Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
A Guide to Getting Published
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

A Guide to Getting Published


Published on

Presentation by Cristina Irving Turner, Transport Publisher …

Presentation by Cristina Irving Turner, Transport Publisher

Delivered at a TGRG event on 'Writing Transport Geography' hosted by the Institute for Transport Studies on 02/04/2014.

Published in: Education

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • If you understand why papers are often rejected, then you can try to avoid these pitfalls and improve your chances of getting to the review stage
  • The building blocks of your paper are….we will look at some of the key areas and how you can optimise and improve them
  • A good title should contain the fewest possible words that adequately describe the contents of a paper – leads onto the next slide on importance of keywordsExercise - provide an example of an long and complicated title and ask the audience to make suggestions for improvementEffective titlesIdentify the main issue of the paperBegin with the subject of the paperAre accurate, unambiguous, specific, and completeAre as short as possibleArticles with concisetitles are often better citedDo not contain rarely-used abbreviationsAttract readers
  • Don’t be too general, or you will be lost in a landslide of results, but avoid being too specific, as you want to use words that people will naturally think of
  • Important to establish we you are with regards to existing research in order to then explain what you are addingFigures, images and webpages all need referencing
  • If you have done empirical research, you need to state your methodology clearly and under a separate heading.
  • Examples:EfthymiosConstantinides, in "Influencing the online consumer's behaviour: the Web experience" (Internet Research, Vol. 14 No. 2), summarizes the main issues of web experience for the online consumer under the main headings which they found to be important in the literature, in such a way both researcher and practitioner can get a good idea of the main themes.In "Some moderating effects on the service quality-customer retention link" (ChaturaRanaweera and Andy Neely, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 2), the authors describe their results, and the statistical tests they ran, in sufficient detail to give several pages of discussion on their results.Clyde A. Warden et al., in "Service failures away from home: benefits in intercultural service encounters" (International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 14 No. 4), start their discussion of results by stating what they included in the analysis – only those service failures that were equally represented in both cultural settings. The statistical tests (ANOVA, Chi-square) are discussed in relation to how they impact on the study's overall objectives. The results are linked back to the hypotheses.James U. McNeal and F. Ji Mindy, in "Children's visual memory of packaging" (Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 3), present the results of their study summarized according to relevance to visual memory. There is also an extensive discussion section.
  • Make sure you highlight what is different about your research/results/findings – what stands out, or is unexpected?As Emerald's philosophy is based on the idea of research into practice, most journal editors and reviewers are particularly keen on a statement of implications for the practitioner. This statement, along with one describing the implications for further research, should be within the conclusion somewhere, either within a section heading "Conclusion" or "Discussion", or in a separate section. Obviously in some cases it may not be possible to make such statements, but all research papers should state implications for research, and most papers will have implications for practice.
  • Proofread and re-check at every stage – make sure you have full confidence in the accuracy of your research and how you are communicating with the reader
  • Transcript

