Responding to Reviewers' Comments

Prof Sally Sheldon

Yesterday we re-ran a session for the Early Career Researcher Network on 'Getting Published: targeting top journals and writing book proposals.' It was led by Prof Sally Sheldon (KLS) and Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences). I've written up some notes from it before, but I wanted to add to these by highlighting an important aspect of the process: how to respond to reviewers' comments. 'We don’t take it seriously enough,’ suggested Sally, and yet it's crucial if you want to get published - or funded.

Early Career Researcher Network: 2015-16 Programme Announced

Making links, forming networks

The ECR Network exists to offer mutual support to academics at the beginning of their careers. The sessions below will run in the Spring Term, and complement the Grants Factory workshops and Graduate School research development training programme. There will also be an opportunity to meet others informally and share the highs and lows of getting started in academia; more details on this soon.

I’ll send more detail about these events closer to the time, but do make a note in your diary if you plan to come along. To whet your appetite I've included links below to notes I took when any of these sessions have been run previously. 

Strategic Approaches to Getting Published

Prof Sally Sheldon opened last week's Early Career Researcher Network meeting by exhorting the audience to think strategically about publication. It was easy, she suggested, to be flattered by invitations to write chapters. But these can divert you and eat up your limited time. Try to keep in mind the direction in which you want your research to develop, and what publications will help to build your profile. 'Everyone should have a publication strategy, and should review it every year or two,' she said.

Balanced Publication Portfolio

ECRs should try and develop a balanced publication portfolio. You don't always need to be targeting top journals, and sometimes you need to balance several factors:

• Audience: who do you want to appeal to? Should you be thinking beyond your narrow disciplinary boundaries, or focussing more intensively on it?
• Impact: do you want the findings of your research to be felt outside of academia?
• Career Progression: will the publication help in the development of a strong CV?
• REF: will the publication be a strong, positive contribution to your discipline?
• Timing: do you need to get something out quickly, or work longer on a discipline-changing piece of research?
• Co-authorship: would co-authorship help or hinder your publication record?
• Open Access: will be increasingly important for the REF, but is it worth considering to help with your citations?

What Do Publishers Look for?

Richard Hart, Chief Executive of Hart Publishing, took over to talk about his experience as an academic publisher. In his 30 years in publishing he has seen a decline in traditional monographs. From a high in the 1980s when more than 2000 were published annually, the market has slumped so that now a tenth of that number are produced. Monographs are seen as esoteric and small scale, and in many disciplines journals are favoured.

Generally, publishers are interested in text books, or books used for professional or scholarly reference. A proposal now needs to offer a touch of brilliance, or something that might be of interest to either a broader readership, or a specific (and long term) niche. 

If you do want to write a monograph, it has to be for the right reasons: you need to have a passion for the subject, and this needs to be reflected in your proposal. Your first monograph can be career defining, and it pays to get it right. You shouldn't do it as a way of making money.

Revising your Thesis

Many ECRs assume that their theses will transfer easily into a commercially produced book. This is often based on their examiner's comments, but it is a rarity for theses to make the transition. If you are considering it, you need to:

• think about the methodology section. You don't need a long, detailed explanation here. This was for the examiners. The average reader won't be interested;
• similarly, strengthen your introduction and conclusion;
• cut out repetitious linkages;
• if your research is unorthodox, decide on your message, and emphasise it throughout;
• update it, and add new chapters;
• consider making the title 'Google-friendly', so that it is descriptive of the research and will be easily found on the internet;
• find an appropriate publisher, who has published in your area, produces good quality books, and that your colleagues would recommend;
• above all, the publisher is concerned about commercial viability. Is your research something that would appeal broadly or long term?

Thus, for a book proposal you should:

• describe your book in 300-400 words;
• explain your methodology;
• give a critical literature review, to show that you understand the field, and how your research differs from what has gone before;
• include a detailed table of contents, a brief CV, and a sample chapter;
• if it's a thesis, include the examiner's report, and explain any plans to revise it;
• and finally, an estimate of when you will finish writing it.

