Size Does Matter and Shorter is Better: It’s Time to Shorten Our Papers

Abstract

In The Simpsons episode “Guess Who’s Coming to Criticize Dinner” (S11E3), Homer becomes a food critic and is tasked with writing reviews for the local paper. It is in this episode that he says one of my favorite lines: People will think what I tell them to think, when you tell me what to tell them to think. That line is not incredibly relevant to this Musing (aside from me trying to tell people what to think), but I’m a wordy academic who writes too much, so I’m just staying on brand. While I have always appreciated this episode, my appreciation has grown stronger since joining the world of academia. In this episode, Homer struggles to meet the paper’s minimum length of 500 words for a review, which seems funny to me because here in academia, that is simply our minimum length for a sentence. The episode chronicles Homer’s struggles as he attempts to navigate the world of writing despite his lack of skill in this area (sound familiar?). This Musing doesn’t discuss this episode at all, but if you know the episode, perhaps you’ll recognize the Easter egg in the manuscript.

Keywords

peer review manuscript length resistance to change theory or theory building methods

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Antonakis

(2017). On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.006

Avolio

B. J.

Howell

J. M.

Sosik

J. J.

(1999). A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line : Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.2307/257094

Bartunek

J. M.

Ireland

R. D.

Rynes

S. L.

(2006). What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20785494

Bartunek

J. M.

Rynes

S. L.

(2014). Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike: The paradoxes of academic-practitioner relationships. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1181–1201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314529160

Bertrand

Mullainathan

(2004). Are emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The American Economic Review, 94(4), 991–1013. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002561

Beugelsdijk

Bird

(2025). How to avoid a desk reject: do’s and don’ts. Journal of International Business Studies, 56(3), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-024-00712-8

Bleijenbergh

van Mierlo

Bondarouk

(2021). Closing the gap between scholarly knowledge and practice: Guidelines for HRM action research. Human Resource Management Review, 31(2), Article 100764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2020.100764

Buechel

E. C.

Solinas

(2025). The detachment paradox: Employers recognize the benefits of detachment for employee well-being and performance, yet penalize it in employee evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 188(3), Article 104403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104403

Carter

C. R.

Ellram

L. M.

Kaufmann

(2008). From the editors: New directions for JSCM. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2008.00041.x

10.

Cate

Ward

L. W. W. M.

Ford

K. S.

(2022). Strategic ambiguity: How pre-tenure faculty negotiate the hidden rules of academia. Innovative Higher Education, 47(5), 795–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-022-09604-x

11.

Corley

K. G.

Gioia

D. A.

(2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486

12.

Cruz

K. S.

Griep

Haggard

D. L.

Haggard

K. S.

(2025). Unmasked: The perils of collegiality for neurodiverse faculty. Group & Organization Management, 1–13, 10596011241312454. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011241312454

13.

Dovidio

J. F.

Gaertner

S. L.

(2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, 11(4), 315–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00262

14.

Fang

Maglio

S. J.

(2024). On time or on thin ice: How deadline violations negatively affect perceived work quality and worker evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 185(5), Article 104365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104365

15.

Griep

(2024). From white knights to mall cops: How data officers are “saving” academia, one pointless rule at a time. Group & Organization Management, 10596011241304153. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011241304153

16.

Hammond

M. M.

Schyns

Lester

G. V.

Clapp-Smith

Thomas

J. S.

(2023). The romance of leadership: Rekindling the fire through replication of Meindl and Ehrlich. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(4), Article 101538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101538

17.

Judge

T. A.

Cable

D. M.

Colbert

A. E.

Rynes

S. L.

(2007). What causes a management article to be cited-article author, or journal? Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 491–506. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.25525577

18.

Malone

P. B.

(1980). Humor: A double-edged tool for today’s managers. Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 357–360. https://doi.org/10.2307/257110

19.

Milliman

Von Glinow

M. A.

(1998). Research and publishing issues in large scale cross-national studies. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 13(3/4), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949810214850

20.

Hatch

(2021). Becoming a teacher scholar: The perils and promise of meeting the promotion and tenure requirements in a business school. Journal of Management Education, 45(2), 293–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562920939612

21.

Northcraft

(2001). From the editors. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1079–1080. https://doi.org/10.2138/GSELEMENTS.14.1.4

22.

Obenauer

W. G.

(2025). Like Superman, Institutional Review Boards play an important role, but when unchecked can cause significant collateral damage: Five reasons that it is time to reset Institutional Review Boards. Group & Organization Management, 50(1), 359–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011231198359

23.

Obenauer

W. G.

Kalsher

M. J.

(2023). Is white always the standard? Using replication to revisit and extend what we know about the leadership prototype. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(4), Article 101633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101633

24.

Open Science Collaboration . (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716

25.

Pagell

(2021). Replication without repeating ourselves: Addressing the replication crisis in operations and supply chain management research. Journal of Operations Management, 67(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1120

26.

Rice

D. B.

(2022). The word on the street: Science is not advocacy, but publishing research is. Group & Organization Management, 47(5), 952–962. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221097807

27.

Rosette

A. S.

Leonardelli

G. J.

Phillips

K. W.

(2008). The white standard: Racial bias in leader categorization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 758–777. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.758

28.

Schilke

Reimann

(2025). The transparency dilemma: How AI disclosure erodes trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 188(3), Article 104405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104405

29.

Schlund

Bohns

V. K.

(2025). “You knew what you were getting into”: Perspective differences in gauging informed consent. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 186, Article 104386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104386

30.

Schyns

Lester

G. V.

Hammond

M. M.

(2025). An exploration of romance of leadership in times of crisis : Replication and extension of theory. Journal of Management Scientific Reports, 3(2), 119–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/27550311251314406

31.

Sparrowe

R. T.

Mayer

K. J.

(2011). From the editors: Publishing in AMJ — Part 4: Grounding hypotheses. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1098–1102. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.4001

32.

Sutton

R. I.

Staw

B. M.

(1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393788

33.

Ubaka

Gutierrez

(2023). Testing the generalizability of the white leadership standard in the post-Obama era. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(4), Article 101591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101591

34.

Voss

N. M.

Stoffregen

S. A.

Couture

K. L.

Digirolamo

J. A.

Haidar

Hammer

L. B.

Lee

Maneotis

S. M.

Rodney

(2025). Shaping the future of industrial-organizational psychology: The transformative potential of research collaboration. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 18(2), 1–21.

35.

Wang

G. G.

Werner

J. M.

Sun

J. Y.

Gilley

J. W.

(2017). Means vs ends: Theorizing a definition of human resource development. Personnel Review, 46(6), 1165–1181. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2015-0306

36.

Weick

K. E.

(1993). The collapse of sense making in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628–652. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393339

37.

Ziegert

J. C.

Hanges

P. J.

(2005). Employment discrimination: The role of implicit attitudes, motivation, and a climate for racial bias. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 553–562. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.553