English Podcast starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:14:27

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:30:15

Danish Podcast Starts at 00:45:21

Reference

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X

‌

Youtube channel link

https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher

Connect on linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

🎙️ Welcome to "Revise and Resubmit", and this is your Weekend Classics episode! 🌟

Today, I am ridiculously excited to dust off one of the true OGs of modern corporate finance and firm theory. We are traveling back to October 1976 📚, into the pages of the Journal of Financial Economics (yes, an FT50 big league journal), published by North Holland Publishing Company and now hosted by Elsevier.

The paper on our reading table today is:
👉 "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure"
✍️ By Michael C. Jensen and William H. Meckling

Now, let me slow this down.
Sometimes I speak in long, rolling sentences, like a lecture hall that never seems to empty.
Then I cut it short.
One beat.
Two beats.
Because somewhere between those beats sits the real question:
What actually is a firm? 🤔

Jensen and Meckling do not treat the firm as a black box. They treat it as a nexus of contracts 💼📜. In their world, every relationship is a deal, every deal has a cost, and every cost has a story. Agency costs. Monitoring costs. Bonding costs. And that subtle, sneaky loss that creeps in when managers and owners do not quite want the same thing.

Think of the classic problem Adam Smith warned us about:
People managing other people’s money rarely watch it the way they watch their own. They get a little comfortable. A little careless. Negligence and profusion begin to whisper through the corridors of the joint stock company.

Jensen and Meckling grab that old intuition and wire it into modern finance ⚡.
They show how debt and equity are not just funding choices, but incentive technologies. They ask:
Who really bears the cost when managers chase perks instead of profits?
Why would rational people still sign up for a world full of agency problems?
And how can this messy, conflict-ridden reality still be Pareto optimal in its own strange way?

In this episode of Weekend Classics, I want to walk with you through their bold move: redefining the firm, not as a building, not as a logo, but as a shifting web of contracts, discipline, temptation, and trade-offs. 🕸️

So as you listen, I want you to keep one question simmering in the back of your mind:

👉 If the firm is just a nexus of contracts, then where exactly does responsibility live when things go wrong – in the contract, in the manager, or in the owners who chose the structure in the first place? 🧩

A huge thank you to Michael C. Jensen, William H. Meckling, and the original publisher North Holland Publishing Company (now under Elsevier) for this iconic contribution to how we think about firms, finance, and power inside organizations. 🙏

If you enjoy these deep dives into classic research, please subscribe to this podcast on Spotify and follow our YouTube channel: Weekend Researcher 📺. You can also find Revise and Resubmit on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcast.

So, are you ready to rethink what a firm really is? 🎧✨

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:12:06

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:27:36

Danish Podcast Starts at 00:39:25

Reference

Ditlev Tamm (2020). The Carlsberg Story: Founders, Foundations, and Fortunes. Springer Cham. 240 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52670-2

Youtube channel link

https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher

Connect on linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to Revise and Resubmit and to this episode of Weekend Book Review 📚✨ Today we are cracking open a story that smells of malt, money, and microscopes. The book on my desk is “The Carlsberg Story: Founders, Foundations, and Fortunes” by Professor Ditlev Tamm, published by Springer Cham in softcover back in August 2020. 🍺📖

This is not just a beer book. It is a story of a family, a foundation, and a fortune that decided it would rather fund science and the arts than simply chase the next quarterly high. We start in 1847, with J. C. Jacobsen building a modern Danish brewery, and we end with Carlsberg as the third largest brewery in the world, still shadowed and shaped by a foundation run by professors. Along the way we get pure yeast, boardroom tensions, wartime occupation, mergers with Tuborg, missed chances in the 80s and 90s, and a late surge of global ambition that feels almost cinematic. 🎬

To tell a story like this, you need someone who can read archives like other people read crime novels. And that is where Ditlev Tamm comes in. He is not just a historian of beer. He is a doctor of law, a doctor of philosophy, and a lifelong professor of legal history at the University of Copenhagen. He has spent decades tracing how institutions, laws, churches, and universities evolve, how power hides in footnotes, and how culture and law quietly shape each other. 🌍⚖️

So when Tamm looks at Carlsberg, he is not just counting bottles. He is watching how a brewery becomes a managing foundation, probably the oldest of its kind in Europe, how the Royal Danish Academy ends up steering a multinational, and how this strange “dominion of professors” tries to keep faith with heritage while playing in a ruthless, capital hungry global market. That is the tension that makes this book hum: idealism versus expansion, science versus sales targets, family legacy versus corporate logic. 💼🧪

In this episode, I want to walk you through that tension: from J. C. Jacobsen to Carl Jacobsen, from the creation of the Carlsberg Foundation in 1876 to the takeover of Tuborg in 1970, from missed international chances to the aggressive acquisition of Scottish and Newcastle with Heineken in 2008. Along the way, we will ask a simple but unsettling question: can a company owned by a foundation devoted to science and culture survive in a world obsessed with scale, speed, and shareholder value? Or does the very structure that gave Carlsberg its soul now put pressure on its future? 🤔

So stay with me, grab your metaphorical pint, and let us see whether this unusual marriage of beer, professors, and big business is a model for the future or a beautiful anomaly on borrowed time. And tell me, as you listen: can a foundation really protect a brand’s heritage while meeting the brutal capital demands of modern global markets, or is that balance ultimately impossible? 🍺❓

A huge thank you to Professor Ditlev Tamm for this meticulous, absorbing history, and to Springer Cham for publishing it. 🙏

If you enjoy this conversation, please subscribe to the podcast on Spotify, Amazon Prime Music, and Apple Podcast, and check out my YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher” for more deep dives into books, ideas, and the people behind them. 🌟🎧📺

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:14:59

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:29:13

Danish Podcast Starts at 00:41:45

Reference

Hardisty, D. J. (2025). Impatience for negative experiences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 00, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.70017

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome aboard, sharp minds and curious souls! 🚀

This is Revise and Resubmit—your front-row seat to the cutting-edge papers reshaping academia. 📚✨ Today, we dive into a mind-bender from the Journal of Consumer Psychology—a prestigious FT50 journal, the gold standard in the field, published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the Society for Consumer Psychology. 🏆 Published online December 22, 2025.

