Disseminating Your Research: Tips on Publishing Journal Articles

Presented by Ellen Mutari and Kristin Jacobson, Faculty Fellows, Institute for Faculty Development. Based on PowerPoint originally created by Deborah M. Figart.

A Typical Journal Review ProcessInitial submission to Editor

Screened for fit/quality Sent to Co-Editor or Associate Editor

Sent to Referees

Referees reports to Editor/Assoc. Editor

Reject Accept Revise & Resubmit

Re-reviewed …

R & R can end up as R & R again

“bounce”(desk rejection)

“coach”

Definitions: the Reviewing Process Double-blind refereeing

Author does not know names of Referees Referees do not know name of Author

Single-blind refereeing Author does not know names of Referees Referees do know name of Author

Special Issues or Invited Papers Author papers are refereed Referees often include special issue editor(s) Journal may share name(s) of referees with Author

Single vs. double/multiple submission: Know the expectations! Journals in the sciences may allow you to submit to multiple

journals at once for the same paper. Social science & humanities journals do NOT.

Top Ten List for Successful Journal Publication

1. 1 idea, 1 paper.2. Know the journal.3. Style is important.4. The Introduction is crucial to the paper’s success.5. Don’t overdo it. Save words for the main text6. Edit, edit, edit for high-quality English and grammar.7. Revisions: Do not lengthen the paper! In a separate Letter to

the Editor, specify clearly to the Editor(s) and Referees about changes requested and completed.

8. Keep submissions in the pipeline: Don’t put all your eggs in one basket!

9. Consider journal special issues and book chapters.10. Volunteer to discuss/referee. Use professional networks.

Bonus: Learn from others’ experiences!

1. 1 idea, 1 paper. Relate your research to an open question

being discussed or debated in the “discipline”[s]. Stay current. Don’t respond to outdated argument.

Editors and referees want to read a paper that is novel, engaging, interesting, current.

Editors want research that is focused: clarity, clarity, clarity.

Your title should be a clue. Does it sound like it is focused on supporting one, clear conclusion? Avoid “things about…”

2. Research selected journals for “fit” & quality. What topics have been published

in the last 5 volumes? Enter an existing conversation. Would the journal be open to your

scholarship? Are you aiming too high? too low? Types of journals:

A general journal A field journal A journal reflecting a particular

theoretical perspective Are scholars like you likely to read

that journal regularly and cite articles from that journal?

Try to have specific journal (and backup) in mind BEFORE you start writing. Stay open-minded: The best fit for

your paper may change/evolve as you are writing the paper!

http://academictimgunn.tumblr.com/post/30818364656

2. Cont.: How to judge journal qualityDeb Figart’s White Paper on “Journal Citation Indexes and Journal Quality” posted on IFD website: under “Helpful Links”. UlrichsWeb and MLA Directory of Periodicals available

Questions to consider: Is the journal associated with a recognized professional association in your field? Who publishes? What other journals are in the publisher’s portfolio? Who is the Editor? The members of the Editorial Board? Is it peer reviewed? What is the review process? Look for information on acceptance rates, impact factors, and other quantitative

measures of quality. Are submission fees common in your discipline? Watch out for Predatory Publishers (especially Open Access or online)!

List of predatory journals: http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ Additional criterion: https

://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria-2015.pdf Be wary of online solicitations from unknown journals—just as you would be wary if they were

telling you about money in an overseas bank account! Do you know anyone personally who has published in the journal? Have you heard of

anyone who has published there?

Remember: You will be expected to demonstrate quality in your faculty review file.

3. Style is important. Keep to the journal’s specified length (shorter is better). Follow the journal’s style guide & manuscript

submission guidelines. Editors and referees want to know that you aren’t “phishing” around for any journal. Section Titles, and format References style Footnotes or Endnotes Policy on data, models, and regression analysis Are acknowledgments allowed? If you don’t see them in print,

don’t use them. The paper title should be informative, not wordy. The paper must be organized. Editors will skim the

paper to see if it is well organized.

