1. Publishing in academic journals
Alistair R Anderson

2. My experience of publishing
First – no claims for any particular expertise
However been fortunate, now have some 80+ journal articles published in a range of journals (from just ok to very good; but almost all in business journals) but h23
I have also had a substantial number of rejections and only two papers ever accepted without revisions
( I have even had a reject from my own journal!)
Editorial experience-
editor of Entrepreneurship and Regional Development
Editorial board member of several journals
Ad hoc reviewer for many journals
So considerable experience of the publishing process

3. Plan for our session Why publish? The publication process
Discussion about reasons why and why not
The publication process
How the system operates
The publishing process
Is there any one “best” way to do it?

4. Why publish? I see two types of good reasons for publishing
‘Personal’ and ‘Institutional’
Good publications build your reputation
Obviously improves job and promotion prospects
Opportunity to put your efforts into public domain
But also opens many doors
Invitations to do interesting things
Collaborative projects
Funding opportunities
This is simply because people get to know who you are, and what you do, by reading your work
Paula called this your identity

5. ‘Institutional’ reasons to publish
Your institution’s reputation is enhanced
Attracts better students
Improves standing in academic community
Funding can be attracted
Enhances teaching, and of course
Academic duty to make new knowledge known!
So not just PhD but your career prospects

6. Why some people don’t publish
Benefits are often indirect and long term
(Interestingly some US and Canadian universities pay directly for publications)
It isn’t easy and takes a lot of effort
It takes a lot of time
Sometimes, even with effort and time, it doesn’t work
Many people are frightened of “failure” and don’t understand that a rejection is only part of the process
I will have much more to say about this point!

7. First thoughts We look at a paper in a journal and think
Wow that’s good, it’s a polished, thoughtful and well presented piece of work or
Gosh how did that get in there? It’s poorly written and seems trivial and doesn’t seem to say very much that’s significant!
We “forget” all that has gone before the publication
So thinking about the process may help to understand why some good stuff doesn’t get published and some poor stuff does

8. The publishing process
First write an INTERESTING paper (!!)
Send it to a journal editor
S/he looks at it and decides if it’s worth reviewing (sometimes R&R)
One, two or three reviewers read and comment and propose
Reject
Revise and resubmit
Accept

9. The publishing process
4. The editor collects and “collates” the reviews
5. Decides on next stage and advises authors
6. You, as author, then decide what to do
- Stage 2

10. The publishing process Stage 2 You have been advised - Reject
Most journal have a high rejection rate, the best reject over 90% of submissions
Organizational Studies received over 390 submissions last year and rejected 94%
My journal, over the last 6 months had a 95% reject rate, with about 55% desk rejected
However, one less prestigious journal I know eventually accepted some 45%
But, some journals probably have a 90% acceptance rate at certain times- but…..

11. So need to change target journal and/or improve/alter paper or
Actions- do not take it personally
It is the article that has been rejected not you
So need to change target journal and/or
improve/alter paper or
Aim for less prestigious publication?
Don’t just forget about it- think through the options
I know of one paper rejected but accepted with no changes for top ranked journal ( so editor’s tastes and requirements vary!)

12. Rejection in context On the basis of a 90+ % rejection rate
Crudely put, you need to submit 10 paper to get one accepted!
And have 9 rejected!!!
So- reject is the norm, acceptance is the exception

13. Types of papers and types of journals

14. Rejection is part of the process
All authors, no matter how famous have rejections!
Even if you get a straight reject, the editor should tell you why
Not suited for journal – (style or topic area)
TARGET TARGET TARGET
Insufficiently theoretical/practical
Brief outline of major “faults” of paper
Remember it is the article that is rejected not YOU

15. Rejection is part of the process
Often you get a rejection after review -unless you have targeted the wrong journal
So you now have at least two reviews and the editor’s comments
The reviewers will (usually) explain, in detail, why they rejected the paper
So you have now the basis for improving or changing the paper and submitting elsewhere

16. Rejection is part of the process
Remember that editors have a difficult job
Conflicting requirements-
All want high quality publications but
All have to fill the journal
They may need to try to keep both authors and reviewers sweet!
They may have a lot, or few, publications in the pipeline
So its the paper, and in this specific context, that has been rejected- not you, your methods or even your topic

