DOI: 10.1002/joe.
22178
EDITORIAL
The art of writing for premier journals
1 INTRODUCTION
Premier journals are top-ranked publication outlets whose
reputation is established and maintained based on the high
level of scrutiny that is paid to the argument (e.g., is it con-
vincing?), contribution (e.g., is it valuable?), conduct (e.g.,
is it rigorous?), and delivery (e.g., is it well presented?)
of articles submitted for potential publication—they are
essentially the sentinels of good science (Lim, 2018, 2021).
Many academics aspire to publish in premier journals
for numerous reasons, including:
∙ Enhancing career prospects (e.g., securing a job or a
promotion);
∙ Safeguarding careers (e.g., meeting KPIs); and
∙ Satisfying personal aspirations (e.g., achieving personal
goals, developing personal reputation).
However, not all academics are able to publish in
premier journals for various reasons, including:
∙ Poor argument (e.g., absence or lack of convincing
rationales);
∙ Poor contribution (e.g., absence or lack of theoretical and
practical gaps);
∙ Poor conduct (e.g., absence or lack of appropriate details
or mechanisms to support claims); and
∙ Poor delivery (e.g., lengthy, sloppy language and format-
ting).
To support academics who wish to get published in pre-
mier journals (i.e., what is the aim?), this article curates
a set of actionable guidelines that academics can rely on
to craft articles for premier journals (i.e., how the aim is
achieved?). These guidelines are shaped based on a trian-
gulation of experience as an author, editor, and reviewer
for premier journals (i.e., what is the source of rigor?). Aca-
demics who follow these guidelines should improve their
chances of getting published in premier journals (i.e., so
what if the aim is achieved?).
GBOE. 2022;41:5–10. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joe
2 HOW TO WRITE ARTICLES FOR
PREMIER JOURNALS?
The anatomy of an article that is commonly found in pre-
mier journals consists of well written (i) title, (ii) abstract,
(iii) introduction, (iv) theoretical background, (v) method-
ology, (vi) findings, (vii) discussion, (viii) conclusion, (ix)
references, and (x) appendices.
2.1 Title
The title of an article establishes the first impression. It
should be sharp and succinct, consisting of the main con-
cepts or categories of concepts (whichever is more succinct)
that take center stage in the article. Bracketed acronyms,
if common, can be added after the full mention of con-
cepts, for example, electronic word of mouth (eWOM) and
small and medium enterprises (SMEs). This should help
articles to appear higher in search results, thereby improv-
ing the chances of the article to get cited, which is a key
consideration for premier journals that wish to maintain
or strengthen their impact (citations).
2.2 Abstract
The abstract of an article is a pitch. It is where authors “sell”
their article to potential readers, prompting downloads and
citations if it is well done. With many premier journals
imposing a strict word count for abstracts (±150 words),
it is important that abstracts are written in a sharp and
succinct manner. The abstract should convey the essence of
the article. It should also be structured in a way that flows
well. Authors can craft a good abstract by explaining the
following in a sequential manner:
∙ The reason for the article or study (i.e., the “why”);
∙ The goal of the article or study (i.e., the “directional
what”);
© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC. 5
 19322062, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joe.22178, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 EDITORIAL

∙ The methodology underpinning the article or study (i.e., addressed simply because they exist (e.g., no one has stud-
the “how”); ied them), but rather because addressing them will provide
∙ The key takeaways of the article or study (i.e., the meaningful benefits (Lim et al., 2022c; Mukherjee et al.,
“discovery what”); and 2022; Paul et al., 2021). Authors can craft a good case for
∙ The value of the article or study (i.e., the “so what”). their article or study in the introduction by explaining and
signposting (e.g., 1st theoretical gap, 2nd theoretical gap,
etc.) the following in a sequential manner:
2.3 Introduction
∙ The theoretical gaps (e.g., scholarly evidence of contra-
The introduction of an article is where authors present
dictory findings and underexplored relationships) and
their case for writing that article. Premier journals are
why they should be addressed (e.g., why addressing them
interested in publishing articles that make novel (i.e.,
is necessary, important, useful, and urgent?);
new) and useful (i.e., utility) contributions to knowl-
∙ The practical gaps (e.g., market and news reports of
edge. This means that articles intended for publication
underlying problems and untapped opportunities) and
in premier journals should be positioned from a concep-
why they should be addressed (e.g., why addressing them
tual (e.g., concept, relationship, theory) rather than a
is necessary, important, useful, and urgent?);
contextual (e.g., geographical location, industry) stand-
∙ The research questions and objectives (i.e., the direction
point. Noteworthily, the readers of premier journals are
of the article or study);
an international audience, and thus, the relevance of
∙ The expected contributions to theory (e.g., what new
articles should demonstrate a global rather than a local
understanding can be derived?); and
positioning (e.g., trends in global business and orga- ∙ The expected contributions to practice (e.g., what real-
nizational excellence; Lim, 2022). Nevertheless, contex-
world issues can be solved?).