Imagine this.
You wait for a reward.
Sweet anticipation bubbles up.
But flip it.
A bill looms.
A dentist drill whirs closer.
That knot in your gut tightens.
Impatience explodes—not for joy, but for dread. 😤💥

David J. Hardisty's commentary, "Impatience for Negative Experiences", flips the script on consumer behavior. Forget dry econ models. Impatience? It's raw emotion. Patience? Sheer regulation. 🔄 Hardisty unpacks why we rush to slay bad vibes—like paying that pesky bill NOW or speed-running a flu shot. He ties up "anomalies": why losses hit harder than gains, why tiny tasks get frantic urgency. Marketers, take note—this predicts your next impulse buy (or bail). 🌪️💡

Fresh insights for fintech frenzy, policy puzzles, or just surviving life's drags. Who knew hating the wait could rewrite your choices? 🤔

Subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, our YouTube channel Weekend Researcher, Amazon Prime, and Apple Podcasts—fuel your brain anywhere! 📱🔥

A huge thanks to author David J. Hardisty and the Wiley team at Journal of Consumer Psychology for this gem. 🙌

So, tell me: When's the last time impatience for a "bad" wait hijacked your wallet? Curious yet? Hit play! 🎧

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:15:02

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:31:09

Danish Podcast Starts at 00:44:45

Reference

Jason Bennett Thatcher (2025). Rules for Writing Elite Information Systems Papers: Field Notes for my PhD Students. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5993034

Linkedin Post

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jason-thatcher-0329764_rules-for-writing-elite-information-systems-activity-7412052161993347072-fw33

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Revise and Resubmit 🎙️✨
Welcome aboard, researchers, rebels, and revise-resubmitters! 🚀

This is Revise and Resubmit—your no-BS cockpit for decoding academic publishing's black box. 📚💥 One sentence. That's all it takes to hook a reviewer. Or lose them forever.

Today? We dive into a goldmine: "Rules for Writing Elite Information Systems Papers: Field Notes for my PhD Students" by Jason Bennett Thatcher. 📖🔥 Published online December 31, 2025, in the Elsevier SSRN Electronic Journal—this isn't some dusty preprint. It's a living, breathing academic Editorial Guide handbook, uploaded fresh to SSRN, never headed for a journal. A work-in-progress treasure trove! 🗝️💎

Jason distills decades of MISQ and ISR wins, PhD mentoring, and brutal reviews into 17 battle-tested rules. Forget Strunk's style fluff—these are heuristics for theoretically grounded, construct-centered, mid-range empirical bangers. 🎯 Bold intros that grab. Consistent terms that stick. Self-contained visuals that teach. Rationale. Action steps. Real-paper examples. Tables mapping rules to sections—intro, theory, methods, results, conclusion. Even a diagnostics box for editing workflows! 🛠️📊

Built on Bem, Starbuck, Cochrane, Davis's outlining magic, and Pinker's clarity ninja moves. It clarifies arguments. Structures persuasion. Models exemplars. Communicates transparently. Plus, mentor wisdom from Business and Humanities: discipline, respect, voice. Your roadmap to elite IS pubs! 🌟

PhD warriors, this handbook screams: Level up your game. 🔥

Huge thanks to author Jason Bennett Thatcher and Elsevier for this SSRN gem! 🙌

Subscribe now: "Revise and Resubmit" on Spotify, YouTube's "Weekend Researcher", plus Amazon Prime and Apple Podcasts! Hit play, join the squad. ⬆️🎧

But here's the hook that’ll keep you up at night: What if one rule from Jason’s playbook could turn your next revise-and-resubmit into an unconditional accept? 🤔💭

Stay tuned!

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:13:37

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:28:43

Chinese Podcast Starts at 00:44:06

Reference

Wang, H. (2025). Decoding Momentum Spillover Effects. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002210902510238X

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

🎙️✨ Welcome back to Revise and Resubmit — the show where ideas meet insight, and research rewrites reality.

Today, we’re diving deep into the subconscious rhythm of financial markets — not the loud clang of opening bells, but the quiet tug between day and night, the push and pull of investor psychology.

📈 The paper we’re exploring is titled “Decoding Momentum Spillover Effects” — written by Huaixin Wang, and published in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, one of the prestigious journals from the FT50 list, proudly brought to us by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington. That’s right, we’re not just talking numbers here — we’re standing in the front row of academic finance.

Now picture this 🧠💡— every night, as some traders drift into sleep, their portfolios whisper to others across the market. When one stock’s overnight return twitches, its peers respond — as if a hidden thread connects them. But wait... by morning, that reaction doesn’t last. The price jolts awake, only to settle back, like a tide that rushed too far. And when the day begins anew, another rhythm takes over — this time, a more deliberate one, orchestrated by professionals and arbitrageurs who move with calculation, not impulse.

Huaixin Wang describes this drama as a cross-firm tug-of-war: a contest between persistent retail behavior and slow, corrective institution-driven rationality. In simpler terms — your midnight hunch meets someone else’s measured algorithm. The result? A fascinating cycle of temporary overreaction and gradual correction, revealing a hidden choreography between human bias and professional reasoning.

🤝 The study goes further — tracing how mutual funds and hedge fund flows weave into this dance, each group pulling markets in its own direction. What unfolds isn’t mere noise — it’s organized chaos that shapes how predictability seeps through financial networks.

And that’s what makes this research special: it doesn’t just quantify momentum. It decodes how emotions, structure, and strategy intermingle across firms, across time zones, across minds.

So the next time you see a sudden price bump before breakfast — ask yourself: is this a signal or just another echo from the night before? 🌒📊

🧩 What if every stock you track is actually responding to an unseen chorus — not just market forces, but the psychology of everyone around it?

That’s the mystery we explore today — because in the grand marketplace of ideas and investments, momentum doesn’t just spill over in data... it spills over in belief.

🎧 Stay tuned as we unpack this journey — and remember to subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, follow our YouTube channel “Weekend Research”, and catch us on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcasts.

A massive thank you 🙏 to Huaixin Wang, to the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, and to Cambridge University Press for publishing this outstanding piece of scholarship. This one reminds us that good research doesn’t just report the market — it rethinks it.

🎙️ So, dear listener — how many of your own market moves are truly yours… and how many are just momentum, spilling over?

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:16:28

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:30:25

Danish Podcast Starts at 00:45:31

Reference

Keyser, B. D., & Koen Vandenbempt. (2025). Shaping the System Through Turbulence: Strategic Leadership and the Micro‐Foundations of Ecosystem Orchestration in Times of Disruption. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70054

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome back to 🎙 Revise and Resubmit — the podcast where big, messy research problems get a second life, one idea at a time.

Today, we’re not just talking strategy. We’re walking into the eye of the storm. 🌪️💎

Imagine this: the world’s oldest diamond trading ecosystem, the Antwerp Square Mile, built on centuries of trust, ritual, and sparkling stones… suddenly confronted by a cool, precise, lab machine that can grow diamonds on demand. No history. No heritage. Just disruption. ⚙️✨

Most people ask, “How does the system react?”
This paper flips it: “Who dares to guide the system when everything is shaking?”

