Publishing for young researchers: Dealing with

Publishing for young researchers:
Dealing with the submission process
Dr Fragkiskos Filippaios
Reader in International Business
Director of Graduate Studies & Accreditations
Kent Business School
The original idea
• Publishing for young researchers: Dealing with
• We all have to deal with them
• Some of the most influential papers and
authors in different field were originally
rejected by editors
Publishing is a process
Decide where you want to publish
Preparing for the submission
Disseminate your results and get feedback
Working papers
Submission process
Dealing with referees
Selecting a Journal
Journal’s prestige in the field
Readership of the journal
Previous publications on topic
Acceptance rates
Manuscript turnaround
Composition of editorial board
Useful reviews
Previous publications
Colleagues recommendations
Frank, E (1994)
What editors value?
• Factors leading to rejections
– Poor construction of the paper
– Poor research design
• Factors leading to acceptances
– Scientific novelty and timeliness of the topic
• Most problematic factors
– Poor use of English and careless preparation
– Attention to guide lines for authors
Radford, D.R. et al. (1999)
Preparing for submission
• Present papers at conferences, seminars and
• Talk to your peers and ask for feedback
• Ask the editor and potential reviewers to
comment on drafts of the paper
• Use the University’s repository service (KAR)
and get your work in the public domain as
working papers
Submitting the paper
• Draft a covering letter and include:
– How the paper fits the journal’s scope
– Title of manuscript and names of authors
– The originality of research
– Key contributions to the field
• Wait for the outcome of submission process
What the reviewers look for...
• Introduction
– Clear positioning of the paper
– Emphasis on motivation and contributions
• Reference list
– Add references to potential reviewers and
appreciate their contributions
– Add references from the journal to justify your
– Make sure that your references are up to date
The decision...
• Types of referees comments
– Comments that you agree with
– Comments that you disagree but you could incorporate in
the paper
– Comments that you feel show that the referee did not
understand your paper
• Read all comments carefully and decide a revision
strategy (re-organisation or re-writing of the paper)
• Search for common patterns among the reviewers’
• Decide whether revisions are primarily
conceptual/theoretical or empirical
• Everybody has at least one...
• Talk to a senior colleague and get reassurance
on the quality of your work
• Read carefully the reviewers comments and in
your revision try to incorporate as many as
• The next submission, in another journal, might
actually go to the same reviewers...
Conditional Acceptance or
Revise and Resubmit
• Their difference depends on the type of
commitment the editor wishes to make
• Draft a revision strategy by addressing the
reviewers’ comments
• Start from the minor corrections and note details
of each one
• Address the major corrections and write a letter
to the editor clearly demonstrating how and
where you addressed each one
• Respond quickly – Give priority
Letter to the editor
• Thank the reviewers for their time and
• List all major changes
• Defend your work if you strongly disagree with
a reviewer’s points
• Attach a detailed list of reviewers’ comments
and show how and where in the paper each
comment has been addressed
How not to do it...
Further Reading
• Frank, E. 1994. Author’s criteria for selecting journals,
The Journal of the American Medical Association, 272:
• Radford, D.R., Smillie, L., Wilson, R.F. and Grace, A.M.
1999. The criteria used by editors of scientific dental
journals in the assessment of manuscripts submitted
for publication. British Dental Journal 187: 376-379
• Day, R.A. and Gastell, B. 2006. How to Write and
Publish a Scientific Paper, Greenwood Press
• Cargill, M. and O’Connor, P. 2009. Writing Scientific
Research Articles: Strategy and Steps Wiley Blackwell