COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
GENERIC SKILLS TRAINING
PUBLISHING FROM A PhD
MAY 2010
PROFESSOR GIBSON BURRELL
Three areas we are asked to explore
1. Reasons, forms and avenues for academic
publishing
2. Key challenges in publishing
3. Formulating a plan for publishing the PhD
BUT ALSO IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND
THE CONTEXT FOR PUBLICATION
The Business of Publishing I
In 2000, Pearson offered a deal to Waterstones. It was
said that Waterstones would make much more money by
reducing the range of its stock and ridding itself of
specialist books. By holding on its shelves a much
smaller range of material but in very large numbers, and
with the publisher heavily advertising this material,
Waterstones would double its profits. This Fordist
notion of ‘pile ‘em high and sell ‘em cheap’ was
grudgingly adopted -after a Pearson removal of supply
to Waterstones - and indeed profits rose dramatically.
This decision fundamentally shifted the academic
publishing of books towards text books and away from
monographs. Getting PhDs published as books virtually
died in 2000.
The Business of Publishing II
OWNERSHIP OF PUBLISHING HOUSES
1. Dominated by US owned firms, German
conglomerates and University Presses in that order
2. Sage Ltd and Sage Inc were part of the Sarah and
Gerry philanthropic foundation until professional
management was called in on the death of their daughter.
Prices were raised in that year by 94%.
3. Macmillan name was split to Inc and Ltd. London
offices were bought by a German firm and under them
Ltd took name of Palgrave until it bought Inc name out.
As academics we do not know the ocean in which we
swim!
Consequences for books
1. The rise of the Handbook.
750 guaranteed sales to the world’s libraries.
Economics of production based on 750 X £75
2. The rise of the textbook
Morgan sold 450,000 copies of ‘Images of
Organisation’ and had a separate division of Sage
devoted to it.
Slack et al on ‘Operations Management’ sells
75000 per annum across the globe
3. The demise of the book
Sales of less than first print run (3000 copies)
are most usual
4. The demise of the research monograph
Almost impossible to sell to publishers in the
age of think tanks
5. The demise of the PhD published as a book
(two only since 2000 in my field)
Sage’s handling of the crisis
With the rise of its professional management and
of the Fordist approach to book selling, a new
strategy was developed: acquire journals
New journals were set up within the full control
of Sage but journals controlled and owned by
academic sub-professions (eg EGOS), or
Research Centres (eg Tavistock Institute) were a
particular target for deal making
So ‘Organisation Studies’ and ‘Human Relations’
entered the fold
Consequences for/of Journals
1. The rise of the number of journals, as book
publishing diminished opportunities for
academic output in the 80,000 word range
2. Market fragmentation with increasing
competition not co-operation between academic
colleagues over narrow areas within ‘fields’
3. The decline of broad, field-commanding
journals
4. The structuring of academic thought into 8000
word sections rather than tomes
Consequences for academics
1. The price of journals went up by 50% at
least
2. We got less for our money (6 issues instead
of four but only 25% more content)
3. The professionalisation of editorial
management and journal production, with more
electronic support throughout
4. Access to large databases and publicity
machines
5. The difficulty in seeing ways of launching
one’s own journal in this professionalised
market: the end of cottage industries
Forms of Publishing your work
1. The Magnum Opus Book with a good publisher
(10% royalty)
2. The magnum opus book through a vanity press
(you pay them)
3. The PhD published as a book with a good
publisher (7.5% royalty)
4. The PhD published as a book through a vanity
press (you pay them a lot)
5. An article in an edited collection (£50)
6. An article in a good journal (nothing)
Q. What do we mean by a good publisher?
A. In soc sci, a University Press or eg
Routledge, Blackwell, Polity, Sage
Q What do we mean by a ‘good’ journal?
A. One that appears in your professional
association’s RAE/REF list at the top
Note that the vehicle of choice is becoming the
8000 word journal article- the digestible
nugget
The ABS list has been used and will be used in
Business and Management
Why publish in journals?
1. Academic careers are research based
2. Research work needs publication in order to
be disseminated
3.Publication of work for the scrutiny of the
profession is the mode of scientific progress
4. Peer reviewed scholarly journals allow up to
date and critical evaluation of research
5. A quasi American invention the journal
article now dominates the scientific landscape
If books are difficult to publish then what about placing an
article in edited collections of papers?
