conscientiousness on your

part and defi nitely allows for a s tronger star t in the review

process. It can a lso help avoid the tr ap of an early des k

rejection, w hich has become co mmon across jour nals given

the rising tide of su bmissions and th e standards of r igor and

quality they h ave to maintain.

2. Introductions in business ethics journals often include similar

metaphors a nd justific ations for resear ch. When sett ing up

your research, b e sure to draw upon re cent examples a nd try

to construct a c reative “hook” t hat piques the cu riosity of the

readers. Thi s hook is what will really determin e the worthiness

and contribut ion of your paper right thro ugh the first few pages .

Another way to put t his is to make sure that your introducto ry

paragraphs a re as explicit as it gets concernin g the novelty and

contribution of yo ur paper, and how it advances what we kno w

about the topic , and is thus wor th reading fur ther (hence th e

reviewer is hooked to co ntinue the read ). It is also worthw hile

to have a specific re search quest ion that guides you r paper.

The research question guides the overall structure of the paper

and allows you to high light the novelty of your contri bution. Do

not underest imate the impor tance of this. Edi tors, Associ ate

Editors, and Revi ewers are often a ble to make an early as sess-

ment of your paper ba sed on how your Intro duction is fr amed

and whether you h ave properly construc ted a solid and creative

hook.

3. The Literature Review is the foundational ancho r of writing, yet

do not be susceptib le to the vice of hubris. Be sure to repre sent

faithfully th e previous work in the fie ld or fields that infor m your

arguments . As the saying goes, “ther e is nothing new under the

sun,” so explicitl y join in the existi ng conversation s with fidel-

ity by acknowledging previous research. Successful papers are

those that are not o nly able to build on ear ly research in the fi eld,

but also go beyond it by t he end of the paper. Hen ce, a good

practice he re is to include what is known throu gh a good litera-

ture review and to th ink about how you can add to this towar d

the end of your pape r through your own work and your contr i-

bution. It is also i mportant to i nclude recent re levant research

from the journa l in which you intend to publish as well as fr om

relevant journ als in the field. As an interd isciplinary journal , this

includes work within the broader fields of management and or-

ganization studies, business ethics, environmental sustainability,

other business disciplines, philosophy, and other relevant social

sciences as well as t he ongoing conversations wi thin BE:ER.

4. The three C 's of Clarity, Consis tency, and Compre hensiveness

are qualities ne eded in all Methods sections in ensuring in-

formational transparency—a foundation al dimension of pee r

review. Clarity necessitates providing sufficient details on

your approach. Consistency entails alignment between all

parts of your d escription an d the actual fi ndings and anal ysis.

Comprehensiveness means providing information on all stages

of the research pr ocess, neither biasing the b eginning stages of

collection , nor the final stages of analysi s. Hence, the Methods

section has to b e equally handle d with care and with attention

to detail. If app ropriately managed by al igning with the three C 's,

the methods se ction is likely to conform to sta ndards of quality

and provide reassurance about the credibility and reliability of

your entire research.