Writing for publication Declan Mc Nicholl BASW Birmingham May 2013 declan.mcnicholl@leicspart.nhs.uk

Who has written anything? Who has written something that has been looked at by at least one other person?

Who has written anything? Who has written something that has been scrutinised or judged by at least one other person?

Who has written anything? Half the battle!

Who has already published? Creative writing ‘versus’ Writing for publication A warning!

What prevents you writing for publication?

What prevents us writing for publication? What prevents us from writing for publication? (based on Newnes and Jones, 2005)

Newnes and Jones (2005) Originality is paramount Missing the ‘Wow’ factor Public scrutiny Feel unworthy Unwilling to describe the ordinary Too many non-useful rules Being wrong/getting caught out Gender and cultural issues Be willing to play! Get a friend

A priority Is there something about which you would really like to write about and publish ?

Two things to keep in mind to-day The thing (s) I would like to write about. ‘Attending a writing for publication workshop’ article.

The Three Point Structure of writing for Publication Exposition Key turning point Conclusion – develops the second part but refers back to first point.

Aims of the rest of the session A brief introduction to Emerald and their journals Especially SCN Why publish in journals? To encourage you to share your knowledge, i.e. to get you writing To ‘demystify’ the publishing process Additional tips, insider knowledge and the answers to key questions to maximize your chances of publication including: Tips on how to structure your paper To encourage you to look at your work through the eyes of an editor/peer reviewer How to deal with reviews and revisions of your paper Aims of the session Before start establish composition of audience to help with pitch. If there are any questions that you have which aren’t covered please come and find me after the session or get in contact by phone or email. I will be handing out memory sticks at the end of the presentation which contain a copy of this presentation so there is no need to take many notes. These will also contain some additional resources for you.

A brief introduction to Emerald Company history Emerald Group Publishing Limited Founded in 1967 in Bradford, West Yorkshire Three core markets: Public, Corporate, Academic 250+ journals, 240+ book series, 300 stand-alone texts Over 21 million Emerald articles were downloaded in 2011 – more than 50,000 a day! Potential readership of 15 million Emerald Group Publishing - background Moved into book publishing in 2007 ‘Research you can use’ strap line and ethos

A brief introduction to Emerald Health and Social Care Collection Acquisition of Pier Professional (2011) (Pavilion Journals) Creation of Health and Social Care Collection Sub collection of Learning/Intellectual Disability titles Content delivers high-quality, up-to-date, peer-reviewed research and evidence-based practice with the overall aim of considering social impact and improving practice. Acquired Pier Professional (formerly Pavilion Journals) in 2011 Creation of Health & Social Care Collection – talk through sub-collections Highlight the fact that not all content is peer-reviewed research – we welcome case studies and other articles written by practitioners as long as they are evidence-based Don’t be intimidated!

Why publish in journals? Take an idea Publish it Reach an audience Summary of what you can achieve by publishing your work in journals - ultimately the end goal is for people to read your paper – and cite it (that’s how the academic world works)!

Why publish in journals? Being published means: Your paper is permanent – enters the ‘body of knowledge’ for your subject area Your paper appears in both the print and electronic versions of the journal Your paper is improved by suggestions from reviewers and/or the editor via the review process Your paper is actively promoted by the publisher – reaching a large audience Your submission is trustworthy – material that has been published carries a quality stamp

Why publish in journals? What’s in it for me? Work in print – name in print Share your ideas – develop your career Prove success – support/influence future decisions Demonstrate your knowledge – gain external recognition Highlight new initiatives – gain internal recognition

Why publish in journals? What do previous authors say? Career 80% of our authors published with a view to career progression and personal development Altruism 85% published for esteem and receive internal and external recognition Own Business 50% published for company recognition and to promote their business Subject Development 70% wanted to share knowledge and experience Recent testimonial (published paper in Health & Social Care title) “I just wanted to let you know that your advice paid off - Thank you! As a result of publishing my paper I won an Award (£2,500) that has enabled me to produce marketing and promotional materials, hire meeting rooms and generally kick start the organization under its own constitution.”

Getting started Hopefully I’ve convinced you of the benefits of publishing your work. So how do you get started with writing a paper?

