Publication Process Submitting and peer review

Overview Submit –Where to submit –How to submit Editor –Sends to Reviewers –Reads it themselves –Sends you decision letter Decision 1. Accept 2. Revise and Resubmit (as new or original) 3. Reject Next step –If R&R, then make changes, cover letter –If reject, make changes?, submit down

Where to submit? Journals have a fairly stable hierarchy of reputation –Broader audience base = higher reputation ( –Within each discipline: ask about hierarchy ( Focus of journal? –See each journals website for focus/scope of the journal –Where you submit helps you decide which audience member to write for As the AUTHOR… How to submit? Each journal lists unique instructions

other pre-submission steps Ask journals… –What is review process? –How many reviewers? –What is turn-around time? –Special formatting such as APA, MLA, etc? –Common mistakes to avoid? ASK THESE QUESTIONS, especially if first time submitting to that journal As the AUTHOR…

After the submission is sent… Action editor is assigned (~ 1 week) Action editor skims for initial threshold decision Action editor finds reviewers (~ 1 month) Reviewers have X number of (~3-6 months) months to complete review Action editor has X number of ongoing manuscripts Action editor reads reviews Action editor reads article Action editor makes decision (~ 1 month) As the AUTHOR…

Possible outcomes Accept –Minor revisions required; problems are mostly about presentation or small problems with literature review, analysis, discussion Revise and Resubmit (original and new) –Major revisions required; problems can be almost anything (but “importance” of study is acceptable) –“new submission” means the editor believes fundamental issues exist and he/she is not sure you can overcome them so you must resubmit as a “new submission” as compared to true R&R. Reject –Problems prevent publication such as flawed theorizing or methodology, or viewed as unimportant –Notice that flawed analysis does not prevent publication because you can re-do analysis, and flawed Discussion does not prevent publication because can be re-written. As the AUTHOR…

If R&R What are reviewers/editors looking for? Get sample “response letters” from colleagues –“gmail database” Create response letter: –Respond to each point –Start with editors –Then major reviewer points –Then minor reviewer points Explain whether accepted/rejected each point. –If accepted, summary of how. –If rejected, explain why. –If inconsistencies between editor and reviewer, go with editor From talking with editors… –They have information overload w/ so many articles –So they want response letter as written record of everything As the AUTHOR…

Advanced Sources “Reviewing scientific works in psychology”, edited by Sternberg –Good for information about process –Good for how to review articles “Guide to publishing in Psychology Journals”, edited by Sternberg –Third part of book is about “Dealing with Referees” and how to write for referees, how to read response letters, how to revise “The Psychologist’s Companion”, written by Sternberg –Last few chapters about how to evaluate a paper, submit to journals, tips for gaining acceptance Some handouts…