Getting Published in Journals: Notes #4

Today it's the fourth set of notes from last week's session on getting published in journals: Prof John Mingers from KBS.

How Articles Are Selected

John Mingers

The review process for prestigious journals is drawn out and difficult. However, if you engage with it fully, it can be productive and fruitful, leading to a better article at the end of it.

As an example of what is involved, the review process for MISQ is as follows:

·         60% of submissions are desk rejected;

·         The rest have the potential to be published. Each paper is assigned to an associate editor, who sends it to 2 or 3 referees. Their response will be slow, as they tend to be the top people with many calls on their time.

·         The referees will provide 2-3 page reports.

·         The associate editor will then provide a report and recommendation for the senior editor, who will respond to the author.

·         The author will then have to respond to the comments. His or her response should take the form of a table, showing what changes have been made.

Through this process the article should improve, but there’s a danger that it could get worse. If the referees were unclear about your research, but were willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, they may reject your article once your changes have clarified the true nature of your work.

Given the uncertainty of the process, you should consider whether it is worth submitting to a prestigious journal at all. The process is long, risky, and you may have to change the thrust of your argument. More positively, it should lead to a better paper, with more citations, be wider read, will open doors, and will act as a ‘mark of quality’ of you as an academic.

If you do decide to target a top journal, you need to work strategically:  

·         Think which journal you want to submit to first, and adapt your research or writing to fit it;

·         Keep in mind the REF criteria for research: innovative, rigorous, significant, and interesting;

·         Be aware what the journal actually publishes, not what it says it publishes;

·         Submitting to a special issue might be easier. Alternatively, journals are sometimes willing to take a chance on a ‘blue ocean paper’, i.e. one that opens up a new and interesting direction in the discipline;

·         Make sure your research is strongly grounded in the literature, that it links to ongoing debates, and that you justify your position and methods;

·         Spell out why your research and findings are important;

·         Include a strong concluding section;

·         Write for a general audience.

Practically, you should do your homework and make sure that you are writing in the ‘house style’ for the journal, that the structure of your article is the same as others in the journal, that the references are in the right format (Endnote can help with this), and that you use clear and direct English, avoiding the passive voice.

Ultimately, submitting to a top journal isn’t quick or easy, and you have to accept that you may get rejected. Everyone does at some point. However, if you really engage with the process, work hard at making the changes, it will be worth it.

Tomorrow will see the final set of notes: Prof Jon Williamson on responding to reviewers' comments.

Getting Published in Journals: Notes #3

Yesterday I provided some brief notes from Tim Strangleman's talk on 'disseminating your thesis'. Today it's the turn of Prof Rosaleen Duffy from DICE, who spoke about how to choose a journal to which to submit. 

Choosing a Journal

Rosaleen Duffy

With so much pressure on your time, you need to think carefully about what article to write, and where to submit. Ideally, you should focus on a smaller number of higher quality pieces, and try to maximise the potential influence of your work. To do this, give careful consideration about where you place your articles.

·         Does the journal reach ‘your’ audience – i.e. the people who you want to be aware of your work? Target a journal that you know addresses the debate to which you want to contribute. Alternatively, you may need to think laterally, and approach a journal outside your area that might be interested in applying the issues in your field to their own discipline.

·         Is it suited to your material and approach? For example, there is no point submitting a quantitative piece to a journal that deals predominantly in qualitative research.

·         Will it contribute positively to your REF submission?

·         Will it progress your career?

·         What is the journal’s ranking or impact factor?

In addition, you should be careful about accepting offers to contribute or collaborate. With time limited you need to select primarily those opportunities which will raise your profile and advance your career. There is no shame in turning down those that don’t:  collaborators and editors prefer ‘a quick no to a long maybe.’

Slides and full notes from the ECR Network session are available on Research Services SharePoint. Tomorrow we'll look at how articles are selected and reviewed, guided by Prof John Mingers.