1. Publishing Academic Articles: a way through the maze
Ian White, Routledge and Dr Karen Smith, University of Greenwich
This presentation is called ‘Publishing in Academic Journals: tips to help you succeed’ but it could equally be called ‘How to get you through the journal peer review process.’ The aim of the presentation is to help you learn from the mistakes, we as publishers, have seen academics make in the past.
It is not really designed to teach you how to write a paper, but instead to offer you advice on presenting your paper in the best possible light, choosing the correct journal to send it to and then tailoring your article to your chosen journal. This will hopefully give your paper the best chance of success.
Towards the end of the presentation we will give you our ‘Top Ten reasons why papers get rejected and hopefully by the time we get there we will have told you how to avoid them.
Introduce each other and get the participants to introduce themselves – ask them to share their experiences of publishing higher education research (KS)

2. session overview We will cover:
the mechanics of getting published in journals
how to choose the right journal
working with other people; gaining and using their feedback
identifying the differences between writing for journals and other forms of writing with which you may be more familiar
KS to overview what will be covered

3. start of the publishing cycle
1. Idea
2. Choose Journal
3. Read back issues
4. Write first draft
5. Use critical friend
6. Refine further drafts
7. Check notes for contributors
8. Proof-read and submit
IW to talk through the process
To begin, let’s examine the journal publishing cycle. This is how academics generally work. They get an idea of what they want to write about. They then choose the journal they want to publish their article in. Hopefully they go and look at the journal in some detail before they actually write their article and look at past issues and papers. They produce a draft of their article then get a critical friend (not just someone who will tell you the paper is good regardless) to look at it and critique it. After this, the author will then write a further draft. They will check the notes for contributors for the journal and make sure they adhere to the individual journal’s submission guidelines. Then they submit it to the journal’s editor – but only after it is a finished piece of work.

4. what makes for a good idea for an article?
An interesting topic (to you and others)
Something new
Not been researched before
Not been researched before in that way (different methods and methodology; different context)
Extends / builds on previous work
A thesis chapter, dissertation or conference paper that has received good feedback from others
What are your ideas?
KS – overview of what makes for a good idea and ask them to share their ideas for an article – and where that idea has come from

5. choosing the right journal
Which higher education journals are you familiar with?
KS to lead a brainstorm on the journals they are familiar with

6. journals Discipline specific Themed General higher education
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education
Journal of Nursing Education
Law Teacher
Themed
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching
General higher education
Teaching in Higher Education
Studies in Higher Education
General education
British Journal of Sociology of Education
Research Papers in Education
KS to offer her brief overview of a selection
IW to share the Routledge list and give away the small flyers
Routledge list

7. how to choose? Ask other people See where the people you read publish
Read other articles in that publication
Track key issues/topics, and see where they are published
set up content alerts
use social media (twitter, linkedin)
Contact the editor
Look at the journal’s aims and scope (or calls for special editions)
Think about the audience
Consider the quality of the journal
IW to overview how you choose - could also draw on material in Routledge vimeo presentation
Adapted from Black et al (1998, pp.86-87)

8. what does an academic article look like?
In pairs, look at a few examples of higher education research articles. Consider the following questions:
Can you identify common structures in these articles?
How does these compare to the forms of writing you are more familiar with (research in other disciplines, essays, chapters)?
KS to set up the activity

9. the shape Most research papers look like this.
The introduction moves from a general discussion of your topic, to the more specific question or hypothesis you will investigate.
The discussion section becomes increasingly more generalised.
Introductory sections
General
Specific
Methods
Results
KS to talk through the structure
Specific
General
Discussion
From Swales & Feak (2007, p.222)

10. Purposes Introductory sections
Provides rationale for the paper – moves from general overview of the topic to the specifics of your question.
Method
Describes the methodology, materials (or subjects) and procedures.
Results
The findings are described, accompanied by commentary.
Discussion
Offers an increasingly generalised account of what has been found out in the study.
KS to overview what the parts look like
Adapted from Swales & Feak (2007, p )

11. what might publishers be looking for?
Educational Studies offers author guidance on what it expects from submissions in terms of:
General advice
Abstract
Introduction / literature review
Measures of assessment
Sampling
Data collection
Interpretation of findings
References
IW to highlight Educational Studies guidance
It is based on a model of empirical research – but it might offer a useful checklist: (instructions for authors)

