Referencing in Scholarly Articles: What Is Just Right?

Transcription

1 599111FBRXXX / Family Business ReviewPearson and Sharma research-article2015 Editorial Referencing in Scholarly Articles: What Is Just Right? Family Business Review 2015, Vol. 28(3) The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalspermissions.nav DOI: / fbr.sagepub.com Allison W. Pearson 1 and Pramodita Sharma 2 The scholarly reference (1) gives credit to the original source of materials used and (2) provides evidence of the depth and breadth of scholarly work, via the materials reviewed, integrated, and synthesized to form the basis of the research. The reference list of a manuscript reflects the authors due diligence in exploring and understanding the research topic. To situate its contribution, a scientific text must establish a context and convey to readers the extent and nature of its relationship to the existing literature. References are the means to establish this context and the nature of contribution (Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997). References, then, serve as a critical component of the scholarly article, worthy of careful time and attention by authors, and careful review and evaluation by reviewers and readers. The goal of this editorial is to provide a thought-provoking discussion of references in the scholarly manuscript and identifying key points to be considered in selecting and presenting references for publication in family business and other areas in management and organizational research. References as Indicators of the Scope of Scholarly Knowledge The literature review and resulting references demonstrate the body of work integrated to inform the scholarly work. References may also signal with whom the authors intend to engage in scholarly conversation (Huff, 1999), and the extent of intellectual resources devoted to a line of inquiry and the state of knowledge. For example, the signal sent by a list of references in highly regarded management journals is different from a reference list that draws from similar journals in management and finance, or in management, neuroscience, and marketing. All indicate high levels of intellectual investments. The difference lies in the number of fields these investments are in, and in turn, the nature of contribution to be expected. The mechanics of successful literature reviews is provided in previous Family Business Review (FBR) editorials (e.g., Reuber, 2010), with excellent guidance on how to select the appropriate literature to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the body of research. To demonstrate the depth and breadth of the field of study, both original and recent studies should be included in the literature review, and therefore in the references. In a study of 145 Belgian family firms (Vandekerkhof, Steijvers, Hendriks, & Voordeckers, 2015), an excellent example of integrating source theory with new research is provided beginning with the first sentence of the theory section: Research in TMTs is rooted in upper echelon theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984) (p. 106), then following with relevant studies. The authors provide credit to the original source of TMT theory Hambrick and Mason (1984) as well as to the evolution of the theory through recent empirical testing relevant to the research question of the current study. If the Hambrick and Mason citation had been omitted, some scholars, including readers, reviewers, editors, and others, could have possibly viewed the omission as shallow citing and drawn the conclusion that the authors may not fully understand the depth of the literature upon which their study is based, or worse yet, failed to give credit to the originators of the theory. Such is not the case with the Vandekerkhof et al. s (2015) article, as the authors quite carefully acknowledge both the original theory source and subsequent research, representing a best practice in referencing source materials. Complicating the job of the literature review, yet enhancing the body of knowledge, is the growing body 1 Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA 2 University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA Corresponding Author: Allison W. Pearson, Mississippi State University, PO Box 9581, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA. awp1@msstate.edu

2 Pearson and Sharma 189 Table 1. Scholarly Publications on Family Business by Decade. Before 1970: 111 articles 1970s: 135 articles 1980s: 306 articles 1990s: 2,281 articles 2000s: 5,654 articles : 4,021 articles (at this rate, the decade could yield over 8,000 family business studies) Note. Adapted from Sharma (2015). of scholarly work in the field of family business. In the 2014 Year in Review piece for FBR, Sharma (2015) reported statistics to demonstrate the rapid growth of publications in the field of family business. For example, FBR publishes a mere 17 to 21 articles each year, yet in 2014 received 245 submissions from scholars in 36 countries. Furthermore, Sharma (2015) demonstrated the stunning growth in the broader field reporting the frequency of published peer reviewed family business research listed on ABI Inform data set by decade as shown in Table 1. As the field