Being a successful and valuable peer reviewer

Purpose – The purpose of this editorial is to announce the winners of the EJM Reviewer of the Year awards, and also to make some observations about successful and effective practice in reviewing scholarly work. Design/methodology/approach – The authors draw from their own experience as reviewers, authors, and editors to provide a set of considerations for those involved in the review process. Findings – The authors propose a set of guidelines for reviewers who wish to make the most of their role in the scientific method. Research limitations/implications – These thoughts are preliminary, and are drawn from personal experiences rather than a wide-ranging survey of stakeholders. Practical implications – Marketing researchers should ensure that they understand their role in the scholarly reviewing process, and that they provide timely and constructive comments on their areas of expertise. Originality/value – This piece should offer marketing researchers considerable value in the context of their own efforts, both as authors and reviewer.

Doctoral work in translation studies as an interdisciplinary mutual learning process:how a translator, teacher educator and linguistic typologist worked together

The focus of this paper is on the doctoral research training experienced by one of the authors and the ways in which the diverse linguistic and disciplinary perspectives of her two supervisors (co-authors of this paper) mediated the completion of her study. The doctoral candidate is a professional translator/interpreter and translation teacher. The paper describes why and how she identified her research area and then focused on the major research questions in collaboration with her two supervisors, who brought their differing perspectives from the field of linguistics to this translation research, even though they are not translators by profession or disciplinary background and do not speak Korean. In addition, the discussion considers the focus, purpose and theoretical orientation of the research itself (which addressed questions of readability in translated English-Korean texts through detailed analysis of a corpus and implications for professional translator training) as well as the supervisory and conceptual processes and practices involved. The authors contend that doctoral research of this kind can be seen as a mutual learning process and that inter-disciplinary research can make a contribution not only to the development of rigorous research in the field of translation studies but also to the other disciplinary fields involved.

Tracking and updating academic research in selling and sales management:a decade later

This study examines the state of academic research in selling and sales management (S&SM) from the years 2003-7, ten years after the data collected by Moncrief, Marshall, and Watkins (2000). Sales articles are reviewed that appeared in 19 marketing journals and evidence is provided on the state of the S&SM discipline by comparing the number of authors, authorships, and publications versus a comparable five-year period a decade ago. Of interest are the universities that produce and employ faculty in S&SM and to identify those schools and geographic regions that are publishing the majority of articles. Publication distribution trends across journals are also examined. A dramatic increase in non-U.S. authors and authorships is noted versus the prior study. Overall, the findings indicate that, perhaps contrary to some popular misconceptions, the state of S&SM research is healthy, vibrant, and evolving.

Cutting the Gordian knot [?]:a response to Lukka and Vinnari (2014)

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to constructively discuss the meaning and nature of (theoretical) contribution in accounting research, as represented by Lukka and Vinnari (2014) (hereafter referred to as LV). The authors aim is to further encourage debate on what constitutes management accounting theory (or theories) and how to modestly clarify contributions to the extant literature. Design/methodology/approach – The approach the authors take can be seen as (a)n interdisciplinary literature sourced analysis and critique of the movement’s positioning and trajectory” (Parker and Guthrie, 2014, p. 1218). The paper also draws upon and synthesizes the present authors and other’s contributions to accounting research using actor network theory. Findings – While a distinction between domain and methods theories … may appear analytically viable, it may be virtually impossible to separate them in practice. In line with Armstrong (2008), the authors cast a measure of doubt on the quest to significantly extend theoretical contributions from accounting research. Research limitations/implications – Rather than making (apparently) grandiose claims about (theoretical) contributions from individual studies, the authors suggest making more modest claims from the research. The authors try to provide a more appropriate and realistic approach to the appreciation of research contributions. Originality/value – The authors contribute to the debate on how theoretical contributions can be made in the accounting literature by constructively debating some views that have recently been outlined by LV. The aim is to provide some perspective on the usefulness of the criteria suggested by these authors. The authors also suggest and highlight (alternative) ways in which contributions might be discerned and clarified.

Quantifying evidence for forensic authorship analysis

The judicial interest in ‘scientific’ evidence has driven recent work to quantify results for forensic linguistic authorship analysis. Through a methodological discussion and a worked example this paper examines the issues which complicate attempts to quantify results in work. The solution suggested to some of the difficulties is a sampling and testing strategy which helps to identify potentially useful, valid and reliable markers of authorship. An important feature of the sampling strategy is that these markers identified as being generally valid and reliable are retested for use in specific authorship analysis cases. The suggested approach for drawing quantified conclusions combines discriminant function analysis and Bayesian likelihood measures. The worked example starts with twenty comparison texts for each of three potential authors and then uses a progressively smaller comparison corpus, reducing to fifteen, ten, five and finally three texts per author. This worked example demonstrates how reducing the amount of data affects the way conclusions can be drawn. With greater numbers of reference texts quantified and safe attributions are shown to be possible, but as the number of reference texts reduces the analysis shows how the conclusion which should be reached is that no attribution can be made. The testing process at no point results in instances of a misattribution.