“This is what you do for friends” A Vice Chancellor
If articles are the only way forward then, how many of them are
necessary?
“Any reasonably capable scientist can produce 6 papers a yeareasy” The same Vice Chancellor
How do you publish two papers a year in good
journals?
Have two good ideas that are well worked through
and target journals that will interested in your ideas
ideas are important -these always shine through
ideas that are well worked through BEFORE you
send them off are crucial
target the journals carefully and see the debates
they have fostered. Avoid epistemological enemity
In a PhD the dictum is
“Don’t get it right, get it written”
In an article you are about to send off to
a good journal the dictum is
“Don’t get it written, get it right”
Never use journal reviewers, as you
would doctoral colleagues, for testing out
ideas. Your spit and polish is important
for without it, the reviewers will give you
all of the former and none of the latter
With a PhD already completed, it may be possible to
have three papers on the go
1. One being polished and about ready to go BUT when
you want to avoid the task of polishing sentences,
digging out references and punctuation and nuance then
move to2. One being worked on in a serious way where you can
make good progress for an investment of serious time
3. One in rough draft form that you are still thinking
through
In my own case I can only work on one at a time
Key Challenges to Getting Published I
Get to know your field well
Know who the editors of journals are and where
they are placed
For example, Journals that are organs of the
professional associations tend to change the
editors regularly, have large numbers of subeditors, move institutional locations, be more
‘electronified’ in handling papers and
publication, and have professional support staff
dealing with queries. Editorial change brings
change in journal content and they follow
fashions. Eg Organisation Studies
Key Challenges to Getting Published II
On the other hand, Journals owned by the
publishers, with the academics as servile
labourers, and without a professional base of
subscribers are seen as requiring less support
staff, are more fixed in university location
and exhibit a longevity of senior editorial
personnel. They are more paper based and
less electronified. They are less likely to
change direction or embrace fashions. Eg
Organization
Key Challenges to Getting Published
III
1. You send your paper out to two
journals simultaneously and put the
wrong covering letters in the wrong
(electronic) ‘envelopes’
2.You have misunderstood the
intellectual orientation of the journal
3. You do not ‘honor’ (sic) the work of
others. The UK/European ‘critical’
approach to the work of others does not
work well in the USA.
4. The appearance of the work is shoddyusing A4 size paper in the US journals
counts as that
Key Challenges to Getting Published IV
You appear not to have read the helpful
notes in the journal outlining what they
welcome
Your favourite and key theoretician is
anthema to the journal eg Foucault in
Industrial Relations
You have missed key references that likely
reviewers will know (and may have
themselves authored)
TIP Many reviewers will look first for your
references to see if they appear there!
MORE WHAT NOT TO DOs
Your argument is weak and not maintained
Your theory section and the empirical work do not
hang together at all. The first is sophisticated
whilst the other cannot show it has successfully
operationalised the concepts used.
You have been methodologically sloppy
You appear not to have a full grasp of the material
You claim too much for your work
You show too obviously that you are a novitiate
into the profession
Polish is lacking from your command of written
English
WHAT TO DO (a negative perspective)
You demonstrate that you have been ‘disciplined’
and are rule bound
You demonstrate your ‘command’ of the field
You submit to the ‘anatomising urge’ whereby
opening up, revealing, brightness, insight,
sharpness, incisiveness and dis-covery are all
highly valued (surgical) attributes
You show willingness to become a paradigm
worker, dealing with accepted issues in accepted
ways exhibiting an incremental approach to
knowledge
What gets lost in the 8,000 word journal article?
Indiscipline and Rule breaking
Interdisciplinary work outside of a command
structure
Warps and wefts in sewing different fabrics
together - nursing not surgery
Paradigm breakers and revolutionary thinking
The capacity to think through a more detailed
argument on a broader canvas
Strategies for publication of your thesis
What to do - in a positive sense
Think about each chapter as an 8k word article
Ask yourself which journal might take this writing of
mine before writing
Polish, polish, polish
Always integrate theory and empirical work in a
close seamless way
Realistically three publications is the most you might
extract
Go to conferences and present your work . Meet
editorial board members
The journal article is
Maker of careers and marker of self discipline
The vehicle for knowledge production and the vassalage of
the academic
The currency of academic debate and the production of
‘free goods’ for others, including publishers, to exploit
The ability to get ideas discussed and your name put
forward
TINA - there is no alternative - or is there?
Any questions?