Publishing in English Speaking Journals

Dr. Jamie AlcockDepartment of Land Economy

The University of Cambridge

and

The University of Queensland

1

Research – why is it so important?• Research is… expensive, difficult, requires high-level skills.

– Why bother?

• Core business of a University– Convey skills, knowledge and understanding – Generate new skills, knowledge and understanding

• High-skilled workforce => highly paid workforce

=> increased wealth, health and happiness in

society

• Luckily – University reputation is closely aligned with research performance!

2

Publication is Hard!

Editorial Decisions – Journal of Finance (JoF webpage)

Number Percentage

Rejected 7961 77.2%

Returned for Revisions 1799 17.4%

Accepted 551 5.3%

Total 10311 100.0%

3

95% Rejection Rate!

“Players” in Publication Game

4

Society?

Students?

Publisher?

“Players” in Publication Game• Each of these have different motivations/incentives.• Important to understand each of them

• Author:– Impact?– Understanding?– Promotion?– Respect?

• Institution:– Reputation/Brand name?– Generating new product for next generation?– Intellectual Property?– Funding?

5

Editor• Objectives of Editor:

– To provide an avenue for the broad dissemination of original research.– Increase the reputation of the Journal– Accepting bad paper very destructive to reputation.

6

Virtuous Cycle

Editor• “Reputation” measured by:

– Impact of Journal– Citations– Sales

• Primary resource available to editor? Page Space!– Journal has contract with publisher– Typically – for a maximum number of pages/issues per year.

That is – the editor faces a constraint.

• Editor therefore has an objective function:Maximise: CitationsSubject to: # pages = k,

Pr(accepting poor paper) < p.

7

Readers• Who?

– Largely professional researchers– Time poor + highly skilled

• Motivation?– Help them learn something– Personal interest– Help them with their careers

• How?– How do you read papers?

• Title• Abstract• First page• Conclusions• Remainder of paper

• Role in publication decision?– None – use referee as proxy.

8

Referee• Who?

– Readers/Consumers of Research– Experts in the field. – Often have published extensively in the field.

• What?– Quality control– Ensures page space is not wasted on incorrect/uninformative or

uninteresting papers– Editor is often bound by their decision– Each has their own idea of quality, BUT– All are acting in the interests of readers.

9

So what do Referee’s/Editors Look For?

H0: RejectHA: The manuscript has sufficient merit to warrant a

‘revise and resubmit’ decision

• 4 main areas:

– Originality• New method• New model• New finding• Unique data

– Of Interest• Are the findings obvious?• The “so-what” factor!

10

-Quality•Reliable•Robust•Valid

-Well written•Easy to Read•Communicates ideas well

Empirical Chances of Success

Decisions by Round

Rejected Revise Accepted

Round 1 7845 978 2

Round 2 96 529 97

Round 3 19 234 232

Round 4 1 55 168

Round 5 0 3 50

11

The Journal of Finance

Primary Issues in Quality

Source: Clarkson (2012), “Publishing: art or science? Reflections from an editorial perspective.”, Accounting & Finance, To appear.

12

Write-up - Cochrane

• Read Cochrane’s Essay:http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/phd_paper_writing.pdf– Get to the point, fast – Don’t “clear your throat “– Describe what you do, explain it, compare to

alternatives, compare to others – Be precise

13

Example – Fama & French (1992)

14

Cochrane continued• Always use present tense, past tense is archaic and

outdated for good reason – First person, active voice, present tense!

• Don’t be afraid to use the first person (most good journals require it)

• Use short sentences • Avoid adjectives, understate the importance of your work • Everything must be verifiable • Big words impress little people, maximise audience without

patronising • Reference list must be consistent, use a professional

reference manager such as EndNote or JabRef

15

Want to Guarantee Rejection?

• Ignore the 4 points above• Multiple submissions• Offend people – they may be your referee!• Say something that is incorrect• Oversell your work

16

Think you have done all that? Check!

• Refereed international conferences – esp with discussants.

• Ask senior Professors to review• Seminar series of good universities

These will help remove the obvious errors that would otherwise kill your chances.

17

Does this Improve Chances of Success?

Source: Clarkson (2012), “Publishing: art or science? Reflections from an editorial perspective.”, Accounting & Finance, To appear.

18

Main Reasons for Rejection

Source: Clarkson (2012), “Publishing: art or science? Reflections from an editorial perspective.”, Accounting & Finance, To appear.

19

Some views from Editors – Rene StultzWhat can I do to make acceptance of my paper more likely? • Papers succeed or fail depending on their contribution to our field. However, authors should avoid simple

mistakes which can substantially obscure their paper's contribution: • A paper should be easy for the referee and the editor to read. This means it should be typed in a font large

enough so that it can be read without magnifying glasses. It should be free from typographical errors. It should have no handwritten words or sentences. Referees typically do not take a paper more seriously than its author does. If the referee feels that you do not care about getting things right, he or she will become suspicious and be inclined to recommend rejection.

• Be careful to position your paper relative to the most recent related papers. Referees tend to dismiss papers when the author does not know and reference recent related published papers. For a paper to be published in the Journal of Financial Economics it has to make a significant contribution relative to the existing literature. The existing literature includes all published papers. Do not reference papers that are irrelevant to what you are doing - - even if they are my papers.

• Avoid insults and slights. It may well be that Professor X is an idiot, but unless the editor agrees with you, Professor X could be the referee of your manuscript.

• Do not fall into the trap of technobabble. The Journal is published in English. The abstract, introduction and conclusion should be clear enough that you could read them to a class of MBA students and they would understand why you wrote your paper and what one learns from it. In the main body of the paper, you should strive to explain things simply and use technical language only when it is necessary.

• Try to get input from colleagues before submitting a paper. They may help you in polishing your paper, correcting mistakes, and eliminating sources of confusion. Submitting a first draft is never a good idea. Most of the leaders of our profession polish and repolish their papers before submitting them -- at least one of them makes it a rule to not submit the first five drafts of a paper.

• Never look at a paper as a line in a resume. A paper should advance our field. If you do not look at your paper that way, why should the referee? If the referee does not look at your paper that way, why should he or she recommend publication?

20

Stultz Continued:I just received a referee's report. The referee is an idiot. What should I do? • Set the referee's report aside for a couple of days. Most likely, after having thought about

the referee's comments, you will conclude that at least some of his or her points should be taken seriously.

• If the referee has indeed misunderstood your work, you have to ask yourself why he or she did so. Was the paper poorly written? Were your thoughts unclear?

• If the referee thought your contribution to be small, is it because you failed to describe it properly? Is it because you misunderstood what you had done?

21

Examples of Referee Comments*

Source: Bradbury (2012), “Why you don’t get published: an editor’s view”, Accounting & Finance, To Appear.

22

Examples of Referee Comments*

23

Examples of Referee Comments*

24

Examples of Referee Comments*

25

Examples of Referee Comments*

26