The University Writing Center (UWrite): Publishing and Conferences

Writing for Publication: Key Considerations and The Publication Process

1. Why publish?

PhD students, researchers, and academics publish their research for a variety of reasons:

• • To share their research with their academic community and beyond (which may lead to funding and/ or employment).
  • To stimulate academic debate about their research field.
  • To correct or illuminate oversights in the field.
  • To build their professional profile.
  • To justify funding they have received.
  • To demonstrate their academic integrity, ability, and ambition.

The University of Glasgow summarises the objective of writing for/ publishing in academic journals as follows:

“[to] present evidence for a set of knowledge claims in language appropriate to the norms of the academic community, with the intention of persuading other members of the community [and beyond] that the claim is valid. Everything in the article is designed to support the knowledge claims.” ¹

¹ http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_41223_en.pdf

2. Types of articles

Academic articles can differ depending on the subject matter and your field of study (discipline). Below are three of the most common article types:

• • Research Article

Research articles outline and present findings of original research. They are considered primary literature. They are empirical studies i.e., studies based on measurable data or evidence that we can see. Their structure tends to follow the IMRAD model (Introduction - Literature Review/ Methods/ Results and Discussion).

• • Review Article

Review articles do not present original research. Instead they are secondary sources that review existing literature in the field. They are an excellent resource for researchers as they identify key research articles in a particular area of study. The two main types of review articles are literature reviews and systematic reviews.

• • • A literature review is both a summary and explanation of the current state of knowledge on a limited topic as found in academic books and journal articles.
    • A systematic review is a form of secondary study that uses a well-defined methodology to identify, analyse and interpret all available evidence related to a specific research question in a way that is unbiased and (to a certain degree) can be replicated.

4. Key principles for a strong paper

As highlighted by Hamp-Lyons and Heasley (2006), there are certain basic principles that you need to bear in mind if you want to persuade the academic community of your knowledge claims:

• • Be clear: Make sure everything is clear to the reader. Define terms and clarify points as necessary.
  • Be honest: Make sure you can support the claims you make. Do not overgeneralise! Also, do not hide anything, even the limitations of your research.
  • Be real: Do not overestimate or underestimate the existing knowledge of your audience.
  • Be relevant: Do not go off topic or lose sight of your original objectives. Stay focused!

In an IMRaD style paper (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion), The Results section is positioned centrally in the paper. Because of this centrality, Cargill and O’Connor (2009) suggest that before writing up your research paper, you should create a “results story.”

Your Introduction/ Literature Review and your Methodology prepare your reader for and lead them towards your Results. Your results and their implications are then discussed/ explained in the section(s) which follow – Discussion and Conclusions. In a sense, everything flows into and flows from your Results.

Accordingly, you need to identify key results which will lead to “take-away messages” i.e., what you want your reader to take away after reading your paper. They recommend focusing on the following questions during the drafting process:

1. What do my results say? (a summary of the main points)

(Example): Results show that most students do not know how to structure a research paper.

2. What do these results mean in their context? (i.e., what conclusions can be drawn from these results?)

(Example): Students need instruction in research writing (workshops, videos, handouts etc.).

3. Who needs to know about these results? (i.e., who is the audience you are writing for?)

(Example): In the university setting – department heads, professors, and writing centre specialists.

4. Why do they need to know? (i.e., what contribution will the results make to ongoing work in the field? Or, what will other researchers/ practitioners be missing if they have not read your article?)

(Example): They may help to better prepare students for research writing. This finding possibly indicates that assumptions of knowledge are being made. Further study may identify other areas of weakness in student writing.

5. The main steps in the publication process

1. Consider different journals in your field and decide on an appropriate one to submit your paper to.
2. Download the journal’s style guide/ submission guidelines (instructions to authors) from its website. This gives guidance on style rules related to layout, referencing, preferred language usage etc. It is also important to take note of the word count expected by the journal.
3. With your co-authors (if applicable), draft and redraft your paper until you have a final version which you are happy with and which meets the regulations as set out in the style guide.
4. Upload the paper to the journal’s website as instructed.
5. The journal’s editor briefly checks your submission and selects one or multiple referees to “peer” review it. They will consider issues such as its contribution to the field and the standard of the (English) language.
6. The referees report back to the editor. If it is a blind review (which is typically the case), the reviewers do not know who the submission is from. Accordingly, there is less likely to be any bias.
7. The paper may be rejected or accepted. If it is accepted, it is likely to be “accepted with revisions/ changes,” which could be minor or major. The changes requested may relate to structure and content, or the paper may simply require a language review.
8. Make the requested changes. If you strongly feel a requested change should not be made, justify this decision. Together with your revised article, submit a covering “rebuttal” letter which outlines the changes you made (or did not make) and why.
9. Wait for a response and hope that your final version of the paper is accepted.²

² Adapted from Wallwork (2016, pp. 16-17)

6. Selecting a journal

There are many journals out there, so it is important to select the right one for you, and more importantly, for your article. Once you know the type of article you want to write (see section 2) and have a clear purpose (i.e., you have written a purpose statement [see section 7]), you then need to find a journal that fits your style of article. Alternatively, first find your desired journal, and then write your paper to fit its requirements. In any case, you need to understand the journal that you are writing for, so consider the following points:

• Analyse articles in journals in your field

First, look at the journal’s website and read its aims and scope, and check out its instructions to authors. Then read some individual articles to better understand the type and structure of articles published in that specific journal. Scan the abstract and the main sections of the articles and determine how they are structured. By deconstructing the articles, you will gain a better understanding of the types of articles published in a given journal, and thus a better understanding of that journal’s expectations (see also suggested steps to follow when writing your paper in section 9).

