To get a decent academic job, publication is often an expectation. We can argue about how the system has been coopted and corrupted, how publishers have become unfairly profiteering, how academic publishing rarely results in true dissemination, and how the expectations of publication come at the expense of good teaching and, even sometimes, good research. These are all valid concerns and worth unpacking, but not here.
At the end of it all, students, early career researchers, and even non-academic professionals want to publish for a variety of reasons. Their career ambitions, desires to challenge themselves, passion for spreading knowledge, and expectations from their programs or institutions are all good and valid reasons.
But publishing, whether as a part of your PhD, whether disseminating research from your practice, or whether you have not even started yet, is not always straightforward. In this post, I am going to give you some ideas that I have shared with clients and students, to help you visualise the process.
Note that a lot of these points become either more straightforward or more complicated with co-authors, so my assumption when writing this post is that if you have co-authors, they have been (or are) especially hands-off. However, realistically, you will want their input at all stages.
Step 1: The research scope and aim
Everything else on this list is much more difficult if you do not have a research topic or scope already in mind. In many instances, individuals hope to publish once the data has already been collected and potentially included in their dissertations. For others, it may form a part of their research program (i.e., thesis by publication) or grant proposal. This means that either you are still in the process of planning your publication from research inception, and are hoping to understand the process beforehand OR you have all this data and research completed and now need help focusing it into an article.
Either way, you need to consider what the goal of this specific article is. While a PhD or research grant can have a (relatively) broad or more meandering topic, research articles tend not to. There are exceptions of course! Publications in journals like Nature and Science may be only a few pages in length but come with appendices dozens of pages long that further contextualise those few pages. However, these articles tend to be the result of teams of individuals from labs across the world. I have also seen excellent publications that separate multiple methods or phases of the research into sections with a single, longer article. This is great for demonstrating and introducing a well-developed survey instrument.
However, for the majority of research papers out there, a focused aim, often achieved with a single data collection step (or sample), is adequate and realistic. For those still in the planning stage, it is worth having this focus from the get-go. If you already have your results, ask yourself if and how you can showcase a single aim from what you have as simply as possible, and trim out all the rest: by allocating various results/outcomes to other future papers or merely removing those not relevant.
This step is rarely achieved without also considering step 2, so even once you feel comfortable with your aim, know that you may iterate between the next step and this one several times before "settling".
Step 2: Identifying one (or two) relevant journals
This is, in my opinion, the most important step. As you probably noticed, the previous step is "vague" in some ways: research varies greatly by discipline, and different journals cater to audiences of different sizes and with different expectations.
But how does one choose an appropriate Journal? There are three crucial considerations that spring to mind:
Relevance:
While some journals are "generalists" in that they publish everything that is within a broad discipline (think Nature), most are much more focused. For instance, the South African Archaeological Bulletin is highly specific to South African archaeology. It is still an accredited, peer-reviewed journal, that publishes articles focusing on a niche field and region. You also get broader, but field-focused journals (e.g., the Journal of Psychology) that are not necessarily regional.
Before choosing a journal, ask yourself if the journal publishes research like yours in the first place. If you see nothing similar in it's pages, then that is a journal that will probably reject your paper before it even goes out to peer review because your research is not in it's scope. The more types of articles like yours that is published in the journal, the more likely you are to get your article published in the first place. If you find that in the course of your research, you keep drawing on research published in a specific journal, chances are that it is a good target for you. If you are unsure, send a query email to the editor to see if they seem interested in your work.
Impact:
While a focused journal is more likely to publish your work, they may not be as "high impact". This is because a niche topic reaches only a small audience, making it less likely that others will find your work. Or at least that is how it used to be before the internet. Regardless, the "impact factor" of journals is often an indicator of the journal's reach, with these types of metrics indicating the general citations and reach of the articles published in them. Publishing one meaty article in a high-impact journal can do wonders for your own indices compared to publishing in several smaller journals. This means that you may wish to put more time and resources into producing a more validated and impactful study if you believe you can target a Journal of higher impact.
Time:
While relevance and impact are always worth considering, many people also consider time, especially if there is an expectation to publish within a few years. Publication does not happen overnight, and an article can spend (at minimum) several months and (more likely) a couple of years in review and resubmission before final publication. The peer-review process is long and tedious at the best of times. However, many journals add their average times into their metrics for potential authors. Suppose you ensure you are publishing in a journal that specialises in your topic, and you are confident you have followed the right procedures, and secured a good proofreader before submitting. In that case, you leverage your chances of sticking to their time frame in your favour.
With the above considerations, note that there are tons of predatory journals out there too, and publishing in them, for all intents and purposes, rarely "counts" from an academic standpoint. A good rule of thumb is, if the Journal is not internationally accredited, with no impact factor, if their articles are poorly edited with tons of grammatical errors, and if they are emailing YOU to ask you to publish with them, then rather avoid them. If they promise you suspiciously fast publication, and are younger than 5 years old, then consider these red flags moving forward.
Journals hosted by publishers such as Taylor & Francis, Elsevier and Springer, tend to be relatively trustworthy on average (even if the publishers in question may have additional ethical conundrums that you can deal with later in your career).
Step 3: Writing your article
Once you have identified the journal you feel comfortable publishing in, then things become more straightforward. Most journals provide detailed "Author guidelines" (see example here) on their websites which include the layout, format, word count, reference style, and uploading requirements for your paper. Some even provide specific templates for authors to follow and use.
