Writing for Publication
FMS PGR
Dr Helen Webster
On behalf of the Writing Development Centre
Robinson Library
For enquiries about workshops, please email wdc@ncl.ac.uk
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
The Cast
 The Publisher
 The Editor
 Peer Reviewer 1 who thinks X
 Peer Reviewer 2 who thinks Y
 Peer Reviewer 3 who thinks ?!
 The Author (you)
 The Reader
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
What’s the worst that can happen?
"It is all done with an honest regard for scholarship, but the
result of this clearly Herculean labour is a thinly disguised
reworking of the original doctoral thesis on which this book is
so clearly based. The structure smacks of the wellconstructed thesis. Combined with endless references to the
works of scholars in the field and the myriad citations in
parenthesis, the authorial voice gets lost. It's a pity, because
O'Brian has some appealing turns of phrase [...] I wanted to
hear more of the bona fide O'Brian".
Review of 'Classical Masculinity and the Spectacular Body on Film: The Mighty
Sons of Hercules by Daniel O'Brian - review by Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones THES 8th
Jan 2015, p. 51
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
What’s the worst that can happen?
'This short book springs from a recent doctorate, and the
conception does show. The writing can creak: 'Trieste
famously featured ... in Winston Churchill's famous "Iron
Curtain" speech; Fascism figured in the salvific repository of
this record of history". The argumentation can be fixedly
studious; it is remarkable how many theorists find place in
some 160 pages of text. Given this original sin, then, despite
its alluring title, it is hard to imagine The Venice Myth
surpassing a narrowly scholarly readership.‘
Review of The Venice Myth: Culture, Literature, Politics, 1880 to the Present,
by David Barnes- review by Richard Bosworth THES 15th Jan 2015, p. 51
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
What makes an article look like a
student piece?
 Overlong literature review, detailing each contribution without
much critique, too many references
 Too much method, overly detailed and justified (especially if not
a novel method)
 No new or significant angle, demonstration of existing
knowledge rather than contribution to it
 Too broad a scope for the word limit
 Not ‘self-contained’ – clearly part of a larger piece
 Unfocussed, with no ‘point’ or too many points
Remember that your aim is not to prove your credentials or
learning, it is to make a valuable contribution to scholarship
– your peers
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Writing for assessment, writing for
publication: What’s the difference?
 The purpose of a thesis (chapter) is different to that of an
article or monograph – you can’t easily convert one to the
other by reducing the wordcount
 You’re writing for an authentic and much broader audience
 You need to understand the publishing industry as well as
the academic sector
 Each publisher or journal has different requirements
 You’re being peer reviewed, not assessed
 The process is quality control, not developmental
 You don’t have to be as defensive or exhaustive
(displaying knowledge or contributing?)
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
What to publish
 Something which does not replicate your thesis and is not
published elsewhere
 An ‘offcut’, expanded point or new angle on part of the
thesis
 An aspect of your work that is theoretical, methodological,
or findings
 Something self-contained within a specific word-limit
 Something that any other stakeholders or IP holders
(funding body, co-authors, copyright owners of any
materials used) agree
 Something which will contribute to an employable profile
 Something which fits the remit of the publisher
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Getting started
Start small
 Try “softer” formats – features, descriptive articles,
commentaries, opinions.
 Try less “academic” publications
 Aim for mid range academic journals
 Write some book reviews
 Publish your literature review
 Write a case study
 Write up a conference presentation
 Publish a conference poster
http://posters.f1000.com
 Write a blog, tweet, start a wiki…..
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Where to publish?
Hierarchy of publication formats
 Journal articles (journal impact factors)









Research papers
Letters
Reviews and review articles
Technical reports
Monographs
Edited books (and chapters in them)
Conference proceedings
Teaching materials (textbooks, professional books)
‘Grey’ literature
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Beware of Predatory / Vanity
publishers