The article we’re unpacking is titled:
“Shaping the System Through Turbulence: Strategic Leadership and the Micro-Foundations of Ecosystem Orchestration in Times of Disruption”
by Bart De Keyser and Koen Vandenbempt.

Published online on 12 December 2025 in the Journal of Management Studies — yes, that JMS, a prestigious FT50 journal 🏛️📈 — and brought to you by the Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

In this episode, we go small to think big.
We’ll follow three invisible pathways that leaders use when the ground is moving:

🧠 Cognitive – how they frame the disruption and rewrite what the ecosystem believes about itself.
🤝 Social – how they mend, stretch, and reweave relationships across rivals, brokers, and allies.
💓 Emotional – how they hold the fear, the pride, the fatigue, and still keep people engaged and resilient.

This is leadership without a throne, power without a script — orchestration through stories, ties, and feelings instead of commands. It’s about how everyday acts of interpretation, connection, and emotion can quietly steer an entire ecosystem through turbulence.

If that’s the kind of management thinking you want in your weekend toolkit, make sure you subscribe to:
👉 “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify, Amazon Prime, and Apple Podcast
and hit that subscribe on our YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher” 🔔📺

A big thank you to the authors Bart De Keyser and Koen Vandenbempt, and to the Journal of Management Studies, Society for the Advancement of Management Studies, and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. for this powerful piece of research. 🙏📚

So, as lab-grown shocks collide with centuries-old stones, and leaders pull on cognitive, social, and emotional threads to keep the ecosystem intact…
are we watching a market defend its past, or witnessing the birth of an entirely new way to lead through disruption? 🤔💎🌍

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:13:55

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:29:16

Danish Podcast Starts at 00:43:17

Reference

Oo, P.P., Thomas, H., Allison et al. The Dark Side of Source Credibility: Differential Effectiveness of Credibility Cues in Fraudulent Versus Legitimate Crowdfunding Campaigns. J Bus Ethics (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-06229-w

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to Revise and Resubmit 🎙️📚—the show where serious research meets sharp questions, and every claim has to earn its place.

Picture this.
A crowdfunding page.
A smiling founder.
A confident story.
A campaign that feels right. 😌✨

Now the twist.
What if that feeling is exactly what scammers are selling? 🕵️‍♂️💸

Today’s episode unpacks a chilling new study titled:
🧠 “The Dark Side of Source Credibility: Differential Effectiveness of Credibility Cues in Fraudulent Versus Legitimate Crowdfunding Campaigns”
by Pyayt P. Oo, H. Thomas, Allison, and Keith M. Hmieleski.

It’s published in the Journal of Business Ethics—a prestigious FT50 journal 🏆—and it went online on 24 December 2025, published by Springer Nature.

This paper asks a deceptively simple question:
How do fraudulent crowdfunding campaigns persuade people… and win?

The authors take source credibility theory and break credibility into three cues:
Trustworthiness.
Welcome to Revise and Resubmit 🎙️—where we take big academic ideas, strip out the fluff, and keep the bite.

Today’s episode starts with a simple scene.
A crowdfunding page. A friendly face. A confident pitch. A shiny promise. ✨
You scroll. You smile. You trust. You pledge. 💸

But what if that’s exactly the problem?

We’re unpacking a striking new paper:
“The Dark Side of Source Credibility: Differential Effectiveness of Credibility Cues in Fraudulent Versus Legitimate Crowdfunding Campaigns” 🕶️
by Pyayt P. Oo, H. Thomas, Allison, and Keith M. Hmieleski.

It’s published in the Journal of Business Ethics—a prestigious FT50 journal 🏆📚—and it went online on 24 December 2025 via Springer Nature.

Here’s the hook.
Credibility should protect us.
It should guide us.
It should separate the real from the fake. ✅❌

But this research asks a sharper question:
Which credibility cues work better for scammers than for honest creators?

Using source credibility theory, the authors focus on three cues:
Trustworthiness 🤝
Attractiveness 😎
Expertise 🧠

Then they test the idea with a matched-pairs sample of 204 Kickstarter campaigns. Not vibes. Data.

And the results are unsettling.

Subjective signals—how trustworthy someone seems, how attractive they appear—turn out to be especially persuasive in fraudulent campaigns. These cues hit fast. They feel right. They bypass the slow, skeptical part of the brain. ⚡🧠

Meanwhile, objective signals—functional expertise, the proof of real competence—matter more when the campaign is legitimate. Because expertise survives scrutiny. Charm just needs to survive the scroll. 📲

This flips a comforting assumption on its head.
Sometimes the cues we treat as moral indicators are just tools.
And in the wrong hands, they become weapons. 🎭🧨

If you like episodes that challenge how you judge people online, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe to “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify 🎧, and join the conversation on YouTube at “Weekend Researcher” 📺. You can also listen on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcast 🍎🎶—so you’re covered wherever you learn.

And with that, sincere thanks to the authors—Pyayt P. Oo, H. Thomas, Allison, and Keith M. Hmieleski—and to Springer Nature and the Journal of Business Ethics for publishing this important work. 🙏📄

Now tell me—if trustworthiness can be performed, and credibility can be engineered, how do we spot the real thing before we click “Back this project”? 🤔

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:12:54

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:25:35

Danish Podcast Starts at 00:39:21

Before we go deeper, an important note: any depiction of smoking in this book is for representational purposes only. Our podcast channel does not promote or endorse tobacco use. Tobacco is injurious to health and causes cancer. 🚭

Reference

Arundhati Roy (2025). Mother Mary Comes to Me. Scribner. 352 pp. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Mother-Mary-Comes-to-Me/Arundhati-Roy/9781668094716

Youtube channel link

https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher

Connect on linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to “Revise and Resubmit” and this episode of “Weekend Book Review” 🎧📚 I am so glad you are here, because today I am holding a book that feels like a live wire in my hands. It is called Mother Mary Comes to Me by Arundhati Roy, published in hardcover on 2 September 2025 by Scribner. This is not quiet reading. This is a heart walking through a memory minefield, tripping, exploding, laughing, crying, and somehow still finding its way home.

Arundhati Roy is not a stranger in our literary universe. She is the Booker Prize winning author of The God of Small Things, translated into more than forty languages, and the creator of The Ministry of Utmost Happiness. She has written fierce non fiction like Field Notes on Democracy and Capitalism: A Ghost Story, circling war, injustice, capitalism, and freedom with the precision of an architect and the fury of a poet. 📝🔥 In this first memoir, though, the revolution is domestic and devastating. She turns toward her mother, Mary Roy, the woman she calls “my shelter and my storm,” and lets us watch as love and anger wrestle on the page.

