Publication Process

1. Publication Process Submitting and peer review

2. Overview • Submit • Where to submit • How to submit • Editor • Sends to Reviewers • Reads it themselves • Sends you decision letter • Decision 1. Accept 2. Revise and Resubmit (as new or original) 3. Reject • Next step • If R&R, then make changes, cover letter • If reject, make changes?, submit down

3. As the AUTHOR… Where to submit? • Journals have a fairly stable hierarchy of reputation • Broader audience base = higher reputation (http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Journals_in_Psychology) • Within each discipline: ask about hierarchy (http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Journals_in_Social_and_Personality_Psychology) • Focus of journal? • See each journals website for focus/scope of the journal • Where you submit helps you decide which audience member to write for How to submit? • Each journal lists unique instructions http://www.editorialmanager.com/lahu/

4. As the AUTHOR… other pre-submission steps • Ask journals… • What is review process? • How many reviewers? • What is turn-around time? • Special formatting such as APA, MLA, etc? • Common mistakes to avoid? ASK THESE QUESTIONS, especially if first time submitting to that journal

5. As the AUTHOR… After the submission is sent… • Action editor is assigned (~ 1 week) • Action editor skims for initial threshold decision • Action editor finds reviewers (~ 1 month) • Reviewers have X number of (~3-6 months) months to complete review • Action editor has X number of ongoing manuscripts • Action editor reads reviews • Action editor reads article • Action editor makes decision (~ 1 month)

6. As the AUTHOR… Possible outcomes • Accept • Minor revisions required; problems are mostly about presentation or small problems with literature review, analysis, discussion • Revise and Resubmit (original and new) • Major revisions required; problems can be almost anything (but “importance” of study is acceptable) • “new submission” means the editor believes fundamental issues exist and he/she is not sure you can overcome them so you must resubmit as a “new submission” as compared to true R&R. • Reject • Problems prevent publication such as flawed theorizing or methodology, or viewed as unimportant • Notice that flawed analysis does not prevent publication because you can re-do analysis, and flawed Discussion does not prevent publication because can be re-written.

7. As the AUTHOR… If R&R • What are reviewers/editors looking for? • Get sample “response letters” from colleagues • “gmail database” • Create response letter: • Respond to each point • Start with editors • Then major reviewer points • Then minor reviewer points • Explain whether accepted/rejected each point. • If accepted, summary of how. • If rejected, explain why. • If inconsistencies between editor and reviewer, go with editor • From talking with editors… • They have information overload w/ so many articles • So they want response letter as written record of everything

8. Advanced Sources • “Reviewing scientific works in psychology”, edited by Sternberg • Good for information about process • Good for how to review articles • “Guide to publishing in Psychology Journals”, edited by Sternberg • Third part of book is about “Dealing with Referees” and how to write for referees, how to read response letters, how to revise • “The Psychologist’s Companion”, written by Sternberg • Last few chapters about how to evaluate a paper, submit to journals, tips for gaining acceptance • Some handouts…