The document provides an overview of publishing opportunities and strategies for academics. It discusses the myths around publishing, the value of publishing, and the main types of publishing venues. It covers the peer review process, what editors look for in submissions, and techniques for successful publishing, such as following journal guidelines, incorporating current literature, and addressing a gap in existing research. The document also offers advice on dealing with rejection, collaborating with others, and leveraging everyday opportunities to publish.

1. Publishing: Everything You
Need to Know but were too
Afraid to Ask
Associate Professor Martin Davies
Principal Fellow MGSE/Senior Learning Advisor
Federation University Australia
wmdavies@unimelb.edu.au

2. Outline
• What have you published
• Myths and misconceptions
• Why is publishing useful?
• The 12 main kinds of publishing opportunities
• Journals and Peer review
• What publishers look for
• How to publish and methods that work (for me)
• Using everyday opportunities for publishing
• Dealing with rejection 
• How to respond to editors and reviewers
• Book publishing
• Working with others
• Thing to watch out for! 
• Publishing in a particular Higher Ed journal (first hand
knowledge from a former Editor)

3. What have you published?
• Make a single mark on the category of
publication relevant to your experience
(board activity)
• E.g.,
– Review article (say) II
– Refereed Journal article (say) IIII

4. Myths and Misconceptions

5. Myths and misconceptions
• You can’t write for academic journals:
– until you have immersed yourself in all the
literature
– If you have not done any new (“cutting edge”)
research
• In fact:
– There is a great deal of different writing that is published, not
all of it based on new “research”
– If you wait until you find your place in the Literature you may
lose the desire to write anything!
– “Knowing All The Literature” is a long-term—indeed, never-
ending— prospect
– Publishing a paper helps to establish your place in the
literature
– “There is no such thing as an unexpressed thought”
R. Murray, (2005) Writing for Academic Journals.

6. Why Publish?

7. Why Publish things Anyway?
• Boost academic profile/Add to your CV
• Mark you out as different from other PhDs
• Get better/longer term jobs
• Promotion
• Grant applications
• Make yourself more employable in other universities
• Be more employable outside universities (e.g., public service,
journalism, commercial world)
• Develop skills in academic writing and analysis
• Be engaged in the debates in your profession
• Provide shoulders others can stand on
• Put your academic qualifications to use!
• Warm fuzzy feeling
• Add to the sum of human knowledge
There is no good reason not to! Don’t keep your writing on
your PC

8. The 12 Kinds of Publication (Activity)
1. Book notes/announcements (editor refereed)
2. Newsletters and newspaper articles (editor refereed)
3. Reviews (editor refereed)
4. Continuing commentaries/forums(editor refereed)
5. Conference papers
a. Refereed
b. Non-refereed
6. Journal articles (refereed, single blind or double blind)
7. Journal articles (editor refereed)
8. Chapters in books (solicited/commissioned and refereed)
9. Books
a. Scholarly (editor reviewed and refereed)
b. Textbooks (editor reviewed and refereed)
10. Other (poetry, self-publication, etc) “Vanity” publications
Can you put these in order of relative merit (prestige)?

9. Possible answer
1. Journal articles (refereed, single blind or double
blind)
2. Chapters in books (solicited/commissioned and
refereed)
3. Books (scholarly, both editor reviewed and
refereed)
4. Conference papers (refereed)
5. Journal articles (editor refereed)
6. Books (Textbook, both editor reviewed and
refereed)
7. Continuing commentaries/forums (editor refereed)
8. Conference papers (non-refereed)
9. Reviews (editor refereed)
10. Book notes/announcements (editor refereed)
11. Newsletters and newspaper articles (editor
refereed)
Worst
Best
“Relatively” Worthless

10. Some general things
• Publication is not a natural activity
• Success is not immediate
• Rejection is common (even among world-famous
academics)
• Persistence and doggedness is essential
• Some degree of arrogance/confidence is helpful
• Use successes (even small ones) to inspire you to
better publications
• Look at other peoples’ publications: you will notice
that some things are not really that
good/original/interesting/well-written.
• There is no reason you cannot have your work “out
there” as well, and you have to to become an
academic
• Publishing is a game: knowing the rules and
practice are key

