1. Writing for publication
Lin Norton
Liverpool Hope University
28 June 2017

2. Discussion
What are your own experiences of writing for publication? (conferences, journals, reviews etc?)
What do you hope to get out of this workshop?
Discuss with person next to you
Report back

3. Common methods of dissemination
Conferences and conference proceedings
Newsletters, on-line dissemination (blogs)
Books (monographs)
Edited vs. single-authored
Chapters in books
Journals (peer-reviewed)

4. What do journal editors want in research papers?
Adapted from
What do journal editors want in research papers?
Originality/fresh perspective
Rigour
Relevance to practice (Emerald)
International
Clarity of writing (style and argument)
Suggested headings for structure:
your purpose in writing it,
the research design,
your findings,
the limitations of the research,
its practical and social applications,
its originality and value.

5. What do journal editors want in conceptual/theoretical papers?
Adapted from
What do journal editors want in conceptual/theoretical papers?
A new theoretical framework (very rare but highly prized)
Framework that takes existing theories and considers their usefulness (can be a critical literature review)
A conceptual model
An application/
refinement/extension of some theoretical knowledge

6. Adapted from Norton, L.S. (2009) Action research in teaching and learning. A practical guide to conducting pedagogical research in universities. Chapter 11 Disseminating research findings
Writing for a journal
Step one: Target your journal before you start writing (how do you decide ?)
Step two: Follow the instructions for authors
Step three: Write your paper ( ask colleagues to comment on drafts)
Step four: Submit your paper
Step five: Respond to the reviewers
Step six: The final stages

7. Step 1: How do you decide which journal?
What is its purpose/aim?
How prestigious is it?
Impact factor (JCR, Scopus etc)
How many issues a year?
Is it national/international?
Is it refereed and how? This is an important index of quality – 4 levels:
Editor alone
Editorial board
Peer reviewed
Blind peer reviewed

8. What about Open Access journals?
Great surge in number of journals that are open access
Many are high quality, peer reviewed; some are not
Be wary of unsolicited invitations to contribute an article, or to act as reviewer or editor
See handout for how to judge (published by Boston College University Libraries)

9. Steps 2 & 3: Writing your paper for a specific journal
Follow the instructions for authors EXACTLY (word length, referencing, double spacing)
Get someone to comment on your mss before you submit it
Be prepared to redraft several times before submitting (make sure each draft is numbered and saved in many different locations to ensure you don’t send the wrong draft in.)
Submit the paper with an accompanying letter to the editor (electronic submission often gives you this opportunity)

10. Step 4: Electronic submissions
Much more common these days such as Scholar One manuscripts
Need to set aside at least half a day
Log on if registered, if not need to register
Read guidance/tutorials before you embark and always work from a hard copy of everything in case the system doesn’t allow you to save

11. Step 4:The waiting game
Usually Editor will acknowledge safe receipt of your mss (online you get instant acknowledgment)
Most turn rounds supposed to be within 6-8 weeks (my experience much longer than that)
OK to send a polite reminder to Editor if you’ve not heard after about weeks

12. Step 5: Responding to the reviewers
Usually get an or letter from the editor with her/his decision together with copies of the referees’ comments. The decision likely to take one of 4 forms:
1. Accept without any revisions or minor typos (VERY rare! )
2. Accept with minor revisions (i.e. respond to all of the referees’ comments and pay particular attention to anything that the Editor asks you to do)
3.Accept with major revisions – might be collecting more data, substantial rewriting- will almost certainly be sent back to original referees to be reviewed again
4. Rejection (sometimes you are given suggestions as to other journals you might try, if so do it! Never, ever, abandon the goal of getting it published somewhere)

13. Step 5: Pushing against that open door
In order to give yourself the best possible chance of having your revised mss accepted make sure you send it with an additional letter to the Editor showing how and where you have made the changes – perfectly ok to say why you haven't made a specific change if you give a reasonable rationale
Good to highlight referees’ comments and show how you have responded to them giving as much detail as possible (page and line number) to help speed up the process

14. Step 6: The final stages
Be patient – there may be a waiting time of several months but the editor should let you know.
You are now entitled to say this article is in press. Eg. Klever,J & Knowall, C. (in press) The way of the world; a conceptual analysis. To appear in World issues; theory and practice.
You will be sent various legal documents to sign saying it has not appeared elsewhere, that all the named authors are happy to be authors, and copyright agreement.
Then out of the blue you will be sent the proofs and given about 3 days!! to correct – very expensive process so you can’t rewrite anything – use conventional proofreading symbols (available on the internet)

15. What are the advantages of presenting at conferences?
Valuable peer feedback to help you develop a journal paper or book chapter
Imposes a deadline!
Enables networking, inspiration and encouragement (writing up research can be a lonely experience)
Many conferences give you the opportunity to publish in their conference proceedings (conference papers)
Gets you known by people in your field

16. What are reviewers looking for in conference abstracts/papers?
A fit with the conference theme/s.
A clear, internally consistent, and informed theoretical framework that explains the methodology.
Evidence that the study has actually been carried out, even if analysis is on-going.
A consistent story throughout and some sort of implications/conclusions.