of family business continues to grow and more research is available to the scholar, literature reviews and the resulting references need to be thorough and extend beyond FBR sources. Since FBR now publishes only about 2% of all family business research, authors should be searching for and citing references from a wide range of other scholarly outlets. While referencing relevant FBR citations is important where clearly related to the purpose of a study, parsimony in FBR citations is equally important. For example, we previously noted that Reuber (2010), published in FBR, provided an excellent editorial on effective literature reviews. We could have also referenced another FBR editorial that included guidance on literature reviews among other things (Reuber & Sharma, 2013). However, since Reuber s earlier piece covered the key points of a literature review, we could be more parsimonious in our FBR citations by omitting the Reuber and Sharma (FBR, 2013) cite and subsequent reference. But, how many references are enough? And, what sources should be considered? How Many References? What Are the Reviewers Looking For? How many references should be included in a scholarly study? The answer sounds like the punch line to a weak joke, but the answer is, enough enough to credit the work cited and reflect the relevant body of knowledge that supports that research question(s). A more pragmatic answer can be viewed through the reference lists of the articles published in a recent issue of FBR. In the June 2015 issue of FBR, of the four articles published, three were empirical, theory-testing studies and one was a multi-case comparative study. The number of references in these articles ranged from 57 to 103. Why the variation? The appropriate number of references depends on the scope of the study. For example, in a concise empirical model (e.g., Bammens, Notelaers, & Van Gils, 2015), the study parameters include specific theory and select constructs, thereby limiting the scope of references needed to 88. The Vandekerkhof et al. (2015) study, however, included 103 references, due to the complexity of integrating literatures from top management teams, socioemotional wealth, innovativeness, and internationalization, as well as additional references needed to support the multiple analytical techniques used in this study. In a more broad-based study, such as a literature review, the references can increase dramatically. The reference list for the taxonomy of dependent variables in family firm research (Yu, Lumpkin, Sorenson, & Brigham, 2012), for example, included 257 articles reviewed plus 74 additional references, because the scope of the study was quite broad all dependent/outcome variables in family business studies from 1998 to The challenge in achieving the correct number of references depends on the scope and complexity of the study. It is important to keep in mind that the reviewers and editors may assess the contribution to length ratio of an article when reading it. So it is best to be cautious against overly long reference lists and make sure that each reference used has a justifiable reason for being listed. What Sources Should Be Included in the References? When performing the literature review, the question of appropriate sources is likely to come up. The editorial team at FBR will review the reference list as part of the preliminary review of a manuscript. At this initial stage, we look for an appropriate scope of citations, including references from key theory and studies, as well as key sources, including FBR and other outlets. As FBR is devoted exclusively to exploration of the dynamics of

3 190 Family Business Review 28(3) family-controlled enterprise, we look for references linked to family business research to determine whether the manuscript falls within the scope of FBR. If there are no or few references relating to family business, the study is likely to be deemed outside of FBR s scope and is desk-rejected. 1 Self-citation is another important issue to deal with when preparing a reference list. There are two levels of self-citations. First, citation to work published in the focal journal. And, second, citations to authors earlier work. Both require careful consideration. When preparing the Journal Citation Report (JCR) and the Impact Factor (IF) of a journal, Thomson-Reuters pays careful attention to journal self-cites defined as articles in a journal citing articles previously published in that same journal. Although there is no specific cutoff percentage specified by Thomson-Reuters, excessive self-citations can lead to temporary or permanent suspension of a journal from JCR. Definition of excessive, however, is a gray area, as the proportion of self-citations for niche journals are typically higher than those of broad-based journals. Similarly, if a few broad-scope articles are published in a year and previous research on the topic of study has largely been published in the focal journal, the number of self-cites will be higher. Such citations are certainly appropriate. What is discouraged, however, is unnecessary or filler cites to boost the number of cited articles, as this number is used in the calculation of the impact factor. In the 2014 JCR released in June 2015, 