11. Journal Publishers,
Procedures

12. Publishing Journal Articles: Editorial Office
Senior staff
• Editor-in-Chief
(Commissioning/Executive Editor)
– Direct policy decisions, future
directions
– May or may not be Managing Editor
as well
– Makes ‘final round’ decisions
• Consulting Editors/Editorial Advisory
Board
– Advise Editor-in-Chief
– Nominated based on scholarly output
by outgoing/incoming C Editors
– Adjudicators in critical cases
– Help in special issues
• Managing Editor/Editor
– Oversee peer-review process,
editorial office
• Associate Editors/Consulting Editors
– Handles management of papers
through review process
– Decides in ‘first/second round’
• Special Issue Editor
– Handles Special Issue Production
• Review Editor
– Handles book reviews
Assisting staff
• Editorial Assistant
– Interact with AEs, Authors and
reviewers
– No decision-making power
– Checks manuscript for basic
compliance
• Technical Editor
– Copy-editing/typesetting
– Language polishing
• Production Editor
– Process accepted papers for
“production”
– Assemble issue
• Editorial [Review]Board/Reviewers
– Review manuscripts at request of
Associate Editors

13. What Managing Editors do
• Manage peer review, pre-screen manuscripts
• Make final decision over manuscripts
• Invite authors for features/reviewer articles
• Organise, plan topical issues with Guest Editors/Consulting
Editors
• Promotes journal at conferences
• Communicate with Editorial Board
• Assemble issue (with Production Editor)
– Cover layout
– Editorial/Introduction
– Extra content (news, call for papers, meeting calendar, and
so on)
• The Editor need not be an expert in the field of your
research, and indeed, may be quite ignorant of it.
• The latter is important insofar as how you communicate with
him/her

14. What is Peer review?
• “Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted
to publishers by experts who are not part of the Editorial staff”.
International Committee of Medical Journals
Editors, Hames, p. 1
• “[Peer review] is the worst form of [research evaluation] except
all the other forms that have been tried from time to time”
Winston Churchill, 1947 (Paraphrased)
• Peer review is sometimes a brutal process, but it is the best way
we have to ensure quality
• Not all reviews are balanced or impartial
• Not all reviews are accurate and well-informed
• Not all reviews are useful to the author
BUT WITHOUT PEER REVIEW YOUR WORK HAS NOT PASSED
MUSTER

16. More Thoughts on peer review
• There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no
literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology
too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too
contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no
conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too
offensive for a paper to end up in print.
– Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association
• The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a
crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding.
Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We
portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make
science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer
review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often
insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.
– Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet
• There is some truth in this. Sokal Hoax
• However it is the best process we have.

17. Famous cases
• Did you know?
• Nature published some papers without peer review up until
1973.
• Many of the most influential texts in the history of science were
never put through the peer review process
– Isaac Newton’s 1687 Principia Mathematica
– Albert Einstein’s 1905 paper on relativity
– James Watson and Francis Crick’s 1953 Nature paper on the structure of
DNA.
• Black & Scholes 1973 paper on “the pricing of options and
corporate liabilities” was rejected many times in peer review.
http://theconversation.com/hate-the-peer-review-process-einstein-
did-too-27405

18. Freak Cases

19. Types of peer review
• Anonymous, “Blind”
– Most common (the reviewer knows the author’s name but not vice-
versa)
• “Double blind”
– The reviewer does not have the author’s name and vice-versa
• Open Peer review
– Identity of reviewers is transparent
– “Signed” reviews
• Post Publication review
– Review after publication in “letters to editor”, online blogs, Open peer
commentary (reviews solicited and published on an authors’ work along with
target paper).
• Peer review should help to: 1) filter out bad work 2) Identify work of
interest to readers 3) Ensure accuracy 4) Ensure interpretations are
reliable 5) improve quality of journal 6) improve quality of the authors’
work 6) lead to improved citation metrics for journal

