Writing 4* journal articles Rochelle Sibley The Writing Centre 27 th February 2015

Session aims To understand the key qualities of a 4* article and how it differs from a 3* one. To identify how to build on your existing writing practice to achieve 4* research. To receive feedback on an abstract for your next article To produce a take-away a plan of action for your next article Copyright 2013 The Writing Centre, Warwick Writing Programme

Writing 4* research What experience of writing 4* articles have you already had? What do you feel is you biggest challenge in producing 4* articles? What motivates you to write 4* articles? Copyright 2013 The Writing Centre, Warwick Writing Programme

Defining 4* articles What does a 4* article look like? What qualities does it have compared to a 3* article? Clearly original contribution to the field Moves the field forwards Challenges or reinterprets pre-existing scholarship Generates a new way of understanding the field Highly focused in its scope and structure Offers a new approach to an established topic Incorporates a new methodological approach Copyright 2013 The Writing Centre, Warwick Writing Programme

Targeting 4* journals Key starting questions: Who is your target audience? What is your target journal? How do you identify target journals? What can you do to target your article? Analyse your target journal Contact the journal editor Look for gaps in the current debate on your topic that fit your target journal Use keyword searches Start a journal club in your department (to discuss and analyse journal areas/submissions) Choose a ‘model academic’ in your field to guide your publication choices (useful for differentiating between early, mid and late-career) Copyright 2013 The Writing Centre, Warwick Writing Programme

How to analyse your target journal 1.Skim through the last two or three issues What are the key topics? How could you adapt your material to fit within these? 2.Examine the structure of two or three articles How are they divided up? How is the argument or analysis presented? 3.Read the author instructions What guidelines are there on presentation, scope, approach? 4.Are there any recurring or key methodologies or theories in use? 5.Discuss this analysis with a colleague in your field – preferably one who has been published in your target journal. Copyright 2013 The Writing Centre, Warwick Writing Programme

4* articles vs 3* articles REF definitions: 4* research Quality that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour. 3* research Quality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour but which falls short of the highest standards of excellence. What does this mean in practice? Copyright 2013 The Writing Centre, Warwick Writing Programme

BREAK Copyright 2013 The Writing Centre, Warwick Writing Programme

Reviewing sample articles Looking at the two sample article introductions and abstracts, discuss in small groups the differences between: the scope of each article the originality of each article the approach of each article Is it clear from the introductions which is the 4* article and which is the 3* article? If so, how can you tell? Copyright 2013 The Writing Centre, Warwick Writing Programme

Reviewing your current article Skim through your current article in light of these discussions – what could you do to improve its focus/how you’ve targeted it/how you’ve promoted its originality or contribution to the field? You have ten minutes to make notes on your own article before discussing your planned changes with a partner. Think about: Who is your target journal’s readership? What have you done to shape the article to their interests? Is it clear what your article is adding to the debate? Are you sure that the structure fits your target journal? Copyright 2013 The Writing Centre, Warwick Writing Programme

Murray’s ten prompts 1.This work needed to be done because… (25 words) 2.Those who will benefit from this include… (25 words) 3.What I did was… (25 words) 4.How I did that was by… (25 words) 5.When I did that what happened was… (50 words) 6.I worked out what that meant by… (50 words) 7.I did what I set out to do to the extent that… (25 words) 8.The implications for the research are… (25 words) 9.The implications for practice are… (25 words) 10.What still needs to be done is… (25 words) From Rowena Murray, Writing for Academic Journals, p.114. Copyright 2013 The Writing Centre, Warwick Writing Programme

Peer reviewing abstracts Swap abstracts with a partner and read with a critical eye: Is it clear what the aims of the research were? Is it clear what the article would add to the field? What were the key outcomes from this work? Each person gets five minutes feedback on their abstract – make notes as you will need to incorporate this later. Remember : Be constructive in your feedback Questions can be just as useful as comments Copyright 2013 The Writing Centre, Warwick Writing Programme

Building a publications strategy What do you need to consider when creating a publications strategy? Important tips and questions: Create a timetable for each article – have another one ready to begin when you send the previous one off to be read. Don’t start a new project before you’ve planned how to publish from your current one. Is your current article really two articles in disguise? Does your current article lead you into a second article? Revise conference papers into articles sooner rather than later while feedback is still fresh. Copyright 2013 The Writing Centre, Warwick Writing Programme

Outlining a publications strategy What do you want to achieve in the next 12 months regarding publications? How many articles do you want to finish? How many of those will be based on existing writing (conference papers, data reports, drafts)? How many will be based on new research you are still undertaking? What order could these be put into – which would be quicker to turn around? Copyright 2013 The Writing Centre, Warwick Writing Programme

FEEDBACK AND QUESTIONS Copyright 2013 The Writing Centre, Warwick Writing Programme