64 of the 199 references (or 32%) used in the IF calculation of FBR were from articles published in FBR. This percentage has dropped over the years and a further drop can be expected as the proportion of family business research appearing in other good journals continues to increase. Authors, however, must continue to aim for a balance between comprehensiveness and parsimony when it comes to selecting works to cite. A second form of self-citation to consider is, how many self-citations to authors previous work to include? If the current study builds on the author s prior work, self-citations are appropriate and should be included. However, excessive self-citations, or gratuitous citing, could inadvertently circumvent the blind-review process by suggesting to the reviewers who the author is. Worse yet, excessive self-citations can be perceived as an overabundance of self-promotion diverting attention from the research topic. Parsimony is perhaps the best guideline with the use of self-citations. The reference list should also include nonfamily business sources when integrating theory from outside the field of family business. For example, in conceptualizing positivity in family business leadership and the impact on group dynamics, Caspersz and Thomas (2015) introduce theory from leadership (e.g., Cameron, 2012) as well as social psychology and sociology (e.g., Coleman, 1988). Integrating theory or research from outside of the family business domain (but with clear integration into family firms) strengthens and enriches the field of family business studies. In addition to the review of references for sufficient family firm and topic relevant cites, the FBR editorial team may also review the references for sufficient breadth outside of the field of family business. We enhance our research by learning from other disciplines, and when a single discipline is the only source for references, the manuscript may be desk rejected for excessive parochialism (Voordeckers, Le Breton-Miller, & Miller, 2014). An excellent example of referencing outside of family firm literature is Glover and Reay s (2015) study of family farms. The authors drew heavily on the literatures from rural sociology and agriculture, in addition to family business literature. Their sources included Rural Sociology, Agriculture in the United Kingdom, Journal of Rural Studies, Sociologica Ruralis, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, and Agricultural Systems. In addition, they referenced mainstream premier management publications, including Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, and Administrative Science Quarterly. Their family business related references included relevant studies from Journal of Business Venturing, International Small Business Journal, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, and Family Business Review. Family firm references combined with others from premier outlets, on the topic of farming, strikes the perfect blend of references. Other ways to expand the scope of the references and demonstrate a thorough literature review is to include sources in addition to journals. Books and monographs are important sources. Unpublished dissertations can provide useful insights, as well. Peer-reviewed conferences such as the Academy of Management, the Family Enterprise Research Conference (FERC), and the International Family Enterprise Research Academy (IFERA), among others, could provide important references to cutting-edge research that may take a few years to appear as journal articles or books. Finally, including

4 Pearson and Sharma 191 sources published in languages other than English can expand the breadth of the literature review. In 2014, FBR manuscript submissions were received from scholars in 36 countries; subscribers were from 187 countries, and board members were from 26 countries. As FBR continues to attract scholars, research, reviewers, and readers from around the globe, it is important to include globally diverse sources. Authors must however keep in mind that FBR is an English language publication and its reviewers expect familiarity with classic and leading edge works in this language. The reference list will also be evaluated on the timeliness of the references. When citing original sources, older references are essential. The reference list should also include current studies. With the rapid growth of the family business field, it is essential to seek current studies from those released online prior to print. For example, at FBR, once a manuscript is accepted, it will usually appear online at FBR s website within 25 days, whereas it is likely to require over a year to appear in print. Studies presented at conferences are an additional means to seeking the most recent research to include as references. Other Issues With Regard to References References are a potent indicator of authors ethics. Giving credit to others ideas is an essential and fundamental cornerstone of scholarly work. It is a necessary condition of research and most professional organizations and scholarly outlets have an ethics statement requiring authors to properly reference others work. In Payne and Ireland s (2015) editorial on ethics in family business research, the authors