20. Five kinds of peer reviewers
The spankers: “out to adminster
discipline over everything from
the aim to misplaced commas”
The young (and old) Turk: “Sees the
review as an opportunity to show
his/her own superiority”
The Self-abuser: “Feel they could have
written something better
themselves, given half a chance”
The Gusher: “Skip over the content and
only communicate the enjoyment
of reading it”
The good reviewer
Susan Swan, Nine ways of looking at a Critic, Globe and
Mail (1996)

21. How are referees chosen?
• Referee database (keywords, interest, history)
• Author suggestions
– “Big names” often too busy - lower ranked academics are
better
– Those who have gained authors’ respect (been cited)
• Associate Editor suggestions:
– Reviews are ranked for quality, this sorts out better
reviewers
– Academics who are “good citizens”
• Have published related papers
– Cited in related texts
• Editor’s Knowledge/experience

22. Writing for Publication

23. What Editors look for
• Not brilliance …. (fortunately!)
• A new angle that adds to knowledge
• Strong methodology
• Sound argument
• Something crisply and tightly written/readability
• Something that brings learning up to date in an area
• ****Something that taps into a current debate****
• Something actually or potentially controversial (“Novelty”)
[The “That’s interesting” factor] with implications
• Something that fits the journal’s scope and objectives
• Something of “importance”
• “Citability”
• Something that does all the above and meets their
specifications in terms of format and word limit

24. Analysis of 133 rejected articles (Emerald)
• Motivation/Background (not interesting/relevant to readers, etc)
• Design Issues (flawed/poorly planned research design, etc.)
• Statistical Issues (inappropriate statistical procedures, etc.)
• Results/Implications/Conclusions (insufficient/trivial
contributions, etc)
• Manuscript Preparation Issues (poor organization/poor
writing)

25. Good Book

26. Techniques for Writing for publication
• Make a plan (you need not stick to it) but a plan is better than nothing
at all
• Compete sections one at a time
• Revise and redraft at least twice
• Spend 2-5 hours per week writing
• Write in quiet conditions and in the same place
• Set goals and targets
• Invite colleagues and friends to comment on drafts
• Collaborate with longstanding colleagues/trusted friends
Hartley and Branthwaite (1989) in R. Murray, (2005) Writing for Academic Journals
• Some advocate a “snack” approach; others a “binge” approach
(Boice, 1987)
• Similarly others stress the importance of “low stakes writing” to
build writing skills (start with a book announcement)

27. Getting to know Journals
• Review the journals in your field and categorise them:
– Empirical
– Popular
– Professional
– Applied
– Multidisciplinary
– Electronic
– … etc
• Rank them in order of status
• Are there articles in some of these journals to which you could
refer in your paper? (You would need to make the links explicit)
• Browse the titles of the papers. How are these packaged? Can
you do the same for your paper? Descriptive, Functional,
Mixture?
• What kind of content: methodology foregrounded, review,
quantitative …?
R. Murray, (2005) Writing for Academic

28. Analyzing a Journal
• Instructions to authors
• Scope and aims
• Read titles and abstracts of several issues
• Skim and scan last few issues for topics and treatments. Which
topics appear most often? How are they treated?
• Can your paper be adapted to these topics/treatments? Can it fit
the journal agenda?
• Read abstracts for each paper of a targeted journal issue, note
the language use, how findings are expressed, use of tentative
language, and so on
• Do this for several papers in their entirety: work out how the
papers are constructed, and how that construction is
signaled in words
R. Murray, (2005) Writing for Academic Journals

29. How to publish … (1)
• Have a thesis! (as opposed to a topic)
• Review the literature and ‘fill a gap’ or tap into a
current debate
• Act on instinct (first impressions)
• Be original or have a novel angle [That’s interesting!]
• Choose a “warm” area of research (not “hot” or
“cold”)
• Be narrow in your focus (have one central idea)
• Present your paper to at least one audience or run it
past 2-3 readers for feedback
• Writing style should be clear and business-like
• The title chosen is important, as is the Abstract (for
citability)

