Writing for Publication FMS PGR Dr Helen Webster

Writing for Publication FMS PGR Dr Helen Webster On behalf of the Writing Development Centre Robinson Library For enquiries about workshops, please email wdc@ncl. ac. uk facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

The Cast § The Publisher § The Editor § Peer Reviewer 1 who thinks your work is ok, but needs some changes and doesn’t like your style § Peer Reviewer 2 who thinks your work would be publishable if you made a few (completely different and possibly unrealistic) changes § Peer Reviewer 3 who thinks your work makes no original contribution and would need a major overhaul to be publishable § The Author (you) § Your co-authors § The Reader facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

The publication process 1. You research your chosen publisher or journal 2. You identify an angle which would fit their remit 3. (if a book, you write a proposal, which is peer reviewed. ) 4. You write the text (and get feedback from colleagues) 5. You ensure it meets their author requirements 6. You submit…. (and sign any documentation) 7. You wait for the editor to reject or initiate peer review process…. 8. You respond to referees’ feedback to the editor 9. You resubmit…. (or revise and take it somewhere else) 10. You check the proofs and sign any contract 11. You wait for publication…. facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Who are you? § Decide on one form of your name and be consistent § Helen Michelle Webster, Helen M Webster, H Webster? What if I get married? What if I could spell it several ways in English? § Check who else in your field has a similar name! § Use the agreed form of the University’s name [ Newcastle University] and / or research group § Create an online profile § Academia. edu § Research. Gate § Linked. IN § Author Identifier Tools § Researcher. ID § ORCID facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Never mind you, what about your reader? § What’s your point? Can you express it in one sentence? § Why bother? Why is your research needed? § Who cares? What readerships can you identify? § So what? What will your research help them to know/do/explain/build on? facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Where to Publish: Hierarchy of Publication Formats Monographs Journal article Edited book Thesis Conference presentations Grey literature Other media Your definitive work Research paper Book chapter Published paper Technical reports Blogs/ wikis Textbook/ professional book Letters Book editor Poster Standards Webpages Presentation slides Policy documents Writing for the public ……………. Reviews and review articles facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Choosing a journal What journals do you read most? Choose two potential journals: A main target and a backup with similar scope Type of journal: § Topic / field § Audience (discipline, international, breadth) § Perspective: Theoretical, professional, academic, applied, interdisciplinary etc § Impact factor § Compliance with funder requirements and the REF § Copyright and Open Access: Gold and Green facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Beware of Fraudulent/ Predatory / Vanity publishers § § § § § Have you heard of the journal before? Perhaps the title is very similar to a well known journal, check the details. Has the publisher approached you directly, do they seem to be very persistent and/or aggressive? Have they suggested your article will be published very quickly? Is there a clear process which explains costs before you submit your work? What evidence is there of a peer review process? Check the editorial board credentials. Do the editors really exist? Do they have a publication profile? Look at the journal website – where is it located? What is the quality of existing articles in the journal? If the journal is open access, is it listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)? If the journal is open access, does the publisher belong to the Open Access Scholarly Publishers’ Association (OASPA) ? facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

What do the publishers want? Read Authors’ Guidelines carefully § Aims, scope and audience § Types of submission § Structure (IMRAD? ) § Length § Formatting (incl figures and colour) § Referencing style § ‘House’ style conventions § Copyright if reproducing others’ figures § ‘Originality’ and previously published requirements § Also read a couple of issues to find out what this looks like in practice, cite previous work in that journal facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Writing § § The process of writing – similar? Writing around the data/figures Feature of the Medical Sciences: co-authoring If you’re first author: § § Check with others that they wish to be involved Give clear directions what you want them to write Edit to ensure consistency Circulate to ensure everyone’s happy with it § If you’re second etc author: § Make sure you’re clear on your contribution § Make sure you read the rest to ‘fit’ style § Make sure you’re happy with the whole facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

What to publish § Something which does not replicate your thesis and is not published elsewhere § An ‘offcut’, expanded point or new angle on part of thesis § An aspect of your work that is theoretical, methodological, or findings § Something self-contained within a specific word-limit § Something that any other stakeholders or IP holders (funding body, co-authors, copyright owners of any materials used) agree § Something which will contribute to an employable profile § Something which fits the remit of the publisher facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Getting started Start small § Try “softer” formats – features, descriptive articles, commentaries, opinions. § Try less “academic” publications § Aim for mid range academic journals § Write some book reviews § Publish your literature review § Write a case study § Write up a conference presentation § Publish a conference poster http: //posters. f 1000. com § Write a blog, tweet, start a wiki…. . facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

The importance of metadata Once published, the first ‘reader’ of your work will be a (database) search engine. Optimise discoverability and think about what terms your reader will be searching for: § Key words, search terms § Title facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

The importance of titles § The second reader of your work will be skimming down a list of ‘hits’ from a database search. § Include key words § Priorities: § § § § Topic Specific focus Methodology Research question Research findings or conclusion Attention-grabbing / intriguing? Detail vs length Conforms to other titles in journal facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Insta-title-o-matic generator Think of two possible titles for your publication: EITHER: § For a broad readership and a narrow one § Readers in two different fields or disciplines § Readers interested in two different aspects of your work (methods vs findings? ) facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

