1. Brent Gloy, July 2008 Increasing the Odds of Publishing Academic Research 2008 AAEA Annual Meetings Grad Student Section Symposium Brent A. Gloy Cornell University

2. Brent Gloy, July 2008 Increasing the Odds of Publication Peer review publication is the cornerstone of academic research Key for sharing knowledge Most journals today have an acceptance rate less than 30%  Submit 10 articles to publish 3?  Many articles will be submitted multiple times  Reducing the amount of churn is key to getting your work out, read, and used  How can one increase these odds?

3. Brent Gloy, July 2008 The Publishing Process 1. The research project 2. Writing the papers and documenting the effort 3. Submitting the paper for peer review 4. Responding to peer review Identify key things that can be done to increase likelihood of eventual success

4. Brent Gloy, July 2008 1. The Research Project The Most Important Step Sound design is key to eventual publication Invest in the literature to find opportunities and build a sound project Get input from colleagues (AND LISTEN)  Present research early on to allow for adjustment and identification of obvious problems  Identify and utilize collaborators  Listen to suggestions from senior colleagues

5. Brent Gloy, July 2008 1. The Research Project Start with the end in mind  Every research project you do should be designed for publication in peer reviewed journals (as well as other outputs) Don’t be afraid to make investments in well conceived big projects Diversify and be opportunistic

6. Brent Gloy, July 2008 2. Writing the Papers and Documenting the Results JUST DO IT! Manuscripts are required in order to publish  Research is not done until it is written for peer review  We are in the business of creating AND disseminating knowledge Writing is hard work  Start with research and extension bulletins to document the project completely and build the text

7. Brent Gloy, July 2008 2. Writing the Paper for Peer Review Get feedback early and often  Meeting presentations  Multi-state projects  Departmental seminars  Department internal review LISTEN TO FEEDBACK Utilize collaborators effectively

8. Brent Gloy, July 2008 3. Submitting the Paper for Peer Review Avoid temptation to achieve ultimate perfection Choose journal wisely  Publishing papers on the topic  Appropriate content for journal

9. Brent Gloy, July 2008 3. Submitting the Paper for Peer Review Quality matters but so does volume  Not all quality work winds up in journals universally perceived to be highest quality  Marginal difference in perceived quality levels off very quickly  Remember ultimate goal is to have your work read and used  Good research should eventually be published  Peers will find and use high quality work especially if it is part of a stream of work

10. Brent Gloy, July 2008 3. Submitting the Paper for Peer Review The “little things” are often taken for granted and can cause big problems  Well written – get help if you need it  No typos  Appropriate motivation  Organization  Results CLEARLY described  Conclusions appropriate and well thought out  Be able to clearly articulate your contribution

11. Brent Gloy, July 2008 4. Responding to Peer Review If you get your foot in the door DON’T take it out – always resubmit if offered Respond in a timely manner – within a month Take reviewer comments seriously and use them Engage colleagues for advice If rejected see if you can use points from review to make the paper better Get it back out to another journal quickly if rejected

12. Brent Gloy, July 2008 4. Responding to Peer Review Don’t let up before the finish line -- write a thorough and thoughtful response  Use tact  Point by point is best  Be specific on how you changed the paper as a result of review  If you don’t understand a point explain why you don’t understand – don’t just ignore it  Reviewers spend time on this and feel good when you carefully address their concerns  Response may be nearly as long as the paper

13. Brent Gloy, July 2008 4. Responding to Peer Review Spot on comments – make the changes Confusion/miscommunication – fix the manuscript Disagreements – pick which battles to fight  Style – only marginally important  Conceptual – worth arguing  Model nuances – do the work and show the reviewer that it either does or does not matter

14. Brent Gloy, July 2008 4. Responding to Peer Review Strategies for responding to major point of contention  Must clearly lay out to reviewer why your opinion is different (and more correct)  Put burden back on reviewer -- where can this data be found, what literature am I missing, etc.

15. Brent Gloy, July 2008 Summary Publishing is hard work Get the paper written and off your desk Get input from peers throughout the process LISTEN TO PEERS Much of the work occurs after initial submission Shorten the time that the paper is on your desk – top priority is always responding to reviews