tual evidence is generally accepted by premier jour-
nals to support well-articulated conceptual and global
phenomena.
2.4 Theoretical background
While radical (i.e., groundbreaking) knowledge contri-
butions are ideal (e.g., establishing eWOM-giving, which
The theoretical background of an article is where authors
is traditionally treated as a postpurchase behavior, as a
demonstrate their awareness and command of key theo-
prepurchase behavior; Lim et al., 2022a), incremental (i.e.,
ries (or frameworks, models, taxonomies), relevant concepts,
small but meaningful) knowledge contributions are gener-
and suspected relationships. This is a section where authors
ally acceptable (e.g., the influence of the promotion mix on
tend to be inconsistent in how they structure their argu-
the brand equity of low involvement products; Lang et al.,
ments, wherein such inconsistency can cause readers,
2022). More often than not, editors and reviewers take
especially editors and reviewers, who were initially con-
a keen interest in introductions, where they form initial
vinced about the article, to develop a sense of ambiguity
judgements on whether the article deserves a publication
or vagueness, and thus, raising concerns or doubts about
spot in the premier journal. Articles that do not demon-
publishing that article in the premier journal. Authors
strate a convincing case of novelty in the introduction tend
can develop a consistent and well-organized theoretical
to be written off at this juncture, regardless of whether
background to mitigate such issues using the following
the study in the article was well done. To put it simply,
structure suggested by Lim et al. (2022c, p. 492), where
the novelty criterion often precedes—or acts as a prereq-
appropriate:
uisite to—the rigor criterion for premier journals, and it is
only when novelty is well established that rigor truly mat-
ters. This also explains why many articles with rigorously ∙ Theoretical lens (i.e., conceptual, qualitative, quantita-
conducted studies do not get published in premier jour- tive, and review studies; one or multiple sub-sections
nals. In this regard, it is important for introductions to be named after key theories):
sharp and succinct so that readers, especially editors and ◦ What is the key theory about (i.e., its definition and
reviewers, are convinced as quickly as possible about the core tenets) and why is it important?
value of the article. To do so, it is important that authors ◦ How has the key theory been used in existing studies
specify the gaps motivating the article or study, the reasons (and explain any irregularities, if present)?
why those gaps should be addressed, and the expected out- ◦ How does the key theory guide or inform the present
comes of addressing those gaps. It is inadequate to simply study?
point out existential gaps without making a convincing ◦ How does the present study advance/extend/add
case for addressing them. That is to say, gaps should not be value to the key theory?

EDITORIAL
∙ Literature review (i.e., conceptual, qualitative, quanti-
tative, and review studies; one or multiple subsections
named after key concepts):
◦ What is the key concept about (i.e., its definition
and core tenets) and why is it important?
◦ What have existing studies discovered or
reported about the key concept?
◦ What are the research gaps/issues/problems of (e.g.,
limitations of insights from) existing studies on the
key concept?
◦ How does the present study advance/extend/add
value to the extant literature on the key concept?
∙ Conceptual framework (i.e., conceptual and quantitative
studies; one or multiple subsections named after key
relationships):
◦ What have existing studies found about each pro-
posed relationship (if any)?
◦ What are the rationales/reasons behind each pro-
posed relationship?
2.5 Methodology
The methodology of an article explains the ways in which
the study in that article was conducted. The content of this
section is often subjected to heavy scrutiny among expert
readers, especially editors and reviewers who have been
convinced about the novelty of the article. Getting this sec-
tion right is essential as convincing editors and reviewers
about rigor once novelty is established usually gets them
leaning into favorable decisions (e.g., potential revision or
acceptance). Authors can thoroughly report their method-
ological peculiarities using the following structure, where
appropriate:
∙ Approach (i.e., conceptual, quantitative, qualitative, and
review studies; one subsection):
◦ Conceptual (e.g., theory synthesis, theory adaptation,
typology, or model—see Jaakkola, 2020).
