從失敗中學習

原本有所期待的那篇文章被退稿了，事實上這是很正常的事，曾經有位國際期刊的頂級高手告訴我（他已經有超過五篇JM, JMR那等級的文章），他的投稿文章中大約有80%是退稿。呵呵，我這種等級的低手，如果有個90%的退稿率，當然不只是正常，而且還是應該的事。只是過去太受幸運之神的眷顧，曾經有兩年是100%的接受率，養成了不正常的期待和胃口。JCP的主編和兩位審稿老師十分誠懇地寄來對文章的建議，不怕觀眾笑話，將它轉貼於此，目的是和我的學生們共同學習，也期待我的合作者，如果有機會看見這篇博文，能夠再接再厲，就欠缺的地方繼續修正補強。看看兩位審查老師的用語和口氣就可以明白，這是個還不錯的研究，只是就目前的狀態還沒成熟到可以在這等級的期刊裡發表出來。其實我認為這篇文章還是很有希望的。

Journal of Consumer Psychology
The Official Journal of The Society for Consumer Psychology

Editor: Durairaj Maheswaran , Department of Marketing, Stern School of Business,
New York University, New York, NY 10012-1126.


February 3, 2008

Dear XXX,

Thanks for submitting the manuscript (JCP07-199) “Replacement of Conformity with Counter-Conformity in Consumption Decisions” for consideration for publication to the Journal of Consumer Psychology.

I have had the opportunity to read the manuscript carefully. I have also solicited the comments of two experts in this area. The reviewers felt that the theoretical contribution of your research is not significant enough to warrant publication in JCP. The reviewers point to several issues that seem to considerably limit the contribution of your manuscript. The reviewers have provided meaningful insights on the various issues related to your research. They have identified the critical strengths and weaknesses of your research in their comments. The consensus is that your work makes a contribution in the context of “Chinese consumers”, but, the general theoretical contribution to our understanding of consumer behavior across domains is limited. Also, your work appears to be exploratory and would require considerable additional follow up work for publication. Journal of Consumer Psychology primarily publishes manuscripts that make significant theoretical contribution that are independent of the context. I am sorry that I am not able to accept your manuscript for publication.

所以，很明顯的，問題出在理論發展不足。我們的研究是有創意的，同時我們的樣本對知識整體是有貢獻的，但是在構造理論框架的時候，所引用的文獻不夠充足，文獻和框架的聯繫不足。

In closing, if you follow up with research that is more theoretically oriented, I hope you will continue to consider JCP as a potential outlet for your research. Thank you for considering JCP this time.

Sincerely,

Durairaj Maheswaran (Mahesh)
Editor

Reviewer A
JCP Manuscript 07-199
Review of : “Replacement of Conformity with Counter-Conformity in Consumption Decisions “
This paper presents insights on reference group behavior among Chinese consumers and more specifically, examines the conforming decisions are examined. I believe that this paper is not suitable for publishing in the Journal of Consumer Psychology in its present form and that a few issues need to be addressed. There are several theoretical and methodological issues with this manuscript. The following suggestions should help to improve the manuscript.

Theoretical Contribution

The theoretical development should be comprehensive and outline past research that can support the new framework. As of now, the theoretical premise relating to reference group behavior is intuitive and could be considered as a speculative premise. The literature in marketing and psychology has many studies that address the impact of experience on behavior. These studies should be reviewed to provide more convincing rationale for the proposed framework.

框架和過去文獻的聯繫不足，尤其理論框架和參考群體之間的聯繫很缺乏，所以審稿老師用了intuitive和speculative這樣的字眼來形容我們的不嚴謹。同時有許多關於過去經驗如何影響行為的文獻沒列入考慮，使得理論支柱的部份缺乏充足證據。換句話說，作研究在闡述理論支柱的時候，不能僅僅使用很單一的一兩篇文章作支持，必須能夠廣泛旁徵博引，才能有力地建立強固的理論支柱。

Survey Research

In the context of survey research, it would be establishing the underlying causal link between theoretical constructs across multiple groups (sites). While your current research is insightful, it appears to be exploratory at this point in time. In order for your findings to be publishable, it would be important to examine your framework in multiple settings and demonstrate the robustness of the findings.

