COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE GENERIC SKILLS TRAINING PUBLISHING FROM A PhD

1. COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE GENERIC SKILLS TRAINING PUBLISHING FROM A PhD MAY 2012 PROFESSOR GIBSON BURRELL

2. Four areas we are asked to explore 1. The politics of academic publishing especially REF 2. Different disciplinary expectations in publishing 3. Key challenges in article preparation 4. Responding to referees

3. When and where to write? When told to by your supervisor When visited by the muse - ‘inspiration’ When you want an academic career In an office In a shared open plan office In the privacy of your own home In a ‘retreat’

4. The politics of publication are You have to- if you want an academic career You have to argue very hard if you want to publish outside peer refereed journals You need therefore to think within the constraints of 8000 words for a target audience

5. Why publish in journals? 1. Academic careers are research based 2. Research work needs publication in order to be disseminated 3.Publication of work for the scrutiny of the profession is the mode of scientific progress 4. Peer reviewed scholarly journals allow up to date and critical evaluation of research 5. A quasi American invention the journal article now dominates the scientific landscape

6. The baleful influence of REF The drive for ‘accountability’ to the Treasury Resource allocation as complex and contested The making simple of the complex - reductionism The reduction of variety to a standard format – the 8k article The reduction of our work to numbers

7. HOWEVER The lack of resources to be decided upon The question of whose rationalisation? – size and complexity in the hands of panel members Americanisation of performance criteria The rise of performativity The decline in creativity?

8. Forms of Publishing your work 1. The Magnum Opus Book with a good publisher (10% royalty) 2. The magnum opus book through a vanity press (you pay them) 3. The PhD published as a book with a good publisher (7.5% royalty) 4. The PhD published as a book through a vanity press (you pay them a lot) 5. An article in an edited collection (£50) 6. An article in a good journal (nothing)

9. Q. What do we mean by a good publisher? A. In soc sci, a University Press or eg Routledge, Blackwell, Polity, Sage Q What do we mean by a ‘good’ journal? A. One that appears in your professional association’s RAE/REF list at the top Note that the vehicle of choice is becoming the 8000 word journal article- the digestible nugget The ABS list has been used and will be used in Business and Management!!

10. If books are difficult to publish then what about placing an article in edited collections of papers? “This is what you do for friends” A Vice Chancellor If articles are the only way forward then, how many of them are necessary? “Any reasonably capable scientist can produce 6 papers a year- easy” The same Vice Chancellor

11. How do you publish two papers a year in good journals? Have two good ideas that are well worked through and target journals that will interested in your ideas ideas are important -these always shine through ideas that are well worked through BEFORE you send them off are crucial target the journals carefully and see the debates they have fostered. Avoid epistemological enemity

12. In a PhD the dictum is “Don’t get it right, get it written” In an article you are about to send off to a good journal the dictum is “Don’t get it written, get it right” Never use journal reviewers, as you would doctoral colleagues, for testing out ideas. Your spit and polish is important for without it, the reviewers will give you all of the former and none of the latter

13. With a PhD already completed, it may be possible to have three papers on the go 1. One being polished and about ready to go BUT when you want to avoid the task of polishing sentences, digging out references and punctuation and nuance then move to- 2. One being worked on in a serious way where you can make good progress for an investment of serious time 3. One in rough draft form that you are still thinking through In my own case I can only work on one at a time

14. Key Challenges to Getting Published I Get to know your field well Know who the editors of journals are and where they are placed For example, Journals that are organs of the professional associations tend to change the editors regularly, have large numbers of sub-editors, move institutional locations, be more ‘electronified’ in handling papers and publication, and have professional support staff dealing with queries. Editorial change brings change in journal content and they follow fashions. Eg Organisation Studies

15. Key Challenges to Getting Published II On the other hand, Journals owned by the publishers, with the academics as servile labourers, and without a professional base of subscribers are seen as requiring less support staff, are more fixed in university location and exhibit a longevity of senior editorial personnel. They are more paper based and less electronified. They are less likely to change direction or embrace fashions. Eg Organization

16. Key Challenges to Getting Published III 1. You send your paper out to two journals simultaneously and put the wrong covering letters in the wrong (electronic) ‘envelopes’ 2.You have misunderstood the intellectual orientation of the journal 3. You do not ‘honor’ (sic) the work of others. The UK/European ‘critical’ approach to the work of others does not work well in the USA. 4. The appearance of the work is shoddy-using A4 size paper in the US journals counts as that

17. Key Challenges to Getting Published IV You appear not to have read the helpful notes in the journal outlining what they welcome Your favourite and key theoretician is anthema to the journal eg Foucault in Industrial Relations You have missed key references that likely reviewers will know (and may have themselves authored) TIP Many reviewers will look first for your references to see if they appear there!

