How do students and faculty publish their academic work? In this presentation, I discuss the publishing process and how to use it to improve your chances of publishing.

1. Publishing for
Students and
Faculty
Clay Spinuzzi
clay.spinuzzi@utexas.edu
Department of Rhetoric
and Writing

2. We’ll discuss...
◇ The publishing process (journals)
◇ Making good guesses
◇ Developing the sections of the article
◇ Interpreting feedback loops in the publishing
process

3. The Publishing Process

4. Submit
manuscript
Editor
checks for
fit,
suitability
(2-3 weeks)
Reviewers
write blind
reviews
(2-3
months)
Editor
writes
decision
letter
(2-3 weeks)
Submit
revision
Reviewers
write blind
reviews
(2-3
months)
Editor
writes
decision
letter
(2-3 weeks)
Accept
Reject

5. Two ways to see
the publishing
process
◇ As a single high-stakes
test
◇ As multiple low-stakes
opportunities for
feedback
Hint: Lower the stakes.
◇ Have several (different)
manuscripts circulating.
◇ Track their progress.
◇ Send them out a little
rough. They are not
your "darlings."
Don't be a perfectionist.

6. Making good
guesses
Look at previous publications in this journal.
◇ What are they concerned about?
◇ What are their assumptions? (Theory,
methodology)
Look who they're citing. What is their common frame?
Look at authors' instructions (length, topic, citation
system, etc.)

7. Developing your
sections
The "so what": sync
expectations. Do they care?
The literature review: sync
frame; demonstrate that
you're talking about the
same people -- including
people who publish in the
journal.
The methodology: crucial for
empirical work: justify what
you've done via
methodological cites.
The implications: match to
the concerns of the journal.

8. Interpreting
feedback loops (1)
Feedback includes: editor's
remarks, reviews, potentially
other communications
Fit: Does it match the
journal's concerns? Does it
hook into the conversation?
Exigence: Are they interested
in your So What?
Soundness: Does it match
their ideas of theoretical &
methodological rigor?
Implications: Does it frame
these in ways that interest
them?
Idiosyncrasies: Is some
feedback out of left field?

9. Interpreting
feedback loops (2)
Now you don't have to guess about readership. Draw a
bead on the 3-5 individuals you need to convince.
◇ Revise, attending to every comment (except ones
the editor tells you to disregard). That doesn't
mean caving, but it does mean addressing
concerns.
◇ Write a letter to the editor detailing and explaining
your choices. Be evenhanded and cordial.
◇ But you can also exploit disagreements between
reviewers.
◇ Never let a reviewer get under your skin.