The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Researchers

The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Researchers Steve Wallace

Introduction • Technical writing teacher – NCTU, NTHU, ITRI - Motivation • Research Researchers • Habits to produce more papers in higher impact journals.

Method • Collected data from interviews, phone, conferences and universities • Position as editor has allowed me this opportunity • Compiled into 7 basic “habits” which summarize advice and tips in 7 areas

Overview of Researchers • Effective researcher was defined as a researcher who has publish a average of five or more SCI or SCCI papers a year every year for the last five years. • There were a total of 146 effective researchers involved from the following domains: • 34 - Engineering • 17 - Management and Business • 11 - Foreign Language and Literature • 10 - Education • 31 - Natural sciences • 20 - Medicine • 12 - Social sciences • 6 - Law • 5 - History and Liberal Arts

Anonymity of Responses • In order to get the most honest responses specific researchers remain anonymous. This was an important condition to getting practical material • This was especially true in the area of submission and handling the political elements of review.

Develop your own habits • Pay attention to the habits and borrow those ideas that will be beneficial to your research habits. • Try to create your own style and method for writing and publishing. • 7 habits and practices that support those habits.

Habit #1 Effective researchers have a routine for writing, submitting and revising papers. Quote • “I view producing every paper like producing a product, a creative product like a movie. We have screenings, editors and deadlines to release our product. I am not always the director of the movie, that might be me or it could be one of my students. But I am always the producer. The producer needs to push everybody so that the movie can be released on time.” - Civil Engineering Professor # 78

Practice Capturing ideas when away from the computer: • Collect ideas: - notebook, post it notes • Transferred to ongoing files on the subject. Notes could be organized and edited into the beginning of a paper. • Easier to begin writing when there were already ideas on the page than it was to start from nothing.

PracticeRecycle parts of other papers to make new papers • Suppose there are two important papers, paper 1 = {A, B, C, and D}, paper 2 = {C, D, and E} where A, B, ... are ingredients. Let a new paper= {A, B, E} • Does the new combination make sense? Does it describe an important phenomenon in a certain country or does it capture an interesting situation? • If paper new = {A, C, X} where X is totally new, and if it makes sense, it may be an original idea.

Practice Creating a Supply Chain for Paper Publication. • Some effective researchers use a “research log”: a list of papers under review and where each paper is in the review process. The purpose of a log is to: • 1) know when to send a reminder to the editor • 2) prevent resubmission of a rejected paper to the same journal and • 3) avoid multiple submission of several papers to the same journal within a short period of time.

PracticeCollect a pool of potential journals • For each paper, note the pool of potential journals. When a paper is rejected, do not lose time resubmitting the paper to another journal. • Do not submit two papers to the same journal in two months, especially if the two articles are related. • Other things being equal, editors prefer to publish two articles by different authors, rather than two articles by the same author. • You may submit more papers to the same journal simultaneously if there is more than one editor. They do not often communicate with one another. In this instance, acceptance of one article by one editor does not adversely affect the chance of another being accepted by a different editor.

PracticePick journals like you pick stocks • Do homework on journals. • Submit paper to a journal with a rising impact factor and higher acceptance rates. avoid declining journals with low acceptance and diminishing impact factor. • Could cause the journal to be removed from the SSCI and SCI ranking.

Practice Identifying journals with rising impact factors • Good specialty journal’s impact factors are rising. • General journal’s impact factor, except for a few at the top, are expected to decline • In general journals, "readers are confronted with a decreasing probability of finding at least one important article in their field." (Holub, Tappeiner, and Eberharter, 1991). • In the 1970s, the top ten journals in every field were general journals. • In the 1990s, half of the top ten journals were specialized journals.