This book was born out of grief. After Mary Roy’s death in September 2022, Arundhati finds herself “heart smashed” and strangely ashamed of the depth of her grief. So she writes her way through it. We move with her from a charged childhood in Kerala, where her single mother starts a school and a battle for women’s rights, to an escape at eighteen, to architecture in Delhi, to the creation of her prizewinning novels and essays, to the public figure we now think we know. Along the way, the memoir becomes an ode to freedom, to thorny love, to savage grace, to that complicated parent who is both wound and weapon, cage and key. 🌪️❤️

What I love is how this book refuses neatness. It is intimate, disturbing, funny, political, and deeply tender. It feels like late night conversation with someone who finally decides to tell you the truth. No costume. No PR. Just a daughter trying to understand the woman who shaped her as a writer, an activist, a critic of power, and a witness to her own country.

Thank you to Arundhati Roy for writing Mother Mary Comes to Me and to Scribner for bringing this powerful memoir into our hands 🙏✨ If you enjoy these deep dives into books and ideas, please subscribe to this podcast on Spotify, Amazon Prime Music, and Apple Podcast, and also hit subscribe on my YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher” for more bookish breakdowns and research fueled conversations 🎙️📺

So as we open this memoir and step into the charged space between mother and daughter, here is the question I want to leave you with at the start: when you tell the story of your own life, are you really writing about yourself, or are you secretly writing the biography of the person who taught you what love and freedom feel like? 🤔📖

English Podcast Start at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Start at 00:15:03

Hindi Podcast Start at 00:30:32

Danish Podcast Start at 00:42:32

Reference

Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329-366. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329

Related AOM Conference Proceedings

TED BAKER and REED E. NELSON, 2003: MAKING DO WITH WHAT'S AT HAND: BRICOLAGE IN TWO CONTEXTS.. Proceedings, 2003, D1–D6, https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2003.13792428

Youtube channel link

https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher

Connect on linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

🎙️ Welcome back to “Revise and Resubmit” and to this special episode of “Weekend Classics” — where we dust off the papers that changed how we think, and hold them up to the light like intellectual vinyl records spinning at 33⅓ RPM. 🌈📻

Today’s classic is titled “Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage” by Ted Baker and Reed E. Nelson, published in Administrative Science Quarterly, a top-tier FT50 journal from the Johnson Graduate School at Cornell and SAGE Publications, way back in September 2005, Volume 50, Issue 3.​

This is a story about 29 scrappy, resource-constrained firms that looked at the same harsh environment as everyone else… and somehow heard music where others heard noise. Instead of waiting for perfect investors, pristine tools, or textbook conditions, these entrepreneurs practiced what Claude Lévi-Strauss called bricolage — “making do” with whatever is at hand and recombining it into something startlingly new.​

In this episode, we explore how:

• Firms “create something from nothing” by exploiting physical, social, and institutional inputs that other companies reject or ignore.​

• Resources are not fixed objects but socially constructed, meaning your “constraints” may just be someone else’s unquestioned assumptions.​

• Some entrepreneurs live in parallel bricolage, constantly hacking and patching everything, while others use selective bricolage as a strategic booster rocket toward more standardized, professional markets.​

So, if you’ve ever stared at your empty bank account, your tiny network, your “nothing-special” skills and thought, “I don’t have enough to start” — this paper gently, and firmly, says: maybe you’re looking at your environment the wrong way. Maybe the real entrepreneurial alertness is not just spotting shiny new opportunities out there, but seeing hidden value in the junk pile everyone else walks past.​

Before we dive in, smash that ⭐ and ❤️ wherever you’re listening —

• Subscribe to “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify, Amazon Prime, and Apple Podcast so you never miss a classic.​

• And hop over to YouTube and subscribe to “Weekend Researcher” for deep-dive videos, breakdowns, and behind-the-mic nerdiness.​

Huge thanks to the authors Ted Baker and Reed E. Nelson for giving us this timeless framework for turning scarcity into a playground.​

So tonight, as we unpack entrepreneurial bricolage — firms that refuse to accept the limits of their resource environments, and founders who build identities out of scraps and leftovers — ask yourself:

👉 If your constraints are partly a social construction, then what “nothing” in your world is quietly waiting to become your next “something”? 💡✨

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:16:48

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:31:17

German Podcast Starts at 00:46:33

Reference

Annabell, T., & Rasmussen, N. V. (2025). An algorithmic event: The celebration and critique of Spotify Wrapped. New Media & Society, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448251391301

Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome into the podcast, Revise and Resubmit 🎙️✨

Today, we are diving into an algorithmic ritual you probably screenshotted, shared, and maybe even side–eyed a little: Spotify Wrapped.
Every December, your listening history turns into a colourful confession: top artists, guilty-pleasure tracks, and that one song you played at 2 AM a few too many times. Wrapped looks like a party, feels like a personality quiz, and behaves like a data-hungry machine. 🎧📊

In the article “An algorithmic event: The celebration and critique of Spotify Wrapped”, published on November 24, 2025 in the prestigious Scopus Q1 journal New Media & Society (SAGE Publications) 🏛️, scholars Taylor Annabell and Nina Vindum Rasmussen peel back the neon gradients and show us the machinery behind the magic.

They call Wrapped an “algorithmic event”: a moment when millions of users stop, look at their data, and ask, “Is this really me?”
Through five creative workshops with university students, they explore “wrappification” – that slick process where data extraction is rebranded as fun, identity, and memory work. 🎭

From their analysis, four themes emerge like tracks on a playlist:

• 🎵 The resonance of Wrapped – why this recap hits so emotionally.

• 🧍‍♀️ The limits of the Wrapped self – how your “data self” both mirrors and distorts who you are.

• 🌫️ The ambience of music – where mood, place, and bodies escape neat categories.

• 🏗️ Contestations of Spotify’s governance – the quiet ways users push back against platform power.

Participants celebrate personalization, yet they also see the strings: classification systems that flatten messy lives, commercial logics that turn intimacy into metrics, and strategic listening where people game the system just to get a cooler Wrapped. Still, their relationship with music often overflows the app, reminding us that songs carry memories, atmospheres, and affect that no chart can fully pin down. 💿💚

So today on Revise and Resubmit, we’ll sit with this tension: the joy of being seen by an algorithm, and the discomfort of being sorted, sold, and surveilled by it. We’ll ask what it means when a platform tells you who you’ve been all year, and why that story feels both seductively right and stubbornly incomplete.

🙏 A big thank you to Taylor Annabell, Nina Vindum Rasmussen, and the team at New Media & Society (Scopus Q1, SAGE Publications) for this thought-provoking work and for letting us think with their research today.