When the publishers receive the proposal, they will initially evaluate it. This is very brief - a matter of minutes - and what they're looking for is whether it is something that excites them. If it does, they will send it for peer review, and you will be given the opportunity to respond to any comments that come back from this. Approximately 20% of proposals get through to peer review. If they do go ahead and publish, you should expect roughly 3-5% of royalties.

Choosing the Right Journals

For the final part of the session, Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences) outlined what defines a 'good' journal, and how you can increase your chances of being published in them.

The idea of 'high impact' journals goes back to the fifties. It's a somewhat controversial system, and is based on the average number of citations over a two-five year period. The system is open to abuse, and varies widely between disciplines. However, it is still seen as a rough and ready indicator of esteem. 

Mick began by showing a video made by Karin Dumstrei, Senior Editor at EMBO Journal.

In it, she highlights five tips to getting your paper published:

• Choose a project that excites you;
• Tell a good story;
• Select the right journal;
• Avoid the three 'don'ts', namely: dont' overstate your case, ignore others, or hold back data;
• Be responsible with your data - i.e. say what you see rather than what you want to see.

Mick added to this by saying that high impact journals tend to have a broader audience, so you need to:

• avoid jargon;
• concentrate on the message;
• write shorter articles (eg Science articles are generally 3-4 pages);
• avoid too much detail. Additional data can be provided in 'supplementary material'.

Whilst all articles need to overcome a number of significant hurdles, Mick highlighted the importance of a good covering letter. These have become key, as they summarise why your article is right for the journal you're targetting. Take time to get this right. Keep it succinct, but explain the novelty and importance of your research, and why you are approaching that journal in particular.

Mick finished by outlining six tips:

• Title: make it engaging but keep it short, and avoid technical terms;
• Story: structure your article round a good, cohesive, logical 'story';
• Step Change: emphasis what makes your research important. Talk about 'step changes' rather than 'incremental progresssions';
• Cover Letter: 'sell' your article;
• Feedback: get as much critical evaluation as possible;
• Rejection: never take no for an answer.

This final point was echoed by all the speakers. Rejection is an inevitable part of the process. Don't be discouraged, but take on board comments and criticism and keep trying.

All the slides from the session will be available on the Grants Factory SharePoint site shortly.

ECR Network: Strategic Approaches to Getting Published

12-2pm 27 November 2013

Venue TBC

Getting published is the cornerstone of a successful and sustainable academic career. A good publication record will have an impact on your promotion, but also on your chances of getting external research funding. In this workshop, Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences) and Prof Sally Sheldon (KLS) will be joined by Richard Hart (Hart Publishing, Oxford) to discuss some of the key issues you need to consider when seeking publication, including:

•  Choosing the right journal;
•  How articles are selected, and what makes an article attractive to an editor;
•  Responding to reviewers’ comments;
• Writing a book proposal and securing a contract;
•  Dealing with co-authors;
•  Managing your portfolio, and knowing when to say ‘no’.

The session is free, open to all staff at the University of Kent, and lunch will be provided. However, do let me know if you are planning to come along so I can make sure the room and catering are sufficient. In addition, if you could let me know what your position is (permanent or fixed term, academic or researcher, and approximate time since doctorate), that will help Mick and Sally pitch the session appropriately.

ECRs: Planning your Career

Prof Sally Sheldon

Prof Sally Sheldon and Dr Simon Black led the first of this year's Early Career Research Network meetings by considering how to 'plan your career'. This isn't necessarily as straightforward as it sounds: in any area of work we're restricted by the opportunities we're given, and however strategic we mean to be, life has a tendency to offer up alternatives paths.

 However, the session was a useful opportunity for those attending to take a step back and think about both the aspirations they had for their careers, and the challenges they faced. After a brief discussion, the audience offered a variety of career aims, ranging from the fairly straightforward (completing probation) to the more ambitious (establishing a research centre), and all points in between: writing a successful funding bid, publishing a book, and hosting a conference. Their 'challenges' were all too familiar: managing workloads, short term contracts, working to someone else's agenda and fierce competition for both permanent positions and research funding. 

