Answering the Why: Focusing on Innovation and New Knowledge

Why did you do this study? Why did you write this paper? Why do we publish this journal? Every manuscript published in our journal must be underpinned by a scientific premise and contribute to the existing body of knowledge. Authors must consider how their new knowledge and/or innovation relates to our industry. Claims to new knowledge are best made when placed in the context of the point of departure from the existing body of knowledge. Claims to industry relevance are best made by describing the transformation from state of the practice to state of the art.

Simply reporting findings is not enough. Authors have the responsibility to convert findings into contributions. In fact, much of the feedback provided by reviewers when a paper is declined and/or sent back for revisions includes comments like these:

… the authors have failed to indicate new contributions …

… the authors have not made an effort to generalize their findings beyond [a specific country] so that the article is of interest to the broader audience of the Journal …

… the IT application described in the paper is a mere automation of the existing activity without any thought to process re-engineering in light of the technology … [This is analogous to paving the cow’s path.]

Even in the presence of unequivocal contributions, a weak description of the point of departure will yield a corresponding questionable context. Authors need to articulate a solid and comprehensive analysis, as opposed to just a review, of the relevant literature. This analysis will help establish the credibility of the authors and enable them to relate the paper’s findings to such literature analysis, resulting in a solid claim to contributions.

For maximum visibility, explicit contributions to the body of knowledge need to be made in both the Abstract and Conclusions sections. This shift in presentation of ideas will improve the quality of the papers, and the impact factor of the Journal will rise over time.