Ian White, Routledge and Dr Karen Smith, University of Greenwich
We will cover:
 the mechanics of getting published in
journals
 how to choose the right journal
 working with other people; gaining and using
their feedback
 identifying the differences between writing
for journals and other forms of writing with
which you may be more familiar
2
8. Proofread and
submit
1. Idea
2. Choose
Journal
7. Check
notes for
contributo
rs
6. Refine
further
drafts
3. Read
back
issues
5. Use
critical
friend
4. Write
first draft
3


An interesting topic (to you and others)
Something new
◦ Not been researched before
◦ Not been researched before in that way (different
methods and methodology; different context)
◦ Extends / builds on previous work

A thesis chapter, dissertation or conference
paper that has received good feedback from
others
What are your ideas?
4
Which higher education
journals are you familiar with?
5

Discipline specific

Themed

General higher education

General education
◦ Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education
◦ Journal of Nursing Education
◦ Law Teacher
◦ Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education
◦ Journal of Online Learning and Teaching
◦ Teaching in Higher Education
◦ Studies in Higher Education
◦ British Journal of Sociology of Education
◦ Research Papers in Education
Routledge list
6




Ask other people
See where the people you read publish
Read other articles in that publication
Track key issues/topics, and see where they are
published
◦ set up content alerts
◦ use social media (twitter, linkedin)




Contact the editor
Look at the journal’s aims and scope (or calls for
special editions)
Think about the audience
Consider the quality of the journal
Adapted from Black et al (1998, pp.86-87)
7

In pairs, look at a few examples of higher
education research articles. Consider the
following questions:
◦ Can you identify common structures in these
articles?
◦ How does these compare to the forms of writing
you are more familiar with (research in other
disciplines, essays, chapters)?
8
the shape
Most research papers
look like this.
Introductory
sections
Methods
The introduction moves
from a general
discussion of your topic,
to the more specific
question or hypothesis
you will investigate.
Results
The discussion section
becomes increasingly
more generalised.
General
Specific
Specific
General
Discussion
From Swales & Feak (2007, p.222)
9
Introductory
sections
Method
Results
Discussion
Provides rationale for the paper – moves
from general overview of the topic to the
specifics of your question.
Describes the methodology, materials (or
subjects) and procedures.
The findings are described, accompanied
by commentary.
Offers an increasingly generalised
account of what has been found out in
the study.
Adapted from Swales & Feak (2007, p.222-223)
10

Educational Studies offers author guidance on
what it expects from submissions in terms of:
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
General advice
Abstract
Introduction / literature review
Measures of assessment
Sampling
Data collection
Interpretation of findings
References
It is based on a model of empirical
research – but it might offer a useful
checklist: www.tandfonline.com/ceds
(instructions for authors)
11






Focussed literature review / background
stating a claim for the need for the study
Clear structure to argument
Concise overview of methodology
Discussion of findings in relation to existing
knowledge / research
Accurately referenced
Bound by (often) tight word count
12



What is a critical friend?
Why might you need one?
Choosing the right one
◦ In the same field?
 Specialist
 Generalist
◦ Experienced writer
◦ Proof reader
13

Check you’ve followed the authors’ instructions
(word count, page layout, referencing, figures
etc.) - www.tandfonline.com/cthe
 Thank you for submitting your manuscript, "International
Students’ first encounters with exams in the UK: superficially
similar but deeply different," to IJTLHE. Unfortunately, the
manuscript is not being considered for publication within
IJTLHE. After an initial review, it was determined that your
manuscript did not meet the submission guidelines
described by IJTLHE at

Submission is increasingly online – be ready to
register – example
14
1. Editor receives
manuscript
2. Reviewers
3. Accept
Minor amendments
Major amendments
Reject
6. Publisher proof
stage
5. Amend
4. Feedback to
author
7. Article
Published!
15
Aug 2009
Notification of project funding
May 2011
Start to draft paper
Aug 2011
Submit paper to British Journal of Research into
Education
Sept 2011
Reviewers’ comments (rejected)
Sept 2011
Submit paper to Studies in Higher Education
Oct 2011
Reviewers’ comments (corrections)
Nov 2011
Re-submit final draft
Nov 2011
Receive acceptance email
Feb 2012
Published on journal web site
Sept 2014
16
Print published

Acceptance
◦ 98% not immediately accepted/2% accepted on
receipt

Rejection
◦ Reasons for

Revision
◦ Reviewer’s mediated response(s)
 detail
◦ Major, minor amendments
17
18
1
Sent to the wrong journal, does not fit the journal’s aims
and scope/fails to engage with the issues addressed by the
journal.
2
Not a proper journal article (i.e. too journalistic, or clearly a
thesis chapter, or a consultancy report).
3
Too long (ignoring word limits for the particular journal) or
too short.
4
Poor regard to the conventions of the journal (failure to
consult Notes for Contributors) or to conventions of
academic writing generally.
5
Bad style, grammar, punctuation; poor English (not
corrected by native speaker).
Continued…
19
6
7
8
9
10
Fails to say anything of significance (i.e. makes no new
contribution to the subject) or states the obvious at tedious
length.
Not properly contextualised (e.g. concentrates on parochial
interests and ignores the needs of an international or
generally wider readership).
Poor theoretical framework (including references to
relevant literature).
Scrappily presented and clearly not proofread.
Libellous, unethical, rude.
20

Accept feedback with good grace

Revise as requested

If you can’t – admit it, and explain why

Turn the paper round on time

Thank the referees for their time
Adapted from Black et al (1998,
pp.98-99)
21

Be specific

Exemplify
 e.g. author’s response to Reviewers’ comments

Defend your position

Re-submit within the given timeframe
 n.b. version control
22


Article Proofs (CATS)
Copyright
◦ Author Rights

Publication
◦ Online (iFirst)
◦ Print

Promotion
◦ Publisher
◦ What can you do?
23



Reading lists
Departmental web pages or personal website
Social and academic networking
◦ Twitter, facebook, Linkedin, MyNetResearch,
Academici, CiteULike





Discussion lists
Blogs
Library recommendations
Free sample copy
Email signature
24
We have a new Author Services website http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/
The site contains audio interviews with academic editors providing advice on
how to get published and how to write a research paper.
Guidance is also available on:
 writing an article, editing or language polishing, translating, checking
references, artwork, providing supplementary data, how to choose a
journal;
 systems and interfaces (ScholarOne Manuscripts, CATS, Rightslink);
 the review process and what to expect;
 the production process and checking proofs;
 post-publication, errata, reprints, optimising citations;
 article versions and institutional repositories: what authors can and can’t
do with their articles.
We are particularly aware of increased demand from Chinese authors.
Our Authors’ Newsletter is freely available online.
25
26


Black, D.; Brown, S.; Day, A.; & Race, P. (1998)
500 Tips for Getting Published, London:
Kogan Page
Swales, J.M & Feak, C.B. (2007) Academic
Writing for Graduate Students, Michigan: The
University of Michigan Press
27