Do Employers Forgive Applicants’ Bad Spelling in Resumes?

[We’re pleased to welcome authors Christelle Martin-Lacroux of the University of Grenoble and Alain Lacroux of the University of Toulon. They recently published an article in Business and Professional Communication Quarterly entitled “Do Employers Forgive Applicants’ Bad Spelling in Resumes?,”which is currently free to read through BCQ. From Martin-Lacroux and Lacroux:]

It is now well established that students’ spelling deficiencies are increasing and that this has become a growing concern for employers, whcorrecting-1870721_1280.jpgo now consider correct spelling and grammar as one of the most important skills needed by organizations. Despite the significant amount of time spent on writing at work and employers’ growing dissatisfaction with their employees’ spelling skills, little is known about recruiters’ attribution and decision making when they read application forms with spelling errors. Our paper in Business and Professional Communication Quarterly contributes to fill this gap by describing how spelling mistakes in application forms have a detrimental impact on applicants’ chance to be shortlisted. Our findings rely on an experiment on 536 professional recruiters who had to assess application forms varying in their form (presence or absence of spelling errors) and their content (high or low level of professional experience). We found that spelling errors and work experience have a strong impact on recruiters’ shortlisting decisions. All things being equal, the odds of rejecting an application form were 3.65 times higher when the form was error laden, whereas the odds of rejecting an application form were 2.7 times higher when the form indicated a low level of work experience. Not surprisingly, the recruiter’ spelling ability influence their decision to reject or not an application form from the selection process.  For example, the odds of rejecting an error-laden application form when assessed by a recruiter with weak spelling abilities were two times lower than the odds of rejecting this form when evaluated by a recruiter with strong spelling abilities. We made another interesting finding that applicants need to be aware of: the number of spelling errors did not influence the recruiters’ decision. Application forms can be rejected even with very few spelling errors.

In conclusion, applicants do need to be vigilant about the potential negative impression they make on recruiters with a faulty application form: few spelling errors can be as detrimental as a lack of professional experience!

Please find the full abstract to the article below:

Spelling deficiencies are becoming a growing concern among employers, but few studies have quantified this phenomenon and its impact on recruiters’ choice. This article aims to highlight the relative weight of the form (the spelling skills) in application forms, compared with the content (the level of work experience), in recruiters’ judgment during the selection process. The study asked 536 professional recruiters to evaluate different application forms. The results show that the presence of spelling errors has the same detrimental impact on the chances of being shortlisted as a lack of professional experience, and recruiters’ spelling skills also moderate their judgment.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research and sign up for email alerts today!

Photo under (CC) license. 

Writing With Resonance

jmia_26_1-cover[We’re pleased to welcome Ninna Meier from Copenhagan Business School, and Charlotte Wegener from Aalborg University. Meier and Wegener recently published an article in Journal of Management Inquiry entitled “Writing with Resonance.” From Meier and Wegener:]

  • What inspired you to be interested in this topic?
    We started writing about resonance and practicing resonant writing in the spring of 2014. We wanted to understand why some texts have impact and others don’t; why some texts are a pleasure to read, why their messages linger. In short: we wanted to understand resonance as something which may happen between writer, text, and reader.  With writing being the primary mode of dissemination of research results for most academics, we wondered why this important topic was so poorly understood and received so little serious scholarly attention.
  • Were there findings that were surprising to you?
    As we started experimenting with our writing, academic and otherwise, we learnt that this is something you can offer through your writing, but never deliver. We also found valuable lessons in how to write this way from fiction writers.
  • How do you see this study influencing future research and/or practice?
    Based on our investigations and experiences we are now breaking grounds for a new research field and writing practice, as this way of writing, which we call Open Writing, in our view is obviously linked to calls for Open Science.

Don’t forget to sign up for email alerts so you can stay up to date with the latest research.