17. Rejection is part of the process
Remember that editors have a difficult job
Conflicting requirements-
All want high quality publications but
All have to fill the journal
They may need to try to keep both authors and reviewers sweet!
They may have a lot, or few, publications in the pipeline
So its the paper, and in this specific context, that has been rejected- not you, your methods or even your topic

18. Revise and resubmit
This is good news, but does not mean any obligation to publish
You will have been given a chance to rework the paper along guidelines to improve the chance of publication
Some editors will advise you about chances of publication
I’d guess that about 30% are accepted for highly ranked journals and
About 70% for less well known journals

19. Revise and resubmit Read the editor’s and reviewers’ comments briefly
Put the paper aside for a week. You may feel that you hate them for “not understanding your work”; “not reading it properly” or simply being “ignorant”
But they are the gatekeepers and should know the job!
Some journals,e.g.JMS, never accept outright!
So now read what they have said very carefully!

20. Revise and resubmit
The editor should have “reviewed” the reviews and provided you with a synopsis of what needs to be done
The referees should have explained what they liked, what they didn’t like and explained why.
A good review will also make some clear suggestions about how the paper can be improved

21. Revise and resubmit
However, sometimes they don’t do their job very well (but the very best journals always do)
If the editor doesn’t give you “a steer”
Use the referee’s comments as a guide
If the referees give conflicting opinions
Select the points you like and work on these BUT prepare a convincing explanation of why and why not
Get to work! ( some journal have a tight time limit)
Some journals may have several cycles of r & r
So be prepared for that

22. Revise and resubmit
When you are satisfied that you have managed to address most points raised
Write a careful letter explaining in details what you have done, what you have changed and how you have responded to the various comments
You can challenge points raised, but avoid emotive responses, keep them reasoned

23. Revise and resubmit Before you send it off, (again)
Get some other opinions on-
The paper itself
does it still read well, is it consistent, logical and clearly presented
2. The revisions
- ideally someone familiar with your first version and the journal, get them to read the paper and your letter
INVITE CRITICISMS, BUT USE THEM REFLECTIVELY

24. Accept without changes
You are either very lucky or very good
so congratulations!
This does happen but not very often !

25. Accept without changes
You are either very lucky or very good
so congratulations!
This does happen but not very often !

26. Review Guide
Is the subject of the article within
the scope of the Journal?
xyxx
Is this a new and original contribution?
Does it refine, substantiate or clarify existing knowledge
of entrepreneurship?
Are the ideas soundly developed and
clearly presented?
Is the research methodology adequate?
Are the interpretations/conclusions sound and justified by data or other evidence?

27. Is the presentation, organisation and length satisfactory?
Is the paper well written, coherent
and logical?
Does the paper bridge the gap between
theory and practise?
Do you suggest any reductions in the
paper, or deletions of parts?
Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? all necessary?
Do you suggest any reductions in the
paper, or deletions of parts?
Are the illustrations and tables necessary
and acceptable?

28. Is the paper acceptable for publication
in its present form?
with minor revisions ?
after major revisions?
or unacceptable for publication

29. Reflecting on the process
The journals gatekeeper’s roles, duties and expectations?
The editor’s – good, well cited work
The reviewer’s- “peer” review, engagement?
Gatekeeper’s abilities and attitudes?
The reviewers’ – highly variable, seems to depend on motivation; journal status; own expertise; interest in topic ?

30. Reflecting on the process
What makes a good paper?
As author
As editor
As reader
Are these all commensurate, conflicting?

31. Finally When you come to referee submissions Think of the author
Think of the audience
Try to be “constructively critical”
The sandwich usually works

32. a good paper? Formal – Contribution to knowledge ( the so what test?)
Relevance?
Good research?
Insights?
Attractiveness to audience? What does this mean?
Informal- ? New topic; expansion of existing;

33. Thoughts? Collaborate or single author Which journal
With whom, how many, where?
Which journal
Target, first or last?
Quality and peer esteem, specialist or general?