    • 1. A Guide to Getting Published Cristina Irving Turner Transport Publisher @EmeraldTranspt
    • 2. Aim and overview Aim: To provide an insider’s guide to academic publishing; suggest some practical tips and highlight best practice for submission Overview: • About Emerald • Publishing process and peer review • Choosing a publication • Structuring your paper • Publication ethics • Dissemination and promotion
    • 3. About Emerald
    • 4. A brief introduction to Emerald Company history • Founded in 1967 in Bradford • Over 350 employees, with offices in China, India, Malaysia, Australia, Japan, Brazil, Dubai, USA • Three core audiences: Public Sector, Corporate, Academic • We publish 300+ journals, 240+ book series, 300 stand-alone texts • Predominantly a social sciences publisher with impact in education, engineering, health and social care and transport • Over 21 million Emerald articles were downloaded in 2013 – more than 50,000 a day! • Potential readership of 15 million
    • 5. Transport Geography and Emerald Subject areas of interest (journals): Operations, Logistics and Quality; Property Management and Built Environment; Marketing; Tourism and Hospitality and some in Business, Management and Strategy Recently published Transport Geography books: • Transport Survey Methods, Best Practice for Decision Making • Sustainable Aviation Futures • New Perspectives and Methods in Transport and Social Exclusion Research Co-sponsorship of TGRG Postgraduate Prize-Deadline 22nd August 2014 Some relevant calls for papers: • Knowledge Management in Transport • Low Cost Airlines: antecedents and consequences of pathological leanness • Future Cities and Urban Supply Chain Management
    • 6. The publishing process and surviving peer review
    • 7. The publishing process Review Cycle Submit a paper Basic requirements met? REJECT Assign reviewers Collect reviewers’ recommendations Make a decision Revise the paper [Reject] [Revision required] [Accept] [Yes] [No] Review and give recommendation START ACCEPT Author Editor Reviewer Michael Derntl Basics of Research Paper Writing and Publishing. The Editor(s) do an initial read to determine if the subject matter and research approach is appropriate for the journal (approx. 1 week) The Editor(s) identify and contact two reviewers (approx. 1 week) Reviewers usually have 6-8 weeks to complete their reviews The Editor(s) assess the reviewers' comments and recommendations and make a decision (approx. 2 weeks) Expected time from submission to review feedback: 3-3.5 months
    • 8. Surviving peer review Reasons for rejections • Not following instructions – author guidelines • Inappropriate to the journal scope • Problem with quality (inappropriate methodology, not reasonably rigorous) • Insufficient contribution to the field
    • 9. Surviving peer review “Many papers are rejected simply because they don’t fulfil journal requirements. They don’t even go into the review process.” • Identify a few possible target journals/series but be realistic • Follow the Author Guidelines – scope, type of paper, word length, references style, etc. • Find out where to send your paper (editor, online submission e.g. Scholar One). Check author guidelines which can be found in a copy of the journal/series or the publisher’s website • Send an outline or abstract and ask if this looks suitable and interesting (or how it could be made so) • Read at least one issue of the publication- join the journal conversation. You will be ‘desk rejected’ if you appear to be unaware of what has being said, or why you are submitting • Include a cover letter – opportunity to speak directly to the editor, convince them of the importance of your manuscript to the journal
    • 10. Surviving peer review Don’t be in the 16% who gave up Don’t give up! Everybody has been rejected at least once Ask and listen most editors give detailed comments about a rejected paper. Try to improve and re-submit. Do your homework and target your paper as closely as possible Rejection tips
    • 11. Surviving peer review A request for revision is good news! • You are now in the publishing cycle. • Nearly every published paper is revised at least once • Even if the comments are sharp or discouraging, they aren’t personal
    • 12. Surviving peer review Revision tips  Acknowledge the editor and set a revision deadline  If you disagree, explain why to the editor  Clarify understanding if in doubt  Consult with colleagues or co-authors  Meet the revision deadline  Attach a covering letter which identifies, point by point, how revision requests have been met (or if not, why not)
    • 13. Structuring your paper
    • 14. How to get started? What do I write about? • Have you completed a project that concluded successfully? • Are you wrestling with a problem with no clear solution? • Do you have an opinion or observation on a subject? • Have you given a presentation, briefing or conference paper? • Are you working on a Doctoral or Master’s thesis? • Do you have a new idea or initiative? If so, you have the basis for a publishable paper
    • 15. How to select the right journal? Choosing a journal to publish in is an investment decision. A good choice can enhance the impact of your work and your reputation • Factors to consider are relevant readership, recent articles, communicative, societies and internationality, likelihood of acceptance, circulation, time from submission to publication • What type of paper are you planning to write i.e. practice paper, research paper, case study, review, viewpoint? Check first what type of paper the journal accepts. • Be political (e.g. national vs. international) and strategic (e.g. five articles in ‘low ranked’ journals vs. one in ‘top ranked’ journal) • Do you have an open access mandate?
    • 16. How to get started? Co-authorship as a possibility • With colleagues or a supervisor, across departments, with someone from a different organization • Practitioner / researcher /service user teams • Especially useful for cross-disciplinary practice or research • Ensure the manuscript is checked and edited so that it reads as one voice • Exploit your individual strengths • Agree and clarify order of appearance of authors and the person taking on the role of corresponding author
