How to get published in an academic journal: top tips from editors
Writing for academic journals is highly competitive. Even if you overcome the first hurdle and generate a valuable idea or piece of research - how do you then sum it up in a way that will capture the interest of reviewers?
There’s no simple formula for getting published - editors’ expectations can vary both between and within subject areas. But some challenges will confront all academic writers regardless of their discipline. How should you respond to reviewer feedback? Is there a correct way to structure a paper? And should you always bother revising and resubmitting? We asked journal editors from a range of backgrounds for their tips on getting published.
The writing stage
1) Focus on a story that progresses logically rather than chronologically
Take some time before even writing your paper to think about the logic of the presentation. When writing, focus on a story that progresses logically rather than the experiments' chronological order. Deborah Sweet, editor of Cell Stem Cell and publishing director at Cell Press
2) Don’t try to write and edit at the same time
Open a file on the PC, put in all your headings and sub-headings, and then fill in under any headings where you have the ideas to do so. If you reach your daily target (mine is 500 words), any other ideas down as bullet points and stop writing; then use those bullet points to make a start the next day.
If you are writing and can’t think of the right word (e.g., for elephant), don’t worry - write (big animal long nose) and move on - come back later and get the correct term. Write don’t edit; otherwise, you lose flow. Roger Watson, editor-in-chief, Journal of Advanced Nursing
3) Don’t bury your argument like a needle in a haystack
If someone asked you on the bus to quickly explain your paper, could you do so in clear, everyday language? This clear argument should appear in your abstract and in the very first paragraph (even the first line) of your paper. Please don’t make us hunt for your argument as for a needle in a haystack. If it is hidden on page seven, that will make us annoyed. Oh, and make sure your argument runs all the way through the different sections of the paper and ties together the theory and empirical material. Fiona Macaulay, editorial board, Journal of Latin American Studies
4) Ask a colleague to check your work
One of the problems that journal editors face is badly written papers. It might be that the writer’s first language isn’t English, and they haven’t gone the extra mile to get it to proofread. It can be tough to work out what is going on in an article if the language and syntax are poor. Brian Lucey, editor, International Review of Financial Analysis
5) Get published by writing a reviewor a response
Writing reviews is a good way to get published, especially for people in the early stages of their careers. It’s a chance to practice writing a piece for publication and get a free copy of a book that you want. We publish more reviews than papers, so we’re constantly looking for reviewers.
Some journals, including ours, publish replies to papers that have been published in the same journal. Editors quite like to publish replies to previous papers because it stimulates discussion. Yujin Nagasawa, co-editor and review editor of the European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, philosophy of religion editor of Philosophy Compass
6) Don’t forget about international readers
We get people who write from America who assume everyone knows the American system - and the same happens with UK writers. Because we’re an international journal, we need writers to include that international context. Hugh McLaughlin, editor in chief, Social Work Education - the International Journal
7) Don’t try to cram your Ph.D. into a 6,000-word paper
Sometimes people want to throw everything in at once and hit too many objectives. We get people who try to tell us their whole Ph.D. in 6,000 words, and it just doesn’t work. More experienced writers will write two or three papers from one project, using a specific aspect of their research as a hook. Hugh McLaughlin, editor in chief, Social Work Education - the International Journal
Submitting your work
8) Pick the right journal: it’s a bad sign if you don’t recognize any of the editorial board
Check that your article is within the scope of the journal that you are submitting to. This seems so obvious, but it’s surprising how many articles are submitted to completely inappropriate journals. It is a bad sign if you do not recognize any members of the editorial board. Ideally, look through some recent issues to ensure that it is publishing articles on the same topic and similar quality and impact. Ian Russell, editorial director for science at Oxford University Press
9) Always follow the correct submissions procedures
Often authors don’t spend the 10 minutes it takes to read the instructions to authors, which wastes enormous quantities of time for both the author and the editor and stretches the process when it does not need to Tringali Sudarshan, editor, Surface Engineering
10) Don’t repeat your abstract in the cover letter We look to the cover letter to indicate what you think is most interesting and significant about the paper and why you think it is a good fit for the journal. There is no need to repeat the abstract or go through the paper's content in detail – we will read the paper itself to find out what it says. A cover letter is a place for a bigger picture outline and any other information you would like us to have. Deborah Sweet, editor of Cell Stem Cell and publishing director at Cell Press
11) A common reason for rejections is lack of context
Ensure that it is clear where your research sits within the wider scholarly landscape and which gaps in knowledge it’s addressing. A common reason for articles being rejected after peer review is this lack of context or lack of clarity about why the research is important. Jane Winters, executive editor of the Institute of Historical Research’s journal, Historical Research and associate editor of Frontiers in Digital Humanities: Digital History
12) Don’t over-state your methodology
Ethnography seems to be the trendy method of the moment, so many articles submitted a claim based on it. However, closer inspection reveals quite limited and standard interview data. A couple of interviews in a café do not constitute ethnography. Be clear - early on - about the nature and scope of your data collection. The same goes for the use of theory. If a theoretical insight is useful to your analysis, use it consistently throughout your argument and text. Fiona Macaulay, editorial board, Journal of Latin American Studies
Dealing with feedback
13) Respond directly (and calmly) to reviewer comments
When resubmitting a paper following revisions, include a detailed document summarising all the changes suggested by the reviewers and how you have changed your manuscript in light of them. Stick to the facts, and don’t rant. Please don’t respond to reviewer feedback as soon as you get it. Please read it, think about it for several days, discuss it with others, and then draft a response. Helen Ball, editorial board, Journal of Human Lactation
14) Revise and resubmit: don’t give up after getting through all the major hurdles
You’d be surprised how many authors who receive the standard “revise and resubmit” letter never actually do so. But it is worth doing - some authors who get asked to do major revisions persevere and end up getting their work published, yet others, who had far less to do, never resubmit. It seems silly to get through the major hurdles of writing the article, getting it past the editors and back from peer-review only to give up. Fiona Macaulay, editorial board, Journal of Latin American Studies
15) It is acceptable to challenge reviewers with good justification
It is acceptable to decline a reviewer’s suggestion to change a component of your article if you have a good justification or can (politely) argue why the reviewer is wrong. A rational explanation will be accepted by editors, especially if it is clear you have considered all the feedback received and accepted some of it. Helen Ball, the editorial board of Journal of Human Lactation
16) Think about how quickly you want to see your paper published
Some journals rank more highly than others, so your risk of rejection will be greater. People need to think about whether or not they need to see their work published quickly - because certain journals will take longer. Some journals, like ours, also do advance access, so once the article is accepted, it appears on the journal website. This is important if you’re preparing for a job interview and need to show that you are publishable. Hugh McLaughlin, editor in chief, Social Work Education - the International Journal
17) Remember: when you read published papers, you only see the finished article
Publishing in top journals is a challenge for everyone, but it may seem easier for other people. When you read published papers, you see the finished article, not the first draft, the first revise and resubmit, or any intermediate versions – and you never see the failures.
Philip Powell, managing editor of the Information Systems Journal