• Prestige

It is important to bear in mind the issue of prestige. The best journals are very selective in respect of the submissions they accept (something in the region of 10% or less), and a journal’s Impact Factor (IF) is one way that the perceived quality of a journal is measured, so this is something you may want to look out for. You could also check the Sciago Journal and Country Rank. This is a metrics tool which is based on data from Scopus. Journals can be analysed as part of a subject area or subject category, or individually.

• Accessibility

You ultimately want your article to be read, so it is also important to think about how accessible the journal is. Although almost all journals have electronic versions, they are often located in databases which require paid subscriptions. This being the case, and depending on your objectives, you may consider publishing in free-access online journals (see https://doaj.org/), which, due to their easy and free accessibility, are arguably even more likely to be read.

Here are some questions you may want to consider when selecting and evaluating academic journals:

• Does the style/ type of article normally accepted by the journal match yours?
• Does your research fit into the journal’s aims and scope?
• Who reads the journal? How widely is it read? Is this the audience you want to speak to?
• Is the journal peer-reviewed?
• Does the journal/ publisher have a good reputation?
• Is the journal well-established (has it been around for a while)?
• Is the journal online or indexed electronically? Where?
• How long does it take to get published after submission/ acceptance? Is there a backlog?
• What is the acceptance/ rejection rate for this journal?
• Does the journal have an upcoming theme or special issue on your topic?
• Does the journal have word or page limits you might find difficult to meet?
• Does your institution have any restrictions on where you can submit articles/ publish?³

NB: You should not submit your paper for publication to more than one journal at the same time. This is known as simultaneous submission. If this is discovered by the editors, you may not be allowed to publish in these journals again, so be patient and await a decision before submitting to another journal. An even more serious issue is that of a duplicate publication i.e., when you attempt to republish (in another journal) the same paper or one which is notably similar to the original paper you published. This would be considered self-plagiarism and almost certainly a breach of copyright.

³ Adapted from: https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/graduateschool/PostgraduateResearcherDevelopmentProgramme/FileStore/File toupload,379615,en.pdf and http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upmbinaries/63382_how_to_get_published.pdf

9. Planning, content and length

Let’s assume you have a clear purpose for your article and have selected a journal that you would like to get published in. You now need to make an outline of your paper, so you have to think about the flow of your argument. You also need to think about your target journal and how articles accepted for publication tend to be structured. Outline the main sections of your paper in line with those found in the target journal, but also outline the contents of each sub-section in as much detail as possible.

You research has probably yielded a great deal of background information, data and findings. However, you will need to prioritise your content in order to meet the word count of the target journal. You need to provide all the information your reader requires, but in as concise a manner as possible. Superfluous thoughts, and therefore text, often do nothing more than dilute the quality of your work and obscure your main arguments, so remember the concept of “less is more.” In other words, it is better to write a paper with three good points than one with three good points and three not so good points. The former is more succinct and has a more solid line of argument. It will therefore leave a stronger and better impression on the reader.

When you have thought about what you want to say and completed your detailed outline, consider the relative importance of each section and distribute your content accordingly. In other words, the length of each section should reflect its relative importance to the paper. Knowing what you want to say, and in how many words you are permitted to say it, will result in a solid paper and help you to avoid digressing and touching on inconsequential points.

• • Suggested steps to follow when writing your paper

1. Consider options and select the journal you would like to publish in.
2. Read some articles from the journal (related to your research topic if possible).
3. Select one article that you think is well-written (preferably one which has been frequently cited as this indicates it is considered a good paper).
4. Analyse the paper’s structure (and the approximate word count for each section of the paper). Then consider the structure of individual sections, paying particular attention to sub-headings.
5. Choose one section of the paper and write a reverse outline (i.e., make a note of what is happening in each paragraph).
6. Underline useful phrases (particularly sentence starters) that you may be able to use in your own paper. You may also want to utilize the University of Manchester’s Academic Phrasebank.
7. Based on 4, 5, and 6 (above), write the same section of your paper.
8. Repeat the process for all sections of your paper.⁴

10. Rewriting and peer-review feedback

It is highly unlikely that your paper will be accepted by a journal immediately, without revisions. Many papers will simply be rejected, and others will require revisions, possibly major, and even then may ultimately be rejected. So, if you are asked to resubmit with revisions, you should consider this as an achievement in itself.