Translators as cosmopolitans?

Modern cosmopolitans are compulsive explorers in search of knowledge of world cultures; their role as translators of different languages enhances cross-cultural understanding. Defined as "world citizen", the cosmopolitan emerges as a habitual city-dweller whose existence coincides with the emergence of the modern metropolis. Whether as Kant's blueprint for "world peace" or Goethe's "world literature", this study of cosmo-politanism introduces profiles of authors and intellectuals whose contribution to German and Austrian literary culture spans the globe.

Designing a successful adaptive agent for TAC Ad auction

This paper describes the design and evaluation of Aston-TAC, the runner-up in the Ad Auction Game of 2009 International Trading Agent Competition. In particular, we focus on how Aston-TAC generates adaptive bid prices according to the Market-based Value Per Click and how it selects a set of keyword queries to bid on to maximise the expected profit under limited conversion capacity. Through evaluation experiments, we show that AstonTAC performs well and stably not only in the competition but also across a broad range of environments. © 2010 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved.

Editorial

Readers may have noted that a short but very important announcement was made in the last issue of CLAE, at the top of the contents page. CLAE has been accepted by Thomson Reuters for abstracting and indexing in its SciSearch, Journal Citation Reports, and Current Contents services. This will ensure a greater visibility to the international research community. In addition, in June 2012 CLAE will receive its very first official Impact Factor – a measure of journal influence of importance to authors and readers alike. The impact factor value has not yet been decided but internal estimates by Elsevier estimate it will be around 1, and it will be applied to all CLAE issue back to January 2009 (volume 32). I would guess readers at this stage would have one of two responses – either ‘that's good news’ or perhaps ‘what's an impact factor?’ If you are in the latter camp then allow me to try and explain. Basically the impact factor or citation index of a journal is based on how many times in the previous year papers published in that journal in the previous two years were cited by authors publishing in other journals. So the 2012 impact factor for CLAE is calculated on how many times in 2011 papers that were published in CLAE in 2010 and 2009 were cited in other journals in 2011, divided by the number of papers published in CLAE 2010 and 2009. Essentially authors will try and get their work published in journals with a higher impact factor as it is thought that the paper will be cited more by other authors or the paper will have higher visibility in the arena. For universities having its published output in higher journals is one of the markers used to judge esteem. For individual authors publishing in journals with a higher impact factor or the number of times one of their papers is published is something that they are likely to add to their CVs or demonstrate the importance of their work. Journals with higher impact factors tend to be more review journals or journals with a wider spectrum so for a relatively small journal with a specialised field like CLAE it is great to be listed with a citation index. The awarding of a citation index crowns many changes that CLAE has undergone since the current Editor took the reins in 2005. CLAE has increased from four issues (in 2004) to six issues per year with at least one review article per issue and one article with continuing education per issue. The rejection rate has gone up significantly meaning that only best papers are published (currently it stands at 37%). CLAE has been Medline/Pubmed indexed for a few years now which is also a very important factor in improving visibility of the journal. The submission and reviewing process for CLAE in now entirely online and finally the editorial board has changed from being merely a list of keynote people to being an active group of keynote people who are enthusiastically involved with the journal. From the editorial board one person is appointed as a Reviews Editor plus we have two additional editors who work as Regional Editors. As ever, on behalf of CLAE I would like to thank the BCLA Council for their continued support (especially Vivien Freeman) and Elsevier for their continuing guidance (in particular Andrew Miller and Rosie Davey) and the excellent Editorial Board (Christopher Snyder, Pauline Cho, Eric Papas, Jan Bergmanson, Roger Buckley, Patrick Caroline, Dwight Cavanagh, Robin Chalmers, Michael Doughty, Nathan Efron, Michel Guillon, Nizar Hirji, Meng Lin, Florence Malet, Philip Morgan, Deborah Sweeney, Brian Tighe, Eef van Der Worp, Barry Weissman, Mark Willcox, James Wolffsohn and Craig Woods). And finally, a big thanks to the authors and reviewers who work tirelessly putting manuscripts together for publication in CLAE. Copyright © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.