The new co-editors of the Journal of Financial Research touted the journal’s current successes, revealed new changes, and fielded questions to prospective authors during a “Meet the Editors” panel session at the Southwestern Finance Association’s annual meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada in February.
In addition to JFR co-editor Brandon Cline, other panelists at the event included Krishnan Dandapani, a special issue editor of Managerial Finance, Ivo Welch, editor of Critical Finance Review, Ivelina Pavlova-Stout, a special issue editor of Finance Research Letters, and Laura Gonzalez, a member of the editorial board of Managerial Finance and International Review of Financial Analysis. JFR co-editors Adam Yore and Melissa Woodley were also in attendance and participated in the discussion.
Questions from student researchers in attendance ranged from current editorial practices, to submission suggestions, even the use of artificial intelligence.
When asked what was of most importance as an editor of a journal, Cline said his team’s single, greatest goal is turnaround time.
“As editors, that is our responsibility,” Cline said. “In our short two months, our average turnaround time is 28 days. And our goal is to continue that timeframe moving forward. We want to change the decision turnaround culture.”
Cline, Yore, and Woodley took over as co-editors of the JFR in January and have already implemented new changes to the journal, including best paper awards for each issue, increased visibility of publications on social media, and incentives for fast reviews.
Researchers and graduate students at the panel session seemed to murmur in agreement that submission turnaround time at many journals is a concern, a constraint and causes great delay in their research. One student asked about the changes journals can make to decrease those delays. Cline said it starts with reviewers.
“If you’re asked to be a reviewer for the JFR or another journal, the best thing you can do is to be honest quickly,” Cline said. “Just tell us, ‘yes,’ or tell us, ‘no.’ Quickly identifying your willingness matters a lot.”
Cline explained that many of the delays he sees as an editor stand with those asked to review a paper – the referees. Each submission to a journal first goes to the editorial team for initial review. An invitation to review the paper is then sent to published researchers who have authored work in the same field as the paper submitted. Researchers can either agree to read and critique the paper, or decline. Often, Cline says, those invitations go unanswered for months, sometimes completely.
“If you’re not willing, if you’re not interested in the subject, or simply don’t have the time, just tell us, ‘No,’” Cline said. “But if you tell us, ‘Yes,’ you’re already committing the time, so why not just do it and get it off your plate?”
When asked about things that aren’t often stressed, but important when submitting a paper, those on the panel agreed that grammar and cleanliness are of most importance.
“Grammar should be important. Your paper should be easily read. Tables should look professional,” said Yore. “Before you hit send, make sure your paper looks like it should be an article published in a scholarly journal.”
Yore suggested that authors should have their work copyedited well before ever submitting to a journal.
“First impressions matter. They bias reviewers and having your paper clean is important,” Yore said. If you’re unsure, send it to a co-author or colleague to look it over.”
“The reviewer is always right… That’s what we’re all taught, at least,” said one doctoral student at the panel session. His question to the editors revolved around the best way to respond to a reviewer. He asked, “What if you, as an author, disagree with the reviewer’s view?”
Cline responded by acknowledging that everyone is fallible. He said he looks at every referee report turned back in, while at the same time, recognizing that no one is perfect. He said the best way to tackle a reviewer you may not agree with is to respond to all of their questions and comments.
“As an author, you should always defend your point. You can’t argue all points, but if you disagree with some, defend yourself and argue your point,” said Cline. “If you fundamentally disagree, then point it out politely and show your evidence as to why.”
If you’re wrong, though, Cline said it’s important to thank the reviewer for their input and adjust your work.
While on the topic of referees, another doctoral student asked how frequently the panel of editors disagrees with the reviewers they choose to referee a submission. Most on the panel agreed that it depends on the paper.
“It’s not really fulfilling our role as editor when we go along with everything reviewers say,” explained Cline. “Our job is a gatekeeper, and that’s not being responsible to just accept at face value everything they say.”
The JFR has compiled a strong board of associate editors to help with the review process. Their experience is vast, spanning decades in their fields of study and comes with many top-tier publications. Any time the editorial team receives a review they need further insight on, an associate editor can step in and offer their advice.
“The JFR is a wide interest journal. As editors, we don’t have the understanding or background in every area, that’s why it was important to get a good board behind us,” explained Cline. “Assembling a team of really good AEs gives us a better feel for what that judgement is and a solid team to bounce ideas off of.”
“What can we do as authors to help editors and referees?” asked one researcher in the audience. “Submit good, high-quality papers,” quickly responded one of the panelists.
A few chuckles aside, the editors sympathized with those in attendance about how difficult it is to spend countless hours on research, only to cut parts of your hard work out of your paper. But they also agreed that it’s best to leave out anything that takes the focus of your paper out of context.
“It’s difficult because we’ve done a million things in our research and there are a lot of interesting things in those million points that we want to make, but the audience doesn’t care and won’t remember all of those fine details,” said Cline. “Keep it condensed to your meaningful big ideas. It makes your paper more impactful.”
“We put a lot of junk and jargon into our papers that isn’t necessary,” said Yore. “Shorter, more concise papers are better.”
Another suggestion panelist told students in attendance was to always include a letter to the editor of the whatever journal they decide to submit.
“Writing a letter to the editor matters,” said Cline. “It shows you’ve put a lot of time and effort into your work and it shows that you have an appreciation for your work. Showcase all of that in your letter to the editor.”
Cline recommended writing two to three sentences to argue the point of your paper and contribution. Panel members agreed that it’s also the only way to interact with the editors of journal you submit. It will also help if your paper gets rejected and you decide to submit it to another journal.
“We’re a small profession. The odds you’re going to get that same reviewer again is high,” said Yore. “Incorporating the input of your reviewers is helpful and will get you some recognition and respect down the line.”
That brought up a question about the importance of an acknowledgment section. Most on the panel agreed that editors commonly care less about the names in the section, but rather the fact that there is one.
“My initial assumption of a paper with an acknowledgment section is its more polished, you invested more time in it, you’ve made the effort,” Cline said.
All of the panelists agreed the acknowledgment section can also showcase how active you are in your field, including your participation in events like the Southwestern Finance Association’s annual meeting.
“There is a reason for coming to conferences such as this: Networking and having your paper read over and polished,” Yore said. “An acknowledgments section is your chance to list those connections and insights, that you made the effort to go to the conference and showcase your work and get critiqued. It shows you care, that you spent a lot of time on your work and with others in your profession. It stands out. It Builds trust and respect.”
One last question for the panelists was one they were never familiar with as grad students themselves, but one they’re forced to learn alongside students now: Artificial Intelligence. One student in attendance asked for input on using AI in their work and how editors are policing the technology.
“Well, you should never plagiarize. Everything should be your own work,” said Yore. “But if you write something, AI can be a tool to help with grammar and to improve your exposition. But you have to use your judgment.”
Yore cautioned the reliability of AI and reminded authors that, ultimately, they will always be asked to defend their work.
“This will be the big question for our profession,” said Yore.