About

Meeting the Needs of Researchers, Writers, and Teachers 

The culture of success that pervades both the Chicago conference and the summer workshop has been zealously guarded by the officers and members of the Society with one goal in mind: Having authors achieve success in publication. The formats of both conferences have been designed to provide a nurturing experience. Both are aimed at helping authors refine and focus their case or critical incident, thereby increasing the probability that their efforts will lead to publication in one of the Society's three blind, peer-reviewed journals or other case-publication outlets. 

Receipt of constructive feedback for improvement comes with an implicit commitment to help others by cordially providing constructive criticism on their conference submissions. Review sessions at Society meetings often catch first-time participants "off guard." These sessions are not opportunities to put down someone else's work, show other participants how "smart" one is or how "important" one is, but a time to listen and learn. All participants quickly learn that they need to "check their egos at the door." No one is any more important than the person sitting next to him/her, regardless of academic discipline, whether he/she is a new or a long-time member, from a large university or small college, hold a doctorate or master's degree, have been teaching for years or just starting an academic career as a graduate student. We all grow and improve our work from the thoughts and comments of those who provide thoughtful constructive criticism of our cases and critical incidents.

However, a word of caution is warranted at this time. Do not mistakenly infer that the Society's collégial attitude towards the publication process means that getting published will be easy. SCR publications average acceptance rates range from 10% - 30%, so attendance and presentation at an SCR conference are not a guarantee of eventual publication. 

Though not mandatory to publish in the Business Case Journal, attendance and participation at one of the Society's conferences are both important and necessary for publishing in either the Journal of Critical Incidents or the Journal of Case Studies. But, conference attendance and participation alone are not sufficient for possible publication.

Receipt of conference feedback by scholars starts the running of a two-year clock. Within that time frame, authors must revise their cases and submit them for publication in accordance with SCR's posted guidelines. These submissions are then subjected to the journal's blind-review process. If an author's journal submission is based upon presentation at the summer workshop or the spring conference, it is mandatory that the author responds (see below) to the constructive conference feedback recorded by their scribe as "must do'' items; however, it is at the author's discretion as to whether or not he/she will alter his/her "case" regarding the scribe's "recommended" items. A list of both "must do'' and "recommended" items are e-mailed to the author(s) shortly after the conference concludes. Most of the time, the author(s) will modify (rewrite) the "work" to incorporate the noted "must do" items. However, the "final product" is still the author's work, and on rare occasions, the author(s) may choose to provide a well-reasoned, defensible explanation as to why modifications were not incorporated even for a "must do'' item. 

Without exception, unless based 100% on secondary research, publication in all of the Society's journals requires written permission to publish the case or critical incident fi-om the appropriate responsible party. Many good cases have not been published because the author(s) failed to obtain the necessary written permission. All authors are encouraged to save stress and heartache by getting written permission to publish the case from the appropriate party (e.g. business owner) before making a huge time investment in writing a "case." However, teaching notes do not require permission for publication. 

Case submissions are a two-part package — the case and the teaching note. The case is simply the story regardless of whether it was the result of primary or secondary research. The teaching notes are considered the research portion of the work. This is where the case writer adds to the literature. Whether your case supports current theory, opposes current theory, or proposes new theory, the theory portion of the teaching note is essential. SCR has lobbied long and hard to have case research recognized as legitimate research, and case research has been accepted as legitimate by many schools because theory is essential to the teaching notes. 

Occasionally, even though SCR prides itself on providing constructive feedback to help authors publish, feedback may be perceived as negative or come across as harsh. At times, case writers may also be overwhelmed by the volume of feedback they receive on their "work." Although rare, these situations sometimes lead authors to "feel attacked" or they just "give up"; hence, good cases sometimes do not get published. At other times, cases with good potential end up not being published because authors misconstrue a caring environment for a lax environment and fail to make the necessary changes or fail to follow publication guidelines or comply with deadlines. SCR encourages perseverance! When well-written cases are carefully shepherded through the publication process, interesting cases that will enhance student learning get published. 

Novice case writers may find it beneficial to take on a co-author (e.g. a willing SCR veteran); someone who will help direct him/her in knowing "the ropes to skip and the ropes to jump." Case writers who want the assistance of a co-author are encouraged to seek out an SCR officer, journal editor, or assistant editor to help identify an appropriate co-author. Even "seasoned" case writers must pay attention to details and follow the suggestions of the journal editors found below: