This document provides guidance for researchers on how to build a strong research profile and publish academic work. It discusses strategies for getting citations, such as maintaining an online research profile, joining academic networks, having an active research blog, and publishing books in addition to articles. The document also offers tips for getting work published, such as understanding what peer reviewers look for in terms of well-constructed arguments, clear writing, and balanced evidence. Researchers are advised to focus on quality over quantity and demonstrate the practical impact and relevance of their work.

1. RESEARCH IS AS
RESEARCH DOES.
Dr Koshy AV, Asst. Professor, English Department, Jazan University

2. GK
• Which are the top five universities in the world for language, literature and
linguistics?
• 1. Stanford University
• 2. Cambridge University
• 3. Oxford University
• 4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• 5. Harvard University.

3. GK
• According to which index?
• Times Higher Education Index September 1, 2019
• Why are they the best?
• A. Teaching ratings
• B. Research ratings
• C. Citations ratings
• D. Industrial income ratings
• E. International Outlook ratings

4. RESEARCH INDEXES: SCOPUS
• Scopus https://www.scopus.com/home.uri
• Description
• Scopus is Elsevier’s abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly
36,377 titles from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed
journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health
sciences. Wikipedia
• Temporal coverage: 2004–present
• Cost: Subscription
• No. of records: 69 million
• Providers: Elsevier
• Disciplines: Life Sciences; Social Sciences; Physical Sciences; Health Sciences. We come
under Social Sciences.

5. OTHER FAMOUS INDEXES:ISI, ICI,
DOAJ, SAGE
• https://isindexing.com/isi/index.php
• https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/
• https://doaj.org/
• https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/home

6. BUILDING YOUR RESEARCH
• 1. Have a website and research profiles and upload some – not all - of your research on it.
• “https://ampatkoshyalumnus.academia.edu/”
• https://jazanu.academia.edu/AmpatKoshyAlumnus
Five citations discovered this way. There may be more – they have given me a full list of all
citations with the name Koshy in it but as there are too many I have had no time to go through
them all to discover if there are more or not.
• 2. Join sites like academia.edu (above), google scholar and Researchgate to get readers and
citations.
• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ampat_Koshy
• https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wqwcxgMAAAAJ&hl=en
• Two citations on google scholar.

7. HAVE BOOKS, & NOT JUST
RESEARCH ARTICLES
• https://www.iim-edu.org/advisors/medjones/gross-national-wellbeing-happiness-
gnh-gnw-index.htm Citation of Wake Up, India! Essays for our Times, main co-
author Book in IIM reading list. He cites me.
• https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?searchCode=LCCN&searchArg=2015358759&
searchType=1&permalink=y Mahesh Dattani: Staging the Invisibles – editor and co-
author (Book in US Library of Congress)
• https://catalog.princeton.edu/catalog/7995397 (Beckett’s English Poetry:
Transcending the Roots of Resistance in Language, author)

8. HAVE A RESEARCH BASED COLUMN ON
YOUR BLOG OR ELSEWHERE
• https://learningandcreativity.com/ampatkoshy/ (Top SEO ratings for some of the
articles)
• https://koshyav.blogspot.com/ (26000 reads)

9. HOW TO GET PUBLISHED.
• 1. Build your reputation by having many publications, getting published wherever
and whenever you can, being prolific, writing books, essays, articles and papers, and
lodge many in reputed journals, but also thrive by having readers and feedback,
finding out who, how many, why they read you and how your work is useful to
them.
• 2. What is vital is to know who is reading you, how many people and why. This helps
you to tailor your content for practical use.
• Be a mentor or guide but avoid writing students’ guides, stick to academic writing.
Correct theses.

10. THE WORKSHOP
• You have a paper ready. You find a journal to send it to. The paper will be reviewed by two
experts. A double blind peer review is the usual procedure.
• Please gather into groups and make a document as to what these expert peer reviewers are
looking for in your paper to see that it is not rejected. Please understand that the editor or
editors and these two reviewers are the key to your paper’s acceptance and it is vital for you
to know what they require. I will divide you into groups and you can produce a list of things
that you think will make the paper accepted. Please try to go beyond things like what a
student would say like saying an abstract is needed, but try to point out what in the abstract
would make it stand out? Make a list, for which I will divide you into groups. At the end of
the session you can appoint a leader from your group and he or she will tell us your
conclusions and thus all groups will learn from each other. Then we will conclude the section
by me telling you some of the things peer reviewers look for.
•

11. WHAT YOUR PAPER SHOULD
CONTAIN
• “What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other
published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do
they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do
they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case
credible?
• (If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid
understanding or are they superfluous?)”

12. THINGS TO LOOK FOR
• Editors say, "Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome."
•
Examples of possibly major flaws include:
•
Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own qualitative evidence. (Example: Can post
colonialism apply neatly to a Saudi Arabian text?)
• The use of a discredited method.(Some aspects of stylistics like numerical machine analysis may not actually
be valid in deducing conclusions. Example: A writer’s most used word may be “and” but it can be difficult to
give this a semiotic or semantic reading of depth)
• Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study. (Ignoring a process as it
is common as an approach cannot be done as one has to build on it and at least mention it in literature
review etc. We cannot refer to “Hard Times” for instance without mentioning Marxism, socialism, Fabian and
otherwise and communism as well as capitalism, although from there we may move on to something like
“accelerationism,” as new and worth looking at.)
•

13. EDITING YOURSELF
• As you're reading through the manuscript you'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content.
•
With regard to the argument’s construction, you should identify:
•
Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous
• Any factual errors
• Any invalid arguments
•
You may also wish to consider:
•
Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Is the paper an appropriate length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

14. • “1. The Introduction
•
A well-written introduction:
•
Sets out the argument
• Summarizes recent research related to the topic
• Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
• Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for
investigations in the topic area
• Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and
novelty and topicality of the manuscript.”

15. THE INTRODUCTION
• Aims
•
It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point
you should already have a good impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a
surprise, then the introduction needs improvement.

16. DISCUSSION, RESULTS AND
CONCLUSION
• Results and Discussion
•
This section should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?
•
Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author:
• Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider
understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research
• The outcome should be a critical analysis.
•
Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should describe
and discuss the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and
suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.
•
4. Conclusions
•
This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a
separate section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the aims,
should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.

17. CONCLUSION
• . List of References
•
You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance.
•
Accuracy
•
Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference - and bear in mind different subject areas may use citations
differently. Otherwise, it's the editor’s role to exhaustively check the reference section for accuracy and format.
•
Adequacy
•
You should consider if the referencing is adequate:
•
Are important parts of the argument poorly supported?
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
• If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should be improved - but don't be guided solely by quantity
• References should be relevant, recent and readily retrievable
•

18. CONCLUSION - 2
• Balance
•
Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:
•
Helpful to the reader
• Fair to competing authors
• Not over-reliant on self-citation
• Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the work under
assessment
•
You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced
referencing without looking up every reference.

19. SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION
• Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
•
After the detailed read-through, you will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and key words are optimized
for search purposes. In order to be effective, good SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.
•
A clear title and abstract will improve the paper's search engine rankings and will influence whether the user finds and then
decides to navigate to the main article. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. This has a major effect on
the impact of a paper, since it helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract can then lose the reader's interest and undo
the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may go no
further.
•
So ask yourself, while the abstract may have seemed adequate during earlier checks, does it:
•
Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
• Highlight important findings sufficiently?
• Present the most interesting data?
•
Editors say, "Does the Abstract highlight the important findings of the study?"

