How to publish Strategic issues in research, writing, and submitting to journals

1
How to publishStrategic issues in research,
writing, and submitting to journals

• Overview
• Research Strategic issues
• Writing your paper
• Submitting your paper (when, where)
• The review process and dealing with editors (and
  reviewers)

2
Publish or perish Strategic planning of research
prior to publication

• What?
• What kind of research topic to choose? How many
  lines and how much? Narrow or broad?
• How?
• How best to go about your chosen topic choice of
  paradigm, method, manipulation. More quality or
  quantity? How to present it in the paper.
• Who?
• Who should you work with how many collaborations
  are wise?

3
Strategic planning of research prior to
publication (contd.)

• When?
• Timing is important for career planning When is
  best to publish?
• Where?
• Where to submit...
• Other self-presentational and strategic factors
• Networking, impression management, getting
  noticed, selling yourself (soul?) etc.
  Interpersonal and intergroup politics of
  publishing...

4
What to research? Choice of specific topic

• Make sure you are interested in your topic!
• If your heart is not in it, motivation will be
  difficult when the going gets tough (e.g., when
  the results don't roll)
• If not try to bend the topic to your own
  interests
• Approach Broad or narrow?
• Big research questions may be more interesting,
  but they are more risky, and difficult to
  research
• Keep research manageable
• Make sure the research question is original and
  makes a theoretical advance
• (probably most important factor in considering
  the publishability)

5
What to research? Choice of specific topic

• Try to make sure that the topic is easy to
  research efficiently
• Some topics are
• more high risk than others
• involve paradigms that do not generate results
  quickly or easily
• Another string to your bow It is useful to have
  a second topic
• Don't get involved in too many collaborations or
  you will be spread too thinly
• (Thou shalt commit adultery, but promiscuity is
  bad)
• Conclusion
• It is better to be Cindy Safe rather than Sydney
  Suicide (but a bit of risk on the side is OK)

6
How? How to go about researching your topic(s)

• How you go about your research determines pay off
  and efficiency, and is therefore a crucial part
  of the preparation for publishing.
• Choose an efficient paradigm where the options
  are not too limited
• e.g., not limited to a particular subject
  population
• e.g., not limited to the lab
• e.g., not limited to group level data (power
  problem)
• A two-pronged approach combining lab work with
  more quick and dirty questionnaire studies
  helps you combine experimental control with
  external validity
• Manipulations Start strong! (and you can't go
  wrong!)
• Follow Kurt Lewin's advice and make sure your
  manipulation is strong

7
How? How to go about researching your topic(s)

• Manipulation checks Start weak!
• Another common problem is that manipulation
  checks are not sufficiently sensitive. This is
  frustrating when the IV clearly has an effect on
  other DVs
• It can be good to go for two sorts of
  manipulation check
• Seeing whether people perceived the (wording) of
  the manipulation as you intended it (the weak
  check).
• Whether subjects are affected in the conceptually
  intended way (more difficult the strong check)

8
Strategic issues for the write-up

• Try to write clearly and simply and, where
  possible, entertainingly
• Try not to be too rude about other researchers in
  the field whose research yours is criticising --
  they may well be reviewers. Pretend that you are
  complementing (and complimenting) their research,
  rather than destroying it!
• Sliming never damaged anyone's career
  (unfortunately).
• Get expert and non-expert friends to read the
  paper get feedback before you submit
• Appreciate that a paper probably needs multiple
  rewrites before it is ready (10 is not unusual)

9
Some tips for the write-up

• When the meat content is high, don't make salami!
  
• Try to avoid piecemeal or "salami" publishing. A
  single multiple-study paper in a good journal is
  better than several single study papers in minor
  ones.