The Chrysalis Effect: Publication Bias in Management Research

14523043285_2235b0dbb4_zHow well do published management articles represent the broader management research? To say that questionable research practices impact only a few articles ignores the broader, systemic issue effecting management research. According to authors Ernest Hugh O’Boyle Jr., George Christopher Banks, and Erik Gonzalez-Mulé, the high pressure for academics to publish leads many to engage in questionable research, thereby leading the resulting published articles to be biased and unrepresentative. In their article, “The Chrysalis Effect: How Ugly Initial Results Metamorphosize Into Beautiful Articles,” published in Journal of Management, O’Boyle, Banks, and Gonzalez-Mulé delve into the issue of questionable research practices. The abstract for the paper:

The issue of a published literature not representative of the population of research is Current Issue Covermost often discussed in terms of entire studies being suppressed. However, alternative sources of publication bias are questionable research practices (QRPs) that entail post hoc alterations of hypotheses to support data or post hoc alterations of data to support hypotheses. Using general strain theory as an explanatory framework, we outline the means, motives, and opportunities for researchers to better their chances of publication independent of rigor and relevance. We then assess the frequency of QRPs in management research by tracking differences between dissertations and their resulting journal publications. Our primary finding is that from dissertation to journal article, the ratio of supported to unsupported hypotheses more than doubled (0.82 to 1.00 versus 1.94 to 1.00). The rise in predictive accuracy resulted from the dropping of statistically nonsignificant hypotheses, the addition of statistically significant hypotheses, the reversing of predicted direction of hypotheses, and alterations to data. We conclude with recommendations to help mitigate the problem of an unrepresentative literature that we label the “Chrysalis Effect.”

You can read “The Chrysalis Effect: How Ugly Initial Results Metamorphosize Into Beautiful Articles” from Journal of Management free for the next two weeks by clicking here.

Want to stay current on all of the latest research published by Journal of ManagementClick here to sign up for e-alerts! You can also follow the journal on Twitter–read through the latest tweets from Journal of Management by clicking here!

*Library image attributed to Apple Vershoor (CC)

 

How to Grow the Impact of Your Paper: A Step by Step Guide to Using Kudos

[This post comes from the SAGE Connection blog. It was written by Rebecca Wray of Group Marketing Manager, SAGE Publishing. You can find the original blog post here.]

becky wrayAfter an intense period of researching, writing, re-writing, submitting, and proofing an article, authors are then able to experience the delight of seeing it published online. They can now relax, sit back and watch as the downloads and citations stack up. But wait! There are also over 2.5 million other articles publishing this year too. How will people find this paper among this increasing landscape of research output and what can be done to make the author’s article more visible?

This is where Kudos comes inkudos logo

We’ve partnered with Kudos, a service designed specifically for authors, to help them maximize the visibility of their work. SAGE has always put its authors and their content first through supporting both dissemination and accessibility, and we’re really excited by this new partnership that enables us to further achieve our aims.  I’m not a researcher, or an author of any kind (other than this, my first published blog post!), but I’ve been marketing scholarly journals for over 10 years. During this time, I’ve seen that authors can be powerful advocates for their own work, complementing and extending the discoverability, circulation and marketing services that the publisher already provides to ensure their article reaches the widest possible audience. So how can Kudos help authors grow the impact of their papers?

Getting started with Kudos

When an author’s paper is published online on SAGE Journals, they will receive an email from Kudos inviting them to register on the website and ‘claim’ their paper. Authors also have the option to go back and claim all of their past papers that have a CrossRef DOI. Another key thing to point out: Kudos is free for SAGE authors to use!

Once the author has completed the brief registration form, they will have access to their own private author dashboard. Here they will be able to see all of the articles they claim (including those from other publishers) listed out, and track their actions and results.

The 4 stages of Kudos

Kudos offers four author tools, and authors are free to mix and match from the below:

  • Explain: Add a lay summary, impact statement and personal perspective to their Kudos publications page. This will make their article stand-out to researchers within their field, as well as make it more accessible to a broader audience.
  • Enrich: Add supplementary data such as podcasts and videos to enrich their article. This helps to engage readers with their work, and provide them with more context for the research.
  • Share: Kudos generates a trackable URL for the author’s article page. Here they can sync their Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn accounts and post directly from Kudos using their trackable link. Kudos also provides a tool to share the link to their paper by email.
  • Measure: Authors can track clicks from their sharing link in step 3, and see the impact of their actions in the dashboard with official citations and Altmetric scores for their article.