12. article compared to other piece of learning and teaching writing
Focussed literature review / background stating a claim for the need for the study
Clear structure to argument
Concise overview of methodology
Discussion of findings in relation to existing knowledge / research
Accurately referenced
Bound by (often) tight word count
KS to discuss how the forms of writing differ – and ask them if they would add anything else

13. working with critical friend(s)
What is a critical friend?
Why might you need one?
Choosing the right one
In the same field?
Specialist
Generalist
Experienced writer
Proof reader
IW to highlight the importance of the critical friend – ask the participants the first two questions

14. refining your article
Check you’ve followed the authors’ instructions (word count, page layout, referencing, figures etc.) -
Thank you for submitting your manuscript, "International Students’ first encounters with exams in the UK: superficially similar but deeply different," to IJTLHE. Unfortunately, the manuscript is not being considered for publication within IJTLHE. After an initial review, it was determined that your manuscript did not meet the submission guidelines described by IJTLHE at
Submission is increasingly online – be ready to register – example
KS to lead – share example of her submission to IJTHE

15. the peer review process
1. Editor receives manuscript
2. Reviewers
3. Accept Minor amendments Major amendments Reject
4. Feedback to author
5. Amend
6. Publisher proof stage
7. Article Published!
IW to talk through the peer review process
After the Editor receives the manuscript he or she may well reject the paper without sending it out for peer review. Many academics don’t understand this and can get annoyed because their paper hasn’t been reviewed. However, many of the top journals may only accept as little as five per cent of the papers which are sent to them and although we know there is a lot of debate about this, we think it is best that the editor says no at this stage, as this could save you a lot of time in the future.
If the paper does go out for peer review, the process can take six months and then be rejected.
Reviewers are often difficult to find and in general, do not get paid, so Editors prefer not to send them papers that in the editors opinion will not make it through to publication.
If a paper gets through this initial screening stage it will go to reviewers who are anonymous. Reviewers will not know who the author is and authors will not be told who the reviewers for their paper are.
Different journals have different methods of reviewing. On some journals the editorial board sit as a panel and discuss all the papers. More commonly, journals will send each paper to two or three academics who are knowledgeable in subjects relevant to the article, who will review it and then provide written feedback to the Editor with a recommendation.
Of course, two reviewers may have different views on the same paper, so sometimes the editor will need to send the article to a third reviewer. Once the Editor has received the views of the reviewers, he or she will respond to the author with a decision. The decision may be to accept the paper straight away, but that doesn’t happen very often. More commonly, the recommendation provided by the reviewers is that the paper requires minor amendments, which the author then makes and resubmits. If the reviewers comments are taken into consideration and necessary changes made, these papers are then most often accepted for publication.
When the reviewers suggest that a paper needs major amendments for it to be publishable it is often difficult to know what to do next. Some academics do all these major amendments, send their paper back and it still gets rejected. So if you get major amendments as a reply from the editor, we suggest that you check whether you would be better to submit your article to another journal rather than making the amendments, going back through the review process and still getting rejected. Most editors will be willing to advise you.
The reviewers’ feedback that goes to the author is usually amended by the editor. If you have to re-submit your paper it generally goes back to the same reviewers. After all the amendments are made and the paper is accepted, it is sent to the publisher who will send you a proof of your article as a final check, after which your article is eventually published.
Out of every 100 manuscripts that come into an editor, only about 30 will get published. So in our list of journals, 70% of papers are rejected. They might go back into the system again with another journal, or keep going round and round the review process, but you must remember only about 30% of manuscripts submitted to Routledge journals actually get published. So you should accept that some of your papers will be rejected at some point in your career.

16. the journal life cycle in practice
Aug 2009
Notification of project funding
May 2011
Start to draft paper
Aug 2011
Submit paper to British Journal of Research into Education
Sept 2011
Reviewers’ comments (rejected)
Submit paper to Studies in Higher Education
Oct 2011
Reviewers’ comments (corrections)
Nov 2011
Re-submit final draft
Receive acceptance
Feb 2012
Published on journal web site
Sept 2014
Print published
KS to show what it looks like in practice

17. feedback ...what to expect
Acceptance
98% not immediately accepted/2% accepted on receipt
Rejection
Reasons for
Revision
Reviewer’s mediated response(s)
detail
Major, minor amendments
IW to highlight the decision areas