Practice Betting your research where you have the highest probability for publication. • Sometimes journals have groups of researchers they prefer papers from and other groups of researchers they don’t like papers from. • Subject matter preferences are seen by checking back issues of a journal. Empirical papers? Theory papers? • Check past issues of the journal. If you find few or no other Chinese names in that journal, it might be better to try your luck somewhere else. However, if there are many other Taiwanese and Chinese authors who have previously published in that journal than it is reasonable that they will consider your paper as well. • Preferences are known; biases are difficult to detect.

Practice for master’s studentsGenerate papers from your thesis You invested two or more years writing your thesis. • Try to generate a couple of papers from the most important chapters of the thesis. • This is easier than writing a totally new paper from scratch. Work jointly with your advisor to help market your papers.

Practice Maintain a stock of papers under review constantly • If the acceptance rate of the top-ranking journals is 15%, one needs about 7 papers under review at all times to have one paper accepted per year at the targeted journals. • If your goal is to get 10 papers accepted in the first 5 years of your career, you need about a dozen papers under review at all times. • Half a dozen papers should be under review at all times for untenured authors. This does not mean that you should write 7 new papers each year.

PracticeDon't put two good ideas in one paper Separate them into two papers. • As the paper's length increases beyond 15 pages, the chance of acceptance drops. • When a topic is appropriately split into two papers, the probability of getting at least one of them accepted more than doubles. • You also will get a paper accepted sooner. • If x = original length, and p = probability of acceptance, then p(x/2) = 2p(x) + a, where a > 0 and x > 15 pages. The alpha (a) factor: • Editors like short papers. • The chance that a referee will detect a mathematical error declines. • Referees will return the report faster. • The chance that a referee will misunderstand the paper also decreases.

Practice Approach different types of journals • Sending all papers to top journals is risky. • Sending all papers to low-quality journals also is unsatisfactory. • Your curriculum vitae should contain some publications in the top journals. • Quantity of publications also is important. • Having three papers in different journals is better than three in one journal, if the relative quality of the journals is the same.

Practice Incorporate English Editing into your supply chain Use professional editorial assistance • Particularly if you are not a native English speaker • Editors will not publish papers with grammatical errors. • It is safe to assume that referees are biased; they have an excuse to recommend rejection when grammatical errors are detected. • You can easily find a copy editor who charges a reasonable fee.

Reasons for major revision or rejection of Taiwanese journal papers

Habit #2 Sacrificed social or physical endeavors to be a better researcher. • The dark side of writing. Many researchers mentioned that they still had time for family, but less TV, computer games, etc…

Habit #3Writers practice their research and writing in functional areas in order to identify weaknesses. • No one is born as a talented English writers but rather improves through deliberate practice. • Two elements of practice 1) regularity and 2) focus on errors to improve. • Continue to improve throughout their life. Say they are not talented, just practiced. • “Writing is 20 percent inspiration and 80 percent perspiration.”

PracticeFocus on specific skills • Researcher talk about methods, writing, grammar, etc.. like a golf player talking about different swing • Writers revise all the time. No one writes perfect sentences the first time. They are edited and reworked many times

PracticeDon’t trust spell check! • After the paper is completed, do not immediately submit it to a journal. (It is not finished yet.) • You always will find many small errors in text, notations, explanations, or missing references, etc. in your finished paper. • Reread the introduction, conclusion, and abstract before submission – any mistake is expensive • Use, but do not rely totally on spelling checkers • (Spelling checkers do not check word meanings. )

PracticeImitate skillful writers Nobody loves English writing. It is only a tool. Observe how other successful writers introduce their topic, cite literature, and get on with their task. • Imitate their words and phrases, and modify them to suit your purpose. • It is easier to imitate what someone else has written than to create a totally new paragraph.

Habit #4 Writers dramatize their work by creating mental models of the paper writing process. • See their writing and researching in dramatic terms like and metaphor and use this to encourage their lab. • “the great struggle” House model, dragon model. • The struggle is the glory. Enjoy the results and so they put up with the process.

