1. Getting published with Oxford University Press Marcin Dembowski – marcin.dembowski@oup.commarcin.dembowski@oup.com 2013, Astana

2. Agenda for the morning session 1.Explaining the publishing process 2.Measuring quality and maximising impact Journal rankings Usage Research impact 3.Surviving peer review What editors/reviewers look for How to revise an article Why you might be rejected, and how to respond 4.Questions

3. Who are Oxford University Press? Not-for-profit department of the University of Oxford. All surplus revenue is passed to the University of Oxford to be invested in further research Clarendon Scholars program – 1,000 th scholar in 2011 Adheres to the University's objectives of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing on a worldwide platform Mission to maximise discoverability of content & scholarly dissemination Tradition and value – has it’s origins in the information technology revolution of the 15 th century Our Mission …

4. More than 500 years old and is the oldest and largest University Press Total turnover is about £580m, or US$870m We operate in 51 different countries and employ approximately 5,000 people On average, about 7,000 new titles are published each year, in more than 40 languages, in a variety of formats – increasingly digital output Regular National and International prize-winners OUP today Our position in the publishing arena…

5. Measuring quality and maximising impact

6. Ranking existing in European Countries Some countries have official national rankings –France, Germany, Italy, Norway (Finland plan for 2013) Some countries follow rankings of neighbouring country –Austria>Germany, Ireland>UK, (Switzerland>Germany) Some countries use supra-national rankings, such as Thomson Reuters (ISI) or ABS –Spain (& Belgium, Slovenia) follow ISI, UK follows ABS Some countries have no official national ranking, although some universities create their own rankings –Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden

7. Thomson Reuters (ISI) The best known journal ranking Thomson Reuters is a subsidiary of the Thomson Group and is based in Philadelphia, USA The ‘Web of Science’ database scores 12,000 selected journals with ‘Impact Factors’ based on journal citations The latest Thomson Reuters statistics were published in June 2012 for the year 2011

8. OUP Journals Impact Factor Improvement, 2011

9. Additional measures of quality? There are other indicators to measure quality such as: number of downloads (utility) dissemination of journal (where it is read) quality of the authors number of editors from top business schools relevance of content and publishing ethos links to societies/associations internationality What is your publishing priority? Do you want 5 articles in ‘low ranked’ journals or 1 article in a ‘top ranked’ journal? Do you want to publish in national journals, or international?

10. Questions for discussion Choosing a journal What are your most important factors when choosing a journal? Which resources do you use to research the journals you publish in? Which rankings do you use? How important are they? Who do you ask for advice? What is the best journal in your field? Why? Supporting publication How can OUP support you to publish in international peer-reviewed journals? What are the barriers to publication, particularly for early career academics? Are journals with a regional focus more welcome or less welcome?

11. Before you start…………. You must have a clear topic or topics to be reviewed, what is your research question? Griffith Business School

12. Publishing your research – where to begin? Are you working on a Doctoral or Master’s thesis? Have you completed a project which concluded successfully? Are you wrestling with a problem with no clear solution? Do you have an opinion or observation about business practice? Have you given a presentation or conference paper? If so, you have the basis for a publishable paper

13. 13 Our Focus

14. There are 1,000,000’s of published studies You need to be an authority on your topic You need to be able to clearly summarise what is already known about your topic(s) You must demonstrate an awareness of what has gone on before and what is going on now

15. How to find relevant papers Google Scholar provides a great starting point Universities have journal databases Enter your key words – start broadly then narrow your search, use synonyms (these can be found in Word)

16. 16 -Identify 5 top peer refereed academic journals focusing on your specific subject -Identify 5 top internationally recognized books or collective works on your specific subject -Identify 5 top academic research centres specializing in your subject -Identify 5 most renowned professors in your narrow field („gurus”) -Identify 5 top regular international academic conferences covering your subject Initial literature review: The 5 X 5 principle

17. Oxford Bibliographies Online 17 OBO is a library of discipline-focused, online guides to the essential literature across a broad range of subject areas. Each OBO article, written and reviewed by top scholars in the field, is rich with citations and annotations, expert recommendations, and narrative pathways through the most useful and important works on the topic in question. Intuitive linking throughout quickly delivers the user from a citation to full-text content, whether online or available through a library’s catalog. “We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers, people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it, and make important choices wisely.” — E.O. WILSON

18. Task 1: Can you answer (some of) the following?

19. Think of a literature review as a jigsaw puzzle

20. Surviving peer review

21. Research is all about peer review 1.You need to avoid a desk reject 2.You may need to revise and resubmit 3.You will almost certainly need to alter your paper

22. The Process Submission is an important step on the road to being published Reviewers are selected for their expertise by the Editors They do sometimes make mistakes and their opinions may not be valid But generally they raise genuine concerns about the work – conceptualization, execution and/or interpretation of the work

23. The Process Their comments are aimed at maintaining the quality of papers publish in the journal, the overall journal reputation and ultimately at improving your work to attain a high standard of academic writing.

