Malam ini, sekali lagi kertas aku ditolak. Ia merupakan kajian cross-sectional. Kajian yang sememangnya popular di tempat kita. Sebab itulah, aku tidak mahu membenarkan pelajar aku membut kajian cross-sectional. Anda boleh menghantar ke 50 jurnal sekalipun, ia ditolak juga. Anda mungkin mahu membaca alasannya. Anda juga mungkin ingin belajar sesuatu daripadanya.
Mengapa aku tidak menghantar kertas kajian menggunakan longitudinal data? Ada. Tetapi aku menghantarnya ke tempat lain.
Dear Dr Idris
Thank you for your submission of "XXXXX" to the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (JOOP). I read through the paper carefully and have decided not to send it out for further review. In my reading of the paper, I have reservations regarding its consistency with JOOP's policy and its eventual success in the review process. I outline my major concerns below.
1. It is JOOP policy to consider papers based on cross-sectional data only in rather unusual circumstances (please see our notes for contributors as well as editorials in Volume 80 part 1 and Volume 84 part 4). Your paper is based on such, correlational, data, despite its very interesting sample. The hurdle for making a significant new contribution is therefore quite high. Of course, the cross-sectional nature of the data makes it difficult to identify likely causal directions and explanations. You suggest some interesting possible causal connections between variables in your paper, but on the whole I don't think your data are able to establish whether these are correctly specified. Some element of longitudinal data could be an enormous help in developing a paper that could make a stronger contribution.
2. Related to the former point, mediational processes may be examined using procedures such as proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986), MacKinnon et al. (2002) or Preacher et al. (2004; 2007), but in the absence of real longitudinal data the concepts of interest can be shuffled around in a random fashion, similar to what happens in the shell games played by swindlers attempting to separate unsuspecting tourists from their money. Results of the cross-sectional version of the mediation game are about as trustworthy as those of the infamous shell game; you may think you know where the ball is, but chances are that you are completely wrong.
This is different when one has access to a longitudinal data set. Two-wave studies will give some indication of the presence and direction of a potential mediational process (cf. Cole & Maxwell, 2003). Ideally, the full mediation model can be tested when at least three or more waves are available, yielding the best estimate of the strength of a mediational process (cf. Taris & Kompier, 2006).
Since we value novelty, these are important limitations, especially in the light of the fact that we currently receive so many submissions that we must be very selective in deciding which papers should progress to the reviewing stage (i.e., which papers are potentially promising enough to be candidates for publication).
I understand that this is likely to be a disappointing decision; however, I felt it best to act more quickly in giving you a chance to submit this to another journal rather than waiting on a review process that was unlikely to lead to a favorable outcome. I wish you the best of luck as you seek to publish this paper in another outlet and look forward to reading more of your work submitted to JOOP.