indicate a primary duty of scholars is to ensure that citations are properly given (p. 99) to give credit to the source and avoid plagiarism. FBR and Sage, the publisher of FBR, are committed to ethical publishing, submitting each manuscript through a Google search and following with an ithenticate review, if needed. However, the responsibility of both ethical and sufficient referencing begins with the author(s) and is evaluated by the editorial team, reviewers, and readers. Since any study builds on the work of others, those prior authors are considered the experts in the field and could become reviewers for the current study. Since these are the respected scholars to borrow from and build on, it is essential to properly understand their work and reference it correctly. An effective guideline Table 2. Checklist for References for Authors, Reviewers, and Readers. Are all sources cited in the study included in the references? Do the references include the key, original theoretical source(s)? Do the references include current related work? Are key family business sources included in the references, including but not limited to FBR? Are self-citations to authors previous works appropriate in scope and number? Are there sufficient sources from outside the family business domain, including prominent journals, books, unpublished works, conferences, and other sources? Are there sufficient references to demonstrate both the depth and breadth of the author s knowledge of the topic under study? Are the references formatted properly? for citing and referencing another s work is, would this scholar agree with my use and interpretation of his/her work? Finally, the references should be reported in the correct format. FBR uses APA style and provides guidance on the FBR website for formatting references. While computer programs to manage references are extremely useful for maintaining a library of references and formatting references, reference management software cannot substitute for the scholar s ability to read and synthesize complex research and make informed choices and interpretations about which references are essential to support the research questions of the study at hand. In conclusion, discussions on appropriate references draw differing opinions, as was the case among the editorial team members of FBR as we discussed this editorial. Some of the points and subsequent guidance in this editorial are subjective, yet hopefully will spark thought and consideration for careful and purposeful referencing in future scholarly work for both authors and reviewers. A summary checklist for references is shown in Table 2. Acknowledgments Thank you to Daniel Holt, Nadine Kammerlander, Alessandro Minichilli, Cynthia Nalevenko, Becky Reuber, Carlo Salvato, and Wim Voordeckers for thoughtful discourse and feedback on this editorial.

5 192 Family Business Review 28(3) Note 1. Voordeckers, Le Breton-Miller, and Miller (FBR, 2014) provide an excellent discussion of how finance papers can be successfully crafted with appropriate references to family business research. While the point is valid, as we re-read the editorial keeping parsimony of references in mind, we felt this reference could be removed without losing the essence of the key point being made here. References Bammens, Y., Notelaers, G., & Van Gils, A. (2015). Implications of family business employment for employees innovative work involvement. Family Business Review, 28, Cameron, K. (2012). Positive leadership strategies for extraordinary performance. San Francisco, CA: Berret Koehler. Casperz, D., & Thomas, J. (2015). Developing positivity in family business leaders. Family Business Review, 28, Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120. Glover, J. L., & Reay, T. (2015). Sustaining the family business with minimal financial rewards: How do family firms continue? Family Business Review, 28, Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, Huff, A. S. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intercontextual coherence and problematizing in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40, Payne, G. T., & Ireland, D. R. (2015). It takes a village: Ethical publishing of family business research. Family Business Review, 28, Reuber, A. R. (2010). Strengthening your literature review. Family Business Review, 23, Sharma, P. (2015). Editor s note: 2014 A year in review. Family Business Review, 28, 4-9. Yu, A., Lumpkin, G. T., Sorenson, R. L., & Brigham, K. (2012). The landscape of family business outcomes: A summary and numerical taxonomy of dependent variables. Family Business Review, 25, Vandekerkhof, P., Steijvers, T., Hendriks, W., & Voordeckers, W. (2015). The effect of organizational characteristics on the appointment of nonfamily managers in private family firms: The moderating role of socioemotional wealth. Family Business Review, 28, Author Biographies Allison W. Pearson is the Rouse Professor of Management and the Giles Distinguished Professor of Management in the Department of Management, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi. Pramodita Sharma is the Sanders Chair and Professor of Family Enterprise Studies at the University of Vermont. She is the editor-in-chief of Family Business Review.