24. Target! Identify a few possible target journals but be realistic Follow the Author Guidelines: scope, type of paper, word length, references style, etc Find where to send your paper (editor, regional editor, subject area editor) … … and how to send it (email, hard copy, online submission) Send an outline or abstract to editor: is it suitable? how can it be made so? Read at least one issue of the journal “Many papers are desk rejected because they simply don’t fulfil journal requirements. They don’t even go into the review process.”

25. Don’t do this Dear Sir I am a student at University of Moscow, Russia. I want to publish my articles with you. Please send me details. Regards …

26. Example of author guidelines Every journal published will have detailed notes and guidelines

27. Example of author guidelines Every journal published will have detailed notes and guidelines

28. What makes a good paper? HINT: Editors and reviewers look for … Originality – what’s new about subject, treatment or results? Relevance to and extension of existing knowledge Research methodology – are conclusions valid and objective? Clarity, structure and quality of writing – does it communicate well? Sound, logical progression of argument Theoretical and practical implications (the ‘so what?’ factors!) Recency and relevance of references Internationality/Global focus Adherence to the editorial scope and objectives of the journal A good title, keywords and a well written abstract

29. Some key questions Readability – Does it communicate well? Is it clear? Contribution – Why was it written? What’s new? Where does it fit into the ‘conversation’? Position your paper. Credibility – Is the methodology robust? Are the conclusions valid? Do you give credit to others when due? Don’t hide limitations of research - you’ll be found out. Applicability – What should people do with your article? Do your findings apply to the world of practice? Do they map out areas of future research? Use for teaching? Internationality – Does the paper have a global perspective? If not, why not?

30. Pay attention to your abstract 250 words or less (no more than 100 in any one section) Purpose – Reasons for research, aims of paper Design – Methodology, scope of study Findings – Discussion, results Research limitations/implications – Exclusions, next steps Practical implications – The ‘so what?’ factor Social implications – Wider benefits to society Originality/value – Who benefits, what’s new?

31. Your own peer review Let someone else see it! show a draft to friends/colleagues and ask for honest criticism we always get too close to our own work remember that computer spell-check software is not foolproof!

32. Co-authorship? With supervisor, different departments or institutions Exploits individual strengths Especially useful for cross-disciplinary research Demonstrates the authority and rigour of the research Increases potential pool of citations But remember Ensure paper is edited so that it reads as one voice Identify the person responsible for closing the project Agree and clarify order of appearance of authors

33. Revising A request for revision is good news! –You’ve avoided a desk reject and you are in the publishing cycle –Nearly every published paper is revised at least once –So now, close the deal! Acknowledge the editor and set a revision deadline Clarify if in doubt – ‘This is what I understand your comments to mean…’ Meet the revision deadline Attach a covering letter showing how you met the reviewers’ requests (or if not, why not)

34. Major revisions required As you re-read it remember –These comments are designed to help you improve your work –The reviewers see value in your work (they have not rejected it) but they see a need for more work –Reflect on the suggestions and think how they can be achieved –Think how many days work are involved and give yourself a target date to complete the re-draft

35. Major revisions required The flow of the argument, maybe too much repetition Maybe trying to say too much in one paper –One idea, one paper Degree of explanation given Material could be better presented – in a table, figure More data needed More literature to be included Not meeting the journal guidelines

36. Major revisions required Of course you could reject the reviewers comments and send the paper to another journal But what if that journal approaches the same reviewers? It is likely you will still get major revisions…the review process is not perfect but there tends to be some consistency

37. Major revisions required Best advice is to deal with the suggested revisions in a methodical manner and send the paper back to the same journal.