17. Writing your abstract to attract delegates
Title to attract without being unbearably ‘twee’; some of best titles have the catchy part in the first clause and the information in the second part e.g.
It’s analysis Jim, but not as we know it: Reflections on a first year undergraduate module and its implications for musicology (Freya Jarman-Ivens, PRHE conference 2010)
Think about what your audience will get out of your presentation
Promising interaction, hand-outs, other materials can be persuasive, depending on the conference

18. Posters: are they worth it?
YES, absolutely
Different type of dissemination
Less formal so often excellent opportunity to network and get one-on-one feedback
Can use the opportunity to hand out copies of a draft paper linked to the topic of your poster

19. Common pitfalls of writing up your doctoral research as a journal paper
DISCUSSION: WHAT ARE THE PITFALLS?
Word limits (5-7,000)
Publishing with your supervisor
Readership will be different
Selecting which bits from ,000 word thesis)
If during your doctoral studies, it’s time consuming detracts for thesis writing

20. How to make your work visible
Publish your work with open access
Create an online profile (Google Scholar, Scopus, Microsoft Academic)
Choose well-cited journal
Take part in conferences
Use your institutional repository
Self archive (institutional repository) can be pre-print and/or post print but check with the journal’s copyright policies
Get unique author identifier (ORCID) to distinguish yourself and your work from other researchers
Blog/tweet
Melissa Terras (LSE Impact Blog)blog on whether blogging or tweeting about research papers is worth it

21. Think about reviewing

22. Most reviewing is done free…. so why do it?
Solid track record of reviewing will enhance your CV, & be useful in terms of research bids/applications.
Keeps you abreast of latest developments in your field.
Helps you become known to some journals and may help if you are interested in getting on an editorial board.
Most importantly you are contributing to upholding the quality of standards in your field through the peer-review system.
Same is true of conference reviewing and may help you get onto conference committees.
Book reviews as above but are also counted as publications.
Last but not least, reviewing helps you learn very quickly about how to get published yourself

23. Purposes of peer review for journals
Assists editors in making decisions about publishing a manuscript.
Offers constructive feedback to authors that will enhance the final writing product.
Improves critical thinking and writing skills of editors, reviewers, and authors.
Provides readers, researchers, and other users of the journal with polished, readable articles.
Reduces bias and improve the quality of published articles.
Ensures that published research adheres to ethical standards.
Rosenfeld (2010)

24. Journal reviewing
Invitations to review a journal manuscript are usually sent by the editor (associate editor) who get to know about your work through your own publications (indicates your subject expertise)
You can approach an editor offering to act as a reviewer but will need to provide details of your own expertise and publications.
Once you are on a journal editor’s ‘books’ you will be contacted by them when they think there is a submission that falls into your field of expertise
An invitation will usually be ed to you with the title and abstract.

25. Deciding whether to accept an invitation to review
Do I have the necessary subject and/or methodological expertise?
Do I have the necessary time?
editors usually want reviews within 4-6 weeks
reviewing can take 3-6+hours
If your recommendation is to resubmit with revisions, you will probably be asked to review the revised mss
Is there a conflict of interest?
rival/competing research with your own
knowing the author, (though most mss are anonymised)

26. Declining an invitation to review
The sooner you do this the better, some electronic systems will ask you for specific reasons, and may ask if you could recommend someone else in the field.
If you repeatedly decline invitations to review, it is probable that you will not be considered for further reviews by this particular journal editor..

27. Accepting an invitation to review
Follow the instructions
Write your comments in a collegial and supportive way.
Keep to the deadlines.
Be prepared to be asked to review re-submissions.

28. How to do a good review (adapted from Haddad)
Be critical (but collegial – never rude). It is easier for an editor to overturn very critical comments than to overturn overly favourable comments.
Justify all criticisms by specific references to the text of the paper or to published literature. Vague criticisms are unhelpful.
Check the Aims and Scope of the journal to ensure that your comments are in accordance with journal policy.
The academic reviewer workshop.

29. Review tips continued
Give a clear recommendation. Don't put "I will leave the decision to the editor" unless you are genuinely unsure of your recommendation.
Number your comments so that the authors can easily refer to them.
Be specific - refer to line numbers in the paper or to exact sections where you wish changes to occur.

30. Conference reviewing
Usually abstracts of submissions for conferences (sometimes papers).
Tend to get quite specific instructions from conference organising committee–often in form of numerical score and then your justification for giving that score.
Deadlines for turnaround are usually much shorter (1-2 weeks).
Often you are asked to review more than one abstract.
How to get invited; some of the bigger conferences draw reviewers from their SIGS.
Same principles of rigour, quality and upholding standards should apply as to journal reviews.

31. Book reviewing Includes:
Pre-publication reviews (solicited by publishers).
Book proposal reviews (solicited by publishers).
Scholarly book reviews for publication in journals (usually solicited by journal book review editors; unsolicited reviews are rare but if you do want to do this, ask the book review editor before hand to see if s/he is interested.

32. Why write a book review for a journal?
Good experience of writing for publication especially if you have not published in a journal before.
Shorter than a journal article (usually around 1000 words).
Not paid but generally you get to keep a copy of the book you are reviewing.

33. Book review: some principles
Same principles apply as journal article reviewing ( i.e. avoid conflicts of interest; be sure it’s in your area of expertise).
Avoid simply describing the book; present an analytical, evaluative commentary (some journals give guidelines but they are usually broad).
Be respectful (avoid defamatory statements), back up criticisms with evidence (remember the author is likely to read your review).
Show how this book would be of interest to the journal’s readers.
Read a number of book reviews in your chosen journal to get a feel for how they are written.
Not usually peer-reviewed but is likely to be scrutinised & edited by the book review editor.

34. What have I left out?
On post-its write down the question you hoped I would answer but haven't.
Compare with your neighbours.
Each group to ask ONE question that interests them all.

35. References
Haddad, P Reviewer guidelines:
Rosenfeld, R.M (2010) How to review journal manuscripts Otalyngology-Head & Neck Surgery,