How to write an academic paper

2. Understanding how journals work

3. The review process
• Anonymity
• Acceptance ratio
• Time scale
• Content accuracy

4. Matching your paper
• Composition of the editorial board
• Articles most cited
• Abstract/ Cover letter
• Plagiarism 15% paper, 5% book, 10% thesis

5. Section 2: Know your paper
• What is my paper about?
• “so what” test
• Who is the audience
• What kind of paper do I want to write?
• Research Question
• Delimiting your paper
• Building a coherent reasoning throughout the paper
• Position the paper

6. Summary
• Understand the field
• Know what you can contribute to it
• Know how to communicate your contribution to this
academic community

7. Finding Literature Review
• The dimensions of originality
• New empirical work
• Known ideas in a new way
• New data to old problems
• New contextualization
• Trans-disciplinary research
• Original synthesis
• New field of research

8. Readings
• Jesse Shore, Ethan Bernstein, David Lazer (2015) Facts and Figuring: An
Experimental Investigation of Network Structure and Performance in
Information and Solution Spaces. Organization Science 26(5):1432-1446.
• - http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/pdf/10.1287/orsc.2015.0980
• b. Frank den Hond, Kathleen A. Rehbein, Frank G. A. de Bakker, and Hilde
Kooijmans-van Lankveld (2014) Playing on Two Chessboards: Reputation
Effects between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Corporate Political
Activity (CPA), Journal of Management Studies 51(5): 790-813
• - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joms.12063/epdf
• c. Weick Karl E., (2010) Reflections on Enacted Sensemaking in the Bhopal
Disaster. Journal of Management Studies 47(3): 537-538
• - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00900.x/epdf
•

9. Goals of the literature review
• Identify the knowledge frontier and what needs to be studied
• Identify the context of your research question/research
problem
• Identify key words, variables linked to your research question
and their potential relationships
• Establish the relationships between theory and empirical
considerations

10. Finding reference
• Google Scholar > articles > journals
• Remember your readings
• Authors
• Date
• Full reference
• Problematic
• Used thesis
• Methodology
• Quote (with the page)
• Personal quote

11. Storing references
• To store references, a non exhaustive list:
• Zotero
• Mendeley
• Papers
• Endnote
• Readcube
• For those who use LaTex as editing software, you should know
about BibTex and JabRef. Furthermore, you have the possibility
from any other software such as Zotero to export in BibTex.

12. Research Design: The gap
• X Has it already been done? X
• O is it possible to go further in this direction in an original
way? O
• Fill the gap with research questions (the highlight of the
paper)
• Clear
• Precise
• Concise

13. • The following papers to compare are the followings (you can
find them free of access on Google Scholar):
• - E.K.R.E. Huizingh (2011). Open Innovation; State of the art
and future perspectives. Technovation, Vol. 31, pp. 2 – 9.
• - H. Chesbroug, A. Kardon (2006). Beyond high tech: early
adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D
Management, Vol. 36, pp. 229 – 236.
• - K. Laursen, A. Salter (2005). Open for innovation: the role of
openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K.
manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 27,
pp. 131 – 150.

14. The gap
• Research, theoretical background, context, methodlodgy

15. Structure of an academic paper
• Title – clear and simple
• Abstract – what the paper is about
• Introduction- outline the topic
• Literature review- justify the necessity of your work
• Methodology
• Results/Analysis
• Discussion
• Conclusion

16. Where do you start?
• Introduction, conclusion and lastly the abstract
• Introduction – first line is the most important and the MRCI
framework
• Motivation
• Results?
• Contributions?
• Implications?
• Literature Review: its an argument, reject everything older
than 5 years

17. Bibliography and abstract
• Chief editors and most people read only the abstract
• An abstract should consider:
• Who are the intended readers?
• What did you do?
• Why did you do it?
• What happened when you did that?
• What do your results mean in practice and in theory?
• What are the key benefits for the readers?
• What remains unsolved?