18. MORE WHAT NOT TO DOs Your argument is weak and not maintained Your theory section and the empirical work do not hang together at all. The first is sophisticated whilst the other cannot show it has successfully operationalised the concepts used. You have been methodologically sloppy You appear not to have a full grasp of the material You claim too much for your work You show too obviously that you are a novitiate into the profession Polish is lacking from your command of written English

19. WHAT TO DO (a negative perspective) You demonstrate that you have been ‘disciplined’ and are rule bound You demonstrate your ‘command’ of the field You submit to the ‘anatomising urge’ whereby opening up, revealing, brightness, insight, sharpness, incisiveness and dis-covery are all highly valued (surgical) attributes You show willingness to become a paradigm worker, dealing with accepted issues in accepted ways exhibiting an incremental approach to knowledge

20. What gets lost in the 8,000 word journal article? Indiscipline and Rule breaking Interdisciplinary work outside of a command structure Warps and wefts in sewing different fabrics together - nursing not surgery Paradigm breakers and revolutionary thinking The capacity to think through a more detailed argument on a broader canvas

21. Strategies for publication of your thesis What to do - in a positive sense Think about each chapter as an 8k word article Ask yourself which journal might take this writing of mine before writing Polish, polish, polish Always integrate theory and empirical work in a close seamless way Realistically three publications is the most you might extract Go to conferences and present your work . Meet editorial board members

22. The journal article is Maker of careers and marker of self discipline The vehicle for knowledge production and the vassalage of the academic The currency of academic debate and the production of ‘free goods’ for others, including publishers, to exploit The ability to get ideas discussed and your name put forward TINA - there is no alternative - or is there?

23. Nowotny et al 2001: Rethinking Science Mode 1 to Mode 2 as a description AND a prescription the ‘agora’ of national policy debate universities as but one stakeholder the national interest rather than ‘humanity’ Relevance rather than rigour Secrecy rather than openness ‘wealth creation’ as basis of research

24. The Business of Publishing I In 2000, Pearson offered a deal to Waterstones. It was said that Waterstones would make much more money by reducing the range of its stock and ridding itself of specialist books. By holding on its shelves a much smaller range of material but in very large numbers, and with the publisher heavily advertising this material, Waterstones would double its profits. This Fordist notion of ‘pile ‘em high and sell ‘em cheap’ was grudgingly adopted -after a Pearson removal of supply to Waterstones - and indeed profits rose dramatically. This decision fundamentally shifted the academic publishing of books towards text books and away from monographs. Getting PhDs published as books virtually died in 2000.

25. The Business of Publishing II OWNERSHIP OF PUBLISHING HOUSES 1. Dominated by US owned firms, German conglomerates and University Presses in that order 2. Sage Ltd and Sage Inc were part of the Sarah and Gerry philanthropic foundation until professional management was called in on the death of their daughter. Prices were raised in that year by 94%. 3. Macmillan name was split to Inc and Ltd. London offices were bought by a German firm and under them Ltd took name of Palgrave until it bought Inc name out. As academics we do not know the ocean in which we swim!

26. Normal profitability rates for Supermarkets is 4% of revenue In publishing, average rate for mega-houses is profit of 28% per annum Tax avoidance means registered abroad - or in Delaware Source: Lightfoot 2011 We self-exploit ourselves in the worst traditions of indentured labour.

27. Profits from books 1. The rise of the Handbook. 750 guaranteed sales to the world’s libraries. Economics of production based on 750 X £75 2. The rise of the textbook Morgan sold 450,000 copies of ‘Images of Organisation’ and had a separate division of Sage devoted to it. Slack et al on ‘Operations Management’ sells 75000 per annum across the globe

28. 3. The demise of the book Sales of less than first print run (3000 copies) are most usual 4. The demise of the research monograph Almost impossible to sell to publishers in the age of think tanks 5. The demise of the PhD published as a book (half a dozen only since 2000 in my field)

29. Sage’s handling of the crisis in books With the rise of its professional management and of the Fordist approach to book selling, a new strategy was developed: acquire journals New journals were set up within the full control of Sage but journals controlled and owned by academic sub-professions (eg EGOS), or Research Centres (eg Tavistock Institute) were a particular target for deal making So ‘Organisation Studies’ and ‘Human Relations’ entered the fold. 6m euros

30. Consequences for/of Journals 1. The rise of the number of journals, as book publishing diminished opportunities for academic output in the 80,000 word range 2. Market fragmentation with increasing competition not co-operation between academic colleagues over narrow areas within ‘fields’ 3. The decline of broad, field-commanding journals 4. The structuring of academic thought into 8000 word sections rather than tomes

31. Consequences for academics 1. The price of journals went up by 50% at least 2. We got less for our money (6 issues instead of four but only 25% more content) 3. The professionalisation of editorial management and journal production, with more electronic support throughout 4. Access to large databases and publicity machines 5. The difficulty in seeing ways of launching one’s own journal in this professionalised market: the end of cottage industries

32. The separation of journals into fragmented sub areas The standardisation of ‘approach’ The homogenisation of ‘product’ The homogenisation of ‘presentation’ The uniformity of thought

33. Any questions?