Disseminating Your Research: Tips on
Publishing Journal Articles
Presented by Ellen Mutari and Kristin Jacobson, Faculty Fellows, Institute for
Faculty Development.
Based on PowerPoint originally created by Deborah M. Figart.
A Typical Journal Review Process
Initial submission to Editor
“coach”
Screened for fit/quality
“bounce”
(desk rejection)
Sent to Co-Editor or Associate Editor
Sent to Referees
Referees reports to Editor/Assoc. Editor
Reject
Accept
Revise & Resubmit
Re-reviewed …
R & R can end up as R & R again
Definitions: the Reviewing Process

Double-blind refereeing



Single-blind refereeing



Author does not know names of Referees
Referees do know name of Author
Special Issues or Invited Papers




Author does not know names of Referees
Referees do not know name of Author
Author papers are refereed
Referees often include special issue editor(s)
Journal may share name(s) of referees with Author
Single vs. double/multiple submission: Know the expectations!


Journals in the sciences may allow you to submit to multiple journals
at once for the same paper.
Social science & humanities journals do NOT.
Top Ten List for Successful Journal Publication
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1 idea, 1 paper.
Know the journal.
Style is important.
The Introduction is crucial to the paper’s success.
Don’t overdo it. Save words for the main text
Edit, edit, edit for high-quality English and grammar.
Revisions: Do not lengthen the paper! In a separate Letter to the
Editor, specify clearly to the Editor(s) and Referees about changes
requested and completed.
Keep submissions in the pipeline: Don’t put all your eggs in one
basket!
Consider journal special issues and book chapters.
Volunteer to discuss/referee. Use professional networks. Bonus:
Learn from others’ experiences!
1. 1 idea, 1 paper.

Relate your research to an open question being discussed
or debated in the “discipline”[s].




Stay current. Don’t respond to outdated argument.
Editors and referees want to read a paper that is novel,
engaging, interesting, current.
Editors want research that is focused: clarity, clarity,
clarity.
Your title should be a clue. Does it sound like it is focused
on supporting one, clear conclusion?

Avoid “things about…”
2. Research selected journals for “fit” & quality.

What topics have been published in
the last 5 volumes?




Are you aiming too high? too low?
Types of journals:





Enter an existing conversation.
Would the journal be open to your
scholarship?
A general journal
A field journal
A journal reflecting a particular
theoretical perspective
Are scholars like you likely to read
that journal regularly and cite articles
from that journal?
Try to have specific journal (and
backup) in mind BEFORE you start
writing.

Stay open-minded: The best fit for your
paper may change/evolve as you are
writing the paper!
http://academictimgunn.tumblr.com/post/30818364656
2. Cont.: How to judge journal quality
Deb Figart’s White Paper on “Journal Citation Indexes and Journal Quality” posted on IFD website:
under “Helpful Links”.

UlrichsWeb and MLA Directory of Periodicals available
Questions to consider:
 Is the journal associated with a recognized professional association in your field?
 Who publishes? What other journals are in the publisher’s portfolio?
 Who is the Editor? The members of the Editorial Board?
 Is it peer reviewed? What is the review process?
 Look for information on acceptance rates, impact factors, and other quantitative measures of quality.
 Are submission fees common in your discipline?
 Watch out for Predatory Publishers (especially Open Access or online)!

List of predatory journals: http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

Additional criterion: https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria-2015.pdf

Be wary of online solicitations from unknown journals—just as you would be wary if they were telling you
about money in an overseas bank account!
Do you know anyone personally who has published in the journal? Have you heard of anyone who
has published there?
Remember: You will be expected to demonstrate quality in your faculty review file.

3. Style is important.


Keep to the journal’s specified length (shorter is better).
Follow the journal’s style guide & manuscript submission
guidelines. Editors and referees want to know that you aren’t
“phishing” around for any journal.







Section Titles, and format
References style
Footnotes or Endnotes
Policy on data, models, and regression analysis
Are acknowledgments allowed? If you don’t see them in print, don’t
use them.
The paper title should be informative, not wordy.
The paper must be organized. Editors will skim the paper to
see if it is well organized.
4. The Introduction is key.


Editors will read the introduction first. They may stop reading there
if…
The typical paper opens with why the topic is important and your
key contributions.




Some journals expect a paragraph summarizing how the manuscript is
laid out. Others don’t. Read other articles to know the culture.
Do not include a “second introduction” with a background or
history of the topic.
Headings lead the reader through the manuscript.
The hackneyed [commonplace] structure is a good place to start, but
you do not have to use it:
1.
2.
3.
4.
•
Introduction
Literature Review
Results
Summary and Conclusions
The structure must be appropriate to the journal and your paper.
5. Don’t overdo it.


Journal articles are getting shorter. 10,000  7,000 words.
Do a literature review, but keep it brief. Embed previous findings where
appropriate:





Save words for the main text, not an overly long list of references.