◦ Quantitative (e.g., experimental, survey—see Fink,
2015; Lim et al., 2019).
◦ Qualitative (e.g., in-depth or focus group interviews—
see Taylor et al., 2015).
◦ Review (e.g., bibliometric, framework—see Donthu
et al., 2021; Lim et al., 2022c).
∙ Instrumentation (i.e., quantitative and qualitative stud-
ies; one subsection):
◦ Design and source of questions in interview guide,
questionnaires, and/or secondary sources.
∙ Data collection procedure (i.e., quantitative, qualitative,
and review studies; one subsection):
◦ What is the sample population and why was it
chosen?
19322062, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joe.22178, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
7
◦ Where is the location of the sample population and
why was it chosen?
◦ Which sampling method was chosen and why?
◦ What is the exact data collection procedure that was
used based on that sampling method?
◦ How was the potential bias of/in sampling method/
population mitigated (especially if nonrandom)?
∙ Data analysis procedure (i.e., quantitative, qualitative,
and review studies; one subsection):
◦ Explain data analysis method(s) (i.e., what it is, what
it can do, and why was it chosen) and procedure(s).
◦ Explain method(s) and procedure(s) to demonstrate
rigor (i.e., reliability and validity for quantitative stud-
ies, authenticity and trustworthiness for qualitative
and review studies, and triangulation for all studies,
if possible).
2.6 Findings
The findings of an article reflect the insights derived from
the study that was conducted in that article. The con-
tent of this section generally follows the convention of the
approach used in line with the methodology described in
the study. Therefore, it is important that authors play close
attention to ensure consistency in reporting (i.e., what was
said in the methodology and what is reported in the find-
ings) whilst meeting the reporting conventions stipulated in
author guidelines and seen in recent articles published in
premier journals that they are targeting. Generally, authors
are expected to report the following:
∙ Describe the characteristics of the sample population
(i.e., quantitative, qualitative, and review studies; one
subsection):
◦ Background of sample (e.g., characteristics of primary
respondents or secondary data).
∙ Explain the key findings (i.e., conceptual, quantita-
tive, qualitative, and review studies; one or multiple
subsections):
◦ Conceptual studies (e.g., proposed concepts, frame-
works, models, taxonomies, or theories).
◦ Quantitative studies (e.g., direction and significance
of relationship, hypothesis supported or not sup-
ported, graphical models, tables).
◦ Qualitative studies (e.g., themes, subthemes,
excerpts).
◦ Review studies (e.g., performance analysis of produc-
tivity and impact, science mapping of themes and
topics).
∙ Explain whether key findings meet standards/thresholds
of rigor (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, and review studies;
can be combined with subsection on key findings).

8 EDITORIAL
◦ Quantitative studies (i.e., reliable, valid).
◦ Qualitative and review studies (e.g., authentic, trust-
worthy).
2.7 Discussion
The discussion of an article is where authors spell out the
noteworthy implications of their study for theory and prac-
tice. This is a crucial section as readers, especially editors
and reviewers, will make an evaluation as to whether the
article has delivered on its promise of novelty and utility.
Authors can develop a good discussion by highlighting the
following points:
∙ Theoretical implications (i.e., one subsection)
◦ Are the findings in line or in opposition to extant
literature (and why)?
◦ How does the findings advance and contribute to
theory in the area?
∙ Practical implications (i.e., one subsection):
◦ How does the findings advance and contribute to
practice in the area?
◦ What are the recommendations, based on the find-
ings, for specific communities, practitioners, and
policymakers (where relevant)?
2.8 Conclusion
The conclusion of an article is where authors drive home
the key takeaways of their study. It is also the section where
authors acknowledge the limitations of their study, which
can pave the way forward for future research in the field.
Noteworthily, limitations should be as unique as possible
to the study, for example, conceptual (e.g., B2B perspec-
tive included suppliers but not agents) and contextual (e.g.,
accommodation or ridesharing services only in the shar-
ing economy) limitations. It is best to avoid limitations that
are too general (e.g., culture, cross-sectional vs. longitudi-
nal study) or that can actually be dealt with in the present
study (e.g., nonrandom sampling method, student sam-
ple). Therefore, authors can structure their conclusion, as
follows:
∙ Key takeaways (i.e., one subsection):
◦ Reintroduce the goal of the article and link it to a
summary of key findings.