30. How to publish … (2)
• Follow the instructions for authors exactly
• Incorporate current literature
• Research publications for a suitable ‘home’
• Ensure that your paper meets publishers’ guidelines
• Edit and proofread the paper carefully
• Don’t be depressed by rejections!
• Many of the better journals have a 5 percent
acceptance rate
• Rejection might be based on other factors
– Desire for editor to canvas new themes
– Previous attention given to your argument/theme
– Geographical representation of authors
– ‘Fashion’ of certain methodologies/approaches

31. How to publish … (3)
• Keep papers in circulation
• Make the effort to write on a daily basis!
• Use your available opportunities and maximise your chances:
– doctoral chapters (2-3 papers at least)
– Co-authored work with supervisors and/or colleagues (keep in
scholarly loops)
– Rejected papers from one journal can go towards a paper
elsewhere (journal shifting)
– Taking up your last idea and turning it into something else. Taking
up the same ground without repeating yourself exactly (recycling)
– Turning one study into many small publications (SPUs=smallest
publishable units, or “publon”)
– Take data from one project and turn into separate papers(“Salami
slicing”)
– The latter can dramatically increase your output
– More output = more opportunities to get your work read, more
potential alliances for other publications.

32. “Salami Slicing”
Study c)
Study a)
Study b)
DATA

33. Legitimate strategies
• “Publon”
• Recycling
• “Salami slicing”
P 1
POTENTIAL PUBLICATION X
DATA
P1 P2 P3
P 2

34. Different methods that work, for me!
• “Publon” (one long paper becomes 2-3
punchier papers)
• Recycling (Interdisciplinary Higher Ed
example/study skills example)
• Instant strong response/ “Gush” (surprisingly
successful!)
• “Kill two birds” (departmental reports to
papers)

35. What does it mean to be “Original”?
1. setting down a major piece of new information in writing for the
first time
2. continuing a previously original piece of work
3. providing a single original technique, observation or result in an
otherwise unoriginal but competent piece of research
4. presenting many original ideas, methods and interpretations all
performed by others but under teacher’s direction
5. showing originality in testing someone else’s idea
6. carrying out empirical work that has not been done before
7. making a synthesis that has not been made before (putting ideas
together that don’t normally belong together)
8. using already known material but with a new interpretation
9. trying out something in my country that has previously only been
done in other countries
10. taking a particular technique and applying it in a new area
11. bringing new evidence to bear on an old issue
12. being cross-disciplinary and using different methodologies
13. looking at areas that people in the discipline have not looked at
before
14. adding to knowledge in a way that has not previously been
done before

36. The Yes-No Strategy
Write down a thesis statement:
e.g., …. That the phonetic approach to language learning is crucial
for developing early linguistic competence.
Use a page with 4 columns marked:
– YES: writer completely agrees with thesis
– Yes BUT: writer has some agreements but mainly disagrees
– YES but: Writer mainly agrees but has minor disagreements
– NO: Writer completely disagrees
Think about where you stand and what you can offer.

37. Different ways to contribute
1. Write a comprehensive summary or meta-analysis of literature
about “P” (“round it up” method)
2. Literature says “P”; you argue “P” has insufficient evidence
(“ain’t necessarily so” method)
3. Literature says “P”; you argue “not P” (negative critique
method) **Note that this kind of approach is often rejected by
journals**
4. Literature says “P”. You argue that while “P” is true, lessons
can be learned by looking at “Q” (“alternative approach”
method)
5. Literature says “P”. You argue that while it seems true now
future developments might cast doubt on “P” (“Room for
doubt” method)
6. Literature says “P” or “Q”; you argue “P & Q” (false dichotomy
method)
7. Literature says “P” or “Q”; you argue “R” (“barking up wrong
tree”/positive critique method)
8. Literature says “P”; you argue “P” but for entirely different
reasons (“same thesis; different reason” method)

38. Using Everyday
Opportunities

39. Using your Everyday Opportunities
• Try to publish everything you write!
• Everything written has a home somewhere
• The home might just be a newspaper, e.g., the HES,
but that’s a publication and it gets your voice heard
– Meetings give rise to projects
– Departmental reporting to papers in journals
– Networks and associates/collaborations
– Student materials
– Teaching materials
• Relish the opportunities these present!!!

