Has IMRD become IMRDi in management journals? Implications as an independent structural component of research articles

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to understand the practice of separating implications into separate sections or sub‐sections in scholarly articles that report empirical research in social sciences. Using a stratified random sampling strategy, I selected 120 articles from 40 journals in the field of management available via the Social Sciences Citation Index. I analysed the articles using qualitative content analysis that was guided by two research questions: (1) do journal articles include implications as an independent component? and (2) What guidance do journal editors provide about the presentation of implications in article submissions? The results show that 72% of articles separated implications into a section or sub‐section whilst the remaining 28% integrated them into other main sections. Of the first group, three quarters of authors separated implications into sub‐sections of the Discussion section and one quarter presented them as independent main sections that followed the Discussion. Several patterns related to the range, length, order, and type of implications sections and sub‐sections emerged. The results also showed that only 4% of journals mention implications in their guidelines for authors. Journal editors could use the results of this study to discuss the importance of implications to the journal strategic development, articulate their position on the article structure, and audit their guidelines. Researchers might use the study results to improve their article structure and, hence, increase chances of receiving positive editorial decision.

ChatGPT and the Future of Editorial Writing

“…I felt confident that ChatGPT might be able to accomplish these tasks well enough that I could include the response in this editorial. In some ways, ChatGPT might do an even better job than me as it could without bias “introduce complex content in a way that is acceptable also to less-experienced scholars and peers” (Giannoni, 2008: 213) and “enhance readers’ knowledge and understanding of a phenomenon” (Plakhotnik, 2023: 7), avoiding any unintended “popularizing” effect that a human editor might bring.…”

“…As I end this editorial, which has focussed on the purpose of editorials, the disruptive potential of GenAI in the research process as demonstrated by my use of ChatGPT to identify themes for this issue, allow me to answer the questions I posed at the beginning: “What is the purpose of a journal editorial?” and “What is my purpose in writing this editorial?”. Plakhotnik's (2023) vision of editorials as a form of leadership is particularly compelling. With online journal publication, readers rarely pick up an entire journal issue at a time (with the exception perhaps of special issues), so the function of writing editorials to highlight, validate and synthesize the content within the issue has become largely obsolete, since editorials are often read in isolation.…”

“…With online journal publication, readers rarely pick up an entire journal issue at a time (with the exception perhaps of special issues), so the function of writing editorials to highlight, validate and synthesize the content within the issue has become largely obsolete, since editorials are often read in isolation. Like Plakhotnik (2023), I believe that editorials should be used more purposefully, meaningfully and systematically, and I have attempted to do this by not only introducing the articles thematically but also by questioning the very purpose of editorials and the possible use of GenAI for qualitative data analysis. Finally, in closing, I would also like to bring us back to the human aspect of GenAI, which can be captured in the idea of Education 5.0.…”

“…Two articles about the role of journal editors and editorials have urged me to reconsider my view about how I approach writing an editorial. Giannoni's (2008) assertion about the popularizing and gatekeeping functions of editorials coupled with Plakhotnik's (2023) view of editorials as a leadership practice suggest that editors should approach this task responsibly, thoughtfully and creatively. In her survey of 120 editorials in 103 journals by 21 publishers, Plakhotnik (2023) found vast inconsistency in the content of editorials, ranging from introductory articles to topical discussions to presentation of original research.…”

“…Giannoni's (2008) assertion about the popularizing and gatekeeping functions of editorials coupled with Plakhotnik's (2023) view of editorials as a leadership practice suggest that editors should approach this task responsibly, thoughtfully and creatively. In her survey of 120 editorials in 103 journals by 21 publishers, Plakhotnik (2023) found vast inconsistency in the content of editorials, ranging from introductory articles to topical discussions to presentation of original research. She also noted that that editorials mainly served to validate knowledge, with few editorials used to “predict, create, propose or hypothesize something new” (7).…”