一樣的問題，如果事前對框架的推論做好一點，那麼就不會給人一種「純屬探索」的感覺。同時審稿老師還建議要多作檢驗（外部效度），事實上我們做了，只是沒放進來。考慮改寫這篇文章，將另外那個檢驗放進來，作為robustness test。

In addition to meeting the triangulation expectation, the validity of your findings should be established by a process of random sampling and represent the population at large. While convenience sampling is useful, the reviewers do not consider the findings to be representative or generalizable.

哇，這裡很嚴格。頂級期刊已經開始不接受便利抽樣了！！！

Findings

It appears that you are examining a relationship at the level of the variable and in an applied context. This approach is in the right direction. However, your contribution to theory building should go beyond an application of an existing theoretical framework to a specific context. Also, your incremental theoretical contribution should address a unique relationship between the underlying theoretical constructs that drive the observed relationship between the variables. I think considerable additional work is needed to strengthen your manuscript on these dimensions.

研究結論沒有凸顯亮點。換言之，整篇文章只能有一個亮點，而那個亮點當然就是文章題目。目前這個點還不亮。

I hope that you my comments helpful and I wish you the best of luck !


Reviewer B
Replacement of Conformity with Counter-Conformity in Consumption Decisions
JCP 07-198

Comments for the Authors

This paper reports a survey research that investigated the relative importance of conformity in reference groups. The field survey was a good effort to assess the critical role played by conformity. The paper is well written and organized effectively. There are several strengths to this manuscript. However, I have the following concerns.

1. I think your work is interesting. It has some meaningful insights. However, it is exploratory. I think it needs to go beyond a single survey and include multiple data sets and among multiple segments.

相同的意見。想要攻入好的期刊，必須是驗證性的文章，探索性的文章是很難登出來的。個人認為，JCP是消費行為類國際期刊的第二名，僅次於JCR。

2. I would have ideally liked to see a clear identification of cause and effect and a demonstration of the mediation and moderation links. In other words, while I admire the effort to collect data in a realistic setting, I am also concerned about the lack of causality.

所以問題仍然還是理論框架。尤其是框架中的變量，變量間的因果關係，以及其他變量的干涉和中介。

3. It is somewhat difficult to evaluate the contribution of your study. At one level, it is interesting to know that psychological type influences of reference group behavior. However, it is also well known that behavior is influenced by personality characteristics. The context is interesting, but the theoretical contribution is not clear.

理論貢獻！亮點！如前所述。

4. The authors do use a theoretical framework. However, the link between the proposed framework and the empirical work has not been convincingly argued. The theory development could benefit by marshalling a series of tightly knit theoretical arguments explaining why you expect to see the effects you do and how they are derived from the theoretical framework. The emphasis of the paper is on the “effects” with relatively limited effort to develop the theoretical dimension of the paper.

所以我們必須圍繞那兩個理論框架（許多方框和連線，引出兩種不同的行為）來改寫假說。其實這是整篇文章的真正亮點，而不是原本那個結構模型。

5. Your findings are mostly main effects. As in most research, generally main effects are often influenced by other variables that are not controlled. Unfortunately, given the design and focus of this research, it is difficult to rule out some of these influences.

審稿老師想看中介和干涉效果。尤其是人格特質變量的干擾。

6. As I understand, your research is focused on a single culture and examines a segment that pertains to a specific country. It is somewhat specialized in its focus and targets those who may be interested in Poland. To this extent, a journal that specializes in the publication of articles of interest to marketing and psychology professionals that targets that region may be a good outlet for your work.

看來只做中國的樣本還是很危險的，跨文化的研究比較有機會登出來。（審稿老師糊塗了，看到後來以為是波蘭的研究）