∙ Limitations and future research directions (i.e., one sub-
section):
◦ What are the main limitations of the current study?
◦ How do the main limitations pave the way forward for
future research to advance the insights from the cur-
19322062, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joe.22178, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
rent study (i.e., future research directions can appear
after and correspond with each main limitation)?
2.9 References
The references of an article are often referred to by readers,
especially editors and reviewers. Hence, it is crucial that
authors do not neglect the strategic inclusion (e.g., avoid
references from dubious sources and ensure that recent
references are included from the target journal as well as
other premier journals) and formatting (i.e., referencing
style based on author guidelines and recent papers of the
target journal) of references, wherein the former signals
the quality and recency of literature on which the article
is grounded on, whereas the latter signals the meticulous-
ness of the authors and their attention to detail. Though
journal publishers have begun to accept free format sub-
missions, many journal editors and reviewers may still
develop biases based on their scrutiny of references in the
article (e.g., gauge authors’ investment and seriousness in
publishing in the journal). Therefore, authors are advised
to follow the target journals closely, never taking shortcuts.
2.10 Appendices
Many premier journals have strict page or word limita-
tions. As such, authors may strategically devote useful
content that may not necessarily espouse new knowledge as
appendices. For example, the interview guide of qualita-
tive studies, the questionnaire of quantitative studies, and
the detailed breakdown of performance analysis of review
studies can be included as appendices.
3 HOT OFF THE PRESS
The current issue of Global Business and Organizational
Excellence (GBOE) features three highly contemporary
studies.
The COVID-19 pandemic is now in an endemic stage,
but cases continue to come in cycles and waves globally
at the time of writing. Kee et al. (2022) highlighted that
COVID-19 has transformed not only education, work, and
social life, but also the ongoing digitization of bullying,
wherein a rise in cyberbullying on social media was evi-
denced following the COVID-19 pandemic. This study adds
to the existing collection of COVID-19 studies in GBOE
(e.g., Al-Abrrow et al., 2021; Bretas & Alon, 2020; Mello &
Tomei, 2021; Sahoo et al., 2022; Sutarto et al., 2022), which
remain free for download as part of Wiley’s commitment
to make COVID-19 research freely accessible to the public.

EDITORIAL
The Ukraine and Russia conflict also remains ongo-
ing at the time of writing. Lim et al. (2022b) adopted a
crowdsourcing approach to provide a prospective evalua-
tion of the impact of war for business and society using the
Ukraine and Russia conflict as a case. Their study showed
that a war can impact both business and society within and
outside war-torn countries in various ways. This study is
open access, which means that readers can download and
enjoy its content for free.
As organizations navigate through disruptive challenges
and unprecedented externalities, the need for a new
approach to achieve organizational excellence has never
been greater. Kopelman (2022) introduced the Cube One
Framework as a mechanism that organizations can lever-
age for achieving organizational excellence. The frame-
work, which is supported by cross-country studies, cases
studies of prominent organizations, and stock market valu-
ations, highlights the importance of empirically examining
practices aiming to satisfy stakeholders (e.g., customers,
employees, and funders), measuring the frequency of
enacted practices, and performing empirical-based diagno-
sis for continuous and timely improvements.
4 CONCLUSION
To this end, it is hoped that this article will serve as a use-
ful guide to academics aspiring to publish in GBOE and
premier journals at large. It is also hoped that the articles
in GBOE’s latest issue will be useful for gaining up-to-
date insights on global business trends and mechanisms
for organizational excellence.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author declares no conflict of interest.
AU T H O R CO N T R I B U T I O N S
Weng Marc Lim is responsible for conceptualization and
writing (original draft preparation, review, and editing).
Weng Marc Lim1,2,3
1 School of Business, Law and Entrepreneurship, Swinburne
University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
2 Faculty of Business, Design and Arts, Swinburne
University of Technology, Sarawak, Malaysia
3 Sunway University Business School, Sunway University,
Sunway City, Malaysia
Correspondence
Weng Marc Lim.