How to get started? What do I write about? Have you completed a project that concluded successfully? Are you wrestling with a problem with no clear solution? Do you have an opinion or observation on a subject? Have you given a presentation, briefing or conference paper? Are you working on a Doctoral or Master’s thesis? Do you have a new idea or initiative? If so, you have the basis for a publishable paper

How to get started? Co-authorship as a possibility With colleagues or a supervisor, across departments, with someone from a different organization Practitioner / researcher /service user teams Especially useful for cross-disciplinary practice or research Ensure the manuscript is checked and edited so that it reads as one voice Exploit your individual strengths Agree and clarify order of appearance of authors and the person taking on the role of corresponding author Co-authorship as a possibility Co-authorship is often a good opportunity for first-time authors. Adds value and weight to the paper, can draw on a variety of strengths, cross-disciplinary. For researchers this gives the option of teaming up with someone who is already widely published. For practitioners this could involve working with a researcher or academic to make clear the evidence base for your paper. Three caveats: 1) People have different writing styles and may even contradict each other: make sure the paper reads as a whole and as one voice, there are no conflicting statements of duplications. 2) You do not have to share the work evenly. Instead, play to your individual strengths: one author might be better at data analysis, one a better writer. Let the statistician do the stats! 3) Agree and clarify order of appearance of authors. Very important since this cannot be changed after publication. Decide on who should be the corresponding author: should be the person quickest to reply to emails. There is always something that needs clarifying e.g. missing reference, copyright etc. If it takes three weeks for you to reply, the publication of your paper will be delayed. The quicker the publisher receives a reply, the quicker you paper will get published.

How to select the right journal? A good choice of journal can enhance the impact of your work and your reputation Factors to consider are relevant readership, recent articles, most communicative, societies and internationality, likelihood of acceptance, circulation, time from submission to publication What type of paper are you planning to write i.e. practice paper, research paper, case study, review, viewpoint? Check first what type of paper the journal accepts. Are rankings important to you? Citations are a good, but not complete, guide to quality Usage is a better measure of utility Be political (e.g. national vs international) and strategic (e.g. five articles in ‘low ranked’ journals vs one in ‘top ranked’ journal) What should YOU be looking for We can’t tell you where to publish but we can tell you what you need to consider. This depends on where you want to work/ what you want to do in the future (Eg. some universities want you to publish in specific journals, in ISI ranked journals, may want you to publish one article in a top ranked journal or 5 in any journal). Be political and strategic about where to submit your article.

How to select the right journal Target to avoid desk reject “Many papers are rejected simply because they don’t fulfil journal requirements. They don’t even go into the review process.” Identify a few possible target journals/series but be realistic Follow the Author Guidelines – scope, type of paper, word length, references style, etc Find out where to send your paper (editor, online submission e.g. Scholar One). Check author guidelines which can be found in a copy of the journal/series or the publisher’s web site Send an outline or abstract and ask if this looks suitable and interesting (or how it could be made so) Read at least one issue of the publication – visit your library for access Include a cover letter – opportunity to speak directly to the editor, convince them of the importance of your paper to the journal Target! Be realistic – you may not get published in a top journal straight away. Cover letter: Mention your research area and track record; the main findings of your paper; the significance of your research/practice.

Maximising your chances of success Author guidelines Every journal has detailed notes and guidelines Author guidelines Can be found on the journal website or in a hard copy of the journal.

Publisher/ Managing Editor Maximizing your chances of success Understand the journal supply chain Publisher/ Managing Editor Author Editor Production Users Research Quality papers (research and practice) EAB and reviewers Solicits new papers Handles review process Promotes journal to peers Attends conferences Develops new areas of coverage QA – sub-editing and proof reading Convert to SGML for online databases Print production Despatch Added value from publisher Access via library Hard copy Database Third party The link between the publishing company and editor Helps editors succeed in their role and build a first class journal Overall responsibility for journal Promotion and marketing Attends conferences Handles production issues Editorial supply chain and journal management structure: journals To demystify the publishing process: what happens to your paper after submission, so you know who to ask at every stage if there is a problem or query. Remember at all points in the chain there is a human being involved and you may need to manage the people as much as (if not more than) the manuscript itself.

Structuring Your Paper This section is going to offer some hints and tips about structuring your paper.