Respected academic journals use a peer-review system to ensure the quality of the work they publish meets academic standards. It is common for the paper to be reviewed by two anonymous reviewers who read your paper blind (without knowing your identity).

• • What are reviewers focusing on when reviewing your paper?

1. The degree of creativity or innovation in the paper.
2. The extent to which the paper may stimulate discussion in the field and beyond.
3. If the title is reflective of the content.
4. The aim of the research/ its research question(s).
5. The rationale for conducting the study.
6. How the paper relates to previous research in the field, which research prompted the current research, and the gap identified in existing literature.
7. A clear description of the methods used/ procedures followed and a justification thereof.
8. Clearly presented results/ findings and an in-depth discussion of what they mean/ their implications.
9. The main strengths of the paper e.g., how it contributes to existing scholarship.
10. An acknowledgement and understanding of limitations and weaknesses.
11. English language competence and appropriate use of academic writing conventions (and that the paper follows the instruction to authors/ style guide).
12. Overall, if the abstract and conclusions are consistent with and supported by the information contained in the paper.⁵

⁵ Adapted from Wallwork (2016, pp. 20-21)

When going through the different comments you received, you could approach each in a number of ways:

1. Make the change as suggested by the reviewer e.g., provide additional evidence to support your claim.
2. Make a partial change based on the reviewer’s suggestions. If it is a minor issue, it is probably best just to make the amendment suggested. If it is a major issue, particularly a subjective one, try rewriting the text to make your argument clearer and more convincing (without actually changing your opinion).
3. Don’t make the change suggested by the reviewer. If you 100% disagree with the comment/ suggestion of the reviewer, do not change the text, but explain why in your cover letter to the editor.

If you want to be accepted by that particular journal (and those reviewers), it goes without saying that, as a general rule, option 1 is a significantly better choice than option 3.

Together with your revised article, you will have to submit a covering letter which outlines the changes that you made (or did not make) and why. Depending on the number of changes you have to make, the covering letter could be rather long. Sometimes this cannot be avoided as you have to show the editor that you took all the comments into consideration and made relevant changes. In writing your covering letter, you need to be humble and steadfast (when appropriate), but most of all you need to be pragmatic.

The format below could be used when drafting your covering letter:

• • An introduction structured broadly as follows:
    • Thank you for your decision letter.
    • I/ We greatly appreciate the constructive comments.
    • I/ We have now addressed these comments, and this has strengthened the paper.
    • On the following pages, we outline point by point responses to the comments by the reviewers (and the associate editor, if applicable).
    • We hope our revised version will be received favourably and look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

• • On the following pages, detailed point by point responses to each of the comments, in a format as follows:
    • Paste in a given reviewer’s comment in italics
    • Then explain how you have addressed it. For example:
      • Reviewer 1: “The authors assert that biodiversity is declining in their study area, but they do not substantiate this claim. At the very least, this statement requires a reference.”

Response: We appreciate this concern and have now added a reference (Smith et al. XXXX; see page 4 of the revised manuscript)

• • • • Reviewer 2: “The methods used on page 6 are unclear. Which type of regression model was used?”

Response: In the first paragraph of page 6 of the original manuscript, we had actually specified that we used generalized linear models. Arguably, our statement was hidden among other information, which is why the reviewer may have missed it. We have now moved our statement to a more prominent position at the beginning of the section on ‘Data analysis’ (page 5 of the revised manuscript). This should make it more obvious which methods we used.⁶

⁶ https://writingajournalarticle.wordpress.com/the-process-of-publishing/revising-a-paper-after-review/

Top Tips for Responding to Reviewers

• • Be polite and objective. Don’t come across as aggressive or defensive.
  • Don’t use one reviewer’s response as a way to counteract another’s.
  • Restate the reviewer’s question or statement before responding to it.
  • Thank reviewers for their helpful suggestions and acknowledge when some aspect of the manuscript can be improved.
  • Say things such as “I/ We agree with this comment,” “This is a point we had overlooked. Thanks for highlighting it for us,” and “I can see why this may appear unclear, so I have added further detail.”
  • If suggested changes can be made easily, make them. If they can’t, explain clearly and politely why the change is not possible/ appropriate (in your opinion).

Rejection

You may be rejected with or without feedback. If you are rejected without feedback, it may be that your article does not fit the profile of the journal. If this is the case, submit your article to a journal that is a better fit for it (i.e., ensure that your paper is in line with the aims and scope of the publication). Also, make sure that you follow the style guide (notes for authors) as it may differ quite considerably from that of the publication you previously submitted to.

If you do receive feedback (no matter how negative it may seem), think of it as constructive criticism, and use it to help you revise and rework your paper. It is also a good idea to ask someone you trust to critically evaluate your paper. This person does not need to be from within your area of expertise; indeed, if you are writing for a general audience, this might be advantageous, as this person will be able to highlight what might be difficult for a more general audience to understand.