If you enjoy deep dives like this, don’t forget to subscribe to “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify, Amazon Prime Music, and Apple Podcasts 🎧, and check out our YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher” for more academic storytelling 📺. Hit follow, hit subscribe, hit play again.

Because when Spotify tells you, “This is your year in music”…
🧐 How do you know where your true self ends and the algorithmic self begins?

Would you like a shorter variant of this intro as well, for use on YouTube Shorts or Reels?

🎙️✨ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit — the podcast where brilliant research meets real conversation! 🌍💡

Today’s episode is a 🎄 Christmas Special 🎄 — and we’re switching things up with a person-to-person interview format. Because what better way to unwrap ideas than by hearing them straight from the mind that created them?

📚 Now, if you’ve been following our journey, you’ll remember that we previously covered the groundbreaking Nature Biotechnology paper on Circulatronics from Dr. Deblina Sarkar’s Lab at the MIT Media Lab. (🔗 Link to that episode will be in our show notes below!)

Spotify Episode link

A non-surgical Brain implant (Sarkar et al 2025)

https://open.spotify.com/episode/6NN93f3n7Q76gFK5uSYt8m?si=cb312d83597946ab

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

But today… we’re diving deeper — straight into the heart of the discovery itself. ❤️‍🔥

🎧 Hosted by our very own producer — Mayukh Mukhopadhyay — this episode, titled “Circulatronics and the Curious Case of SWEDs,” brings us an extraordinary guest: Dr. Shubham Yadav — the first author of that Nature Biotech paper, a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Institute of Neuroinformatics, University and ETH Zurich. 🧠🇨🇭

Let’s get to know him a bit.
Dr. Yadav is a researcher whose curiosity doesn’t just light up the lab — it builds new worlds of possibility. A dual-degree graduate in Electrical Engineering from IIT Kanpur, an S.M. in Media Arts and Sciences from MIT, and a recent PhD from the MIT Media Lab, he’s pioneering ways to make electronics circulate naturally through the body — no surgery, no wires, just innovation flowing with life itself.

His creation — Circulatronics — uses wireless, subcellular-scale photovoltaic devices that travel through the bloodstream, find neural inflammation, and settle right where treatment is needed. 🌐✨ Think of it as science fiction turning into biological poetry.

Now at ETH Zurich, he’s pushing this technology toward real-world neurotherapeutic applications — bridging brain, biology, and bytes.

🎙️ So today, we will take on a journey through Circulatronics, the intriguing universe of SWEDs, and the deeper question hiding beneath this invention.

💭 What happens when technology stops being implanted — and starts becoming alive within us?

🌟 A huge thank you to Dr. Shubham Yadav, Dr. Deblina Sarkar, and the Nature Biotechnology team for their remarkable contribution to science — published in one of the most prestigious Nature Portfolio academic journals in the world.

And before we let curiosity take over — don’t forget to ✨ subscribe ✨ to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, follow our YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher”, and tune in on Amazon Prime or Apple Podcast for more caffeine-fueled deep dives into ideas that move the world. ☕🚀

Because every discovery has a story — and every story deserves to be… revised and resubmitted. 🧩

Reference

Yadav, S., Lee, R. X., Kajale, S. N., Joy, B., Saha, M., Patel, P., Bull, L., Cao, S., Mitragotri, S., Bono, D., & Sarkar, D. (2025). A nonsurgical brain implant enabled through a cell–electronics hybrid for focal neuromodulation. Nature Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-025-02809-3

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:13:46

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:28:11

German Podcast Starts at 00:39:34

Reference

Fan, Y., Litov, L., Yang, M.-J., & Zenger, T. (2025). The technological uniqueness paradox. Strategic Management Journal, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.70043

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to "Revise and Resubmit" 🎙️✨—where breakthrough research pulses with rhythm, starts with a spark, builds to a blaze, and leaves you questioning everything! 🚀

Today, we crack open a mind-bending paradox from the prestigious Strategic Management Journal—an elite FT50 powerhouse that defines cutting-edge strategy science. 🏆📚 Published online December 15, 2025, by John Wiley & Sons Ltd., the paper "The Technological Uniqueness Paradox" by Yang Fan, Lubomir Litov, Mu-Jeung Yang, and Todd Zenger reveals how a firm's wildly unique patents build an unbeatable moat against rivals... yet isolate it from others' breakthroughs, confuse analysts, and spike capital costs. 💡🔒 One edge protects. The same edge imprisons. Average firms thrive on uniqueness. But the bill comes due in spillovers lost and mysteries unsolved.

Subscribe now to "Revise and Resubmit" on Spotify 🔔, binge visuals on YouTube's "Weekend Researcher" 🎥, and catch us on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcasts 🎧—your front-row seat to research remixed!

Huge thanks to authors Yang Fan, Lubomir Litov, Mu-Jeung Yang, and Todd Zenger, and to John Wiley & Sons Ltd., for this FT50 gem that flips innovation on its head. 🙏

But here's the curious question: if technological uniqueness is both sword and shield, when does standing apart start costing you more than it saves? 🤔⚖️

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:18:48

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:36:12

German Podcast Starts at 00:50:09

Reference

Rosaia, N. (2025). Competing Platforms and Transport Equilibrium. Econometrica, 93(6), 2235–2271. https://doi.org/10.3982/ecta21773

Supplement and Replication Package: https://www.econometricsociety.org/publications/econometrica/2025/11/01/Competing-Platforms-and-Transport-Equilibrium

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to “Revise and Resubmit” 🎙️📚 — where heavyweight theory puts on headphones, gets in a cab, and rides through the real world with you.

Tonight, we’re not just hailing a ride. We’re hailing a market. 🚕📱
Two apps. One city. Millions of tiny decisions: tap here, wait there, surge now, cancel later.
On your screen, it’s a simple map with a moving car.
Underneath, it’s a battle of platforms, traffic flows, and social welfare measured in millions. 💸🌆

Our paper for this episode is
👉 “Competing Platforms and Transport Equilibrium”
by Nicola Rosaia, published in Econometrica — a prestigious FT50 journal — Volume 93, Issue 6, November 2025, from The Econometric Society and Wiley. 🏛️✨

Here’s the puzzle:
When Uber and Lyft (or any big platforms) compete, do we get efficiency… or waste?
Are we seeing smart competition, or just two half-empty networks clogging the same streets? 🚗🚗💨

Nicola Rosaia builds a spatial model of the ride-hailing market in New York City, powered by detailed data from two major platforms. Then comes the twist: by running counterfactual worlds, the paper asks, “What if we changed the rules?” 🧪

The results hit hard:

• Fragmented platforms and market power together burn 176176 million dollars of social welfare every year and waste 21% of driver-generated traffic.