Standard journal article structure Abstract (structured format for submission to Emerald titles) Introduction Literature Review Research methodology/approach Findings Discussion Conclusion

Structuring your paper: What is the purpose of the paper? Purpose Statements What is the significance of the paper? Why is it important and original? Who will be interested, who is the intended audience? What next: what are the implications for practice, what are the further research questions Purpose Statements – should also be central to the article’s composition. It will help you develop the structure, and provide a focus. Thesis Statements – a statement of purpose that does not merely state coverage but which also sets out an argument. One of the most common faults of research papers is that they fail to communicate a sense of purpose, and how they extend the boundaries of knowledge. The most important thing that a writer can do when thinking about writing - even before you start - is to write a purpose statement, covering: What / Why / Who / What next. It is absolutely critical that you consider your audience 1st: in relation to what they already know – are keywords …. The purpose statement belongs close to the start of the article, but should also be central to the article’s composition. It will help you develop the article’s structure, and provide a focus as you weave in salient facts and discard others. All subsequent points should be related to the development of this purpose statement. Sometimes, you may wish to write a paper which develops a particular thesis, in which case your statement of purpose will be more a "thesis statement" – one that does not merely state coverage but which also sets out an argument. A thesis statement should be precise, and focused enough for all related points to be considered in the article. As with a purpose statement, it should be kept in mind at all points during the writing of the article, and may well change as the writing progresses. In many cases, a series of hypothesis statements will be developed, perhaps as a result of a literature review. The Writing Center at the University of Wisconsin-Maddison has useful handouts on thesis statements: Thesis and purpose statements Developing a thesis statement They are aimed at undergraduates, but are clearly set out. The introduction The purpose statement sits within the introduction: what else should the introduction contain? The latter's purpose is not merely to set out the paper's main aims, but also to provide context: why the topic is important and what it contributes to the body of knowledge, background to the research, what the structure of the paper will be, what made you decide to research this topic/write the article? How long should the introduction be? Opinions vary over this – some say 500-700 words, others two pages. All in all, the introduction should be long enough to develop the purpose statement and set out the background to the topic, but should not overwhelm, or be out of proportion to, the rest of the paper. When should the introduction be written? There is a school of thought which says that the introduction should be written last, along with the conclusion. However, the purpose statement should be the kernel of the work and should be written first, and it is also useful to set out the context of the article. It is probably wise to write the introduction first, because the introduction sets out your stall, as it were, and then revisit it as you write.

Structuring your paper: Abstracts The abstract helps ‘sell’ your article Editors: are busy! The abstract is their first contact with your paper and can sometimes make a decision at that point whether or not it is suitable for their journal. Readers (online): The abstract is often all a reader will see until they pay for the article. Might not go further if the abstract doesn’t tell them clearly what the paper is about. A good abstract might make them want to read the full-text article. Always ensure that you are clear, honest, concise and have covered all the major points.

Structuring your paper: The Introduction What is the importance of the introduction? It provides context and set out the paper's main aims: Why the topic is important, what it contributes to the body of knowledge, background to the research, what the structure of the paper will be, what made you decide to research this topic/write the article? How long should the introduction be? The introduction should be long enough to develop the purpose statement and set out the background to the topic: It should not overwhelm or be out of proportion to the rest of the paper When should the introduction be written? It is probably wise to write the introduction first. But always revisit it as you write. The introduction The purpose statement sits within the introduction: what else should the introduction contain? The latter's purpose is not merely to set out the paper's main aims, but also to provide context: why the topic is important and what it contributes to the body of knowledge, background to the research, what the structure of the paper will be, what made you decide to research this topic/write the article? How long should the introduction be? Opinions vary over this – some say 500-700 words, others two pages. All in all, the introduction should be long enough to develop the purpose statement and set out the background to the topic, but should not overwhelm, or be out of proportion to, the rest of the paper. When should the introduction be written? There is a school of thought which says that the introduction should be written last, along with the conclusion. However, the purpose statement should be the kernel of the work and should be written first, and it is also useful to set out the context of the article. It is probably wise to write the introduction first, because the introduction sets out your stall, as it were, and then revisit it as you write.

