This document provides a six step guide to publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals, based on the author's experience as an editor. The six steps are: 1) determining where to start the publishing process, 2) choosing an appropriate journal, 3) following academic style and format guidelines, 4) understanding the peer review process, 5) common reasons for rejection, and 6) dealing with rejection and criticism. The author notes that rejection is part of the academic process and should not be taken personally, and emphasizes developing academic writing skills over time through practice, feedback, and mentoring others.

1. Writing for
publication in
peer-reviewed
academic
journals
Using the Journal “Interactive Learning
Environments” and personal
experience as an illustration
Dr Sue Greener
Editor, Interactive Learning
Environments

2. And a few notes on
each step from my
own experience
Six steps to publication
1. Where do I start?
2. Choosing a journal
3. Academic style and format
4. The peer review process
5. Most common reasons for rejection
6. Life after rejection – dealing with criticism and changes

3. Step 1
1. Where do I start?
 Why do I want to publish?
 Career – funding requirement – knowledge contribution
– key message/target audience – co-writers
 What do I want to publish?
 Practitioner article – research report – evaluative case
study – qualitative study – experimental or quasi-
experimental study – opinion piece – book review –
systematic literature review – conceptual paper – whole
or part study
 So where should it appear?
 Professional magazine – book - book chapter – thesis -
conference paper - seminar for colleagues – blog - book
review for journal - academic journal

4. Personal notes
Chapter 1: where did I start?
 The first idea was a lunchtime
discussion with colleagues
about a mutual interest in
learning technologies
 We started a research group
and began to present seminars
to colleagues, developing our
ideas through feedback
 We also researched the
literature around staff
adoption of technology in
Higher Education
 At the same time I began to
study part-time for a doctorate
in Education, which began to
offer me opportunities for
publication

5. Step 2
Choosing a journal
 Research the journals in your field  Is Impact Factor important to you?
 Which were most relevant to your  No. citations received in year x to articles
thesis or research? published in years x-1 and x-2
articles published in years x-1 and x-2
 Use your library and read a range of
journals  Some journals use a 5 year rather
than a 2 year Impact Factor but the
 Use Google Scholar to search for
keywords in your research and find out same principle applies
which journals publish around them  Thomson Reuters Citation index most
 Check the journal’s aim and scope – commonly used
don’t make it fit, choose the best fit
 If you have already written most of
your paper, consider journals you have  Must it be international?
already cited  Must it be “open access”?
 Talk to supervisors and colleagues, go  Does the editor accept abstracts for
to journal websites and download free comment?
issues
 Does your chosen journal have a
favoured methodology or research
approach?
 Consider a shortlist and keep it in case
your first choice doesn’t like the paper

6. Personal notes
Chapter 2: how did I choose
journals?
 I started with journals I knew which
published in my field – because I was
citing articles from them
 But how to find the best ones? I asked
about Impact Factors and used
Thomson Reuters Citation Index for this.
But it’s hard to work out what kind of
factor matters. And not all journals
have Impact Factors as they are not in
the relevant databases.
 My colleagues could recommend
business journals but my research was
in education, so it was mainly
searching for articles relevant to my
field and following up the journals they
appeared in online to check aims and
scope. I read a lot of sample papers
before choosing
 Calls for papers are often tempting
but they will rarely be offering exactly
the right journal or Special issue for
your paper or research, so be cautious
– it’s better to find them yourself

7. Step 3
Academic style and format
 Critical friend? – getting the tone right – authoritative but clear
 Only one journal can publish your paper
 Author guidelines – ignore at your peril!
 Font, headings, spacing, margins, keywords, but most of all length
 Does your article cite something from the chosen journal?
 Is your title clear? Conference paper titles can be humorous
and catchy but in a journal this must give the right information
to capture attention
 Your abstract is a shop-window for online search
 Reference style
 APA, Harvard or a variation – citation software can help
 Try not to self-reference unless necessary
 Grammar and spelling – use a native speaker or proof-editing
service
 Electronic submission?
 Anonymised version – title page – separate figures/tables – author
biographical notes
 Copyright or authority permissions – CrossCheck software may
be used to detect plagiarism including self-plagiarism

8. Personal notes
Chapter 3: developing academic
style and formatting
 I really thought I could write
…until I submitted my thesis!
 Be prepared for the whole world
to be your sub-editor
 My background was in
management and my style
business-like – I tried to become
more “academic” – that’s a
mistake. Always aim for simple
words and clear and short
sentences.
 If you develop a conference
paper and then have to prepare
it for journal submission, there will
be a lot of changes – in tone, in
anecdote, in evidenced
argument, in updating
references, and of course
changing the formats as
required.

9. Step 4
The peer-review process
 This is the prize – what all the  If the decision is minor
work is for, a mark of quality, changes, this needs to be re-
being accepted by your peers submitted, the editorial team
 They often won’t agree with will check you did what you
you were asked, if not, it may
 The process will take a long come back again.
time – several months is normal  If major changes required,
 Some journals do an initial papers can be returned three
editorial review, you resubmit or four times over months,
with any suggested even a couple of years
amendments, and only then  Only when they are happy will
do they send out to blind the editor send to production
peer-review by the publisher.
 Reviewers may need to be  Then it depends on publishing
chased several times policy – it may go straight
 Reviewers may disagree so online and freely accessible,
additional reviews are sought, or online available on
or the editorial team makes a subscription and/or into print.
further review  Print copies will be stacked
 Only then do you get a ahead and it can take a year
decision. or more for the paper to come
out in a printed journal.

10. Personal notes
Chapter 4: peer-review
 I now review regularly not just for my own
journal but also for four or five others
 I have learnt to use this as a great way to
keep up to date as well as improving my
skills of academic writing
 Sometimes being a regular reviewer helps
your credibility within your own institution,
and your career
 It is easiest to start by offering your services
to a journal you regularly read, or
volunteering to join an academic
conference committee/review panel
 Most journals now offer a template on
which to base your review, or at least
some clear questions to answer – how
does the paper relate to the journal, does
the abstract really describe the paper. Is
the author in touch with current literature
in the field, is there evidence of rigorous
research methodology, is there an original
or creative contribution to the field?

11. Step 5
Most common reasons for
rejection
 Not relevant to journal  Poor theoretical or
readership or scope conceptual framework
 Wrong style – journalistic or  Doesn’t follow academic
too detailed/complex for conventions
readership, or too  usually background
parochial for international /introduction, research
readership question/aim/hypothesis,
literature review,
 Does not follow author methodology, findings,
guidelines: discussion, conclusions,
 On length, inclusion of limitations and further
figures, document format research
 Poor style, grammar,  Untidy or badly presented
punctuation, English usage  Libellous or in other ways
 Fails to offer anything new, unethical
or fails to evidence claims
Based on Author guidelines from Taylor & Francis

12. Personal notes
Chapter 5: rejection from an
editor’s perspective
 Rejection is never an aim – we try
hard to find reasons to improve a
paper – most authors spend a great
deal of their time preparing these
papers, so nothing is rejected lightly
 However, in my team, we believe
that rejecting after initial editorial
review makes more sense than
offering false hope
 I reject about 75% of new
manuscripts and still find enough
papers to send to review and fill 6
issues a year. For good journals, a
70% rejection rate is normal, the
best reject 90-95%
 And it is very rare for me to reject
without some constructive advice –
either on choosing another journal,
or ways in which the author can
improve their chances next time

13. Step 6
Life after rejection, dealing
with criticism and changes
 Remember why you decided to publish?
 Original contributions to knowledge have to prove
themselves against their peers
 If others have differing views, that is part of being a
member of an academic community – your thesis must
be defended, so must your article
 Usually there will be advice in the rejection
 Other relevant journals, style improvements, more
literature to review, methodology to improve, or building
a stronger argument
 Never take criticism personally – wait a while to calm
down, then decide on next action
 It will rarely help to rebut criticisms after rejection. Though
you can do this if you feel strongly about major or minor
revisions
 It may be in your interest to try another journal or two
before substantially re-writing your paper

14. Personal notes
Chapter 6: life after rejection
 My very first submission was rejected – I  Between those two events, I have
learned a lot. I sulked for a while and it presented at 25 conferences (most
took me 2 years to get up the courage to international), written 5 working papers
resubmit to another journal. Preparing and for my university, reviewed for 5
delivering research seminars, and support journals and 7 annual conferences
from other academics in research groups through membership of their scientific
helped to rebuild my confidence. or programme committees, written
 The second time I aimed lower and found book chapters, e-books, book reviews,
a journal which really seemed suited editorials, edited conference
 I read the author guidelines carefully and proceedings and most importantly
updated my literature review, rewriting have mentored and supervised other
some of the paper staff and students to publication.
 Since then, I have continued to be asked  There’s nothing special about this –
to revise papers for publication but now I you can do it too if you stay
really value that feedback; if a journal determined to get your message
doesn’t want a paper, I look quickly for across to the right audiences.
another which might suit better and I  Sue on her research journey
never take it personally – that was a waste
of my time and reflected more on my
choice of journal than my paper. This video can be
 My first peer-reviewed journal article was found at
http://bit.ly/131RbX
published in 2008 – the same year as my V
thesis. 4 years later I was invited to edit a My publications
peer-reviewed journal and make those can be found at
http://bit.ly/XnYJUH
decisions myself.

15. Questions?
Writing for
publication in
Now? peer-reviewed
academic
journals
Later –
S.L.Greener@
Using the Journal “Interactive Learning
brighton.ac.uk Environments” and personal
experience as an illustration
Dr Sue Greener
Editor, Interactive Learning
Environments