1. From PhD chapter to article
John Canning
PGR Training

2. PhD chapter vs article
PhD (or book) chapter = one part of a whole
Article = freestanding piece of work

3. Activity: In groups examine these two documents.
Note similarities and differences in content and structure of the two pieces of work. Canning, J. (2002) From Yankees to Québécois: Nation–building and national identity in Quebec's. Eastern Townships. Canning, J. (2005). Placing Quebec nationalisms: Constructing English identities in Quebec’s Eastern Townships, British Journal of Canadian Studies 18 (1), pp

4. Why publish an article? Wider audience Employment prospects
Research Excellence Framework
Prestige and self-worth
During PhD or after…?

5. Scope of journal: Some will not publish your work no matter how good.
What journal?
Scope of journal: Some will not publish your work no matter how good.
Reputation/ impact factor: Ask academic colleagues/ supervisor for advice.
Time to publication varies enormously. May be a factor.

6. What journals are you citing in your work?
How to choose a journal
What journals are you citing in your work?
What journals are your colleagues, competitors, supervisors publishing in?
Look at journals websites

7. Preparing the manuscript
Check the ‘instructions for authors’ on journal website for format, word limits, referencing style etc.
Most journals now electronic submission
Some have Word templates they want you to use.
Always follow these instructions

8. Peer review
Article send to reviewers – in humanities usually two or three.
Reviews are generally anonymous in humanities, but this may not be the case in other disciplines.
Editor makes the final decision in light of comments from the reviewers.

9. What can happen? Accept with no corrections/ changes (rare)
Accept with corrections/ changes to satisfaction of editor
Revise and resubmit: Revise the article and the work will be reviewed again, sometimes by different people. (common)
Reject: No opportunity for resubmission (common for some journals).
Desk reject: Editor rejects without review. This may be because the article does not fit the journal or is of very poor quality.

10. Dealing with reviewers’ comments
If unclear about anything contact the editor to ask him/her to clarify.
Comments can be hostile. If this is the case take a few days break before looking at them again.
Work through comments.
Some things easy to fix
Where is more reading\ referencing substansive writing required?

11. Sorts of comments Author needs to reference X, Y and Z.
The paper needs to be better structured.
Paragraph 2 on page 12 is unnecessary.
This is great paper…
This is rubbish…
Paragraph 3 on page 13 needs to come earlier

12. Sorts of comments “There is nothing innovative about this paper.”
“This paper says nothing new.”
“This paper is a good contribution to the on-going debate in this field. “

13. Helpful/ unhelpful comments
Usually polite
Specific
Make necessary actions clear
Lead to an improved paper

14. Unhelpful comments Often rude, but not always
Offer no basis for improvement.
Reveal reviewer prejudices.
Not clear what action needs to be taken.
Not clear why action needed.
Very positive reviews can be unhelpful, especially when second review is hostile.

15. One very positive reviewer, one very negative.
Difficulties
One very positive reviewer, one very negative.
Try to use both reviews to improve article.
If reviews contradict ask editor for guidance

16. Other tips
When resubmitting write to the editor explaining what changes you have made in response to each comment.
Explain carefully if there is any good reason for not changing something the reviewer recommends.
Address all the comments.
Write with a particular journal in mind.

17. If rejected… Try another journal
Revise using comments from journal 1 before sending to journal 2.
Talk to trusted colleagues, supervisors etc.
Hopefully you will do better next time.
Good luck!

18. Contact
John Canning