Download to read offline
Uploaded byClay Spinuzzi
Publishing for students and faculty
The document outlines the publishing process for students and faculty, highlighting key stages such as submission, review, and revision. It emphasizes the importance of understanding journal expectations, developing article sections effectively, and utilizing feedback loops to improve submissions. Additionally, it advises authors to manage multiple manuscripts and maintain a flexible approach to feedback in order to enhance their chances of publication.
Publishing for students and faculty
- 1. Publishing for Students and Faculty ClaySpinuzzi clay.spinuzzi@utexas.edu Department of Rhetoric and Writing
- 2. We’ll discuss... ◇ Thepublishing process (journals) ◇ Making good guesses ◇ Developing the sections of the article ◇ Interpreting feedback loops in the publishing process
- 3.
- 4. Submit manuscript Editor checks for fit, suitability (2-3 weeks) Reviewers writeblind 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 tosee 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 atprevious 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 "sowhat": 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) Feedbackincludes: 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) Nowyou 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.