In historical or theoretical presentation
In methodology or theory section(s)
In results section(s)
Even in summary and conclusions
It’s important to show that you read the literature, but reference lists are getting
shorter.
Do not play games of citing authors that would be friendly to the paper; editors
easily catch onto this.
Every word or word-equivalent in a table or chart counts as a word against
the word limit!



A journal article does not have15- 20 tables.
Information presented in tables should stand alone, and every table included
should be summarized.
Remember: 1 idea, 1 paper.
6. Edit, edit, edit for high-quality English.





Don’t depend on the journal employing a copy editor.
Make it easy for referees and readers across the globe to
understand your paper.
Referees are frustrated with argument flow when the
manuscript is poorly written.
After you think you’re ready to submit, leave it aside for a
few days. Then look again to be sure.
Remember to ask colleagues to read your manuscript
before you submit it. Then thank them for their
assessment.
7. Revisions: length, letter

Few articles are accepted in the 1st round of reviewing.


In a revision, do not lengthen the paper.


Most Authors receive Revise & Resubmit letters, so be prepared for
this; allow for this in your career advancement timeline.
The only exception to the word-limit rule: when the Editor has
allowed more words, this will be specified by the Editor in a note to
the Author.
Write a separate letter to the Editor.





Specify clearly to the Editor (page number, paragraph) what changes
were requested are where changes were made.
If a change was not made, explain why.
Outline any other changes in terms of argument, ideas, results, etc.
Rarely, if ever, complain to the Editor about a decision or ask that the
paper be sent to an additional referee.
Any questions about referee comments or conflicted
recommendations? Write the Editor.
8. Keep submissions in the pipeline



Don’t put all of your eggs
in one basket!
Few articles or book
chapters are published in
less than one year from
the initial submission
When possible, stage your
research so that you have

http://academictimgunn.tumblr.com/post/31859446012


Project in the research
stage
Project in the
writing/revision stage
Project in submission
9. Consider journal special issues and book
chapters.




Special issues focus on a
theme.
They often have special,
named editors.
Special issues are highly
cited because people
looking for research on
the theme read them.
Sometimes, they have a
higher acceptance rate
than a regular issue.
Monday,(June(17,(2013(12:33:21(PM(Eastern(Daylight(Time
Subject: The$Review$of$Black$Political$Economy,$Vol.$40,$Issue$1$?$New$Issue$Alert
Date:
Monday,$May$20,$2013$3:12:10$AM$Eastern$Daylight$Time
From:
To:
Springer
Figart,$Deb
$
Monday, May 20$
$
Dear Deborah Figart,$
We are pleased to deliver your requested table of contents alert for The Review of
Black Political Economy. Volume 40 Number 1 is now available on SpringerLink.
Register for Springer's email services providing you
with info on the latest books in your field. ... More!
Important News!
Author Satisfaction is central to our philosophy!
What our authors say: 88 % rated their experience of
publishing in a Springer journal as ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ and
94 % would publish with us again!*
Why not publish your next paper in a Springer journal?
*on average
In this issue:
Special Editorial Note
Cecilia Conrad
Abstract
Full text HTML
Full text PDF
The Invisible Woman: The Status of and Challenges Facing Black Women
Preface
Nicole E. Kenney
Abstract
Full text HTML
Full text PDF
Introduction
Margaret C. Simms
Abstract
Full text HTML
Full text PDF
Still Slipping: African-American Women in the Economy and in Society
Julianne Malveaux
Abstract
Full text HTML
Full text PDF
Page(1(of(3
10. Volunteer to discuss/referee. Use
professional networks.

Even though the process is often double-blind, getting past the
Editor is easier if they know your name.




Be a good discussant/referee:




Volunteer to discuss papers at a conference and referee for a
journal/conference paper.
Offer to write book reviews so journal gets to know you.
You are joining a community of scholars. And you learn a lot.
Meet deadlines
Write high-quality reports that are unbiased, not derisive
Make overall suggestions (big picture) as well as specific suggestions for
improvement
When you referee a lot for a particular journal and your reviews
are high-quality, you may be asked to join the Editorial Board.
Upcoming IFD Events
February 10, 12:30 pm, CCMR2: So You Want to Get a Grant: Navigating internal and
external funding sources
Lisa Rosner, Distinguished Professor of History; Director, Honors Program
February 18, 12:45 pm, location TBD: Dealing with Students’ Mental Health Disclosures
Christine Ferri, Associate Professor of Psychology
March 4th, 12:45 pm, CCMR2: Disseminating Your Research: Tips on Publishing Books
Kristin Jacobson (Literature) and Ellen Mutari (Economics)
This workshop will provide lessons from the facilitators’ experiences getting scholarly books
published and refereeing manuscript proposals for publishers. We will review the different types
nonfiction books (monographs, anthologies, text books), how to evaluate the reputation of
publishers, and the elements of a strong book proposal. Time will be left for Q&A.
March 24th, 12:00 – 1:15 pm, F121: Creative Teaching Forum: Teaching Large Section Classes
Organized by IFD Fellows Liz Shobe and Mike Frank, this session will include a panel of faculty
and students discussing the challenges and merits of teaching and learning in large classes.