    • 17. What makes a good paper? HINT: Editors and reviewers look for... • Originality – what’s new about subject, treatment or results? • Relevance to and extension of existing knowledge • Research methodology – are conclusions valid and objective? • Clarity, structure and quality of writing – does it communicate well? • Sound, logical progression of argument • Theoretical and practical implications (the ‘so what?’ factors!) • Recency and relevance of references • Internationality/Global focus • Adherence to the editorial scope and objectives of the journal • A good title, keywords and a well written abstract
    • 18. Structuring your paper Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Figures/tables (your data) Introduction Title & Abstract
    • 19. Structuring your paper: titles A good title should contain the fewest possible words that adequately describe the contents of a paper – leads onto the next slide on importance of keywords (A) A phrase that introduces the paper and catches the reader’s eye (B) Keywords that identify focus of the work (C) The "location" where those keywords will be explored
    • 20. Structuring your paper: abstracts • A structured abstract – in 250 words or less (no more than 100 in any one section) • Purpose – Reasons/aims of paper • Design – Methodology/’how it was done’/scope of study • Findings – Discussion/results • Research limitations/Implications (if applicable) – Exclusions/next steps • Practical implications (if applicable) – Applications to practice/’So what?’ • Social implications (if applicable) – Impact on society/policy • Originality/value – Who would benefit from this and what is new about it? Editors: are busy! The abstract is their first contact with your paper and can sometimes make a decision at that point whether or not it is suitable for their journal. Readers (online): The abstract is often all a reader will see until they download the article. Always ensure that you are clear, honest, concise and have covered all the major points
    • 21. Structuring your paper: keywords • Researchers search using key phrases. What would you search for? • Look at the keywords of articles relevant to your manuscript – do they give good results? • Be descriptive – topic, sub discipline, methodology and significant features • Jargon – keywords should reflect a collective understanding of the subject, not be overly niched or technical • Repeat appropriately – in the abstract and title for visibility
    • 22. Structuring your paper: introduction Convince readers that you know why your work is relevant and answer questions they might have: – What is the problem? – Are there any existing solutions? – Which one is the best? – What is its main limitation? – What do you hope to achieve?
    • 23. Structuring your paper: literature review • Quote from previous research • What are you adding? Make it clear • Use recent work to cite • Self citing – only when relevant • Any work that is not your own MUST be referenced • If you use your own previously published work, it MUST be referenced
    • 24. Structuring your paper: method • Indicate the main methods used • Demonstrate that the methodology was robust, and appropriate to the objectives. • Focus on telling the main story, stating the main stages of your research, the methods used, the influences that determined your approach, why you chose particular samples, etc. • Additional detail can be given in Appendices.
    • 25. Structuring your paper: results As with the methodology, focus on the essentials; the main facts and those with wider significance, rather than giving great detail on every statistic in your results. What are the really significant facts that emerge? These results will feed into your discussion of the significance of the findings.
    • 26. Structuring your paper: discussion • Consider: – Do you provide interpretation for each of your results presented? – Are your results consistent with what other investigators have reported? Or are there any differences? Why? – Are there any limitations? – Does the discussion logically lead to your conclusion? • Do not – Make statements that go beyond what the results can support – Suddenly introduce new terms or ideas
    • 27. Structuring your paper: conclusion • Present global and specific conclusions • Indicate uses and extensions • Answer the original question • Apply to theory and practice • State limitations • State implications for further research • Summarise the paper – the abstract is for this • Start a new topic/introduce new material • Make obvious statements • Contradict yourself
    • 28. Proof reading your work Look for: • Incorrect grammar, spelling and punctuation- don’t rely on a spellchecker • Flow, transition or sense problems • Unintended typographical errors • Accuracy of any mathematical or statistical content • Incomplete or inaccurate references • Ensure consistency over your manuscript • Know your own mistakes TOP TIP: Show your work to a non-specialist
    • 29. Publication ethics
    • 30. Publication ethics • Don’t submit to more than one journal at once • Don’t self-plagiarise • Clear permission to publish interviews/case studies • Seek agreement between authors • Disclose any conflict of interest • Authors and editors are supported by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
    • 31. Publication ethics • As the author, you need to ensure that you get permission to use content you have not created, to avoid delays, this should be done before you submit your work • Supply written confirmation from the copyright holder when submitting your manuscript • If permission cannot be cleared, we cannot republish that specific content More information including a permissions checklist and a permissions request form is available at: Copyright
    • 32. Dissemination and promotion
    • 33. Dissemination and promotion • Use online social networks to expand your reach- what’s used in your community? • Create a website or a blog- but keep it up-to-date • Contact those you’ve cited • Create a video abstract • Leverage your professional, corporate, and academic connections • Volunteer as a reviewer • Register for an ORCID • Make the most of your publisher’s PR campaign, work with them to develop relevant, successful marketing messages • Let your institutional press office know so they can spread the word – does your institution subscribe?
    • 34. Summary Write for us! For any answers you didn’t get today (or were too shy to ask) … @EmeraldTranspt 1. Understand the publishing process and how to survive peer review 2. How to choose a relevant publication 3. Structuring your paper to the best effect 4. An appreciation of publication ethics 5. Tips to disseminate and promote your work