38. Improving electronic dissemination Research shows people read 20-30 articles per month – you need to get on that shortlist Short title containing main keyword –Emerald articles with 6-10 words in the title are downloaded more than any others Clear and descriptive abstract –include the keywords, keep it short Use relevant and known keywords – not new jargon Ensure references are correct – vital for reference linking and citation indices

39. After publication, promote your work Why? Influence policy Raise your profile Attract collaborators and funding New opportunities e.g. in consulting, the media How? Use your network: listservs, a press release Link to the article in your email signature Contact the authors in your reference list Ask the publisher to provide you with book or journal leaflets

40. Plagiarism and referencing Plagiarism (from the Latin plagium meaning ‘a kidnapping’) is the act of taking someone else’s work and pretending it is yours. It is considered fraud! It isn’t always detected in peer review but electronic tools can help

41. Copyright As the author, you need to ensure that you get permission to use content you have not created If you don’t, it may delay your paper being published Supply written confirmation from the copyright holder when submitting your manuscript If permission cannot be cleared, we cannot republish that specific content

43. If your paper is rejected … Ask why Most editors will send you detailed comments. Take a deep breath, and listen carefully. Don’t take it personally The review process is double blind for a reason. Fix it, then try elsewhere Target your paper as closely as possible, and remember you might get the same reviewer again. Don’t give up The more you publish, the more you get rejected – and everyone gets rejected at least once.

44. Possible reasons for rejections Lack of fit (‘why was it sent to this journal’?) Problem with quality (inappropriate methodology, not reasonably rigorous, speculation without theoretical framework, excessively long) Insufficient contribution (does not advance the field, a minor extension of existing work, there is no ‘gap in our understanding’, no broad principles or ‘big picture’, you over-promised but under-delivered) Did you understand the “journal conversation”?

45. Typical criticisms (journal dependent) Paper motivation is weak –is there really a gap in our understanding? –why does the gap need filling? Theory development is weak –theory by assertion, or reinvention of existing theory Empirical work is weak –methodology not plausible, tests don’t rule out alternative hypotheses ‘So what’? –nothing wrong with the paper – but nothing very insightful either –only incremental research, doesn’t affect an existing paradigm

46. Dealing with the comments It makes sense to do this in a way that makes it as clear as possible to the reviewers what changes you have made –Provide a document which details the reviewer’s comments and then provide your response as to what you have done Some authors use a table format to do this Some include the changed text or additional text Deal with Reviewer 1 and 2 separately –Whatever your style the focus must be on clarity

47. Dealing with the comments Answer as completely as possible Answer politely, be tactful Answer with evidence If you feel the reviewer has misunderstood then address the point with a good argument explaining why the reviewer is mistaken –It may be the reviewers are conflicted on a point –It is ok to use one reviewer to argue against another

48. Dealing with the comments Avoid emotive language Don’t say “We disagree completely with the reviewers comments...” Try “While the reviewer makes an interesting case in relation to…we would point out that…” and then go onto present your argument logically.

49. Some Don’ts Do not submit your article to two or more journals at the same time –It is unethical –Editors do talk –You must build your publishing reputation not degrade it by following poor practice

50. And finally… The process of getting your work into a peer reviewed journal can be a long and winding road. The final acceptance email feels good to get and then when you see the journal in print and receive the re- prints you get an additional buzz Of course by then you will be well advanced in your next journal article!

51. Publishing your research means… Your paper is permanent – published material enters a permanent and accessible knowledge archive – the ‘body of knowledge’ Your paper is improved – through the interventions of editors, reviewers, sub-editors and proof-readers Your paper is actively promoted – it becomes available to a far greater audience Your writing is trustworthy – material which has been published carries a QA stamp. Someone apart from you thinks it’s good!

52. Why to promote the idea among researchers?: Quality of teaching materials within your library/university Access to the lastes management knowledge Quality of research results of your academics Stronger networking in the world of international universities Knowledge and quality of students for potentioal employers Image and Reputation of your Universities Profitability

53. The publishing process at OUP We offer our authors Quality and speed of production Excellent editing Unrivalled worldwide sales, marketing, and distribution services. Our aim is to maximize the benefits for authors that come from working with focused and dedicated publishing teams who operate as part of a large and international publisher. We are committed to innovative publishing, publishing in print and electronic form, and we particularly welcome new ideas and feedback from our authors and readers. Benefits for authors

54. The book publishing process at OUP Diverse publishing programme befitting each subject area Online Academic Publishing: Oxford Bibliographies Online Journals University Press Scholarship Online Choose the resource that best fits your research or Press subject areas Contact the relevant department directly Broad guidelines for authors

55. Oxford Medicine Online Additional Resources www.oxfordmedicine.com AMA Manual of Style Online (www.amamanualofstyle.com) A style guide for medical practitioners, researchers, or journalists looking to publish in a medical journal, written in collaboration with JAMA authors, editors, and contributors (Journal of the American Medical Association) Contains the full-text of the print title (including online only updates) Regularly updated Editors’ Tips section Style quizzes, measurement conversion calculators, and a Twitter feed with over 600 followers: http://twitter.com/#!/AMAManual

56. Librarian Resource Centre 56 www.oup.com/uk/academic/online/librarians Optimizing your subscription

57. Any Questions… 57 Marcin Dembowski marcin.dembowski@oup.com