PracticeFind meaning and purpose in their research • Not because that is their intention, but as a by-product • Listen to them telling challenging stories and their faces lit up. • Happiness= pursuit • There’s always the next question

Habit #5 Writers use the competitive, political and supportive energy of other researchers. • Supportive energy: Effective researchers integrate with a support group. Support groups read and review papers and keep other group members producing. This is especially helpful at the PhD level. Create deadlines for themselves and tell it to others, who hold them accountable. • Competitive energy: Compare themselves with other researchers. Keep score of number and impact factor. • Political: Researchers are somewhat political and use this to gain an advantage in publishing. • Often great researchers are very friendly people. Make friends easily. The dark side is that half of peer reviewed articles in top rated journals are never referenced by anyone. (Holub, Tappeiner, and Eberharter, SEJ 1991).

PracticeDon’t Criticize References • I think that the author knows his subject better than I do. I usually use his references to find a suitable reviewer - Associate Editor, Journal of Retailing • Don’t emphasize the importance of your paper by putting down on other papers. Your references are probably your reviewers and they are sensitive. When citing other papers avoid using negative terms.

PracticeReviewers’ comments • “I don’t’ think you treated Smith fairly in your literature review, his insights deserve more respect.” • “You forgot to include Smith as a reference in you paper. His work is fundamental to understanding your research.”

PracticeCite the papers of potential referees in the introduction • Important references should be mentioned in the first page. • Usually, the editor will read the first page (or the next) when choosing the reviewers. • The editor may choose reviewers from those mentioned in the introduction and references. • Works of potential referees should be mentioned in the introduction, rather than buried in footnotes or the main body. • Give (accurate) credit generously to the most likely referees • Be generous to all authors cited, but particularly to those who are likely to be referees. • Explain why their works are significant for your analysis. • Write one or two sentences about the contributions of each of the most likely referees and how their works are related to yours. • This takes up less than 1% of the space, but it can affect the probability of acceptance significantly.

PracticeAttend conferences and meetings to meet people in your field • There are about a hundred people in your field who are likely to be referees of your papers. • Prepare a list of one hundred active people in your main research areas. Try to meet them within a five-year period. • Present papers at, or at least attend, two professional meetings a year. • When presenting papers or attending regional, national, or international meetings, try to get to know these people. This is your best opportunity for networking. • When you go to conferences smile and “work the room.”

Practice Cite researchers who like you • Include references to authors who are known to like your papers. Perhaps they might become referees. • Include references to people with whom you have had favorable correspondence. • This is not to bias opinions, but to get a fair hearing. • Referees have to make a conscious effort and must be alert in order to be fair to unknown authors.

Scan journal for related articles • Try to find some related articles in the journal to which you wish to submit your paper. • Authors who published a paper on a related subject are likely to be referees. The editor's memory is still fresh. • Obviously, you need to say something about, or at least cite, their papers. • Even if they are marginally related, try to incorporate their references. Make some effort to explain how your work is related.

PracticeDelete or hide the references to undesirable potential referees Even with double blind reviews, one can often guess the identity of the referee from the report because of references and writing style, etc. Editors often select referees from your references. If some referees consistently recommend rejection of your papers, drop their papers from your references (in the initial submission). You can add them later (after the paper is accepted). This may require rewriting the introduction with a somewhat different perspective, but it is probably worth the effort. Depending on the journal, you may ask the editor to eliminate some persons from the pool of referees. But you should ask informally (e.g., via e-mail).

Habit #6 Writers have a thick skin • “One gets rejection letters more often than not.” • “If you cannot swallow rejection easily, don't submit papers.” • “A good paper deserves at least three chances at publication in ranking journals.” • “If you ignore a rejected paper more than one month, you are likely to lose interest. Do something about it.” • “Bad luck eventually comes to an end.”

Eliminate any trace of prior rejections • Do not indicate when the paper was first written. If the original version was written a few years earlier, the editors and the referees clearly see that it has been rejected a few times. • Do not indicate how often the paper has been revised. This suggests you do not listen and properly modify the paper to make it more publishable. • In the references, eliminate any references to papers that were "forthcoming" a few years back. This not only indicates that your paper was previously rejected a few times, but also that you are sloppy in updating the references.

