Publishing for young researchers: Dealing with the submission process

1. Publishing for young researchers: Dealing with the submission process Dr Fragkiskos Filippaios Reader in International Business Director of Graduate Studies & Accreditations Kent Business School

2. The original idea • Publishing for young researchers: Dealing with rejections • We all have to deal with them • Some of the most influential papers and authors in different field were originally rejected by editors

3. Publishing is a process

4. Selecting a Journal • Journal’s prestige in the field • Readership of the journal • Previous publications on topic • Acceptance rates • Manuscript turnaround • Composition of editorial board • Useful reviews • Previous publications • Colleagues recommendations Frank, E (1994)

5. What editors value? • Factors leading to rejections • Poor construction of the paper • Poor research design • Factors leading to acceptances • Scientific novelty and timeliness of the topic • Most problematic factors • Poor use of English and careless preparation • Attention to guide lines for authors Radford, D.R. et al. (1999)

6. Preparing for submission • Present papers at conferences, seminars and workshops • Talk to your peers and ask for feedback • Ask the editor and potential reviewers to comment on drafts of the paper • Use the University’s repository service (KAR) and get your work in the public domain as working papers

7. Submitting the paper • Draft a covering letter and include: • How the paper fits the journal’s scope • Title of manuscript and names of authors • The originality of research • Key contributions to the field • Wait for the outcome of submission process

8. What the reviewers look for... • Introduction • Clear positioning of the paper • Emphasis on motivation and contributions • Reference list • Add references to potential reviewers and appreciate their contributions • Add references from the journal to justify your selection • Make sure that your references are up to date

9. The decision... • Types of referees comments • Comments that you agree with • Comments that you disagree but you could incorporate in the paper • Comments that you feel show that the referee did not understand your paper • Read all comments carefully and decide a revision strategy (re-organisation or re-writing of the paper) • Search for common patterns among the reviewers’ comments • Decide whether revisions are primarily conceptual/theoretical or empirical

10. Rejection • Everybody has at least one... • Talk to a senior colleague and get reassurance on the quality of your work • Read carefully the reviewers comments and in your revision try to incorporate as many as possible • The next submission, in another journal, might actually go to the same reviewers...

11. Conditional Acceptance or Revise and Resubmit • Their difference depends on the type of commitment the editor wishes to make • Draft a revision strategy by addressing the reviewers’ comments • Start from the minor corrections and note details of each one • Address the major corrections and write a letter to the editor clearly demonstrating how and where you addressed each one • Respond quickly – Give priority

12. Letter to the editor • Thank the reviewers for their time and comments • List all major changes • Defend your work if you strongly disagree with a reviewer’s points • Attach a detailed list of reviewers’ comments and show how and where in the paper each comment has been addressed

13. How not to do it...

14. Further Reading • Frank, E. 1994. Author’s criteria for selecting journals, The Journal of the American Medical Association, 272: 163-164 • Radford, D.R., Smillie, L., Wilson, R.F. and Grace, A.M. 1999. The criteria used by editors of scientific dental journals in the assessment of manuscripts submitted for publication. British Dental Journal 187: 376-379 • Day, R.A. and Gastell, B. 2006. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, Greenwood Press • Cargill, M. and O’Connor, P. 2009. Writing Scientific Research Articles: Strategy and Steps Wiley Blackwell