Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Publishing for students and faculty


Published on

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.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Publishing for students and faculty

  1. 1. Publishing for Students and Faculty Clay Spinuzzi Department of Rhetoric and Writing
  2. 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. 3. The Publishing Process
  4. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.