The Path to Publication for Entrepreneurship Experiments
Research Paper Title:
“Knocking at the gate: The path to publication for entrepreneurship experiments through the lens of gatekeeping theory”
Authors:
Regan Stevenson (Indiana University, Kelley School of Business)
Matthew Josefy (Indiana University, Kelley School of Business)
Background:
This paper focuses on experiments which are less commonly used in entrepreneurship research. Stevenson and Josefy argue that because experiments are used less often, they may receive greater resistance in the review process. Scholars can be conceptualized as entrepreneurs as they pursue new research opportunities and the reviewal process is the gatekeeping mechanism of their marketplace. This research investigates the extent to which experimental methods survive the review process. The researchers use gatekeeping theory to develop a framework for their exploratory study. Gatekeeping theory explains the frictions that influence whether or not particular messages will reach a mass audience. Gatekeeping is necessary in venture funding, mass media, and the review process to ensure the viability of the project. Stevenson and Josefy survey entrepreneurship experimentalists to identify authors' experiences and uncover common reasons for rejection. They examine a sample of decision letters that relate to entrepreneurship experiments. Also, they survey experienced entrepreneurship editors to supplement their discussion.
Methodology:
Sample: Author survey to identify rejection criteria (data collection one); exploratory assessment of decision letters (data collection two); Editor's recommendations for overcoming rejection critiques
Sample Size: 27 (data collection one); 42 (data collection two)
Analytical Approach: Computer-aided text analysis (LIWC), exploratory analysis
Hypotheses:
Does gatekeeping theory at least partially explain why entrepreneurship experiments are underrepresented in the entrepreneurship literature?
From a methodological standpoint, what are the challenges that authors face when attempting to publish entrepreneurship experiments?
What techniques could be used by authors to overcome the challenges associated with publishing entrepreneurship experiments?
Results:
The exploratory analysis of decision letters and the author survey identifies several unintentional individual and routine-level gatekeeping factors that contribute to the rejection of experimental manuscripts. Thus, gatekeeping theory provides an alternative explanation as to why experiments may not be surviving to publication.
While gatekeepers referenced personal experiences, opinions, or preferences in reviews, the vast-majority of gatekeeping comments that we identified were not at the individual level but rather at the routine level.
Authors in the survey suggested that submitting their experimental work resulted in greater criticism relative to other methods.
Concerns in the author survey regarded generalizability, whether the research question was important or adequately justified, appropriate links between theory and design, and concerns regarding discriminant validity.
Authors looking to publish experimental work must take the onus upon themselves to methodically articulate each specific step taken during the design, pretest, and execution of their experiment so that the reader can clearly follow and understand the experimental approach.
Multiple gatekeepers indicated a preference for clear outcomes, requesting behavioral outcomes rather than items perceived as only measuring a participants' intentions.
Justification of a chosen sample for each study should be as strongly articulated as possible.
The use of multiple studies is preferred by most reviewers.
Conclusion:
Experiments are rarely used in entrepreneurship research. Through a survey of authors, an exploratory assessment of decision letters, and a survey of editors, Stevenson and Josefy find evidence that gatekeeping theory provides a partial explanation as to why experiments may not survive the publication process. Although experiments may face hurdles in the path to publication, they hold tremendous promise for entrepreneurship research in the future.