Spare a few minutes for many downloads

Authors can spend as little or as long on Kudos as they like. Needless to say, the more time spent on the site, the more they are likely to get out of it. In a pilot program, authors using the Kudos tools saw 19% higher downloads than those in a control group. So, now over to you to get creative with your communications and get Kudos!

Looking for me information on Kudos? Read our interview with Kudos co-founders Charlie Rapple, David Sommer, Melinda Kenneway, along with Ann Lawson, Head of Business Development, on how the key features of the service can help you grow citations for your articles here.

Introducing Journal of Management Inquiry’s New Section: Generative Curiosity!

4601859272_4228421089_zWe are pleased to highlight the introduction of a new section in Journal of Management InquiryDedicated to ideas and curiosity, the new Generative Curiosity section will provide a platform for content that identifies new or ignored facts, phenomenons, patterns, events or other issues of interest. Richard W. Stackman and David R. Hannah elaborate in the latest Editor’s Introduction that the new section is meant to “(a) improve our understanding of how organizations work and how they can be made more effective (Ashforth, 2005); (b) develop and disseminate knowledge that matters to organizations and society (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013); and (c) address the human condition (van Aken & Romme, 2009).”

Interested in submitting to the new Generative Curiosity section? Richard and David discuss what they’re looking for–

First, the submission should be novel. It may alert readers to something that has received little to no attention, or breathe new life into something seemingly tired or Current Issue Coveroutdated or insufficiently studied. The ideas therein should surprise and motivate readers to engage in sense making (Louis, 1980).

Second, the submission should be consequential, in the sense that it contains, explicitly or implicitly, a call to action to improve the human condition within organizations and society. To paraphrase Donald Hambrick’s 1993 Academy of Management Presidential address, these submissions should lead to work that actually matters (Hambrick, 1994) for the researcher and the practitioner.

Finally, submissions should be fertile. To use a musical metaphor, we are not looking for submissions that are “one-hit-wonders,” that people enjoy reading once, then forget. Instead, we are seeking ideas that birth other ideas, submissions that inspire later submissions. It is our sincere hope that Generative Curiosity submissions will become precursors to better theory and practice.

You can read the full editorial by clicking here, and you can find out more about submitting manuscripts to Journal of Management Inquiry by clicking here. Want to stay current on all of the latest research published by Journal of Management Inquiry? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

*Light bulb image attributed to Matt Wynn (CC) 

The Role of Collaboration in Tourism Research

5053443202_bfa18dab8b_z[We’re pleased to welcome Gang Li of Deakin University. Gang recently published an article in Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research entitled “Temporal Analysis of Tourism Research Collaboration Network” with co-authors Wei Fan of Hong Kong Polytechnic University and Rob Law of Hong Kong Polytechnic University.]

Network analysis is an effective tool for the study of relationships among individual, including the relationships among researchers. We would like to investigate the changes of importance of individual researchers in collaboration networks of tourism research over time, which may help to obtain better understanding of collaboration to promote the progress of research.

Current Issue Cover

We proposed to evaluate the importance of researchers by considering both productivity and their contribution to the connectivity of collaboration networks.  In network analysis, centrality measures can reflect the importance of nodes in a network and degree and betweenness are two commonly used centrality measures in previous studies. This study found that betweenness centrality is better than degree centrality in terms of reflecting the changes of importance of researchers.

Information about the evolution of collaboration network and the changes of each researcher can be provided withthe method proposed in this study. With further research on topic analysis of published articles, the proposed method may help to explore trends in tourism and hospitality research. Moreover, this work provides an alternative method to utilize centrality measure in network analysis.

