Writing to Publish Navigating the Academic Journal Review Process

The Process Work with a mentor. Pick a journal. – Only one – Fit: general interest vs. subfield speciality – Aim high? Online submission. Waiting – When to contact editor Next stage: rejection; R&R; acceptance Rejection most likely outcome. What to do? – Learn from your reviews. – How quickly send out to another journal? – How deeply to revise?

Title and Abstract Title: Get Big – Pick the most expansive title that hasn’t already been taken. Abstract: Get Small – Here, you need to identify exactly what you do, what you show, etc. No frills, all business.

Your Introduction Shape expectations. – This starts from word one. – Figures into not just what you say, but how you say it. Highlight your contribution. – Importance of discovery. – The stakes in play. Be wary of the motivating example. End with road map: “This paper proceeds as follows.” Keep it short: ~2 pages; short declarative sentences.

Your Literature Review Synthesize literatures, do not summarize articles. – Define literatures, even when participants may not conceive of being a part of one. – Ok to structure discussion either conceptually or temporally. Underscore limitations, problems, failings of existing literatures. – But be generous. These are likely to be your reviewers. By the end of lit review, the author should be primed to see exactly what you have to offer.

Theory Should always be a part of the paper, but… You do not need to create altogether new theory. – A purely empirical paper might shed light on something that is at stake theoreticallly.

Appendices are your friends… Various types: – Main appendix – Online appendix – For reviewers only Purpose #1: Fortification against potential objections Purpose #2: Long, boring explanations of data collection protocols. Purpose #3: Signaling the seriousness of purpose under which you have engaged your project.

Rejection: Moving Forward Deal with it. – Let it sit for at least 3-4 days before doing anything. – Go for a run. What to do? – Argument for the quick turnaround. (rare) – Distinguishing between universal and local complaints. Address former, not latter. (exception is citations) Where to send next?

R&R: Memo to Reviewers How to structure. – One reviewer at a time. – One issue at a time. Be maximally responsive, but not maximally obsequious. – Here, you must address both universal and local complaints. Learn from the reviews. – But the trick is to learn the right lesson… How to deal with bone-headed suggestions: – Recognize lack of clarity in writing, and thank them for underscoring the importance of the issue

General and Assorted Suggestions Deal with rejection. Grab your reader by the ears. – With tables and prose. – Read Thomas and Turner: Clear and Simple as the Truth Read the journals you intend to publish in. – and cite relevant articles therein!