Structuring your paper: The body of the paper Literature review Research methodology or approach Findings Quote those papers from which your own research follows Make it clear what the position was prior to your own paper, and how your paper adds to it Make sure that the citations are up to date Cite only your own articles in so far as they are directly relevant to your research/approach Any work that is not your own MUST be referenced The body of the paper is where you recount the interesting facts of the research, after you have set the scene and before you sum up the latter's implications. John A. Sharp and Keith Howard, in The Management of a Student Research Project (Gower, 2nd ed., 1996, p. 195), propose the following logical order for a research report: Literature review Research methodology or approach Findings It is important to remember that an article is not the same as a dissertation: you should not cite all possible references on the topic but only those that are relevant to your research or approach. The literature review is not exhaustive; it is part of the setting of context. Bear in mind the following: Quote those papers from which your own research follows. Make it clear what the position was prior to your own paper, and how your paper changes it. Make sure that the papers you cite are relatively recent. Cite only your own articles in so far as they are directly relevant to your research/approach. Cite papers of potential referees, explaining the significance of the work to your own analysis. Once you have decided which articles are really important, create a "package" and have the articles to hand as you write. A common approach is to use the literature to develop a series of hypotheses, which are in turn used to develop a new framework or as a determiner of the research objective. Any work that is not your own MUST be referenced, both in the body of the paper and again in the bibliography. We will cover referencing in more detail later in the session.

Structuring your paper: The body of the paper Research methodology or approach Indicate the main methods used Demonstrate that the methodology is robust, and appropriate to the objectives Focus on telling the specifics Findings Significant facts Research narrative Research methodology/approach If you have done empirical research, you need to state your methodology clearly and under a separate heading. The methodology should: indicate the main methods used demonstrate that the methodology was robust, and appropriate to the objectives. Focus on telling the main story, stating the main stages of your research, the methods used, the influences that determined your approach, why you chose particular samples, etc. Additional detail can be given in Appendices. In the case of a theoretical paper, where you are not actually reporting on research which you did, but perhaps putting together other people's research and developing it into a hypothesis or framework, you will still need some sort of section on methodology which details the criteria you used in selecting your material. Alternatively, you will need to show how researches in literature lead you to derive new conclusions. Findings As with the methodology, focus on the essentials, the main facts and those with wider significance, rather than giving great detail on every statistic in your results. Again, tell the main story: what are the really significant facts that emerge? Your section on results may well include one on discussion of the significance of the findings.

Structuring your paper: Writing the Conclusion Do… Summarize and conclude, restating the main argument, and presenting key conclusions and recommendations Say to what extent your original questions have been answered State how your findings/new framework, etc. apply to theory and to the world of practice State the limitations of your research State what are the implications for further research Don't… Start a new topic or introduce new material Make obvious statements Contradict anything you said earlier As Emerald's philosophy is based on the idea of research into practice, most journal editors and reviewers are particularly keen on a statement of implications for the practitioner. This statement, along with one describing the implications for further research, should be within the conclusion somewhere, either within a section heading "Conclusion" or "Discussion", or in a separate section. Obviously in some cases it may not be possible to make such statements, but all research papers should state implications for research, and most papers will have implications for practice.

How to increase electronic dissemination Use a short descriptive title containing main keyword – don’t mislead Write a clear and descriptive abstract containing the main keywords and following any instructions as to content and length Provide relevant and known keywords – not obscure new jargon Make your references complete and correct – vital for reference linking and citation indices All of this will make your paper more discoverable which means more dissemination and possibly more citation How to increase electronic dissemination Electronic use: Increasingly where your usage and citations come from; most things are read online. How to increase the chances of your paper being found / read / cited more widely / have more impact. The better the title and the abstract, the greater the chance of your article being read online. Remember your own “Google behaviour”. Use a short but descriptive titles, make sure people will understand what the paper is about. Don’t try to be too clever e.g. if it’s about marketing strategy and prioritizing, don’t call it ‘Putting the cart before the horse’ as no-one will find it except some bewildered agricultural student. 2) Choose 5-6 broad but relevant keywords that accurately describe your paper. Don’t make up new terms. Increases the chance of your paper being found by users searching the database. Also: Complete and correct references. The electronic environment has made it easier to both commit and detect plagiarism so very important to make correct attributions.