The abstract for the paper:

Network analysis is an effective tool for the study of collaboration relationships among researchers. Collaboration networks constructed from previous studies, and their changes over time have been studied. However, the impact of individual researchers in collaboration networks has not been investigated systematically. We introduce a new method of measuring the contribution of researchers to the connectivity of collaboration networks and evaluate the importance of researchers by considering both contribution and productivity. Betweenness centrality is found to be better than degree centrality in terms of reflecting the changes of importance of researchers. Accordingly, a method is further proposed to identify key researchers at certain periods. The performance of the identified researchers demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed method.

You can read “Temporal Analysis of Tourism Research Collaboration Network” from Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to know all about the latest research from Journal of Hospitality & Tourism ResearchClick here to sign up for e-alerts!

*Image attributed to US Embassy (CC)

Connecting with the Community: Stephen Pinfield on Institutional Open Access Funds

SGO[We’re pleased to feature an interview, originally posted on the SAGE Connection blog, with Bailey Baumann and Stephen Pinfield. Stephen Pinfield recently published a paper with co-author Christine Middleton about the adoption of institutional central funds for open access publishing in his paper entitled, “Researchers’ Adoption of an Institutional Central Fund for Open-Access Article-Processing Charges: A Case Study Using Innovation Diffusion Theory”] 

In  a new study Stephen Pinfield and his co-author Chris Middleton analyze patterns
to the adoption of the Nottingham central fund by researchers at the university. Curious to learn more, I asked Professor Pinfield to share his thoughts on the adoption of open access funds and open access publishing.

Q. What are some reasons for a having university-owned OA fund?

Universities set up centrally-coordinated open access funds usually to encourage
take-up of OA amongst faculty members by making it easier for them to pay APCs (article-processing charges). A fund is normally made available throughout the institution, often in order to create a “level playing field” for institutional members, enabling a wide range of staff to afford APC payments. Managing the budget at a central level also allows the institution to be clear about how much money is being spent overall so that it can manage budgets at a strategic level. The alternative is to allow APCs to be paid locally by individual researchers from a variety of budgets. This often means that only certain members of faculty can afford to pay APCs and that it is very difficult to understand at an institutional level what is going on.


Q. Why is it important to study the adoption patterns of a central fund?

Universities set up centrally-coordinated open access funds usually to encourage take-up of OA amongst faculty members by making it easier for them to pay APCs (article-processing charges). A fund is normally made available throughout the institution, often in order to create a “level playing field” for institutional members, enabling a wide range of staff to afford APC payments. Managing the budget at a central level also allows the institution to be clear about how much money is being spent overall so that it can manage budgets at a strategic level. The alternative is to allow APCs to be paid locally by individual researchers from a variety of budgets. This often means that only certain members of faculty can afford to pay APCs and that it is very difficult to understand at an institutional level what is going on.

Studying adoption patterns of a central fund can help develop an understanding of the success (or otherwise) of such an approach and also may tell us a lot about acceptance of OA publishing more generally. In our study, we wanted to carry out an analysis of the use of a central fund which had been in operation for a long period (2006 onwards) to see how its use had diffused through the institution over time and what this told us about OA adoption and how it can be influenced.

Q. How might a lack of knowledge about OA publishing keep researchers from taking advantage of a central fund?

Recent studies indicate there is still a great deal of ignorance and misunderstanding amongst researchers about open access. Many faculty members may still be only vaguely aware of OA and may not understand its relevance to them. While this is undoubtedly changing, such attitudes would tend to mean the take-up of any budget to fund OA publishing would inevitably be limited. Researchers have well-established ways of working, often associated with publishing in conventional high-impact-factor journals, with OA featuring very low on their list of priorities. This is beginning to change but it is a slow process. It is influenced by a large and complex set of factors of which the availability and usage of a central fund may have a part to play. In our study, we wanted to understand what kind of role a central fund might perform in an institution and in the organization’s positioning in relation to OA.

Q. What do you think are some common misunderstandings about OA publishing? What would you like researchers who are considering publishing their work in OA journals to know?

