1. Thoughts on Publishing 2009 PEN meeting, Bogor
Gerald Shively, Purdue University
Editor-in-Chief, Agricultural Economics
Associate Editor, Environment and Development Economics

2. Academic Journals “Owned” by the academic community
Either literally or figuratively
Governed by page “budgets”
An important and binding constraint
Typical acceptance rates 10-40%

3. Structure of Journal Operations
Editors (very busy)
Editorial Assistants (not busy)
Associate Editors (think they are busy)
Reviewers (pretend they are busy)
Few incentives for reviewers or associate editors
Few options to “enforce” the reviewing contract

4. Editors Typically serve briefly (3-6 years) Rarely have an “agenda”
Try to serve the community as well as possible
Publish the best possible papers, subject to time, page budget and other constraints
Editors are busy people
They usually have all the regular things to do (teach, conduct research, supervise students, administrate, write grant proposals, and publish their own papers)
Editing is typically an “extra” responsibility

5. Editor’s Responsibility
Fill the journal with papers that will be widely read and highly cited
Accept papers with novel methods, interesting stories, and general appeal.
Serve as a “gate keeper” for the community by quickly rejecting “bad” papers without using up a lot of precious reviewer or associate editor goodwill
Avoid mistakes and “arbitrariness”
Better to reject a good paper than accept a bad paper
Trust the review process but avoid reviewer “meddling”

6. Constraints
Running a journal is an exercise in constrained optimization
Understanding constraints is essential to understanding how to improve your chances of getting your papers reviewed and (ultimately) accepted.
Page budgets
Editor’s time and energy
Reviewer’s time and energy

7. Desk Rejects Many papers are “desk rejected”
Editor rejects paper without sending it for review
0-40% of papers (or more), depending on journal
Actually can be helpful for authors in some cases
Which get desk rejects?
Those in obvious need of much work due to dull story, weak analysis or weak writing
Overly narrow subject without no generalizable findings or methods/approach
Papers that are hard to review
Why? Novelty vs. Obscurity

8. Accepted for Review Editor will… Typically 2 reviewers
Assign best “possible” associate editors and reviewers
Match subject matter and methods
Pick reviewers who know something about the topic and will deliver good reviews on time
Typically 2 reviewers
Editors “tend” not to override reviewers
Split decisions – how are they resolved?
Additional rounds
Editor or Associate Editor as tie-breaker

9. Author Strategy: Part I
Avoid small and obvious mistakes
Read and obey guidelines for submission
Mistakes in writing are signals of mistakes in analysis
Get help with written English
Align subject matter with journal aims
Show that paper connects to a “conversation” taking place in the journal
Short and informative cover letter
The cover letter rarely influences the process
Suggest reviewers, but do so with caution
Point out connections to previous work in the journal

10. Author Strategy: Part II
Win over the reviewers (Goal – get R&R)
Be provocative without provoking
Be clear about the research question
50% of negative reviews focus on this!
Be clear about your methods
the other 50% focus on this!

11. Author Strategy: Part III
Work on the STORY
Negative reviews rarely focus on conclusions
Get help with written English (co-authorship?)
Make sure your lit review is complete and current
the reviewer is likely to be familiar with the field
Short papers are more likely to succeed
Easier to read: they hold the reader’s attention
Easier to write: maintain continuity of argument

12. Revise and Resubmit No guarantee of acceptance
Up to 1/2 of R&Rs are eventually rejected
Why? Failure to satisfy reviewers
10% of papers that reviewers “accept” the Editor nevertheless rejects. Why?
perception of weak/incomplete reviews
similar or better papers in the pipeline
space limitations and narrow appeal

13. Rejection It happens to us all Move on; don’t take it personally
Challenging a decision rarely works
It may annoy the editor, to your future disadvantage
Take the comments SERIOUSLY and don’t immediately send a flawed paper back out without revising it.
If a reviewer doesn’t understand what you have done, 9 out of 10 times it is the author’s fault.

14. Good Luck!