Have you heard of the journal before? Perhaps the title is very similar to a
well known journal, check the details.
Has the publisher approached you directly, do they seem to be very
persistent and/or aggressive?
Have they suggested your article will be published very quickly?
Is there a clear process which explains costs before you submit your work?
What evidence is there of a peer review process?
Check the editorial board credentials. Do the editors really exist? Do they
have a publication profile?
Look at the journal website – where is it located?
What is the quality of existing articles in the journal?
Beall’s list: http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/
https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria-2015.pdf
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Never mind you, what about your
reader?
 What’s your point?
 Who cares?
 So what?
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
The publication process
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
You research your chosen publisher or journal
You identify an angle which would fit their remit
(if a book, you write a proposal, which is peer reviewed.)
You write the text (and get feedback from colleagues)
You ensure it meets their author requirements
You submit….(and sign any documentation)
You wait for the editor to reject or initiate peer review
process….
8. You respond to referees’ feedback to the editor
9. You resubmit….(or revise and take it somewhere else)
10. You check the proofs and sign any contract
11. You wait for publication….
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Writing your paper: get feedback
before submission
 Your supervisor
 Present to peers (department seminar? Graduate
conference?)
 Ask co-authors, peers and senior colleagues to
read (especially those from the typical audience of
the journal)
 Present at a conference
 Discuss idea with the journal editor
 Take the time of your reviewers seriously – submit
work as good as you can get it
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Choosing a journal
What journals do you read most?
Choose two potential journals: A main target and a backup with
similar scope
Type of journal:
 Topic / field
 Audience (discipline, international, breadth)
 Perspective: Theoretical, professional, academic, applied,
interdisciplinary etc
 Impact factor
 Copyright and Open Access: Gold and Green
 Beware predatory publishing…
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Read Authors’ Guidelines carefully
 Aims, scope and audience
 Types of submission
 Structure (IMRAD?)
 Length
 Formatting (incl figures and colour)
 Referencing style
 ‘House’ style conventions
 Copyright if reproducing others’ figures
 ‘Originality’ and previously published requirements
 Also read a couple of issues to find out
what this looks like in practice, cite previous
work in that journal
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Peer review
 How are referees chosen? Volunteer or be
invited? Or be nominated by author?
 Single- and double-blind review, open review
 Usually at least 2 referees
 Referees are given guidelines and criteria
 They usually fill in a form with comments and
recommendations
 They are asked to give an overall
recommendation
 They are given a deadline, but…..
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
One slide about writing




The process of writing – similar?
Writing around the data/figures
Feature of the Medical Sciences: co-authoring
If you’re first author:




Check with others that they wish to be involved
Give clear directions what you want them to write
Edit to ensure consistency
Circulate to ensure everyone’s happy with it
 If you’re second etc author:
 Make sure you’re clear on your contribution
 Make sure you read the rest to ‘fit’ style
 Make sure you’re happy with the whole
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
The importance of metadata
Once published, the first ‘reader’ of your work will be
a (database) search engine.
Optimise discoverability and think about what terms
your reader will be searching for:
 Key words, search terms
 Title
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
The importance of titles
 The second reader of your work will be skimming
down a list of ‘hits’ from a database search.
 Include key words
 Priorities:








Topic
Specific focus
Methodology
Research question
Research findings or conclusion
Attention-grabbing / intriguing?
Detail vs length
Conforms to other titles in journal
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
What makes a good abstract?
The third reading of your work will be of the abstract alone.
 A good abstract will answer four questions:
 Why? The first section puts the study in the context of current
knowledge and gives the purpose of the work.
 How? This section explains how the research was conducted.
 What? The main findings of the study are presented in brief.
 So what? The abstract concludes with a brief explanation of the
implications or applications of the study.
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
And then you submit (usually online)
And then you wait……
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
I’ve got a career to build - Can you
speed things up?
 Can I skip peer review? Can I pay for faster publication?
 Beware preditory publishers
 Can I submit to more than one journal at the same time to
cut down on time wasted through rejection?
 Beware wasting editors’ and peer reviewers’ time and breaching
publishers’ contracts
 Can I submit the same article without changing it for each
journal?
 Beware annoying editors and creating a bad impression
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Getting the response from the Editor
and Referees
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Dealing with rejection
Most articles will be rejected in some form:
 Rejection by editor without review
 Rejection by reviewers
 Conditional acceptance with
major revisions
 Conditional acceptance with minor
revisions
 Acceptance without revisions (rare!)
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Reasons for rejection
 The issue under investigation is not considered important
by the editor/reviewers.
 Lack of originality
 The study does not test the hypothesis.
 Research design is inadequate.
 Statistical analysis is incorrect.
 The conclusions drawn from the data are not justified.
 The paper is badly written/difficult to understand.
Adapted from Murray, 2005: 198
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
More reasons for rejection
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sent to the wrong journal
Not a journal article
Too long
Poor regard to journal house conventions
Bad style, grammar, punctuation
Fails to say anything significant
Not properly contextualised
No theoretical framework, (faulty argument, premises or
assumptions)
9. Scrappily presented, not proofread
10. Libellous, unethical, rude
adapted from Thompson and Kamler
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Peer review
 Types of feedback:






Non-specific but scathing
Scathing but useful
Damning with faint praise (rejection)
Redirecting to another journal
Editorial (grammar, punctuation)
Inviting revision and resubmission
(Murray, 2006: 125)
The editor should synthesise it for you
Get a mentor or peer to ‘translate’ feedback for you
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
(British referees)
 “I would suggest that…”
= DO IT
 “It would be helpful if the author…”
= DO IT
 “Perhaps an improvement might be…” = DO IT
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Dealing with revisions
The revision letter to the editor:
 Thank the editor and acknowledge useful feedback
 Where you agree with the suggested revisions, say
where and how (and to what extent) you have
addressed them point by point
 Where you disagree with the suggested revisions,
you can argue your case with the editor. Stay
objective, rational, polite and professional.
 Now is not the time to make major additions or changes
 Get someone to read it before you
send it….
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Waiting……
 Expect long waits
 While your paper is being
peer reviewed…..
 While your paper is being
prepared for publication….
 While your work is queued for publication…
Can you upload a pre-print to your
blog/academia.edu/linked-in profile or institutional
repository? Check your contract!
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Think about your impact right at the
start
 Before submitting your work, make sure all your publications
count…
 Decide on the form of your name and be consistent
 Use the agreed form of the University’s name [ Newcastle
University] and / or research group
 Create an online profile
 Academia.edu
 ResearchGate
 LinkedIN
 Author Identifier Tools
 ResearcherID
 ORCID
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Promoting your work after
publication
 Present further work at conferences
 Upload preprint to institutional repository (check
your contract)
 Use social media to promote your work:
 Department homepage
 Twitter (with link)
 Academia.edu / Researchgate / Methodspace /
LinkedIn (check your contract if uploading)
 Blog (or guest-blog
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Other things you can do to gain
insight into writing for publication:
 Start with book reviews
 Co-author a paper with a mentor
 Co-edit a book with a mentor (from proposal to editing to
final stages)
 Talk to publishers at conferences
 Act as peer reviewer for a journal (probably one with lower
impact factor)
 Join the editorial board of a journal (probably one with
lower impact factor)
 Organise a conference and get involved with selecting
proposals
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
Really annoying things to avoid:
 Submitting a perfectly good paper….to the wrong journal
 Resubmitting a paper to a different journal with no
alterations based on feedback or their conventions
 Not testing your material out before submitting – missing
sections or massive holes in the argument
 Not following the author guidelines
 Not proofreading or making sloppy mistakes
 Not checking out copyright – yours or others
 Not resubmitting if invited to!
 Getting angry with the referees/editors
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
The Writing Development Centre
 Understanding assignment types, questions, instructions and marking
criteria
 Critical thinking, critiquing and reviewing literature
 Note-taking from lectures and reading
 Planning and structuring writing (incl. paragraphing)
 Academic writing style (incl. fundamentals of grammar)
 Understanding and using feedback to improve your work
 Referencing, citing and avoiding plagiarism
 Managing time, work and writing (incl. writers block and
procrastination)
 Exams and Revision
 Managing research projects, dissertations and theses
 Presentations and posters
 Learning effectively in lectures, seminars, classes, labs etc
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library
The Writing Development Centre
Level 2, Robinson Library
Our team offers:
- One-to-one tutorials on study
skills and all stages and types of
academic writing
- A programme of workshops on aspects
of study and academic writing
- Online resources
You can book appointments and workshops with us
online: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/students/wdc/
facebook.com/NUlibraries
@ncl_wdc
Writing Development Centre
University Library