Maximising your chances of success What makes a good paper? HINT: Editors and reviewers look for … Originality – what’s new about subject, treatment or results? Relevance to and extension of existing knowledge Research methodology – are conclusions valid and objective? Evidence based Clear implications for practice. (the ‘so what?’ factors!) Clarity, structure and quality of writing – does it communicate well? Sound, logical progression of argument Theoretical and practical implications Recency and relevance of references Internationality/Global focus Adherence to the editorial scope and objectives of the journal A good title, keywords and a well written abstract What makes a good paper? What are editors and reviewers looking for? Perhaps the most important slide. If you go by the 80-20 rule, you will forget about 80% of what I tell you today. Try to keep this slide in the 20% bracket. Many of these 10 points can make or break your chances of having your paper accepted. Reviewers will use a checklist of criteria based on these factors and will tick off whether your paper meets these factors and indicate where there are problems. 1) Your paper should have something new to say, take the body of knowledge somewhere new. Top thing reviewers look for! 2) It should refer to and relate to other recent research; demonstrate you know the stand of existing research and that your work builds on it. 3) The methodology should be clear so that conclusions can be assessed and validated. This is the method I used and these are the conclusions I can reasonable expect to see; don’t try to change the world from a study of 20 people. 4) The paper has to communicate well – clear structure, sensible headings, avoid undue repetition, short, concrete sentences, easy to read etc. Say what you are going to say, say it, say what you have said. Introduction, research methodology, results, conclusion and discussion. 5) Build up your case logically. 6) Emphasise the “so what” factors i.e. the importance / impact of your findings, implications for future research. 7) References should be complete, accurate, recent and relevant. 8) Internationality does NOT mean writing only about international issues. It means readers might want to use your methodology for conducting research on e.g. HR in the UK to examine issues in their own region. 9) Be absolutely sure your paper meets the journal’s editorial scope and objectives. Get lots of papers from people who don’t do this, one of the main reasons why papers are rejected. Get access to a copy of the journal beforehand, make sure your paper meets the requirements. Don’t just look at the title Supply Chain Management and think oh my article is on supply chain management I’ll send it there. Read the scope and a copy of the journal. You might have a fantastic case study but SCM doesn’t take case studies. Not everyone will have the time to reply and explain the correct process. 10) Don’t underestimate the importance of title, abstract and keywords. More on this later. More information on the memory stick: Slide on common feedback from reviewers

Reviews and Revision

The review and revision process Timetable There are many different forms of review: Editor Review, Open Review, Double Blind Peer Review. The Editor(s) do an initial read to determine if the subject matter and research approach is appropriate for the journal (approx. 1 week) The Editor(s) identify and contact two reviewers (approx. 1 week) Reviewers usually have 6-8 weeks to complete their reviews The Editor(s) assess the reviewers' comments and recommendations and make a decision (approx. 2 weeks) Expected time from submission to review feedback: 3- 3.5 months This slide helps to show what exactly happens to the paper following submission. It helps to explain why it can take 3-3.5 months before an author gets feedback from first review!

The review and revision process Receiving feedback A request for revision is good news! It really is You are now in the publishing cycle. Nearly every published paper is revised at least once Don’t panic! Even if the comments are sharp or discouraging, they aren’t personal If your paper is rejected: Don’t give up! Everybody has been rejected at least once Ask why, and listen carefully! Most editors will give detailed comments about a rejected paper. Take a deep breath, and listen to what is being said Try again! Try to improve the paper, and re-submit elsewhere. Do your homework and target your paper as closely as possible Keep trying! Revising A request for revision really is good news. You are now in the publishing cycle. Editors and reviewers will not request a revision unless they genuinely think your paper is right for the journal. Remember that nearly every published paper is revised at least once, even those by the most distinguished academics. Incorporating feedback and improving quality is after all what the peer review process is all about. Remember the comments are not personal, particularly not in blind peer- reviewed journals. If your paper is rejected Most importantly – keep at it!! At least 50 per cent of papers in business and management do not get published and everybody has been rejected once. It is hard, but try not to take it personally or be so discouraged that you don’t try again. Keep trying. The reviewer or editor comments should give you the information you need to strengthen the weak areas of the paper. Ask for reasons if they are not immediately forthcoming. There are hundreds of other journals out there – you can always re-submit to another journal. Read the Author Guidelines and adjust your paper accordingly.