Dr Simon Black

Although many of the opportunities in Sally's career had been serendipitous, its overall progress had followed a fairly straightforward academic path. Simon, however, had followed a more varied route. He had got a PhD in Management, continuing to publish whilst working in a large corporation, before deciding to move in a different direction and taking an MSc in Wildlife Conservation. He now split his time between publishing and working as a researcher, and working in Human Resources.

 Both Sally and Simon demonstrated that there was no single path that was appropriate - or available - to all. Simon suggested that ECRs should see the totality of their role and the skills they had developed. Most had four distinct aspects to their working life:

• Teaching/professional: perhaps the most obvious aspect, and is often what comes to mind when we think about work; 
• Individual skills: all of us have developed these over our working lives, from time management and decision making to planning and networking. 
• Organisational knowledge: such as an understanding of the School, the University and the sector, and could include a knowledge of (say) course development and finances;
• Leadership/Teamwork: experience of collaboration, group decision making, or managing meetings. 

Thinking in these terms may make you recognise that you have many more skills, and much more knowledge, than that just that gained within your discpline. However, in considering how to plan your career you should:

• make sure that you've got an appropriate and supportive mentor. Good mentoring is crucial in helping you to understand your options and make the most of your opportunities. If this is not being offered, you need to think where you can get the necessary support. Consider approaching alternative senior staff, who may be more supportive, or discuss issues with both peers (to get an understanding of what you should expect), and with HR. 
• be open to opportunities. These may come from colleagues or students, or from completely unexpected sources. Simon highlighted how he had expanded his network globally, and being open to opportunities had led to him developing new courses or new ways of teaching, new methods or new responsibilities. 
• be aware of what's expected. Sally gave an insight into the work of both appointment and promotions committees, and highlighted the importance of a strong publication record. Knowing what the expectations are will help to prepare you in meeting them. 
• offer solutions. If your current situation is not ideal, think of what is needed to improve it. Less teaching? More research time? An opportunity to be a lead author? With this goal in mind, consider what needs to change in order to make it happen, and approach your Head of School or Group Leader with a solution. People are more likely to respond favourably if they are presented with a solution rather than a problem. 

Simon finished the session by highlighting Steven Covey's seven habits. Whilst some may resist the 'self-help-ism' of this list, it does offer a useful framework in which to think about planning your career.The full list is available in the book and on the website, but includes:

• Be proactive. It's easy to be reactive and wait for change, but it's more productive to instigate change yourself; 
• Begin with the end in mind. What's your vision? What are your values? How do you want to work? Think about what you want, and keep that vision in mind; 
• Plan. Understand what your commitments are, and fit your ideas around these. This might mean 'blending' teaching and research. There's no perfect plan and of course your plan might change, but think methodically about what needs to be done, and what you can do within your limits; 
• Work with others. Listen, understand, collaborate, and don't burn bridges. 
• Balance your life. It's easy to be focussed to the point of insanity. Sometimes you need to take a step back and, in doing so, you become a more effective academic. 

Simon and Sally's slides will be made available on the Research Services website shortly. The ECR Network will continue with a programme of workshops and more informal social events throughout the year. If you want to join the ECR mailing list, drop me a line.

ECR Network: Planning your Career

Whilst some early career researchers might have a very clear and definite idea of where they want to be in five, ten or twenty years time, others may be less sure. Even those with certainty might not know how to make it happen. This session, the first ECR Network event of the new year, will be led by Prof Sally Sheldon (Kent Law School) and Dr Simon Black (Human Resources/School of Anthropology & Conservation). Both have had very different careers, and between them represent a number of different issues, from juggling the needs of family with the demands of your career, to dealing with workloads whilst keeping your eye on your long term goal, to making the most of opportunities, even if they’re the ones you might not necessarily have initially chosen. As well as a researcher in his own right, Simon is Learning & Development adviser for HR, with particular responsibility for the development of researchers, so can advise on the support the University offers in planning and developing your career.

The event is free and open to all, and tea/coffee/water/biscuits will be provided. However, do let me know if you intend to come along so that I can get an idea of numbers.

