SIS Philosopher’s Cafe Mary Anne Kennan and Kim M Thompson 30 July 2014 Tips and Insights on Publishing and the Publication Process

Who reads published research? Researchers Students Media Practitioners and professionals Policymakers Publishers

Who needs published research? Researchers Students Media Practitioners and professionals Policymakers Publishers Discipline (e.g., concepts, models, theories)

What is good research? Valid, reliable, representative, generalisable Trustworthy (credible, transferable, dependable, confirmable) Thorough review of literature Sound methodological design Raw data Ethical Objective Generates new knowledge Significant (so what?!)

Improving academic writing Bennett, J. & Gorovitz, S. (1997). Improving academic writing, Teaching Philosophy 20(2). Improving sentences Verbs are better than nouns Adverbs are better than adjectives Banish ‘very’ and its ilk Abstract nouns should be fought like the devil Avoid undue repetition Attend to the sound Question acronyms Attend to problems of order

Improving academic writing How to Improve Your Academic Writing (U of Essex) academic_writing.pdf academic_writing.pdf 5 tips to improve your academic writing (ESL slant, but good basic tips for native English speakers as well) How do I improve my academic writing? (write, write more, write even more) improve-my-academic-writing improve-my-academic-writing

Improving academic writing Read good academic writing Style Format Logic Sentence and paragraph structures Organisation of ideas and flow Development of ideas Focus/narrow/expand ideas Establishment of relevance, significance, etc.

The writing process First draft is not what you submit Organise, write, rewrite, revise Writing style, structure, layout, format, word count Tools (APA, Chicago, Harvard, unique format to that journal, etc.) Self-edit and proof Work in teams, collaborate Invite colleagues, faculty members, committee members, chair, friends, family to edit and proof Revise

What is publishable? Thought pieces/editorials Empirical research Works in progress Longitudinal studies Literature reviews Methodology papers

What counts in research evaluation? Thought pieces/editorials Empirical research Works in progress Longitudinal studies Literature reviews Methodology papers

Deciding where to publish Journals you have cited Journals you read Listserv calls for chapters, papers, books Network Solicitations based on prior publications Predatory publishers Scope of journal/publisher/series Contact editor and ask

Deciding where to publish Instructions for Authors (front or back cover of print copy; website) Fit (scope, topic, methodology, length, depth) Readership Journal impact factor Turnaround time Accessibility/Open Access Cost (images, Open Access, hybrid)

Refereed, juried, invited...other Peer review (one or more experts) Open review Blind review Double blind review Editor review Program committee review Keep a copy of reviewer and editor comments

Types of publications Chapters (refereed, invited) Research articles (refereed, invited) Professional articles (refereed, invited) Conference proceedings (refereed/juried, invited) Books (refereed, commercially published, edited, monograph, joint authored) Book reviews

Snapshot of publication process Research Write Prepare (for the specific journal, style, length referencing system, paradigm, copyright, etc.) Submit Editors—read, decide: immediate reject or send for review Select and invite reviewers, manage review process Read reviews, make decision Accept, accept with minor revision, major revision/revise and resubmit Editors re-read, sometimes re-review, make decision Publishers—copy edit, manage copyright/licensing, print, publish, distribute, market

Ethics of the publication process Anonymised version for submission (some journals) Acknowledgement of input from others Acknowledgement of funding and other support Order of authors [csu policy] Blind reviews are confidential Submitting one work to only one journal at a time Building on a study/salami slicing? Plagiarism (accidental or otherwise)

What to do with feedback From proofreaders and internal readers From external reviewers From editors Let editor know what changes you have made and how you have responded to the reviewers’ recommendations Multiple opinions Minor revision Major revision Revise and resubmit Reject

Conclusion Read Write Do your research re: venues for publication Let it go (proofreaders and colleagues; then to editor) Be professional and sincere in response to all levels of review and feedback Keep the editor informed as you revise and resubmit