Process of acceptance for a journal – just one example This slide shows the acceptance rates of just one of our journals. Approximately 30 per cent of papers received by the editor are published. I think the saddest figure there is the 16% withdrawn by the authors. It’s very likely those papers would have been published if the authors had persevered with the revisions. Very, very few are rejected at the final hurdle. Accept that a second or third revision may be needed; still much better than a rejection.

The Review and Revision Process How to revise your paper Acknowledge the editor and set a revision deadline Clarify understanding if in doubt – ‘This is what I understand the comments to mean…’ Consult with colleagues or co-authors and tend to the points as requested Meet the revision deadline Attach a covering letter which identifies, point by point, how revision requests have been met (or if not, why not) How to revise your paper Acknowledge the editor and set a revision deadline If you are unsure about any of the comments, seek clarification. If you disagree with them, say so and give good reasons explaining why you do not think a change is necessary. But try not to take a defensive position, treat comments objectively. Covering letter explaining clearly what revisions were requested and how you addressed each point, ideally providing specific page numbers. Makes life a lot easier for the editor.

The Review and Revision Process Example – agreeing with the reviewers comments Dear Editor, Let us open by thanking the two reviewers for their insightful comments. They gave us clear guidance and some positive critiques. Following their suggestions, we spent more time reading and came to the revision process better prepared. We enjoyed the process and think that the reviewers’ comments have tremendously affected the revised draft. Both reviewers should now clearly see the difference they made to the revised manuscript. In the following lines we detail the changes in line with the reviewers’ comments. 

 Reviewer: 1 
 Again, we would like to express our appreciation for your extremely thoughtful suggestions. As you will see below we have been able to revise and improve the paper as a result of your valuable feedback. 

 You highlighted that we did not spend enough time discussing the implications of our arguments for current understandings of Drucker’s work. We agree with your suggestion and have added in two additional paragraphs in the conclusion (p.30-1), and a few comments within the paper (i.e p.11), that are devoted to outlining the implications of our analysis. We have kept our discussion brief to ensure we maintain the commitment to the appropriate page and word length, but what we do outline should make clear what this perspective on Drucker makes relevant for management practitioners and scholars alike. Identifying the reviewers comments point by point as per the example makes the reviewer and editors life a lot easier and gets you on their good side straight away. It will save the reviewers a lot of time as they will not have to search for the changes you have made. This will mean that the decision as to whether your article has been published can be made quicker and will mean your article is published faster. The memory stick includes an example of how to address a comment which you do not agree with (see Covering Letter.docx in the Get published support folder)

How to promote your work Why? Influence policy Raise your profile Attract collaborators and funding New opportunities e.g. in consulting, the media How? Use your networks e.g. through listserves, press releases or simply link to the article in your email signature Contact the authors in your reference list Hone your media skills and ‘brand image’ Ask the publisher to provide you with book or journal leaflets See Support and services for authors and Editors on the USB stick For both books and journals: How to promote your work Emerald encourages authors to spell out the practical implications of their work. Should be of interest to a great many kinds of people – managers, policy makers, the media, key influencers able to act on the implications of your research. It can also greatly increase your profile and that of your work and lead to attracting collaborators and funding or new opportunities for you e.g. in consulting or the media. 1. Use your network to spread the word about your latest research. Books: Ask colleagues to review your work e.g. on Amazon. 2. Issue your own press releases either yourself or via your institution / department. 3. Join the debate. Engage with peers in your subject area; participate in online discussion forums, listservs, etc. 4. Inform any professional bodies of which you are a member; contact their press or media relations department. 5. Contact the authors in your reference list. Tell them that you have referred to their work - they may want to read (and cite!) your article. 6. Build your own brand image e.g. via your own website. List and link to your publications. Use an Emerald Literati Network logo. Include a press release section. Link to the article in your email signature. 8. Call a meeting – discuss your findings with the people best placed to promote your work. 9. Hone your media skills e.g. by attending a workshop. Successful promotion and media handling will attract a lot of attention to yourself and possibly your colleagues; make sure that you are well prepared! 10. Ask the publisher to provide you with book or journal leaflets which you can take to conferences and events or display on your office door.

Any further questions? declan.mcnicholl@leicspart.nhs.uk Talk to us, use us! Use Emerald resources, give us feedback using the online form (link on the memory stick), talk to us. Tell us how we can help you and, above all, write for us!