Increasing the Odds of Publishing Academic Research

1
Increasing the Odds of Publishing Academic
Research

• 2008 AAEA Annual Meetings
• Grad Student Section Symposium
• Brent A. Gloy
• Cornell University

2
Increasing the Odds of Publication

• Peer review publication is the cornerstone of
  academic research
• Key for sharing knowledge
• Most journals today have an acceptance rate less
  than 30
• Submit 10 articles to publish 3?
• Many articles will be submitted multiple times
• Reducing the amount of churn is key to getting
  your work out, read, and used
• How can one increase these odds?

3
The Publishing Process

• The research project
• Writing the papers and documenting the effort
• Submitting the paper for peer review
• Responding to peer review

Identify key things that can be done to increase
likelihood of eventual success
4
1. The Research Project

• The Most Important Step
• Sound design is key to eventual publication
• Invest in the literature to find opportunities
  and build a sound project
• Get input from colleagues (AND LISTEN)
• Present research early on to allow for adjustment
  and identification of obvious problems
• Identify and utilize collaborators
• Listen to suggestions from senior colleagues

5
1. The Research Project

• Start with the end in mind
• Every research project you do should be designed
  for publication in peer reviewed journals (as
  well as other outputs)
• Dont be afraid to make investments in well
  conceived big projects
• Diversify and be opportunistic

6
2. Writing the Papers and Documenting the
Results

• JUST DO IT! Manuscripts are required in order to
  publish
• Research is not done until it is written for peer
  review
• We are in the business of creating AND
  disseminating knowledge
• Writing is hard work
• Start with research and extension bulletins to
  document the project completely and build the
  text

7
2. Writing the Paper for Peer Review

• Get feedback early and often
• Meeting presentations
• Multi-state projects
• Departmental seminars
• Department internal review
• LISTEN TO FEEDBACK
• Utilize collaborators effectively

8
3. Submitting the Paper for Peer Review

• Avoid temptation to achieve ultimate perfection
• Choose journal wisely
• Publishing papers on the topic
• Appropriate content for journal

9
3. Submitting the Paper for Peer Review

• Quality matters but so does volume
• Not all quality work winds up in journals
  universally perceived to be highest quality
• Marginal difference in perceived quality levels
  off very quickly
• Remember ultimate goal is to have your work read
  and used
• Good research should eventually be published
• Peers will find and use high quality work
  especially if it is part of a stream of work

10
3. Submitting the Paper for Peer Review

• The little things are often taken for granted
  and can cause big problems
• Well written get help if you need it
• No typos
• Appropriate motivation
• Organization
• Results CLEARLY described
• Conclusions appropriate and well thought out
• Be able to clearly articulate your contribution

11
4. Responding to Peer Review

• If you get your foot in the door DONT take it
  out always resubmit if offered
• Respond in a timely manner within a month
• Take reviewer comments seriously and use them
• Engage colleagues for advice
• If rejected see if you can use points from review
  to make the paper better
• Get it back out to another journal quickly if
  rejected

12
4. Responding to Peer Review

• Dont let up before the finish line -- write a
  thorough and thoughtful response
• Use tact
• Point by point is best
• Be specific on how you changed the paper as a
  result of review
• If you dont understand a point explain why you
  dont understand dont just ignore it
• Reviewers spend time on this and feel good when
  you carefully address their concerns
• Response may be nearly as long as the paper

13
4. Responding to Peer Review

• Spot on comments make the changes
• Confusion/miscommunication fix the manuscript
• Disagreements pick which battles to fight
• Style only marginally important
• Conceptual worth arguing
• Model nuances do the work and show the reviewer
  that it either does or does not matter

14
4. Responding to Peer Review

• Strategies for responding to major point of
  contention
• Must clearly lay out to reviewer why your opinion
  is different (and more correct)
• Put burden back on reviewer -- where can this
  data be found, what literature am I missing, etc.
  

15
Summary

• Publishing is hard work
• Get the paper written and off your desk
• Get input from peers throughout the process
• LISTEN TO PEERS
• Much of the work occurs after initial submission
• Shorten the time that the paper is on your desk
  top priority is always responding to reviews