PracticeAvoid the journals which consistently reject your papers Avoid (temporarily) the journals which have rejected your papers consistently, say three times in a row. The editor still remembers all those bad remarks about your papers. Wait until a new editor is appointed. First and middle names, as well as last name, often reveal the sex, race, or nationality of the authors. If you have reason to believe that you are being discriminated against on the basis of sex, race, or nationality, you may consider using initials instead of spelling out the first and middle names. You may reveal your full name after the paper is accepted.

Practice When rejected, try again • Even Nobel Laureates get rejection letters. • Papers lying dormant in the file drawer do not bring any good news! • Submit the paper to another journal within one month. But wait! • If a referee points out a major problem, you need to address it.

Practice Revise and Resubmit • You do not have to revise a paper every time it is rejected. • But if a paper is rejected 4 times, there is a serious flaw in the paper. Find and fix the problem. • Make a modest effort to incorporate the valuable suggestions of the referee before submitting to another journal. • Why? The same referee might get it again. • Do whatever possible to make sure the negative referee does not get the paper again. You are entitled to new referee reports.

Problems of Journals Association journals: Editors change every few years, and they tend to accept more papers by colleagues and friends while they are in charge. Since the editors are chosen from among a few major institutions, they tend to get a larger share of publications than under ideal academic conditions. The are subsidized by associations. (AER, Econometrica, IEEE) University journals: Promoting truth and knowledge is not necessarily the primary concern of these journals. The universities need to protect their own interests. Will often have a stated preference for their own teachers’ and students’ papers. Subsidized by universities. (HBR, MIT Sloan) Commercial journals: To maximize profits they are least likely to have preferences or biases. However, they cannot survive without reader subscriptions. (Blackwell, North-Holland)

Habit #7Writers write (and don’t always enjoy it.) • One of the most common misunderstandings that I find is that my students believe that good writers enjoy writing, that they have always enjoyed it and do it out of pure joy. • This couldn’t be further from the truth. In my conversations with researchers I found that many hated the process of writing but enjoyed the results. They maintained their motivation to overcome their hatred of the writing process. • This routine is often daily, where they write whether or not they feel like it.

Quotes about action • “Inspiration is overrated, it’s all about hard work and there’s really no way around it.”. • “Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. Begin it now.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) • “The gods favor the bold.” – Ovid (43 BC - c. 18 AD)

Practice Thinking vs. Action • Talking about writing isn’t writing. Thinking about writing isn’t writing. Dreaming or fantasizing isn’t writing. Neither are outlining, researching, or making notes. All these may be a part of the whole milieu of the writing life and necessary to getting a project completed, but only writing is writing. • “You can’t sit around thinking,” said fiction writer David Long. “You must sit around writing.”

PracticeMaintain intrinsic motivation in their topic but it often didn’t begin that way. • Initially forced and later the interest came. • Often as a result of a perceived advantage in an area. • Are conscious of their total impact. • Desire to be great.

PracticeResearcher are proud of their work • Researchers are proud of the name “researcher” or “writer.” They don’t say they should write, they just write. • Researcher’s motivation for writing is different than creative writers, rather than writing for enjoyment, they viewed writing as a tool, rather than an end. They needed it to communicate their findings to a larger audience.

Conclusion • 1) Effective researchers have a routine for writing, submitting and revising papers. • 2) Effective researchers sacrifice social or physical endeavors to be a better researcher. • 3) Effective researchers practice their research and writing in functional areas in order to identify weaknesses. • 4) Effective researchers dramatize their work by creating mental models of the paper writing process. • 5) Effective researchers use the competitive, political and supportive energy of other researchers. • 6) Effective researchers have a thick skin • 7) Effective researchers write (and don’t always enjoy it.)

The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Researchers