4. The Introduction is key. Editors will read the introduction first. They may stop reading

there if… The typical paper opens with why the topic is important and

your key contributions. Some journals expect a paragraph summarizing how the manuscript is

laid out. Others don’t. Read other articles to know the culture. Do not include a “second introduction” with a background or

history of the topic. Headings lead the reader through the manuscript. The hackneyed [commonplace] structure is a good place to

start, but you do not have to use it: 1. Introduction2. Literature Review3. Results4. Summary and Conclusions• The structure must be appropriate to the journal and your paper.

5. Don’t overdo it. Journal articles are getting shorter. 10,000 7,000 words. Do a literature review, but keep it brief. Embed previous findings

where appropriate: In historical or theoretical presentation In methodology or theory section(s) In results section(s) Even in summary and conclusions

Save words for the main text, not an overly long list of references. It’s important to show that you read the literature, but reference lists are

getting shorter. Do not play games of citing authors that would be friendly to the paper;

editors easily catch onto this. Every word or word-equivalent in a table or chart counts as a word

against the word limit! A journal article does not have15- 20 tables. Information presented in tables should stand alone, and every table

included should be summarized. Remember: 1 idea, 1 paper.

6. Edit, edit, edit for high-quality English. Don’t depend on the journal employing a copy

editor. Make it easy for referees and readers across

the globe to understand your paper. Referees are frustrated with argument flow

when the manuscript is poorly written. After you think you’re ready to submit, leave it

aside for a few days. Then look again to be sure.

Remember to ask colleagues to read your manuscript before you submit it. Then thank them for their assessment.

7. Revisions: length, letter Few articles are accepted in the 1st round of reviewing.

Most Authors receive Revise & Resubmit letters, so be prepared for this; allow for this in your career advancement timeline.

In a revision, do not lengthen the paper. The only exception to the word-limit rule: when the Editor has

allowed more words, this will be specified by the Editor in a note to the Author.

Write a separate letter to the Editor. Specify clearly to the Editor (page number, paragraph) what

changes were requested are where changes were made. If a change was not made, explain why. Outline any other changes in terms of argument, ideas, results,

etc. Rarely, if ever, complain to the Editor about a decision or ask that

the paper be sent to an additional referee. Any questions about referee comments or conflicted

recommendations? Write the Editor.

8. Keep submissions in the pipeline Don’t put all of your eggs

in one basket! Few articles or book

chapters are published in less than one year from the initial submission

When possible, stage your research so that you have Project in the research

stage Project in the

writing/revision stage Project in submission

http://academictimgunn.tumblr.com/post/31859446012

9. Consider journal special issues and book chapters. Special issues focus

on a theme. They often have

special, named editors.

Special issues are highly cited because people looking for research on the theme read them.

Sometimes, they have a higher acceptance rate than a regular issue.

10. Volunteer to discuss/referee. Use professional networks. Even though the process is often double-blind, getting

past the Editor is easier if they know your name. Volunteer to discuss papers at a conference and referee for a

journal/conference paper. Offer to write book reviews so journal gets to know you. You are joining a community of scholars. And you learn a

lot. Be a good discussant/referee:

Meet deadlines Write high-quality reports that are unbiased, not derisive Make overall suggestions (big picture) as well as specific

suggestions for improvement When you referee a lot for a particular journal and your

reviews are high-quality, you may be asked to join the Editorial Board.

Upcoming IFD EventsFebruary 10, 12:30 pm, CCMR2:  So You Want to Get a Grant: Navigating internal and external funding sourcesLisa Rosner, Distinguished Professor of History; Director, Honors Program

February 18, 12:45 pm, location TBD: Dealing with Students’ Mental Health DisclosuresChristine Ferri, Associate Professor of Psychology

March 4th, 12:45 pm, CCMR2:  Disseminating Your Research:  Tips on Publishing BooksKristin Jacobson (Literature) and Ellen Mutari (Economics)This workshop will provide lessons from the facilitators’ experiences getting scholarly books published and refereeing manuscript proposals for publishers.   We will review the different types nonfiction books (monographs, anthologies, text books), how to evaluate the reputation of publishers, and the elements of a strong book proposal.  Time will be left for Q&A. 

March 24th, 12:00 – 1:15 pm, F121: Creative Teaching Forum:  Teaching Large Section ClassesOrganized by IFD Fellows Liz Shobe and Mike Frank, this session will include a panel of faculty and students discussing the challenges and merits of teaching and learning in large classes.