{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023060796645702306, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0010482180293501049, 'mean_word_length': 5.022082018927445, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reflections on Publishing in the Journal of Marketing

Academic research and publication hold vital positions in an academic’s career. Publishing research serves a critical purpose in disseminating knowledge to information seekers, contributing to the body of knowledge, showcasing scholarship, and securing tenure/promotion. Although it is necessary to an academic’s work and career, the academic publication process can present daunting challenges. For a premier journal such as the Journal of Marketing (JM), which publishes only the best work in the field of marketing and accepts only 7%–8% of all submissions, navigating the peer review process becomes all the more demanding. Amid these high stakes, it is essential that JM’s marketing scholarship is captured in its entire essence and presented to the readers in a timely manner. In this regard, it is necessary to nurture a positive and constructive approach to scholarship so that the body of knowledge can experience incremental gains. This editorial is a step in this direction. In this editorial, we review the recurring feedback that emerged from the decision letters during our editorial term. Our goal is to offer a perspective that is based on our reflection and not what an “ideal” JM submission ought to be. We hope that such a perspective will benefit future contributors in better designing their submissions to JM. In doing so, we provide a synthesis of this review and organize this editorial as follows. First, we present a set of guidelines for crafting manuscripts for JM that are truly compelling and therefore can survive the “desk rejection” stage. In addition, we present a set of “survival tips” for authors to avoid some common mistakes that surface during the initial submission. Then, we offer guidelines on how to address reviewer comments. Finally, we provide directions for how to prepare the manuscript for resubmission.