40. Avoiding Rejection

41. Typical reasons for rejection
• Written expression
• Careless errors
• Not following style guidelines
• Overlooking a theory or body of work
• Did not explain something
• Over-explaining
• No focus (miles wide and inches deep)
• Too abstract or too general
• Examples not given
• Stuff needs to be moved around
• Not novel/interesting
• Technical/Scientific issues
• Conclusions don’t support data
• Faulty methodology

42. New Writers’ Errors
• Writing too much about “the problem”
• Overstating the problem
• Claiming too much for their solution
• Overstating the critique of others’ work
• Not saying what they mean—losing focus
• Putting too many ideas into one paper
R. Murray, (2005) Writing for Academic Journals
To this one can add:
• Needlessly exposing oneself to criticism, making outright
contentious statements unsupported by evidence
• Lack of subtlety in expression
• Not making the “gap” clear

43. Why manuscripts are rejected
• Drawn from - Journal of Accounting Education – 1998 to 2004
• 1,300 submissions (estimated)
• 3,900 review hours (estimated)
• 75% rejection rate
• 2,925 hours on rejected manuscripts
• 73 work weeks on rejected manuscripts
• 1.41 work years on rejected manuscripts

44. Dealing with rejection
• Attitude: It’s the rule, not the exception
• There may be sound reasons/take it on the chin
• Reviewer comments may be “off the wall”
• Writing back does not work (I’ve tried it!)
– However, if novelty has been missed by reviewer/factual errors in referee
report, this should be brought to Editor’s attention
• Move on to the next journal asap
• Take comments on board (if helpful) and incorporate
into the next iteration of paper
• No paper should sit on your desk!

45. The seven stages of Resentment
1.Outrage, noise, unladylike/ungentlemanly
rejoinders
2.Incomprehension
3.More outrage
4.One or two of the comments might make
sense
5.There’s a bit of truth in that one
6.I’ll just have a go at doing what they said to
do here
7.Actually, the paper is a whole lot better for all
those revisions
Kate Chanock, ALL Forum:
http://forum.aall.org.au/viewtopic.php?t=285

46. Contradictory Reviewers
• Refereee A wrote:
“… the manuscript reads very much like a novel rather than a scientific
report.
As such the manuscript lacks a theoretical grounding in reading research
from
which specific hypotheses can be tested. No data is reported, from either
standardised or experimental tests, and there was no attempt to measure
objectively … Consequently, as this manuscript is purely subjective in
nature I
consider it to be totally unsuitable for publication in a prestigious scientific
journal such as the Journal of Research in XX.”
Referee B wrote:
“… ACCEPT – it’s a delightfully off-the-piste piece, beautifully written …,
and
the only effect of trying to insist on more or more scholarly … references
would be to take the bloom off it.”

47. Basic Structure of
Research Paper

48. Basic structure of a research paper
Introduction/literature review:
• Establish the general context.
– What is the paper about?
– What are the general principles, and what theoretical frameworks will you
be using to explore the topic?
– Situate in the broader literature, showing the author(s) have an
understanding of the existing work. Build credibility and connection points
with the reader.
• Why should someone read on? What is the relevance for them?
– How can your experience/research be generalised for others?
• Narrow the issue to the specific context of the research
reported. What exactly are you going to focus on, and why?
• Clearly identify the research questions/key issue of the paper.

