Writing for Publication

Georgia Garcia, Janis Chadsey, Nicholas Burbules

These are notes from a session about writing for publication sponsored by the Bureau of Educational Research on January 20, 1999. Reference material cited.

Georgia Garcia

Georgia Garcia began by speaking about how her writing has changed over the years. She now does more collaborative work with graduate students than she did as an assistant professor.
She recently came across reviews of articles she had submitted a number of years ago that she didn't edit and resubmit. She now regrets that she didn't follow through with the suggested revisions. She encouraged the audience to share reviews with someone else. It's very helpful to develop a rapport with another colleague, who can look at drafts of articles, offer advice about when and where to submit, and suggest how to approach revisions.

As an example, she cited an experience she had when she was a new professor. An article she co-authored with a more senior colleague came back with what she regarded as serious criticisms, but he said that it would be no problem to deal with them. She acknowledged that it takes courage to send out an article for blind review, but if you're given any encouragement by the editor or reviewers to revise and resubmit, you should definitely do so. If you have questions about the comments made by reviewers, contact the editor.

Authors should carefully choose where to send an article. As an assistant professor, waiting 12-18 months, or in some cases three years, to learn about the acceptance of an article can be very difficult. Some journals advertise their turn-around time, some don't. Ask colleagues what they have experienced with a particular journal.

Professor Garcia has served as guest editor for a thematic issue of a journal, which can often involve less turn-around time. In this case the call for papers brought 45 submissions. In reviewing these, she and other editors tried to offer assistance with their comments. She learned that some writers take those comments too literally, and suggested that authors should make a good faith effort, but do not need to make every revision recommended.

(However, Janis Chadsey pointed out that a disposition letter enclosed with a resubmission should acknowledge the changes made and the solid rationale for why all of the suggested revisions weren't made.)

Garcia suggested paying attention to who's on the editorial board. If a topic fits within the board's expertise, the article will most likely go to them for review.

It's also important to know what types of manuscripts a journal typically publishes. Go to the library, survey recent issues. Note the methodology used in published articles, and make sure it matches the proposed submission.

She stated that it's often more fun to write collaboratively, and it can lead to better work. In some fields collaborative work is rewarded, but not in others. In education, assistant professors will probably need to build a portfolio that includes both individually authored and collaborative research.

Authors should also seek to publish in some of the "less-prestigious" journals, where the turnaround time may be shorter. Book chapters are often easier to publish than refereed journal articles. Editors may ask you to make changes, but the process is not as tough as peer review. Again, a mixed portfolio is good.

Top

Janis Chadsey

Janis Chadsey spoke about the process of writing. She reiterated the importance of revising and resubmitting. In some cases your chance of publication is 20-40% higher with a resubmission. Editors don't send recommendations to revise and resubmit lightly.
She described some of the difficulties of getting words down on paper and referred to suggestions from the book, Professors as Writers, by Robert Boice. Another book, Bird by Bird by Anne LaMotte, recommends many of the same writing strategies that Boice mentions, though for fiction writing.

Writers often believe they need a substantial block of time in order to write, and that they need to be in the mood for writing. But Boice recommends scheduling writing time every single day, making it automatic. He suggests 30-90 minutes a day, or at least three mornings a week.

(Georgia Garcia said she often sets a timer for an hour, because she knows that she is in the habit of constantly reworking material. After an hour, she can check her progress towards a goal and resist the temptation to revise until then.)

Various devices are recommended by Boice regarding arranging space, minimizing noise, limiting social interruptions. Professor Chadsey also uses graphs to track her progres—numbers of pages, amount of time worked, etc. Boice suggests working on 2-3 writing projects at a time; Garcia says she can work on 2, but Chadsey said she can only concentrate on one.

Chadsey stressed the importance of monitoring self-talk and developing a strategy to counter those negative thoughts that can block writing. Although it's very difficult to work on pieces that have been rejected and takes energy, she's learned that sticking with a schedule helps.

Chadsey recommends sharing your writing with colleagues, but don't burden them too much, especially with pieces that are too rough. Garcia shares the next-to-final draft of papers with two other colleagues, but waits until the paper is in pretty good form and is fully proofed. She also pointed out that in rejecting an article, reviewers or an editor may suggest another journal that is more appropriate; this can be quite helpful.

Top

Nick Burbules

Nick Burbules spoke from his point of view as an editor. He stated that he can usually tell within the first few minutes whether an article is appropriate in terms of methodology, format, etc. He's often surprised at the number of people who seem unaware of the journal's guidelines.
Lesson #1. Know the journals in your field. Read them. Don't wait until you're seeking to publish something. He suggested that students should be spending several hours looking at journals in the library every month.