Notes from Grants Factory: 'Identifying an Idea'

Prof Sally Sheldon and Prof Gordon Lynch led the third Grants Factory session on Wednesday, which focused on how to identify an idea for your funding proposal.

People often think that identifying an idea is a ‘lightbulb moment,’ suggested Prof Sheldon, but it was more like a slow process of development, which slowly brought an idea to fruition. Getting feedback was the key, and applicants needed to share their proposals with as many people as possible, crafting and developing them, and thereby making their idea fundable.

She went on to outline some of the elements that made a project fundable:

·         It raised a question which is important, topical or ’sexy’.  Applicants should think about why they are passionate about their subject, and try to distil this enthusiasm in their proposals. Many hardened reviewers and panellists will need persuading that your project is exciting and necessary.

·         It responded to the strategic priorities, focus and interests of the individual funder, as well as the aims of a particular scheme.  The Research Councils need to justify their spending to government, so applicants should make it easy for them by trying to fit their projects with the funder’s story.

·         It was likely to excite both a non-specialist audience and expert referees. People tend to be better at addressing the expert referees, so take some time to practice on non-experts.

·         It was feasible/concrete/credible/deliverable:

o   Plans to deliver the project will need to be realistic: think about timeframe/access to key data and individuals/resources.

o   You must look capable of delivering it (build on your strengths and address any gaps in your experience or expertise with credible plans for training/mentoring/appropriate management structures – or even collaboration).

·         It represented good value for money – which isn’t the same as being cheap.

·         It had the potential to have significant impact, and the plans for achieving this were well integrated within the project.

Prof Lynch then took over, and reiterated the need to balance an exciting idea with a practical plan. He had learnt, he said, from failure: his first grant came after a string of unsuccessful applications. A fundamental misconception had been that the reviewers would give him the benefit of the doubt, once they were fired up with excitement over his idea. No: the timetable, the milestones, the methodology, and the management all had to be watertight.

He continued by listing some issues that weren’t explicitly mentioned in the funders’ guidelines, but were nonetheless essential for success:

·         The model of the ‘lone scholar’ project was rarely funded now, particularly by the Research Councils. It was crucial to build relationships with people internally and externally.

·         It was helpful to have a research profile of which funder is already aware.  Imagine yourself as the reviewer: if there’s an element of the application that is uncertain, reviewers are more likely to be persuaded if you are already a known quantity. This is not to suggest that funders are giving ‘jobs for the boys’, but that background knowledge plays a part in the decision making process.

·         In addition, make sure your online profile is up to date and presents you positively. The panellists and reviewers may well Google you.

·         Steer your application towards/away from certain reviewers. Don’t offend people, for example by not mentioning the foremost scholar in the field.

·         Cite the right people, as they might be sent the application to review.

·         Make sure that your application is classified correctly. It is easy to dismiss the tick box list of subject areas at the end of the application. However, this is crucial, as it is used to decide whom to send your application to.

·         Make grant applications that are appropriate to your career trajectory and funding history. The best research grant isn’t always the largest. A network grant could be crucially helpful to help establish your subfield, to develop international contacts, or to collaborate in the writing of paper.

·         You must have thick skin. If you are rejected, it’s okay to feel sorry for yourself for a day or so, but then pick yourself up and think about how to reuse or recycle your proposal.

·         Applying is a long term process. Be realistic.

With these thoughts in mind, those attending then broke into smaller groups and discussed their ideas for proposals. Prof Lynch had prepared a checklist of issues that applicants should consider, and this was used as the basis for the discussions.

Slides, notes and the checklist from the session are now available on the Grants Factory SharePoint site.

Getting Published in Journals: Notes #5

Today sees the final set of notes from last week's session on 'getting published in journals'. Slides of all the presentations, together with a full set of this week's notes, are available on the Grants Factory & ECR Network SharePoint site.

Responding to Referees Comments

Jon Williamson

Before responding to referees, you have to keep in mind what you want to achieve, namely:

·         To get published;

·         To improve your paper;

·         To defend your paper against changes that will weaken it.