• A platform merger would pool everyone into one big network, cutting traffic by 8%, but at a cost: prices up 4%, consumer surplus down 7777 million per year.

• Interoperability regulation — letting networks talk and drivers multi-home — captures most of the efficiency: wasteful traffic down 6%, while consumer surplus rises by 6363 million a year. 📉🚦📈

So one simple tap on a ride-hailing app turns out to be anything but simple.
It’s a choice shaped by algorithms, pricing power, and who is allowed to work for whom.
Competition gives you options. Fragmentation gives you traffic. Regulation reshapes the game. ⚖️

A huge thank you to Nicola Rosaia, to The Econometric Society, to Wiley, and to the prestigious FT50 journal Econometrica for this sharp, data-rich look at how platforms move people—and money—through our cities. 🙏📖

If you enjoy this kind of deep dive into cutting-edge research, hit subscribe to
🎧 “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify, Amazon Prime, and Apple Podcast,
and don’t forget our 🎥 YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher” for more geeky-yet-fun explorations of academic work.

So as we roll into this episode, here’s the question I want to leave circling in your mind like a car around the block:
🤔 When you open a ride-hailing app, are you just choosing a ride—or are you quietly choosing what kind of city, what kind of market, and what kind of equilibrium you want to live in? 🚕📱🌃

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:16:52

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:32:14

German Podcast Starts at 00:45:18

Reference

Li, M. (2025). Newsvendors with Customer Referrals. Production and Operations Management, 35(1), 122-128. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13807

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to “Revise and Resubmit” 🎙️📚 — the show where dense academic PDFs turn into ideas you can actually use.

Today, we’re stepping into a world where inventory decisions and word-of-mouth marketing quietly shake hands behind the scenes. 🧠📦 Imagine you’re a retailer, standing in front of your stockroom door. You’re not just asking, “How much should I order?” — you’re also asking, “If my customers love this today… how many new customers will they bring me tomorrow?” 👀🛒

Our featured paper is titled
👉 “Newsvendors with Customer Referrals”
by Meng Li, published in the prestigious, FT50-listed journal Production and Operations Management, from SAGE Publications, online on 12 December 2025. 🌍✨

In classic newsvendor models, you choose inventory for a single period and hope you guessed right. But this paper does something smarter. It says: every unit you sell today is not just revenue — it’s a seed. 🌱 Because when customers talk, demand in the next period grows with your previous sales. Suddenly, inventory is no longer just a safety buffer against uncertainty; it becomes a growth engine for tomorrow’s customers. 🚀

Meng Li builds a two-period analytical model where referrals link today’s sales to tomorrow’s demand, and the result is powerful:

• Firms should often stock more initially than traditional models recommend.

• Referral programs are especially valuable for nonperishable products, where leftover inventory can roll forward and feed that new referral-driven demand.

• The paper shows how a basestock policy can elegantly weave together social customer acquisition and operations decisions into one coherent framework. 🔗📈

So the humble question, “How many units should I order?” becomes a deeper, sharper one:
💡 “How much am I willing to invest in future word-of-mouth today?”

As we unpack this paper, we’ll ask: if your warehouse could talk, what would it tell you about your referral strategy, your risk appetite, and your hidden growth potential? And in your own research or practice, are you still treating inventory as a cost… when it might actually be marketing in disguise? 🤯

A huge thank you to Meng Li and to SAGE Publications, and to the prestigious FT50 journal Production and Operations Management, for making this research possible and accessible. 🙏📖

If you enjoy diving into ideas like this, don’t forget to subscribe to
🎧 “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify, Amazon Prime, and Apple Podcast,
and check out our 🎥 YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher” for more deep dives into cutting-edge papers.

So as you listen today, here’s the question I want to leave you with:
🤔 If every extra unit you stocked today could bring you an extra customer tomorrow, how radically would that change the way you manage your operations—and the way you think about growth itself?

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:12:41

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:27:42

German Podcast Starts at 00:40:42

Reference

Steven Schwankert (2025). The Six: The Untold Story of the Titanics Chinese Survivors. Pegasus Books. 240 pp. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Six/Steven-Schwankert/9781639368679

Youtube channel link

https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher

Connect on linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to Revise and Resubmit, and welcome to this Weekend Book Review! 📚✨

Today I’m opening a book that feels like a flare rising from the cold Atlantic. It is “The Six: The Untold Story of the Titanic’s Chinese Survivors” by Steven Schwankert, published by Pegasus Books on 8 April 2025. On the surface it is history. Inside, it is detective work, migration story, and a quiet protest against forgetting. 🌊🚢

We all “know” the Titanic story, right? Iceberg. Lifeboats. Orchestra. Maybe even Jack and Rose clinging to a floating door. 🎬 But hidden behind that familiar script were six Chinese men who survived the sinking, reached New York, and then were pushed out of the frame almost immediately. They were not just nearly lost at sea. They were almost lost in history.

Steven Schwankert walks straight into that silence. He begins with a fragment eight Chinese nationals on board, six survivors and follows it across oceans and archives. We meet Ah Lam, Chang Chip, Cheong Foo, Fang Lang (or Fong Wing Sun), Lee Bing, and Ling Hee professional seafarers whose courage carried them through icy water only to crash into something colder: racism, exclusion, and the force of the Chinese Exclusion Act. ❄️

What makes this book sing is the way Schwankert works. He hunts for the missing pieces. He interviews descendants, digs into genealogical records, traces journeys from Taishan to the decks of the RMS Titanic, then onward to North America. Bit by bit, he turns faceless “Chinese passengers” into people with families, ambitions, and scars. The Titanic story stops being a Western-only legend and becomes something global and deeply human. 🌍

And Schwankert is exactly the kind of person you want telling this story. He is an award winning writer, a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, and East and South Asia Chapter Chair of The Explorers Club. He founded SinoScuba and led the first scientific expedition to dive Mongolia’s Lake Khovsgol, where his team found two early twentieth century wooden shipwrecks resting in the dark. 🤿🧭

His previous work, including “Poseidon: China’s Secret Salvage of Britain’s Lost Submarine” and his Beijing & Shanghai guidebook, shows a pattern he is drawn to what has been submerged, literally and historically. His writing across The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Asian Wall Street Journal, The South China Morning Post, and more sharpens his eye for overlooked details and political context. That same energy charges every chapter of “The Six.”