It's important to know the reputation of various journals, because there's a "food chain" in the publishing business. As graduate students or assistant professors, it's very difficult to publish in some of the major journals, which have very high submission rates and therefore high rejection rates.

The acceptance rates of journals can range from 80% to 5%. It's not the wisest use of limited time to send an article out and tie it up in the review process for 18 months, with only a 5% chance of success.

(Garcia mentioned the importance of careful scholarship, citing an experience where it was clear that a writer had not read the original source, but only a citation in another article. Take the time to make citations carefully.)

Burbules suggested looking beyond refereed journals and book chapters to other opportunities for publication: book reviews, commentaries, responses, and conference proceedings, which may or may not be refereed. These can be less competitive but offer good experience. Journals, both print and online, are often looking for book reviewers. Through this process you get into the habit of writing and submitting. In doing reviews, your ideas are not the focal point, and it's easier than formulating and defending original ideas in a journal piece.

Burbules often receives submissions where the author obviously hasn't looked at the journal. When a rejection is received, don't just copy your article and send to another journal.

It's very important to send your submission to only one journal at a time.

It's helpful to know if the journal has published work on the same topic recently. If there has been a lot in a particular area, your piece is not likely to be the fourth article in the past six months on that topic.

Another "hot tip": if a journal has published several articles in your area in the past couple of years and you don't cite any of those papers, your chances go down. If you do cite them, it tells the editor you've read the journal and have seen articles that the editor thinks are important. It helps your chances and indicates you know what you're talking about.

Burbules suggests writers should prepare to be rejected; most early work is rejected. But there are different kinds of rejection letters. Some will suggest that the article was totally inappropriate or poorly constructed, but others will suggest resubmission. Look for "revise and resubmit," because many aren't lucky enough to get that letter.

Editors are invested in the process, will work with you, will give free feedback. He suggests you take their advice, it will improve your work.

It's useful to attach a cover letter to a resubmission, in which you address each point that reviewers made. The editor will pull out the original file to see if you did indeed pay attention to those comments. Don't simply change three sentences, two words, and resubmit.

Chadsey cited an article from American Psychologist in which reviewers summarized the weaknesses they've seen in submissions over the years. Problems are found most often in the introduction and conclusion sections. Does the article indicate you know the current field, cite the appropriate literature, provide a solid conceptual basis? A common criticism: findings mentioned in the conclusion are often not substantiated elsewhere in the article.

A cover letter with a submission should give a brief overview, especially if no abstract is required. It might mention that this is the only journal to which this is being submitted and clarify where correspondence should be sent, particularly in the case of joint authors.

Collaboration can be useful because you have a built-in peer reviewer. However you may find that you have very different writing styles, there may be a mismatch in terms of how rough or finished you'd like each section to be before sharing it. There may also be issues about who will be first author, and it's important to establish this up front.

(Professor Bridget Arvold commented that as a graduate student she regretted collaborating in one situation where the respective responsibilities weren't clear. This was not the kind of true collaboration she had wanted when she agreed to the project.)

Burbules pointed out that beginning writers are often unable to let go, believing their work is never good enough, but they have to send it out. Of course, this has to be balanced by recognizing when a piece is too rough to submit.

There are two kinds of guest editor issues: a call for papers very far in advance or an editor who comes in with a set of papers or conference proceedings that are ready to publish.

Burbules made brief comments about online publishing. Some online journals are very similar to paper journals; some are refereed; some are widely read. There's no long track record, and some may disappear. There are hundreds of new journals every year. It's often easier to publish in some of these. However, universities don't know quite how to evaluate them. The reward system is yet to be negotiated. But these can be an appropriate part of your portfolio. Online publication will become more important in the future.

Self-publication is another option. Burbules publishes all of his papers on his web pages. If a journal taking an article wants it removed from the web, he will take it off, but most don't care. This leads to many contacts from all over world. No credit is received for this, but as Burbules pointed out, there are always two reasons for publishing: a) those related to the job, tenure, salary issues; and b) wanting others to read your work and be influenced by your ideas.

Top

References

Boice, R. (1990). Professors as Writers: A Self-help Guide to Productive Writing. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press, Inc.
La Motte, A. (1994). Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life. NY: Pantheon Books.
Fisk, D.W., &Fogg, L. (1990). But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper. American Psychologist, 591-598.