49. Basic structure of a research paper
Methodology:
• Clearly identify the methodology, and justify any techniques or
tools used.
– Link to existing studies that have used similar approaches.
– Justify approaches: why is it appropriate to use it here?
– Explain where surveys or other tools were derived from, and why they can
be used in this context – and what assumptions are being made.
– Any new tools or surveys probably need validating.
– If observational data is used, how is this protected from bias?
– Explain how outcomes will be evaluated and contrasted with existing
literature.
– Any techniques used in the analysis will need to be explained, and usually
referenced.

50. Basic structure of a research paper
Data/Results.
• Present the data clearly, and with acknowledgement of any
limitations.
– Try to avoid selective use of data (i.e. using only data that fits the desired
outcomes).
• Use data processing techniques that the wider readership
will understand – or provide clear explanation as to what
they mean.
Discussion.
• Explain the significance of the data, by relating to the previously
mentioned literature and context.
– How does this complement, extend, or contest the existing knowledge
base?

51. Basic structure of a research paper
• Clearly identify the “important critical and/or analytical insight”
that the paper provides within the conclusion – without
introducing new data or arguments.
• Any acknowledgements about financial or academic
assistance should be detailed.
• References need to be meticulously checked and presented in
the required format.
– Have all cited paper been included in references?
– Do the details correspond between the citation and reference – author(s)
spelling, and date?
– Have all references been cited at some point in the paper?
– Is every reference complete: e.g. Journal volume, edition, and pages; URLs
with access dates etc.

52. Basic structure of a research paper
Title.
• Make it clear and direct, with important key words embedded.
– Many potential readers use simple search processes to find papers to
download, and clever cryptic titles are not picked up.
– Downloads are the lifeblood of journals, paying the bills and helping to
determine their ERA rank.
– Citations build impact factors for authors, and others don’t cite what they
don’t read.
• Keywords should be carefully considered.
– Make the search easy.

53. Basic structure of a research paper
Abstract.
• Must stand alone as a summary of the entire paper: all elements
of the paper are represented in order.
– No references in the abstract.
– Key outcomes are given.
• Usually the last thing written when constructing a journal article.
• It is often all a potential reader has to go on to decide if the
paper is worth downloading – assuming the title caught their
attention.....

54. Example
During the last two decades the higher education system in the UK
has
moved from an elite to a mass orientation, while academic careers
have become less secure and more demanding, and a greater
accountability has been imposed on the system. In the light of these
changes, it is appropriate to ask what is known about the nature of
academic
work. For the purposes of this article, academic work has been
conceptualised
as involving one or more of five overlapping roles: the commonplace
triumvirate
of teaching, research and managing, plus writing and networking. The
existing
literature on each of these roles, and on academic careers in general is
reviewed. At the time of writing, there was no single, comprehensive
text
available on academic work in the UK. While much has been written in
recent

55. Submitting a Paper

56. Submitting a Paper
• Investigate the most appropriate journal for your paper
• Most journals use electronic submission portals
• Authors are required to:
– Register
– Upload a “not for review” file (de-identified) and a “for review” file (identified)
– Select keywords
– Upload an Abstract
– Upload a cover letter to the Editor
• The cover letter should explain why your paper would be of
interest to the journal
• Persuade the editor informally as to the merits of what is
formally expressed in the paper itself.
• The cover letter could be the difference between having your
paper sent for review and rejection!

57. Options
• Acceptance (rare!)
– Without changes
– Subject to minor changes
• Rejection (common)
• Revision (“Revise and resubmit”)(fairly
rare—cause for celebration)
– Reconsideration possible after major
revisions

58. Accept with minor revisions
• The “accept subject to minor changes”
– Count your blessings/treat yourself
– Don’t make any other changes!
– Return to editor before the date specified

59. Revise and Resubmit
• Carefully consider referee
comments:
– Not all changes have to be
made but you need a
convincing reason why
• Prepare revision
– Highlight changes
– Point by point response in a
separate document to all
referee comments
– Say what changes were
made
– Why changes were not
made
– Need to convince Editor
and referees

60. The response to reviewers letter
• Begin with the positive comments about your paper
(sum them up briefly)
• Thank the reviewers for their incisive criticisms
• Number each reviewer comment separately.
– Cut and paste the comment/suggested correction/criticism
– Respond to comment
– Show precisely how you have dealt with the criticism in the
paper by cutting and pasting the relevant section.
• Editors may not have read your paper closely but
they will read the response to reviewers
document.
• The response to reviewers document may turn out to
be as long as the paper itself.

