Thoughts on Publishing 2009 PEN meeting, Bogor Gerald Shively, Purdue University Editor-in-Chief, Agricultural Economics Associate Editor, Environment and Development Economics

Academic Journals “Owned” by the academic community Either literally or figuratively Governed by page “budgets” An important and binding constraint Typical acceptance rates 10-40%

Structure of Journal Operations Editors (very busy) Editorial Assistants (not busy) Associate Editors (think they are busy) Reviewers (pretend they are busy) Few incentives for reviewers or associate editors Few options to “enforce” the reviewing contract

Editors Typically serve briefly (3-6 years) Rarely have an “agenda” Try to serve the community as well as possible Publish the best possible papers, subject to time, page budget and other constraints Editors are busy people They usually have all the regular things to do (teach, conduct research, supervise students, administrate, write grant proposals, and publish their own papers) Editing is typically an “extra” responsibility

Editor’s Responsibility Fill the journal with papers that will be widely read and highly cited Accept papers with novel methods, interesting stories, and general appeal. Serve as a “gate keeper” for the community by quickly rejecting “bad” papers without using up a lot of precious reviewer or associate editor goodwill Avoid mistakes and “arbitrariness” Better to reject a good paper than accept a bad paper Trust the review process but avoid reviewer “meddling”

Constraints Running a journal is an exercise in constrained optimization Understanding constraints is essential to understanding how to improve your chances of getting your papers reviewed and (ultimately) accepted. Page budgets Editor’s time and energy Reviewer’s time and energy

Desk Rejects Many papers are “desk rejected” Editor rejects paper without sending it for review 0-40% of papers (or more), depending on journal Actually can be helpful for authors in some cases Which get desk rejects? Those in obvious need of much work due to dull story, weak analysis or weak writing Overly narrow subject without no generalizable findings or methods/approach Papers that are hard to review Why? Novelty vs. Obscurity

Accepted for Review Editor will… Typically 2 reviewers Assign best “possible” associate editors and reviewers Match subject matter and methods Pick reviewers who know something about the topic and will deliver good reviews on time Typically 2 reviewers Editors “tend” not to override reviewers Split decisions – how are they resolved? Additional rounds Editor or Associate Editor as tie-breaker

Author Strategy: Part I Avoid small and obvious mistakes Read and obey guidelines for submission Mistakes in writing are signals of mistakes in analysis Get help with written English Align subject matter with journal aims Show that paper connects to a “conversation” taking place in the journal Short and informative cover letter The cover letter rarely influences the process Suggest reviewers, but do so with caution Point out connections to previous work in the journal

Author Strategy: Part II Win over the reviewers (Goal – get R&R) Be provocative without provoking Be clear about the research question 50% of negative reviews focus on this! Be clear about your methods the other 50% focus on this!

Author Strategy: Part III Work on the STORY Negative reviews rarely focus on conclusions Get help with written English (co-authorship?) Make sure your lit review is complete and current the reviewer is likely to be familiar with the field Short papers are more likely to succeed Easier to read: they hold the reader’s attention Easier to write: maintain continuity of argument

Revise and Resubmit No guarantee of acceptance Up to 1/2 of R&Rs are eventually rejected Why? Failure to satisfy reviewers 10% of papers that reviewers “accept” the Editor nevertheless rejects. Why? perception of weak/incomplete reviews similar or better papers in the pipeline space limitations and narrow appeal

Rejection It happens to us all Move on; don’t take it personally Challenging a decision rarely works It may annoy the editor, to your future disadvantage Take the comments SERIOUSLY and don’t immediately send a flawed paper back out without revising it. If a reviewer doesn’t understand what you have done, 9 out of 10 times it is the author’s fault.

Good Luck!