Closely adhering to the expected layout and word count can help you in your planning phases. If you need your article to be roughly 6000 words, with an introduction, methodology, results and discussion, then you can try to plan your word allocation accordingly. A study where results may require a greater word count (e.g., interview themes) will possibly need to have a smaller introduction to fit this word count. If you need to better prepare or outline your rationale or framework, you will need a larger introduction.
Some journals have limits or specific requirements in terms of figures, tables and numbers of references. If so, make sure to prioritise what to include or take advantage of your appendices. You can also make some things available through online repositories that readers can access through a link.
Once you have your outline and know what goes where then writing should be more or less straightforward. Do not worry about getting things perfect in your writing. Just make sure to get down what you think makes most sense given your research aim and the journals expectations. After you have your first draft, it is possible to focus more on perfecting what you have. Ideally, this is where co-authors should provide more feedback and support. If necessary, seek support from those who can help you reformat your figures and tables to make them more attractive and readable. Just make sure to align them to specific styles expected by the Journal.
Before submission, it is a very good idea to use proofreaders and editors, especially if this is your first submission and you have few or no seasoned co-authors. This is even more so if you are publishing in a non-native language. A good proofreader will ensure your formatting and style closely align with the journal's expectations. While this may seem premature, submitting a high-quality paper from the start is likely to bias editors and reviewers in your favour.
Step 4: After submission
Once submitted, the paper often goes through several phases within the review, with different journals working slightly differently. Regardless, there is a typical workflow. Firstly, the editors quickly go through it and determine whether the paper adheres to the Journal scope and is worth sending out for review. If you make it through this phase, the editors identify potential reviewers who may then review your work. This takes a long time since many requests are denied by reviewers because of time or other constraints. Therefore, even finding reviewers is not straightforward. If reviewers agree, they may still take time. While there is typically an expected time line, they may ask for an extension. For a quick review, all reviewers (often two or three) identified need to agree and review within the time frame. This is typically not the case.
Let us say that the reviews come back and they are... ambiguous. One reviewer loves the work, the other hates it. The editor then needs to make various decisions based on these reviews which may take time. For instance, do they call on another reviewer?
By the time you get "the outcome", you may have forgotten you even submitted the paper. And the outcome may be highly variable.
Rejection: If you have done your due diligence and worked hard to get a high-quality paper to a relevant and niche Journal, then an outright rejection is possible, but much less likely. If you were maybe a bit ambitious, this is possible.
Rejection with the option to resubmit: This is possible if the reviews are extensive, but the reviewers and editor see some potential there. Suggestions to rethink your theory or expand your sample may be made that are difficult to address, but give you some food for thought.
Acceptance based on various criteria (some minor, some less so): This is something I personally see more often. Good reviewers will be detailed and extensive, and addressing them may take time but will ultimately improve your paper. Some reviews may be largely grammatical or finnicky, with a lot of minor, but easily-made suggestions. There may be suggestions for you to include reference to specific works or the addition of another analysis.
Outright acceptance: I certainly have never seen this, but it is technically possible. Some individual reviewers are definitely more lenient, but it is unlikely both reviewers and editors will not have any comments at all.
In general, I suggest that you do not expect a quick review and do not expect that once you have submitted, the hard work has ended. However, often, once you have your reviews back, you should have a much clearer idea as to what needs to be done.
Step 5: Handling reviews
Regardless of your outcome, consider your feedback carefully. An outright rejection due to lack of adherence to the journal scope, unclear aims or whatever does not mean you should give up. Consider working with a professional to help you address the broad concerns and/or consider submitting to a Journal more aligned with your work.
When addressing reviewer feedback for resubmission, make sure to keep notes throughout your paper/script. Many journals expect you to show how you have addressed reviewer comments, either by tabulating or listing the changes you have made (alongside the comment), or by tracking changes in a Word document.
This is good practice regardless, since adding the reviewer comments to a document and noting your changes allows you to identify whether there are any suggestions you may have missed. It also makes you realise how "small" many comments often are and how easy many are to address. If you disagree with a couple of the comments, this is fine, but make sure it is clear why. For instance, maybe you feel a reviewer misinterpreted something in their suggestion. In which case, indicate that you think this is the case, and make sure you have added a sentence or phrase that will ensure avoidance of further misinterpretation.
Once you are satisfied with your changes, and your co-authors have had an opportunity to help, you can make a "clean" copy of the paper and resubmit both the tracked changes, the clean copy, and (traditionally) a short letter thanking the editor and reviewer and outlining how you have addressed the feedback.
Step 6: Proofreading and publication
The editor may then accept or reject your resubmission, or resend your article back for review. If you are accepted, you often need to review the article proofs to ensure all the information (including authors' names, and affiliations - which may have changed over the course of this time) is correct.
You may also have the option to provide "open access" for the article if this isn't automatically provided by the journal. Note that this often comes at a cost. However, many institutions offer funding for this, especially for early career researchers, and the journals may provide this for free for first authors based on regional affiliation. Take advantage of this if available since it can ensure your article has a greater reach (and a higher potential number of citations).
Final thoughts
Publishing is hard work. The process takes time and effort and is often tedious. You will feel frustration at every phase. But know that you are not alone. A rejection of an article and comments by reviewers are part of the process, and many excellent researchers suffer this all the time.
The best thing you can do is surround yourself with compassionate and hardworking mentors and co-authors. If this is not available to you, take advantage of writing centres, proofreaders and other professionals if possible. Some institutions and NGOs offer funding for this and, if you are unsure, ask.
If you need more guidance, consider using available courses, such as this one from Nature, which is truly excellent. While it is geared towards scientists, many other disciplines work similarly. Otherwise, feel free to email me or consider booking an appointment with me through the coaching company I work for. Either way, you are not alone.
Comments