61. Response to reviewers’ comments:
In general both reviewers said that the paper to contain information “of interest” and
to be “helpful”. The editor has noted that the paper contains information “clearly …
of significant potential interest to our readership, presenting fresh evidence on the
topic which has been the focus of previous articles in the journal”. However, both
reviewers advised that the paper make structural revisions as well as content
changes. Please note that I thank both reviewers for their incisive criticisms and the
time they have taken to review the paper. The reviewer’s comments are in italics
and replies in bullet points and plain text.
Reviewer #1: In general, whilst I found some of the information and ideas of
interest, I found this paper somewhat confused as to its real purpose. The
introduction states that the paper will: Review the literature - but does not really do
this systematically; it might have been useful to categorise the literature as
research-based, conceptual or 'how to'.
I acknowledge this point and have changed the focus of the paper to being mainly
about problems and recommended solutions associated with groupwork, thereby
significantly limiting the aims and scope of the paper. “Review of the literature” does
promise more than

62. After Acceptance
• Production data checklist
– Text format
– Figure preparation
• Proofs
– CATS
– PDF
• Return proofs quickly
– Check copy editing
changes and ask
someone else as well
• Typesetting
• Language polishing
• Copy-editing
• Copyright transfer
• Online first publication
– Days after acceptance
– Assigned a DOI number
• Printed issue comes out much
later (sometimes 2 years later!)
• You can add “forthcoming” to
your CV pre-proofs, and “in
press” post-proofs

63. Book Publishing

64. Book publishing
• Very, very time consuming
• BUT: it can take as long—from inception to publication—to
publish a paper in a good journal!
• There is a virtue in spreading your talents amongst different
publication genres
• Send proposals first
• Work out the market niche
• There is a publisher out there for every book but the “pitch” is
essential
• Preparation (proposal) and post-contract work (obtaining
permissions, indexes, etc) can take as long as writing the book!
• Target the publisher as closely as you target a journal
• Avoid “vanity” publishers
• Don’t assume that edited books take less time than solo-
authoring a book, and don’t assume multi-authored books take
less time than solo-authored.

65. Working with others
Advantages
• Might increase your output
(as a co-author)
• Develop useful ongoing
research ties (“2 or more
heads are better …”)
• Further opportunities for
research projects/grants as
an outcome of the project.
Disadvantages
• Different writing “style”
• Different emphasis/priorities
• Endless miscommunication
• Often takes longer than
doing it yourself
• Co-authored never as good
as single authored
publications (unless it is a
well-known “name”)

66. Things to Watch Out For..
• Vanity Presses
– These are worthless. Self-publishing is academic death!
• “Vampire” Publishers
– They will target academics, often writing personally to them, mentioning
their published work, and inviting proposals for books, papers, chapters, etc
– Sometimes they have fancy academic-sound names, and produce slick,
impressive-looking books and journals
• Doctoral thesis publishers
– They sell mainly to libraries around the world at very high prices, and
promise keeping your work in press in perpetuity. This can be attractive in
some contexts.
– Often re-jigged doctoral work
– Examples: Edwin Mellen Press, IGI-Global Versita
– Beware: Go in with eyes open!
• Nigerian scams directed at academics
– Some impressive-sounding journals will target academics, mentioning your
previous published work, and inviting you to submit papers … for a fee!
• “Aspirational” Journals