Perhaps one of the major concerns that faculty have about OA publication is that of quality. OA is often associated in people’s minds with low quality. Of course, there is no necessary association between OA and low quality (many OA journals are of a very high quality), just as there is no necessary link between traditional publishing and high quality. Furthermore, it is not just about publishing in fully-OA journals. The central fund at Nottingham explicitly allowed payment of APCs for hybrid journals (subscription titles which also allow particular articles to be made OA on payment of an APC). Although hybrid open access is controversial, funding it, at least for the foreseeable future, does help OA to be seen more as mainstream. For many authors, to make their article OA in a familiar high-impact-factor journal makes them feel more comfortable with OA in general, at least at the beginning.

One clear message that emerged from our research was the importance of communication. The benefits of OA in general and of the use of the central fund in particular need to be communicated to individual researchers in a way that is directly relevant to them. Our research indicates in particular the influence of researchers themselves on their own immediate colleagues, in this case their experience of using the central fund, in encouraging wider adoption. Like most of us, researchers listen to those around them and adjust their behavior accordingly, rather than listening to 18682615624_115d0448cb_zpeople coming from ‘outside’ their immediate community. Faculty members listen to other faculty members more than they listen to librarians or research managers.

Q. In your opinion, what makes for the successful operation of a university-owned OA fund? How are librarians best involved in this process?

A central fund needs to be properly resourced and easy-to-use. Why and how to use it needs to be clearly communicated to academic staff – and communication needs to happen on an ongoing basis to ensure the message is heard. In particular, a communication strategy about the fund needs to leverage local support in academic schools and departments, and needs to take on board disciplinary differences. Crucially, it needs to be part of wider institutional strategies and policies on OA implementation which will also include a range of guidelines, processes and systems which together support the institutional response to the OA challenge.

Our research indicates that policies encouraging or requiring OA, especially from funders, are particularly important in influencing adoption. At an institutional level, therefore, there needs to be clear guidance and support to faculty to ensure they can easily comply with relevant policy requirements.

Librarians have been heavily involved over the last decade in promoting OA and supporting its implementation. This has included communication and advocacy, policy development, process design, technology deployment etc. This has undoubtedly worked well and it is testament to the information profession just how successful they have been in raising the profile of OA in the academic community. But there is only so much that one professional group can do alone. There is a clear need to disseminate and embed OA working practices widely in institutions. Librarians alone cannot make OA work – they need to help make OA a sector-wide imperative involving a wide range of stakeholders if it is to work.

Q. It seems like it could take significant resources to build and maintain central funds. How would you suggest smaller universities and universities in the developing world approach central funds?

Resourcing a central fund is obviously a big challenge regardless of the size of the institution. There is money in the system as a whole but it is often not funneled in the right direction. Changing the flow of funding streams is difficult and will only happen over the long term. Pilot funding to get things moving seems to be a good place to start – this is what happened at Nottingham. One of the potential benefits of Gold OA is that publication costs scale with research funding, something which is not necessarily the case with, for example, subscription funding. However, achieving alignment between the research costs and the costs of publishing in institutional budgets is not easy. Developments are required at national, funder and institutional levels in order to work toward achieving this. It will be interesting to see how the systemic change necessary to fund and manage OA will be achieved over the next few years.

You can read “Researchers’ Adoption of an Institutional Central Fund for Open-Access Article-Processing Charges: A Case Study Using Innovation Diffusion Theory” from Stephen Pinfield and Christine Middleton here.

Interested in more interviews like this? You can read more from the Connecting with the Community collection by clicking here.

*Library image credited to ktchang16 (CC)

 

l2Stephen Pinfield is Professor of Information Services Management at the University of Sheffield, UK. He has been involved in research and development in the area of open access for 15 years, including contributions to national and international policy discussions. His recent publications include work on the economics of open access, open data policies, and the global development of open-access repositories. He was previously Chief Information Officer at the University of Nottingham where he also founded the SHERPA OA initiative.

l1Bailey Bauman is the Editorial Assistant for SAGE Open. SAGE Open is a peer-reviewed, “Gold” open access journal from SAGE that publishes original research and review articles in an interactive, open access format.