Writing to Publish

Navigating the Academic Journal Review Process

The Process

• Work with a mentor.

• Pick a journal.– Only one– Fit: general interest vs. subfield speciality– Aim high?

• Online submission.

• Waiting– When to contact editor

• Next stage: rejection; R&R; acceptance

• Rejection most likely outcome. What to do?– Learn from your reviews.– How quickly send out to another journal?– How deeply to revise?

Title and Abstract

• Title: Get Big– Pick the most expansive title that hasn’t already

been taken.

• Abstract: Get Small– Here, you need to identify exactly what you do,

what you show, etc. No frills, all business.

Your Introduction

• Shape expectations. – This starts from word one.– Figures into not just what you say, but how you say it.

• Highlight your contribution.– Importance of discovery.– The stakes in play.

• Be wary of the motivating example.

• End with road map: “This paper proceeds as follows.”

• Keep it short: ~2 pages; short declarative sentences.

Your Literature Review

• Synthesize literatures, do not summarize articles.– Define literatures, even when participants may not conceive of

being a part of one.– Ok to structure discussion either conceptually or temporally.

• Underscore limitations, problems, failings of existing literatures.– But be generous. These are likely to be your reviewers.

• By the end of lit review, the author should be primed to see exactly what you have to offer.

Theory

• Should always be a part of the paper, but…

• You do not need to create altogether new theory.– A purely empirical paper might shed light on

something that is at stake theoreticallly.

Appendices• are your friends…

• Various types:– Main appendix– Online appendix– For reviewers only

• Purpose #1: Fortification against potential objections• Purpose #2: Long, boring explanations of data collection

protocols.• Purpose #3: Signaling the seriousness of purpose under which

you have engaged your project.

Rejection: Moving Forward

• Deal with it. – Let it sit for at least 3-4 days before doing anything.– Go for a run.

• What to do?– Argument for the quick turnaround. (rare)– Distinguishing between universal and local complaints.

• Address former, not latter. (exception is citations)

• Where to send next?

R&R: Memo to Reviewers

• How to structure.– One reviewer at a time.– One issue at a time.

• Be maximally responsive, but not maximally obsequious. – Here, you must address both universal and local complaints.

• Learn from the reviews.– But the trick is to learn the right lesson…

• How to deal with bone-headed suggestions:– Recognize lack of clarity in writing, and thank them for

underscoring the importance of the issue

General and Assorted Suggestions

• Deal with rejection.• Grab your reader by the ears.– With tables and prose.– Read Thomas and Turner: Clear and Simple as the

Truth• Read the journals you intend to publish in.– and cite relevant articles therein!