10
More specific writing tips

• See also Bem (1987), Sternberg (2000, 2003)
• Start with tables
• Then Method, Results, Intro, Discussion
• i.e., write from the middle outwards!
• Concentrate on the key issue, big picture
• Less is more!
• Think of your audience. Who are the readers?
• Start general
• Write deductively not inductively
• Emphasize add-on value, originality

11
Minimize the chances of being rejected 1 Writing
your paper

• Opening paragraph matters!
• Past research shows
• Jones and Smith (1986) found that
• It is interesting to note that
• These are all poor examples of how to begin a
  paper
• Get to the point quickly, and try to intrigue the
  reader
• If you havent hooked him/her by the end of the
  first paragraph, chances are he/she wont read
  further

12
Introduction

• Tell the reader early what the point of the paper
  is, and then go on to make that point
• Deliver what you promise
• If the main contribution is an applied one, begin
  with the applied problem you are addressing
• If the main contribution is a theoretical one,
  begin with the theoretical problem you are
  addressing

13
Introduction (contd.)

• Avoid telling a history of the field of your
  research
• Review should be focused, balanced, and as
  complete as it needs to be to justify your
  research
• Dont ignore one side of a theoretical debate
  simply because you disagree with it
• Cite relevant work
• Point of the review is to provide the motivation
  for your research

14
Results

• Reporting your findings
• Always explain what the results mean Dont leave
  it to the reader to figure this out
• Always refer to tables and figures in the text
  (they should not be free-floating)
• Dont go beyond basic interpretations of the
  findings in the Results section of a paper
• Speculation and theoretical issues should be in
  the Discussion

15
Discussion

• Consider results in relation to predictions
• Consider (and if possible rule out) alternative
  interpretations
• No study (or set of studies) is unequivocal
• Acknowledge possible shortcomings
• But dont be gratuitously self-critical
• What do the findings imply for theory and/or
  practice?
• End strongly and with a clear take-home message
• Avoid empty statements about the need for more
  research

16
Specific writing tips

• (based on Sternberg, 2003)
• Writing should interest, inform and persuade
• Facts do not speak for themselves in science!
• Write clearly, without redundancy, avoid
  digression
• Dont over-explain, overstate
• Avoid unnecessary qualifiers
• Use precise words for your constructs and stick
  to them
• Variety is confusing not interesting here
• Use concrete, simple words rather than abstract,
  complex
• Avoid jargon!

17
Specific writing tips (contd.)

• Use active rather than passive constructions (APA
  changed!)
• Avoid split infinitives
• Use summary statements
• Place yourself in the background
• Avoid sexist language
• Proof read your paper (more than once!)

18
Cutting and carving the paper

• Paper should ideally make one important statement
• Better than more than one study
• Do not use too many new methods, stats, theories
  within one paper
• Think about best order of studies for story
• Bem!
• Authorship issues?

19
SubmittingWhen (and why)?

• Don't wait too long! Publishing takes a long time
  (1 year minimum)
• Aiming to submit 2 papers by the end of your
  second year gives a very rough guideline
• If you wait until the end of your PhD, your
  chances of getting a position in academia is
  probably limited

20
Minimize the chances of being rejected 2
Submitting your paper

• Select the right journal
• Some factors to consider
• Relevance of the work to the journal and the
  readership of the journal
• Know the journal!
• Read editorial(s)
• Read the inside front cover of the journal (or
  the journals website) to see what the editorial
  policy of the journal is
• How many times does your paper cite work
  published in the journal?
• Seek and take advice from more experienced others
  who have good publication records

21
More factors to consider in choosing a journal

• Status of the journal
• Impact factor
• Acceptance rate
• Efficiency of the journal
• How quick is it to process submissions?
• How long is the lag between acceptance and
  publication?

22
Citation impact factor

• Impact factor of a journal is the average number
  of citations received in a given year by the
  articles that appeared in that journal during the
  two previous years
• Citations in year N to articles published in
  years N-1 or N-2
• --------------------------------------------------
  ------------------------
• Number of articles published in years N-1 or N-2
• For example, the 2007 impact factor of
  Psychological Review is the number of citations
  during year 2007 to articles that were published
  in that journal during 2005 or 2006, divided by
  number of articles published in journal in 2005
  and 2006

23
SubmittingWhen (and why)?

• Submitting early has other major advantages.
• You get feedback from other experts on your
  research. This can be very useful as you and your
  supervisor may be too close or involved to see
  certain issues as problems that others might. It
  helps planning of studies while you are still
  doing them.
• It gets you noticed by others in the field.
• The chance that somebody else has done the same
  thing and gets there first is reduced.
• If you write studies up as soon as you do them,
  you have a ready made chapters for your thesis,
  and don't have to go back to piles of data to
  work out what you have done.
• Finally, make sure you submit studies in a
  logical order to maximise the impact and novelty
  value of your papers.