Email: lim@wengmarc.com
19322062, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joe.22178, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
9
REFERENCES
Al-Abrrow, H., Al-Maatoq, M., Alharbi, R. K., Alnoor, A., Abdullah,
H. O., Abbas, S., & Khattak, Z. Z. (2021). Understanding employ-
ees’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: The attractiveness of
healthcare jobs. Global Business and Organizational Excellence,
40(2), 19–33.
Bretas, V. P. G., & Alon, I. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on fran-
chising in emerging markets: An example from Brazil. Global
Business and Organizational Excellence, 39(6), 6–16.
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M.
(2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and
guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296.
Fink, A. (2015). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Sage
Publications.
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches.
AMS Review, 10(1), 18–26.
Kee, D. M. H., Al-Anesi, M. A. L., & Al-Anesi, S. A. L. (2022). Cyber-
bullying on social media under the influence of COVID-19. Global
Business and Organizational Excellence, 41(6), 11–12.
Kopelman, R. E. (2022). A unique approach to achieving organiza-
tional excellence: The cube one framework. Global Business and
Organizational Excellence, 41(6), 37–46.
Lang, L. D., Lim, W. M., & Guzmán, F. (2022). How does promotion
mix affect brand equity? Insights from a mixed-methods study of
low involvement products. Journal of Business Research, 141, 175–
190.
Lim, W. M. (2018). Being published in A-journals matter. The
Star. Available at https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/letters/
2018/07/03/being-published-in-ajournals-matters/
Lim, W. M. (2021). Pro-active peer review for premier journals.
Industrial Marketing Management, 95, 65–69.
Lim, W. M. (2022). Ushering a new era of Global Business and Orga-
nizational Excellence: Taking a leaf out of recent trends in the
new normal. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 41(5),
5–13.
Lim, W. M., Ahmed, P. K., & Ali, M. Y. (2019). Data and resource
maximization in business-to-business marketing experiments:
Methodological insights from data partitioning. Industrial Market-
ing Management, 76, 136–143.
Lim, W. M., Ahmed, P. K., & Ali, M. Y. (2022a). Giving electronic word
of mouth (eWOM) as a prepurchase behavior: The case of online
group buying. Journal of Business Research, 146, 582–604.
Lim, W. M., Chin, M. W. C., Ee, Y. S., Fung, C. Y., Giang, C. S., Heng,
K. S., Kong, M. L. F., Lim, A. S. S., Lim, B. C. Y., Lim, R. T. H., Lim,
T. Y., Ling, C. C., Mandrinos, S., Nwobodo, S., Phang, C. S. C., She,
L., Sim, C. H., Su, S. I., Wee, G. W. W., & Weissmann, M. A. (2022b).
What is at stake in a war? A prospective evaluation of the Ukraine
and Russia conflict for business and society. Global Business and
Organizational Excellence, 41(6), 23–36.
Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Ali, F. (2022c). Advancing knowledge
through literature reviews: ‘What’, ‘why’, and ‘how to contribute’.
The Service Industries Journal, 42(7–8), 481–513.
Mello, S. F., & Tomei, P. A. (2021). The impact of the COVID-19 pan-
demic on expatriates: A pathway to work-life harmony? Global
Business and Organizational Excellence, 40(5), 6–22.
Mukherjee, D., Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2022). Guide-
lines for advancing theory and practice through bibliometric
research. Journal of Business Research, 148, 101–115.

10
Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021). Sci-
entific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews
(SPAR-4-SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4),
O1–O16.
Sahoo, A., Xechung, N. L., Mostafiz, M. I., & Krishnaswamy, J. (2022).
Perceived risk and sensitivity and their influence on expatriate per-
formance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Global Business and
Organizational Excellence, 41(4), 68–84.
Sutarto, A. P., Wardaningsih, S., & Putri, W. H. (2022). Factors and
challenges influencing work-related outcomes of the enforced
work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: Preliminary
evidence from Indonesia. Global Business and Organizational
Excellence, 41(5), 14–28.
19322062, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joe.22178, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
EDITORIAL
Taylor, S. J., Bogdan, R., & DeVault, M. (2015). Introduction to qual-
itative research methods: A guidebook and resource. John Wiley &
Sons.
AU T H O R B I O G R A P H Y
Weng Marc Lim is the Editor in Chief of Global Busi-
ness and Organizational Excellence. He also serves as
an Associate Editor for the Journal of Business Research
and Journal of Strategic Marketing. He can be contacted
at lim@wengmarc.com.