In this episode, I want to explore how this book rearranges the Titanic myth. We will look at how Schwankert reconstructs lives from fragments, how he handles race and migration without turning these men into mere symbols, and how he shifts our gaze from Hollywood romance to the real Chinese experience at the turn of the century. 🔎

So as we dive in, I want to leave you with this question:
👉 If one hidden chapter like this can reshape the story of the Titanic, how many other “finished” histories are still missing voices that could change everything we think we know? 🤔

Huge thanks to Steven Schwankert and to Pegasus Books for bringing this story to us. 🙏

If you enjoy conversations that revise the past and resubmit it with more truth and more voices, please subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, and to our YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher”. We are also on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcast. 🎧📲

Hit follow, hit subscribe, and let’s turn the page together.

English Podcast Start at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Start at 00:14:06

Hindi Podcast Start at 00:28:13

German Podcast Start at 00:42:49

Reference

Karl E. Weick, Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, David Obstfeld, (2005) Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. Organization Science 16(4):409-421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133

Youtube channel link

https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher

Connect on linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to Revise and Resubmit – Weekend Classics! 🎙️✨

Some ideas arrive neat. Some arrive messy. Some arrive like a storm of stray facts and half-finished thoughts… and then, slowly, they become a story. 🌪️➡️📖

Today’s classic is all about that moment when the chaos becomes a narrative, when noise becomes pattern, when “What on earth is happening?” turns into “Ah… so this is what we’re in.” 🔍🧠

We’re diving into “Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking” by Karl E. Weick, Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, and David Obstfeld, published in Organization Science, a prestigious FT50 journal, and brought to the world by INFORMS back on August 1, 2005. 🏛️📚

This isn’t just another theory paper; it’s a blueprint for how people talk organizations into existence.

• It shows how we turn raw, unsettling events into words, labels, and stories that let us move, decide, and coordinate. 🧩🗣️

• It reminds us that sensemaking is not a side-show to organizing—it is the main act, the place where identity, action, and meaning collide and recombine. 🎭⚙️

Some sentences are long, wandering like a hallway filled with murmuring voices. Some are short. Like a gasp. 😮
Together, they explain how small conversations, tiny interpretations, and fleeting impressions quietly build the giant structures we call organizations, institutions, even society itself. 🧱🏢🌍

So tonight, as we walk through flux, identity, emotion, and the fragile narratives that hold our organized worlds together, ask yourself:
when the world feels ambiguous and unfinished, what story are you helping to write—and who are you becoming as you make sense of it? 🤔✨

🙏 Huge thanks to Karl E. Weick, Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, and David Obstfeld for this enduring classic and for reshaping how we think about organizing and meaning.

If this kind of deep-dive into iconic research sparks your curiosity, don’t forget to:

• 🎧 Subscribe to “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify

• ▶️ Follow the YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher”

• And yes—we’re also streaming on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast, so your next sensemaking session is never more than a tap away. 📱🌐

Ready to press play on how organizations are talked into existence—one act of sensemaking at a time? 🎙️🔥

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:12:36

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:27:39

German Podcast Starts at 00:44:22

Reference

Pillemer, J., Harrison, S., Murphy, C., & Park, Y. (2025). Audience Entanglement: How Independent Creative Workers Experience the Pressures of Widespread Appeal on Digital Platforms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392251399652

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to Revise and Resubmit 🎙️—the podcast where we take big, idea-heavy journal articles and translate them into conversations that actually stick with you.

Today we’re unpacking a brand-new piece that feels painfully relevant to anyone who’s ever hit “post” and then obsessively checked the numbers 📲📈. The article is titled:
“Audience Entanglement: How Independent Creative Workers Experience the Pressures of Widespread Appeal on Digital Platforms”
by Julianna Pillemer, Spencer Harrison, Chad Murphy, and Yejin Park.

It’s published online on 18 December 2025 in Administrative Science Quarterly—a prestigious, top-tier FT50 journal 🏛️📚—and released by SAGE Publications. When ASQ speaks, the academic world listens.

This paper dives into the lives of independent creators—visual artists, musicians, and other digital natives—who’ve “made it” on platforms like Instagram and YouTube. You’d think that once the followers arrive, the problems disappear. Instead, the authors show that a whole new struggle begins: something they call audience entanglement.

Audience entanglement is that deep, persistent sense that your audience is no longer just “out there.” They move into your head. Into your process. Into every decision you make. At first, this often becomes dysfunctional entanglement:

• You feel oppressively dependent on likes, comments, and shares.

• You’re at the mercy of platform volatility and algorithm mood swings.

• You start questioning the meaning of your work and whether this life is sustainable at all.

But the story doesn’t end there. Some creators figure out how to manage this knot instead of being strangled by it. They develop entanglement management strategies:

• Distancing themselves from constant audience input.

• Depersonalizing harsh critiques so they hurt less and teach more.

• Distilling their own standards so their inner voice outruns the algorithm’s demands.

When they do that, entanglement shifts into a functional form:

• Audience reactions still matter, but they’re not everything.

• Platform volatility becomes something to navigate, not fear.

• Emotions tilt from draining to uplifting, and the work starts to feel meaningful and sustainable again 🌱🎨.

On this episode of Revise and Resubmit, we’re going to sit with one big, unsettling idea:
Once your audience shows up and stays, how do you keep your work from quietly becoming theirs instead of yours? 👀

Huge thanks to Julianna Pillemer, Spencer Harrison, Chad Murphy, and Yejin Park, and to SAGE Publications, for this powerful contribution in Administrative Science Quarterly, a truly prestigious FT50 journal 🙏📖.

If you love getting high-caliber research in plain language, don’t forget to subscribe to “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify, Amazon Prime, and Apple Podcast, and hit subscribe on our YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher” 🎧📺✨

Because in an age where audiences are always watching, one question hangs in the air:
👉 Are you shaping your audience… or is your audience quietly reshaping you? 🤔💫

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:14:37

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:32:37

German Podcast Starts at 00:48:00

Reference

Vergne, J.P. (2025), Make Social Media Social Again: How Platform Interoperability Can Fix Social Media and Future-Proof Democracy. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70048

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to Revise and Resubmit 🎙️✨

Today we’re diving into a paper with a title that reads like a manifesto and a warning all at once:
👉 “Make Social Media Social Again: How Platform Interoperability Can Fix Social Media and Future-Proof Democracy”

Written by J.P. Vergne and published in the prestigious Journal of Management Studies — yes, that’s right, a top-tier FT50 journal 🏆📚 — this essay doesn’t just complain about social media… it reframes it.

We’re used to hearing that social media is killing democracy 🧨🗳️, but this paper flips the script:
maybe platforms aren’t fueling the decline of political democracy… maybe they’re mostly documenting it 📉👀 — while at the very same time helping revive organizational democracy through things like DAOs – Decentralized Autonomous Organizations 🧬🌐.

