Presentation  Publication

1. Presentation  Publication A few possibly helpful thoughts

2. Why do a presentation? • Serious deadline for constructing a product • Opportunity to hear reactions to that product • Opportunity to gauge the reactions of various audiences to that product • Chance to meet people • And travel to faraway places • An easy first step to a possible publication

3. When should a presentation become a publication? • If it constitutes an MPU* (Minimal Publishable Unit) • If you can identify an audience • If all the various lines of analysis have been pursued • If it is worth the time you will invest in writing, revising, and maybe re-revising it • If it makes a contribution to an identifiable discourse *Willett, J. Personal communication.

4. Abstract, lit review, methods, results, discussion Primarily textual Explanatory discourse Maximally anticipatory Should be a substantial contribution Question, motivation for question, answer to question, implications of answer As visual as possible Narrative discourse Partially reactive May be a less substantial contribution (if you are a good talker) Comparingpublications and presentations

5. What steps do you take? • Write a first draft • Write methods and results first • Forget the RQ you started with • Formulate the question it turns out you have now actually answered • Justify that question in the introduction • Write a discussion linked to the issues raised in the introduction

6. What steps do you take? Identify a candidate journal • Consider the journals you have cited often • Find out about publication lag, journal penetration • Consider journal impact in relation to article quality – the match is crucial http://www.sciencegateway.org/rank/index.ht Rewrite for that journal • Study the advice to authors carefully • Read recent issues and link whenever possible to articles published • Note guidelines for blinding, citations, length, format

7. What steps do you take? • Solicit feedback on the draft • Naïve readers and professional readers can both help • Solicit targeted readers: content, methods, the big picture • Rewrite and proofread • Consider tables and figures carefully • Decide what needs to be in the paper and what can be left out • Figure out what the major limitation of the work is and acknowledge it, explaining why the work is important anyway

8. What steps do you take? • Submit • Write a letter to the editor giving a brief overview of the big point of the paper • Suggest some likely reviewers • From the editorial board of the journal • Or outside it if necessary • Communicate with the editor • Inquire politely about the reviews after 3 months • Acknowledge receipt of messages

9. And then the revision… • Articles almost ALWAYS need revision • Even if the submission is rejected, you have gotten lots of free advice • Free advice is not necessarily good • But at a minimum it suggests where the problems are

10. And then the revision… • Engage in communication with the editor • Thank him/her for reviews, even if you get rejected • Ask for clarification if you need it • Protest a rejection if there are really solid grounds to do so • Evaluate the reviews carefully • Some of the comments will be stupid • You don’t need to follow all the advice, but you do need to solve all the problems identified • Convergence across reviewers means there is something that needs fixing

11. And then the revision… • If you resubmit, the letter is even more important than the revisions • Address every single comment in the action letter and reviews • Do what they suggest or explain why you didn’t • Consider another journal for any rejected article • Use the reviews from the first submission to improve the draft • Use the reviews from the first submission to target journal selection more carefully

12. And then • A postdoc • An academic job • A promotion • Tenure • Influence • Citations in the New York Times • Fame • Fortune

13. Contact Information Professor Catherine Snow catherine_snow@mail.harvard.edu