Research Training | 2023 Summer School at Edinburgh, Publish Strategies

Copyright from University of Glasgow, Business School.

Why publish?

1. Boost CV

2. Be successful in job applications, grant applications, promotions

3. Could serve as validation of your work prior to your Viva  

4. Gain visibility and build your academic reputation

5. Engage with others in the academic community 

6. Contribute to advancing knowledge in the field 

7. Important for REF purposes 

8. Have fun! 

Types of Publications

1. Empirical articles 

2. Conceptual papers

3. Systematic literature reviews

4. Meta-analyses  

5. Book chapters 

6. Book reviews 

7. Conference proceedings*  

What's the first step you need to take to achieve your objectives?

1. Taking to supervisors

2. Attending a conference

3. Choosing a journal

4. Reviewing for a journal

What to publish? 

- PhD related articles

- Before you hand in your PhD

- After your PhD

- Other articles –based on what?

Where to publish?

A. the empirical approach

- Working from available data (research projects, case studies, subjects etc)

- Connecting data to a popular subject (agentification, crises, terrorism etc)

- Moving in and out to subjects that are ‘fashionable’

- condition: a keen eye to trends and fast writing (the window may close)

- Difficult: 

the more competitive publicing becomes the harder it becomes to get published on empirical data only

Referees ask how it relate to previous research, literature theories etc

B. Working from a theoretical framework

- Advantage both theoretical and empirical articles

- Solid knowledge of literature (positioning your article)

You can build a reputation in certain area

- Working and specialist in certain area (agencies, governance networks, participation etc.)

- Search niches that have not been studied!

- Work your way from there to other fields (trust in networks, branding in governance networks)

- Create a ‘brand’ of yourself

C. Working from a limited number of theoretical lenses

1. You can build a reputation in certain (wide-ish) area

2. Get your ethics approval for project A (your PhD), then look out for opportunities to expand your research in connected areas (new ethics approval or amendments to existing ethics approval may be required)

- From your data

- From outside (collaboration invites, RA assignments, blue sky thinking)

Publishing with supervisors, others, and on your own.

How do you choose a co-author?

By supervision

By peer group

By expertise

By network

By friendship

By skills set

A. Publishing with supervisors 
Advantages: 
Working with experienced published researchers – they can offer invaluable feedback 
They can point you to the right journal 
Can show you how to navigate the review process and respond to reviewers' comments 
They know you, your strengths and they can help you develop further
Disadvantages:
Some supervisors may be more interested/involved than others… 
If it's your research project, you need to manage your supervisors! 
Need to establish clear deadlines and expectations, hold each other accountable, etc. 
Different working styles

B. Publishing with others
Advantages: 
Establish long term connections and grow your network  
Develop collaborative research skills (beyond your supervision team)
Access new data and work on new projects 
You might have complementary skills/material to contribute
Disadvantages:
They may not know you as well as your supervisors 
May not be able to offer the same level of support 
If they are equally inexperienced, this may cause issues in various aspects of the writing and publishing process 
Different working styles  

 C. Publishing on your own
Advantages:
Retain full control over your own work 
Good to have a mix of single-author and multi-author publications
Some people find it easier working independently 
Disadvantages: 
May take longer to develop the paper on your own, especially if you’re new to the publishing process  
Navigating the review process could be more difficult on your own 
Not having others to rely on for feedback/support 
Potentially less visibility and fewer citations (at least in the beginning) 

Where to start?

Step 1 – Consider your options: 

Conference papers you’ve already drafted 

Chapters that didn’t make it into the PhD 

Research beyond your PhD (e.g., your Masters dissertation)

Step 2 – Submit your paper to a conference for initial feedback 

Check if your conference offers written feedback (e.g., AoM) 

Informal chats with other participants could be equally valuable!

Step 3 – Amend the paper based on the comments received 

Step 4 - Consider the journal fit: 

- Types of papers accepted 
- Main themes covered within the journal
- Key theories and research methods preferred
- The specific debate you want to contribute to 
- Special issues 

Tips

The role of conferences, peer-reviewing, establishing effective writing habits, etc

A. Conferences

Opportunity to present your research (test your ideas) 

Gain feedback to improve your papers ahead of publication 

Expand your network & find opportunities for collaborative work 

Keep up with the latest developments in the field 

Take advantage of paper development workshops 

Attend ‘Meet the Editor’ sessions – invaluable!  

B. Reviewing

Helps you understand the standard of work required for different journals 

You can start identifying the most common issues that prevent papers from being published and ways to mitigate them 

Helps you improve the quality of your own writing 

Helps you craft appropriate responses to reviewers' comments for your own papers under review 

Looks good on your CV 

C. Effective writing habits

Write frequently – ideally every day 

Attend writing retreat sessions 

Go with your preferred time of day, writing set-up, etc. 

Start with a plan of main points you want to cover in each section   

Let go of the idea that you have to be 'in the zone' 

Start small – 20 min blocks 

Commit to a schedule, rather than a deadline – write it down 

Reading and writing at the same time can be useful 

Keep in mind the intended audience (the journal you're writing for)

First drafts don't need to be perfect! 

D. Drafting the storyline (the art of persuation)

1. Start with a clear idea (what is the argument, what is the story line)

-you may do, but then a second idea may emerge, and a related third

2. Don’t put too much in the article (don’t put all your empirical material in)

Typically mixed methods papers are less liked by reviewers

3. Make your pitch intriguing

Of Possums, Hogs and Horses

4. Link theory with empirics as empirics not interesting in themselves

Micro persuation techniques: less is more

Contribution: just because it hasn’t been done doesn’t mean it’s worth studying (clue from reviewers: ‘what is your contribution?’)

Stick to one story line (clue: ‘there are 2-3 papers in here’)

Test: the elevator pitch

Aligning your introduction with your conclusion

Data visualization (clue: ‘so do we have to take your word for it?’) 

Contacting editors, respondng to reviewers 

The reviewer is always right even if he is wrong

- Even when you are angry and down and the comments are unjustified: what in the article was not good enough to let them get you
- Look at the article again with the referees view: what did he see that you missed (if the article is rejected use the comments to revise)
- Always provide a detailed answer to referee what you did with his/her comments (extra work but it does pay off)

Example
Reviewer: 
We need to know how many total text units there were, and what proportion were coded into each theme.
Our response:
Thank you for the suggestion. We added table 2, which now reports the proportion of text units coded into our main conceptual themes. Our text units are, indeed, the separate question responses. The data analysis section now reports the unit of analysis and the number of text units (895) as well as the relative proportions which were coded into each theme. 

Potential drawbacks

- Taking time away from your PhD – is it always worth it?

- Saying yes to too many opportunities

- Writing and not getting credit for your efforts 

- Exposing your ideas too early 

- Long timeline to get your papers accepted (usually 6-12 months)

- Negative peer review can result in demotivation

- Requests for revisions/rejections may come back unexpectedly

- You may need to re-write a paper and re-submit elsewhere if needed  

- Beware of fake conferences and journals