The comments should be considered in light of these. Consider each of them, and decide whether making the suggested changes is crucial (i.e. the article will be rejected if you don’t), improving, or unnecessary. It may be the case that, once you receive the comments, you decide that the changes will irrevocably alter your intentions, and that you should instead try submitting it elsewhere.

In responding to the comments, you will submit three documents:

·         The altered paper itself. You should try and make all the changes suggested, if you haven’t, explain why not in the letter (below);

·         Your response, which lists the reviewers’ comments and your changes in light of them. This can be longer than the paper itself;

·         A covering letter. This provides an opportunity to talk ‘off the record’ to the editor about any review that was particularly problematic.

Additional Thoughts

Sally Sheldon

You should always take advantage of advice and help that is available, either from colleagues within your School, or in other Schools/institutions that know the field. Never submit anything without having had some reviews internal, informal feedback first.

If you are uncertain about submitting to a certain journal, contact the editor. They will be able to advise:

·         If your proposed paper will fit their journal;

·         If your article will be published in time for the REF (including, importantly, whether the journal pre-publishes on line – this counts as ‘publication’ for REF purposes);

·         During the review process, what you should do if any of the referee’s changes are difficult to meet.

Finally, don’t limit yourself to academic publications, but think more widely about how you can ‘mine’ your paper for different audiences. Whilst this might not help your academic profile, it will help you to meet the government’s impact agenda and may bring your research to the attention of important interested audiences, who might never find it in academic journals.

Grants Factory: Identifying an Idea

Grants Factory

Identifying an Idea: What the Funders Want

31 October 2012 2-4pm

Woolf Seminar Room 5

The next Grants Factory session will focus on how to successfully adapt and target your research to fit external funders. This might be a matter of adjusting your focus so that it aligns to the priorities of the Research Councils, or honing your proposal to make it clear that the your work addresses an urgent and important concern. The session will be led by Prof Gordon Lynch (SECL) and Prof Sally Sheldon (KLS), both of whom have had extensive experience in apply to and working for the Research Councils, and of helping colleagues in developing applications.

The event is free for all staff, and refreshments will be provided. However, do let me know if you intend to come along so that I can get a sense of numbers.

Posters and leaflets of this year's programme are now available (see below). Drop me a line if you would like a printable copy emailed to you, or you would like a hard copy sent.

The Launch of the ECR Network

This year, as part of the Grants Factory, we are launching an ECR Network. This will give early career researchers the opportunity to meet and discuss issues that are relevant to them, as well as hearing from more senior staff about their experiences. The first two events are as follows:

4 Oct: Planning a Personal Research Strategy (Keynes Seminar Room 4, 2:30 – 4:30pm)

This event will be introduced by the VC, Prof Dame Julia Goodfellow, who will discuss what support there is and should be across the University for ECRs. This is an opportunity to talk about your experiences, and think about what would help in the development of your career.

This will be followed by an informal talk by Prof Darren Griffin (Biosciences) and Jenny Billings (Centre for Health Services Studies) about developing a personal research strategy. They will cover issues around strategically planning and developing your research, balancing idealism with realism, and how to cope with the unexpected.

  

17 Oct: Getting Published in Journals (Senate Chamber, 9:30 – 11:30am)

Organised by KLS but open to all, this event will look at how to improve the chances of getting your articles selected for publication in journals. A panel of academics with extensive publishing experience will cover issues including:

·         How articles are selected for publication

·         Choosing a journal

·         Disseminating a thesis

·         How to improve the chances of your article being read

·          How to deal with referee comments

The panel will be chaired by Prof Sally Sheldon (KLS), and consists of Prof Rosaleen Duffy (Anthropology), Prof John Mingers (KBS), Prof Tim Strangleman (SSPSSR), and Prof Jon Williamson (SECL). 

These events aimed at ECRs, including Research Associates and Assistants (RAs), but are open to all academic staff. The events are free and refreshments will be provided.  Do let me know if you intend to come along so that I can get an idea of numbers.