At the heart of the essay is a sharp, elegant idea: the “social media platform trilemma” ⚖️⚡
No single platform can give us all three at once:

• 🗣️ Free speech

• 💸 Free usage

• 🛡️ Safe usage

Try to maximize one, and you start to bend or break the others. So if no single platform can do it all, what if the industry could?

That’s where the big move comes in: platform interoperability 🔗✨
Just like email works across Gmail, Outlook, Proton, and beyond, this paper argues that social media could — and should — work across platforms too. Interoperability, enforced through regulation, could:

• Spark real competition on merit 🏁

• Speed up innovation at the edges 🚀

• Allow different platforms to specialize in different democratic benefits

• Unlock network effects between platforms, not just inside them 🌐↔️🌐

• And crucially, align the infrastructure of the internet with democratic values 🏛️❤️

Instead of blaming the internet for democracy’s problems, this article is a clarion call 📣 to use that infrastructure strategically — to make social media truly social again and to future-proof democracy.

So as you listen, think with us:
🌍 If email can talk across providers, why can’t your social feeds do the same — and what would democracy look like if they did? 🤔

A huge thank you to J.P. Vergne, to the Society for the Advancement of Management Studies, and to John Wiley & Sons Ltd., publishers of this remarkable article in the prestigious Journal of Management Studies (FT50) 🙏📘

If you enjoy deep dives into cutting-edge research like this, don’t forget to:

• 🎧 Subscribe to “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify

• 🍏 Listen on Apple Podcast

• 🟨 Find us on Amazon Prime

• 📺 And subscribe to our YouTube channel: “Weekend Researcher”

Because if interoperability can rewire democracy…
what might it do to the way we read, share, and think about research itself? 🚀📖

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:14:05

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:30:35

German Podcast Starts at 00:44:11

Reference

Garud, R., Phillips, N., Snihur, Y., Thomas, L. D. W., & Zietsma, C. (2026). Hype in entrepreneurial settings. Journal of Business Venturing, 41(2), 106559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2025.106559

Part of special issue

Hype and Entrepreneurship: Expectations, Exaggerations and Misrepresentations https://www.sciencedirect.com/special-issue/10S6P8J6MLK

Guest Editors: Raghu Garud, Nelson Phillips, Yuliya Snihur, Llewellyn D.W. Thomas, Charlene Zietsma

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome back to Revise and Resubmit 🎙️—the podcast where academic articles don’t just get read, they get gently, lovingly… questioned, prodded, and sent back into the world with a virtual “revise and resubmit.”

Today, we’re walking into the noisy midway of entrepreneurship—the land of bold promises, beautiful decks, and futures drawn in hockey-stick curves 📈.

Our feature:
✨ “Hype in entrepreneurial settings”
🧠 Authors: Raghu Garud, Nelson Phillips, Yuliya Snihur, Llewellyn D.W. Thomas, Charlene Zietsma
📚 Journal: Journal of Business Venturing—a prestigious FT50 journal
🏢 Publisher: Elsevier
🗓️ Online: 18 November 2025, forthcoming in Volume 41, Issue 2 (March 2026)

This article introduces a hype cycle for entrepreneurial settings with four stages: hyping, upswing, downswing, and revival.

First, hyping 🚀: entrepreneurs use language to frame ideas, products, and ventures in ways that spark exciting future expectations—often before technical validation or economic feasibility are in place.

Then, the upswing 🎢: a rapidly intensifying collective vision of the future takes hold. Audiences, investors, and media buy into the dream. Expectations soar, sometimes to unrealistic levels.

Next, the downswing 💥: when those expectations aren’t met, momentum reverses. Disillusionment sets in. The once-celebrated assets can become stigmatized.

Finally, revival 🔁: what was hyped and then tainted can gain a second life. Ideas and technologies are repurposed, reframed, and reinserted into new entrepreneurial efforts. Not every phenomenon completes the cycle, but the pattern helps us see how hype moves within and across fields.

In this special issue introduction, the authors probe:

• What triggers shifts between these stages? ⚡

• When does hype help entrepreneurs mobilize resources, and when does it become a trap?

• How do phenomena like entrepreneurial “swagger” or the rise and fall of the “girlboss” reflect this cycle of celebration, collapse, and comeback?

All of this appears in the Journal of Business Venturing, one of the top, FT50-listed journals—so we’re talking about theory with serious rigor behind the buzz.

🎧 Before we dive deeper:

• Follow “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify.

• Subscribe to our YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher” for visual breakdowns and weekend-friendly deep dives.

• You can also find us on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcasts, so add us to your academic listening playlist wherever you are.

Huge thanks 🙏 to the authors—Garud, Phillips, Snihur, Thomas, and Zietsma—to Elsevier, and to the Journal of Business Venturing, a truly prestigious FT50 journal, for launching this special issue on hype and entrepreneurship.

So as we get started, here’s the question I want you to hold onto:
If hype can create futures, destroy reputations, and then quietly resurrect forgotten ideas, are entrepreneurs really architects of hype—or just actors caught inside its cycle? 🌊🤔

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:17:45

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:33:47

German Podcast Starts at 00:48:19

Reference

Chen, S., Jebran, K., Li, Y., & Ye, Y. (2025). Coming Back and Giving Back: Social Class Origins of Entrepreneurs and Corporate Philanthropy in China. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587251393961

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

🎧 Welcome to “Revise and Resubmit” — the podcast where great research meets good conversation!

Today, we’re unpacking a story that starts not in boardrooms or balance sheets, but in childhood bedrooms and bustling neighborhoods. 🏙️ Because before someone becomes an entrepreneur, they were a child — shaped by the hum of their surroundings, the rhythm of their class, and the silent imprints of the world around them.

Our spotlight article, “Coming Back and Giving Back: Social Class Origins of Entrepreneurs and Corporate Philanthropy in China,” published in the prestigious FT50 Journal Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice by SAGE Publications, comes from the brilliant minds of Shihua Chen, Khalil Jebran, Yingkun Li, and Yan Ye. 📚✨

This research pulls us into a fascinating question — how does where we come from shape the way we give back? Can childhood social class leave cognitive footprints deep enough to guide our generosity years later in the world of business? 🤔

Stick around, because by the end of this episode, you might just see philanthropy — and entrepreneurship — through a brand-new lens.

🌟 Thanks to the authors and publisher for this incredible contribution to our understanding of class, cognition, and kindness.

And hey — if you enjoy exploring ideas like this, don’t forget to subscribe to “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify, and check out our YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher.” 🎥
We’re also available on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcasts, so tune in wherever you learn best.

So let's dive in — are entrepreneurs really giving back... or just coming back to where it all began? 🔍💭