The paper chase

Here’s the inside word on how to get published in a peer journal, from two who know what it takes. By Erin Mayo. Getting published in an academic journal is a career highlight, and one that takes plenty of preparation and hard work. “The path from manuscript to publication can present many hazards not met during the research itself, and involves a new and quite different type of learning process,” says John Creedy from the University of Melbourne Faculty of Economics, in his paper “From Manuscript to Publication: A Brief Guide for Economists”, which The Australian Economic Review published. “The first thing you need to think about is your audience and where you want to pitch your article,” adds associate Helen Dickinson, professor of social and political sciences at Melbourne University, who has had more than 25 papers published. She also edits the Journal of Health Organization and Management and co-edits the Journal of Integrated Care. “In the journal world, it’s worth thinking about your article as part of a conversation amidst a community,” she says. “One of the things you often find is that people will write a paper or something that they think is interesting, but they don’t have a particular journal or outlet in mind. “It’s also important to think about the submission process. It’s not always obvious about what’s supposed to happen and when, and people sometimes do get a little disheartened.” Creedy and Dickinson shared their advice on how to get published and make it through the submission process. Think about your audience “Writing a great article without thinking about where it’s going to be placed isn’t enough,” Dickinson says. “It’s worth thinking about what sort of things people who read that journal are interested in. Don’t be so niche that you are the only person who can review it because you’re the only person who has the expertise, and don’t be so broad that it can appeal to anybody.” Limit your submission to one paper at a time, and focus on the needs and wants of the journal’s readers. “The single, most important propriety for authors to recognise is that a paper can be sent to only one journal at a time,” Creedy says. Research the publication “There is a lot of preparatory work you need to do to support yourself in the publication process,” says Dickinson, who adds that it’s important to read though author guidelines and previously published papers. “As someone who edits a couple of journals, I am surprised by the number of people who will send in a submission that doesn’t conform to the layout or referencing conventions. Every journal will have their author guidelines on their website and they will be explicitly written, down to little details like what font and size to use, and the orders of subheads. There is editorial detail around most guidelines. Creedy advises, “Never send a paper to a journal without first looking through some recent issues to check if there are earlier related articles and whether it covers suitable fields and methods. Many papers are rejected without even being sent to referees [or reviewers] because the editor immediately considers them unsuitable for the particular journal.” Dickinson adds that, “A good covering letter is helpful if there is something [in particular] that might make that paper stand out to the journal, so it’s a good idea to convey that to the editor when you’re submitting a paper.” She and Creedy also say a succinct abstract is important when capturing an editor’s attention. “The first things the editor looks at are the title and the abstract, so it is important to make these as clear as possible,” Creedy says. For the writing process, Dickinson says her first step is to formulate her structure. “The structure is the most important thing when it comes down to the physical writing,” she says, “so set down a series of subheadings, and put bullet points under them in terms of what you are going to write about in each one. “It can be a lengthy process, and sometimes people get disheartened when they sit there for two days and all they have to show for it is a series of bullet points, but it makes writing the paper a lot easier. “Writing can be a big task if you’ve never done it before. And it can be quite a difficult thing to do,” Dickinson says. “It can sometimes be helpful to co-author with other people, preferably somebody who has been through the process before and can advise you. “Or, if you choose not to co-author, make sure you have a critical friend who will be able to read your paper and comment on it before it goes off to a journal.” Don’t expect your paper to be accepted as is, both Dickinson and Creedy say. Most published articles go through a series of revisions from editors and reviewers. “An invitation to revise and resubmit is usually the best that can be expected,” Creedy says. “After receiving a ‘revise and resubmit’ letter, do not delay in making revisions. It may often be difficult to return to a problem that is no longer fresh in the mind and when new work appears more attractive – but revisions should be given priority. “[And] don’t simply make the minimum changes demanded. Take the opportunity to look closely at the whole of the paper, even if referees do not ask for many changes, to see if the clarity of the argument can be improved.” Dickinson says, “Most papers go through some revisions, and it’s amazing the amount of people who drop out of that process as you go along. Using [the revisions] is about improving your paper and it’s a process that will make the end result better.” And be prepared to wait. Creedy says, “One of the first things authors need to develop is patience.” The average time between submission and publication can be anywhere from six months to two years. Dickinson adds, “Most journals however have an online early-sight system and once it’s accepted, it will go online and later appear in print. But even if you get through the process quickly, you’re looking at a minimum of five to six months.” You’ll also need to develop a thick skin. As Creedy says, “The most frequent response from a journal editor is an unequivocal rejection. [Even] the most published authors usually also have the most rejections along the way. “In dealing with rejections, it is necessary to find a balance between self-confidence, which is a fundamental prerequisite for any kind of research activity, and a willingness to learn from criticism. It is necessary, though never easy, to develop a thick skin. Dickinson says, “I’ve probably published 25–30 peer review journal articles over 6–7 years, and I’ve probably had the same number of papers rejected. Everybody goes through the process of having papers rejected all the time.” If you’ve been rejected, she says, learn from it and don’t be discouraged from further submissions. “It can be disheartening, but it’s not always a bad thing,” she says. “Look at the reviewer comments and see what the issue is. Is there a fundamental flaw in what you’ve done, or is it simply in terms of how you have crafted it? I had a paper that was rejected from two journals recently that were good – but not amazing – and I got good reviewer feedback, so I re-wrote the paper and sent it in to the top journal and it got accepted. Think about the comments that you’ve been given, and if you can use them to reshape your article it will be a much better paper as a result and you can use that to increase your chances of getting published.”