18. dealing with rejection ….
KS to facilitate sharing of rejection stories

19. why some articles are rejected
Sent to the wrong journal, does not fit the journal’s aims and scope/fails to engage with the issues addressed by the journal.
Not a proper journal article (i.e. too journalistic, or clearly a thesis chapter, or a consultancy report).
Too long (ignoring word limits for the particular journal) or too short.
Poor regard to the conventions of the journal (failure to consult Notes for Contributors) or to conventions of academic writing generally.
Bad style, grammar, punctuation; poor English (not corrected by native speaker).
Continued…
IW to go through reasons for rejection
Here are ten reasons why papers are rejected, so avoiding them is a certainly advisable.
They were given to us by Professor David Phillips who edited the Oxford Review of Education for over 25 years.
We have discussed many of them on previous sections of this recording. Remember that your paper may be rejected for a number of reasons; it may not be just one.
Paper sent to the wrong journal/does not fit the journal’s aims and scope/fails to engage with the issues addressed by the journal.
Not a proper journal article (i.e. too journalistic, or clearly a thesis chapter, or a consultancy report).
Too long (ignoring word limits for the particular journal) or too short.
Poor regard to the conventions of the journal (failure to consult Notes for Contributors) or to conventions of academic writing generally.
Bad style, grammar, punctuation; poor English (not corrected by native speaker).

20. why some articles are rejected
Fails to say anything of significance (i.e. makes no new contribution to the subject) or states the obvious at tedious length.
Not properly contextualised (e.g. concentrates on parochial interests and ignores the needs of an international or generally wider readership).
Poor theoretical framework (including references to relevant literature).
Scrappily presented and clearly not proofread.
Libellous, unethical, rude. IW
Fails to say anything of significance (i.e. makes no new contribution to the subject) or states the obvious at tedious length.
Not properly contextualised (e.g. concentrates on parochial interests and ignores the needs of an international or generally wider readership).
Poor theoretical framework (including references to relevant literature).
Scrappily presented and clearly not proofread.
Libellous, unethical, rude.
Avoid these and your paper stands a much better chance of success!

21. referees’ comments Accept feedback with good grace Revise as requested
If you can’t – admit it, and explain why
Turn the paper round on time
Thank the referees for their time
KS – to discuss
Adapted from Black et al (1998, pp.98-99)

22. preparing your response
Be specific
Exemplify
e.g. author’s response to Reviewers’ comments
Defend your position
Re-submit within the given timeframe
n.b. version control
KS to talk through and to share her examples of responses to reviewers.

23. Post-Acceptance Article Proofs (CATS) Copyright Publication Promotion
Author Rights
Publication
Online (iFirst)
Print
Promotion
Publisher
What can you do?
IW to highlight what happens when something has been accepted.
Ask the audience to share ideas about what they could do to publicise their work

24. self-publication Reading lists
Departmental web pages or personal website
Social and academic networking
Twitter, facebook, Linkedin, MyNetResearch, Academici, CiteULike
Discussion lists
Blogs
Library recommendations
Free sample copy
signature IW

25. help for prospective authors
We have a new Author Services website
The site contains audio interviews with academic editors providing advice on
how to get published and how to write a research paper.
Guidance is also available on:
writing an article, editing or language polishing, translating, checking references, artwork, providing supplementary data, how to choose a journal;
systems and interfaces (ScholarOne Manuscripts, CATS, Rightslink);
the review process and what to expect;
the production process and checking proofs;
post-publication, errata, reprints, optimising citations;
article versions and institutional repositories: what authors can and can’t do with their articles.
We are particularly aware of increased demand from Chinese authors.
Our Authors’ Newsletter is freely available online.
IW to share the resources that are often available
Many publishers have websites where they offer help and services to authors and the Taylor & Francis version is called our Author Services website and the URL is Here you will find lots of information about how to write an article and hear podcasts from some of our Editors. It also gives information on copyright and what you can and cannot do with your paper after publication.

26. where will you go from here?
KS to lead discussion on where the students go from here ... And also to have a Q&A session

27. references
Black, D.; Brown, S.; Day, A.; & Race, P. (1998) 500 Tips for Getting Published, London: Kogan Page
Swales, J.M & Feak, C.B. (2007) Academic Writing for Graduate Students, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press