20. HOW TO BE A PEER REVIEWER
• 1. Respond Promptly to Invitations
•
When you receive an invitation to review, the article’s abstract will help you decide whether it’s within your area of interest and expertise. Remember to respond promptly or else you
might delay the process.
•
2. Show Integrity
•
Keep the contents of any manuscripts you’re reviewing confidential. You would expect the same of others reviewing your own work. What’s more, if you’ve submitted similar research of
your own, or if you’ve reviewed the article for a different journal, let the editor know there’s a conflict of interest. Agreeing to a review for personal gain is not the done thing.
•
3. Stay Within Scope
•
When commenting, make sure your remarks stay within the scope of the paper and don’t veer off subject. If you’re unclear of the scope, editorial policy, presentation and submission
requirements, speak to the editor or read the Author Guidelines.
•
4. Be Constructive
•
Your review should ultimately help the author improve the paper. So make sure you offer some constructive feedback, even if your recommendation ends up being to reject.
•
5.
10. Give Credit Where It’s Due
•
If a paper you’re reviewing is really good and an excellent addition to the existing literature, don’t be afraid to say so.

21. HOW TO BE A PEER REVIEWER -2
• Allocate Enough Time
•
Carefully analyzing and commenting on a manuscript can take a good chunk of time. Make sure you have enough time available when taking on a review.
•
6. Be Consistent
•
Structure your comments by numbering them. It makes the editor’s life a lot easier. You can also divide them into major and minor issues to help authors prioritize corrections. Keep
comments to authors separate from the confidential ones to editors. But make sure your comments to authors correspond to your assessment on the confidential review and checklists.
•
7. Focus on the Research
•
If you’re reviewing a paper that’s in English but wasn’t written by a native speaker, it’s good to be tolerant and point out elements that change the meaning, rather than commenting on
the quality of their English.
•
8. Look at the Conclusion First
•
The conclusion will give you a good idea whether the research is an exciting development within its own field.
•
9. Check Robustness of Facts
•
Editors find it useful if you comment on the number of replicates, controls and statistical analyses. Strong statistics are crucial to determining whether the outcome is robust.

22. SOME THRUST AREAS IN
LITERATURE
• FROM HARVARD
• DEGREES OFFERED
• Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
• Areas of Study
• Medieval
Renaissance/Early Modern
18th Century/Enlightenment
19th Century British/Romantics/Victorian
Early American (to 1900)
20th Century British
20th Century American
Criticism and Theory
The English Language
Transnational Anglophone/Postcolonial
African American Literature
Drama
Poetry

23. • From Harvard Comp Lit Department.
• Our students are encouraged to complement seminars in comparative literature
with courses in other literature and area studies departments (with which most of
our faculty hold joint appointments), including African and African American
Studies, the Classics, East Asian Languages and Civilizations, English, Germanic
Languages and Literatures, History, Near Eastern Languages and
Civilizations, Romance Languages and Literatures, Slavic Languages and
Literatures, and South Asian Studies. Many of our students also engage in
interdisciplinary work, taking courses and often earning qualification in secondary
fields such as Film and Visual Studies, Medieval Studies, Music, and Studies of
Women, Gender, and Sexuality.

24. MIT, STANFORD, CAMBRIDGE,
OXFORD
• https://www.english.cam.ac.uk/research/
• https://www.english.ox.ac.uk/our-research
• https://www.stanford.edu/list/research/
• https://lit.mit.edu/major-in-literature/

25. RESEARCH LIMITS AS STRENGTHS IN
WRITING A PAPER.
• Limit to one or two authors.
• Limit to one or two theories.
• Limit to one or two texts.
• Limit to one or two critics.
• Make sure you offer insight and foresight.
• Make sure your topic offers something original in the conclusion.
• Tie everything up well (structure) and make it easy to read but not too simple.
• In other words, know your work well and stick to its strengths and play according to
them, instead of trying to be in any way a show off.

26. REFERENCES:
• https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings
• https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers (Primary source.)
• https://egs.edu/ (For further research)
• THE END. THANKS TO EVERYONE.