67. Developing your Research
and Publication CV

68. Developing your Research and Publication
CV
 Overwhelming representation of conference papers (Why? Was the paper
shot down as nonsense? Indicates lack of follow-through)
 Lack of clarity between Refereed Conference papers, Non-Refereed
Conference papers and Conference presentations
 Narrow in terms of outlet (not good to publish in only one or two journals, even
if they are good. )
 Publications in the wrong field (if you are an expert in X this should pre-
dominate. This does not mean that you can’t spread your wings.)
 Short publications (e.g., less than 3000 words) (Giving page range is
becoming common.)
 Too many co-authored papers (Why? Too many looks like over-reliance)
 Too many co-authored papers in which you are the last-named author
 Dodgy publications
– In weird-sounding locations/journals: Antarctic Journal of Cosmopolonology
– Discussion papers, contributions to forums, commentaries, newsletters or
newspapers
 Listing works “in progress”, “in preparation” (This fools no one.)

69. Developing your Research and Publication
CV
– In Press: the manuscript is fully copyedited and out of the
author's hands. It is in the final stages of the production
process.
– Forthcoming: a completed manuscript has been accepted
by a press or journal.
– Under contract to . . .: a press and an author have signed a
contract for a book in progress, but the final manuscript has
not yet been submitted.
– Submitted or under consideration: the book or article has
been submitted to a press or journal, but there is as yet no
contract or agreement to publish.
 Listing anything other than “in press” or “forthcoming” for a paper looks
desperate! (Listing “in press” or “under contract” assumes a
contract/copyright waiver has been signed.)

70. Developing your Research and Publications
CV
 Write a lot, write often, choose from the best, edit, and send it
somewhere
 The best remedy for procrastination is not having a career!
 Don’t leave rejected manuscripts on your desk for longer than half a
day.
 Paper your walls with rejection slips, take from them what is useful, and
don’t agonize about the rest. No one remembers the failures, except
you.
 Submit really good papers to peer refereed journals, not conference
proceedings (unless they allow for later publication).
 Aim for at least two papers in good journals a year. Falling short of this
is not failure, but aiming lower than this is not productive.
 Expect that some years will result in more output then other years. This
is normal, and expected.
 If you get a sabbatical use this to enhance networking leading to
publications. This can often be a better use of time than writing new
material.
 Consider how to get multiple publications from the one idea: a journal

71. Developing your Research and Publications
CV
 Be a good academic citizen. This can lead to being an Associate
Editor, and eventually, an Editor/Special Issue Editor.
 Get involved in peer reviewing
• Familiar with topic?
• Time? (2-5 hours at least)
– If you can’t review:
• Tell Editor asap
• Suggest alternative reviewers
– If you can review:
• Submit on time
• Write comprehensive and well-argued review
• Keep paper confidential
• Don’t contact author
 Above all else, you need to get cited not merely read. This means a)
publishing good stuff and b) networking/hawking you material to get it read.

72. Networking for publication
• Join discipline-specific sites, email lists and forums.
• http://www.cestagi.com/ : CV template for academics
• http://www.academia.edu: Web-based Facebook-type site for
academics
• https://scholasticahq.com/: Networking and publication management
tool in which you earn points for contributions, can upload papers to
journals from here
• http://www.mendeley.com/: Collaboration and networking tool
• http://www.zotero.org/: Collection and sharing repository for scholarly
information and networking tool
• http://www.researchgate.net/ (mainly for scientists but not restricted)
• http://www.google.com/intl/en/scholar/citations.html Google Scholar
citations: automatically tracks where you are cited.
• Use Harzing’s Publish or Perish to determine your citation rankings.
• Get yourself an Endnote library of your publications sorted under
categories: use this to upload into a variety of platforms.
• Get your own personal website, an institutional one, various social
media sites, and link them together (personal ones can travel with you).

73. To Sum Up
• Publishing is a rewarding business BUT be
prepared for:
– Rejection (more often than not)
– Working extra hours/persistence and doggedness
(never giving up)
– The need to operate strategically
– To learn the rules of the game
• Good Luck 