24
The review process

• Acknowledgement
• receipt of your paper should be acknowledged
  promptly in writing (by email or letter)
• if not, check to see whether it got lost in post
• you should also be told who the Action Editor for
  your paper is
• Action Editor
• most journals Chief Editor plus several
  Associate Editors
• your paper will be handled by one of these (the
  Action Editor)
• Action Editor will typically send the paper out
  for review
• most journals 2-4 reviewers

25
Criteria for selecting reviewers

• membership of editorial board
• being cited in your paper
• known expertise on topic
• perceived competence in reviewing
• perceived efficiency in reviewing

26
Editorial decision

• Action Editor should make a decision within 12-15
  weeks
• 3 basic kinds of decision
• minor revisions with view to acceptance
• major revisions with view to possible acceptance
• rejection

27
Delays in the review process

• Reviewers are typically given 4-6 weeks
• If their review not submitted by deadline, they
  are sent a reminder
• If review still does not arrive, Action Editor
  may simply proceed if he/she has 2 reviews to
  hand
• But few Action Editors are prepared to make a
  decision on basis of one review
• Late reviewers are biggest source of delay in
  review process

28
Revising a paper

• Take time and care to address reviewers and
  Action Editors comments
• Action Editors letter should contain guidance
  concerning most important points to be addressed
  read and re-read this very carefully
• If in doubt about how to deal with a particular
  point, consult colleagues (or Action Editor)
• It is common for the Action Editor to specify a
  deadline for the revision process (typically 2-6
  months) if you cannot meet this deadline, get in
  touch with AE

29
Covering letter

• Take time and care in preparing covering letter
• Explain how keys points have been addressed
• If there are points that have not been revised,
  despite reviewers or editors request, explain
  why
• It may be useful to prepare a separate document
  to accompany revised MS, in which you specify how
  you have addressed reviewers comments
• If you think that a reviewers comments are wrong
  or unfair, be prepared to point this out (but do
  so politely)

30
Dealing with editors (and reviewers)

• Some golden rules
• Do what the editor asks
• Do what reviewers ask
• but more what the editor wants!
• Read between the lines
• Editor is writing for reviewers, too, but may not
  agree with everything they say
• So attend to what editor repeats in decision
  letter
• Write a thorough letter explaining revisions and
  responses to points raised
• Dont chase up too soon
• But seek clarification on points via email if
  necessary

31
Rejection

• Dont despair!
• If you are convinced that you have been unfairly
  treated, discuss issue with experienced
  colleagues if they agree, write to AE with
  careful explanation of why you object to decision
  but dont expect miracles
• Dont send unrevised paper to another journal
  take the opportunity to respond to reviewers
  comments
• Using your own knowledge of field and advice from
  others, send paper to a less demanding journal
• Be prepared to repeat this process if the paper
  is once again rejected

32
Self-presentational issues Some more common sense

• Try not to make academic enemies (try to make
  friends). Be discreet!
• Get yourself noticed (give talks, etc.)
• Working with different people spreads the risks
  of getting caught up in conflicts between
  different camps, and allows you to be seen as
  independent of your supervisor.
• Conclusion Lick is good, but kick is bad be
  strategic
• but make sure people don't notice you being
  strategic (especially in Europe!)

33
Useful references

• Bem, D. J. (1987). Writing the empirical journal
  article. In M.P. Zanna J. M. Darley (Eds.), The
  compleat academic A practical guide for the
  beginning social scientist (pp.171-201). New
  York Random House.
• Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (2000). Guide to
  publishing in psychology journals. New York
  Cambridge University Press.
• Sternberg, R. J. (2003). The psychologists
  companion (4th ed.). New York Cambridge
  University Press.