SIS Philosopher’s CafeMary Anne Kennan

and Kim M Thompson30 July 2014

Tips and Insights on Publishing and the Publication Process

Who reads published research?Researchers StudentsMediaPractitioners and professionalsPolicymakersPublishers

Who needs published research?Researchers StudentsMediaPractitioners and professionalsPolicymakersPublishersDiscipline (e.g., concepts, models, theories)

What is good research?Valid, reliable, representative, generalisableTrustworthy (credible, transferable,

dependable, confirmable)Thorough review of literatureSound methodological designRaw dataEthicalObjectiveGenerates new knowledgeSignificant (so what?!)

Improving academic writingBennett, J. & Gorovitz, S. (1997). Improving

academic writing, Teaching Philosophy 20(2). http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/jfb/bengor.pdfImproving sentences

Verbs are better than nounsAdverbs are better than adjectivesBanish ‘very’ and its ilkAbstract nouns should be fought like the devilAvoid undue repetitionAttend to the soundQuestion acronymsAttend to problems of order

Improving academic writingHow to Improve Your Academic Writing (U of

Essex) http://www.essex.ac.uk/myskills/how_to_improve_your_academic_writing.pdf

 5 tips to improve your academic writing (ESL slant, but good basic tips for native English speakers as well) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgkRoYPLhts

How do I improve my academic writing? (write, write more, write even more) http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/question/18925/how-do-i-improve-my-academic-writing

Improving academic writingRead good academic writing

StyleFormatLogicSentence and paragraph structuresOrganisation of ideas and flowDevelopment of ideasFocus/narrow/expand ideasEstablishment of relevance, significance, etc.

The writing processFirst draft is not what you submitOrganise, write, rewrite, reviseWriting style, structure, layout, format, word

countTools (APA, Chicago, Harvard, unique format to

that journal, etc.)Self-edit and proofWork in teams, collaborateInvite colleagues, faculty members, committee

members, chair, friends, family to edit and proofRevise

What is publishable?Thought pieces/editorialsEmpirical researchWorks in progressLongitudinal studiesLiterature reviewsMethodology papers

What counts in research evaluation?Thought pieces/editorialsEmpirical researchWorks in progressLongitudinal studiesLiterature reviewsMethodology papers

Deciding where to publishJournals you have citedJournals you readListserv calls for chapters, papers, booksNetwork Solicitations based on prior publicationsPredatory publishers

Scope of journal/publisher/seriesContact editor and ask

Deciding where to publishInstructions for Authors (front or back cover

of print copy; website)Fit (scope, topic, methodology, length,

depth)ReadershipJournal impact factorTurnaround timeAccessibility/Open AccessCost (images, Open Access, hybrid)

Refereed, juried, invited...otherPeer review (one or more experts)

Open reviewBlind reviewDouble blind review

Editor reviewProgram committee review

Keep a copy of reviewer and editor comments

Types of publicationsChapters (refereed, invited)Research articles (refereed, invited)Professional articles (refereed, invited)Conference proceedings (refereed/juried,

invited)Books (refereed, commercially published,

edited, monograph, joint authored)Book reviews

Snapshot of publication processResearchWritePrepare (for the specific journal, style, length

referencing system, paradigm, copyright, etc.)Submit

Editors—read, decide: immediate reject or send for reviewSelect and invite reviewers, manage review processRead reviews, make decisionAccept, accept with minor revision, major revision/revise and

resubmitEditors re-read, sometimes re-review, make decision

Publishers—copy edit, manage copyright/licensing, print, publish, distribute, market

Ethics of the publication processAnonymised version for submission (some

journals)Acknowledgement of input from othersAcknowledgement of funding and other

supportOrder of authors [csu policy]Blind reviews are confidentialSubmitting one work to only one journal at a

timeBuilding on a study/salami slicing?Plagiarism (accidental or otherwise)

What to do with feedbackFrom proofreaders and internal readersFrom external reviewersFrom editors

Let editor know what changes you have made and how you have responded to the reviewers’ recommendations

Multiple opinionsMinor revisionMajor revisionRevise and resubmitReject

ConclusionReadWriteDo your research re: venues for publicationLet it go (proofreaders and colleagues; then

to editor)Be professional and sincere in response to

all levels of review and feedbackKeep the editor informed as you revise and

resubmit