What makes a good abstract? The third reading of your work will be of the abstract alone. § A good abstract will answer four questions: § Why? The first section puts the study in the context of current knowledge and gives the purpose of the work. § How? This section explains how the research was conducted. § What? The main findings of the study are presented in brief. § So what? The abstract concludes with a brief explanation of the implications or applications of the study. § It should probably be brief and clear…. ? ! But make the most of the word count facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

What’s the worst that can happen? "It is all done with an honest regard for scholarship, but the result of this clearly Herculean labour is a thinly disguised reworking of the original doctoral thesis on which this book is so clearly based. The structure smacks of the wellconstructed thesis. Combined with endless references to the works of scholars in the field and the myriad citations in parenthesis, the authorial voice gets lost. It's a pity, because O'Brian has some appealing turns of phrase [. . . ] I wanted to hear more of the bona fide O'Brian". Review of 'Classical Masculinity and the Spectacular Body on Film: The Mighty Sons of Hercules by Daniel O'Brian - review by Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones THES 8 th Jan 2015, p. 51 facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

What’s the worst that can happen? 'This short book springs from a recent doctorate, and the conception does show. The writing can creak: 'Trieste famously featured. . . in Winston Churchill's famous "Iron Curtain" speech; Fascism figured in the salvific repository of this record of history". The argumentation can be fixedly studious; it is remarkable how many theorists find place in some 160 pages of text. Given this original sin, then, despite its alluring title, it is hard to imagine The Venice Myth surpassing a narrowly scholarly readership. ‘ Review of The Venice Myth: Culture, Literature, Politics, 1880 to the Present, by David Barnes- review by Richard Bosworth THES 15 th Jan 2015, p. 51 facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Writing for assessment, writing for publication: What’s the difference? § The purpose of a thesis (chapter) is different to that of an article or monograph – you can’t easily convert one to the other by reducing the wordcount § You’re writing for an authentic and much broader audience § You need to understand the publishing industry as well as the academic sector § Each publisher or journal has different requirements § You’re being peer reviewed, not assessed § The process is quality control, not developmental § You don’t have to be as defensive or exhaustive (displaying knowledge or contributing? ) facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Student to peer – changing your identity and voice “Many a doctoral thesis has left an examiner underwhelmed because it doesn’t seem to be written by an expert researcher. The writing is hesitant and deferential at the very times when the writer should be showing that they are assured and assertive. It’s as if the nearly doctor is possessed by an inner doctoral “student” whose writing is tentative, distant, impersonal, formal. And that “student” needs to be got rid of. ” Pat Thompson, ‘Exorcise the inner doctoral student from your writing’ (blog post June 8 th, 2015) facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Where does this text sound like a Ph. D Student rather than a peer? What is it that creates this effect? facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

What makes an article look like a student piece? § Overlong literature review, detailing each contribution without much critique, too many references § No new or significant angle, demonstration of existing knowledge rather than contribution to it § Lack of confidence and authority in asserting its contribution, no individual style or voice § Too much method, overly detailed and justified (especially if not a novel method), too defensive a tone § Too broad a scope for the word limit, not ‘self-contained’ – clearly part of a larger piece, unfocussed, with no ‘point’ or too many points § Structure determined by thesis requirements, not the argument or genre of book § Not aimed at an identified readership Remember that your aim is not to prove your credentials or learning, it is to make a valuable contribution to scholarship – your peers facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Writing with more assertiveness § Don’t hide behind other people’s voices – avoid overuse of quotation or mild paraphrase of individual scholars § Make statements with confidence – don’t overuse citation to demonstrate knowledge of field or literature § Don’t be risk-averse – Avoid ‘hedging’ statements such as ‘possibly’ ‘might’ ‘could’ unless absolutely necessary § Don’t obfusticate your meaning – avoid complex sentences with too many ideas and too much “jargon” which isn’t a comfortable part of your vocabulary (and your peers) § Don’t sound like everyone else– develop your academic ‘taste’ and style, and write as you! § Don’t be afraid to give more weight to your views, ideas and findings over other people’s facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Writing your paper: get feedback before submission § Your supervisor § Present to peers (department seminar? Graduate conference? ) § Ask co-authors, peers and senior colleagues to read (especially those from the typical audience of the journal) § Present at a conference § Discuss idea with the journal editor § Take the time of your reviewers seriously – submit work as good as you can get it facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Critical friends: Your personal network Create a mindmap of your peer network § Who is most similar to your intended reader? § What can each person offer you? § What are the pros and cons of their perspective? § Are there any gaps in what you need? How will you fill them? facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

And then you submit (usually online) And then you wait…… facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Peer review § How are referees chosen? Volunteer or be invited? Or be nominated by author? § Single- and double-blind review, open review § Usually at least 2 referees § Referees are given guidelines and criteria § They usually fill in a form with comments and recommendations § They are asked to give an overall recommendation § They are given a deadline, but…. . facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

I’ve got a career to build - Can you speed things up? § Can I skip peer review? Can I pay for faster publication? § Beware predatory publishers § Can I submit to more than one journal at the same time to cut down on time wasted through rejection? § Beware wasting editors’ and peer reviewers’ time and breaching publishers’ contracts § Can I submit the same article without changing it for each journal? § Beware annoying editors and creating a bad impression facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Getting the response from the Editor and Referees facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Dealing with rejection Most articles will be rejected in some form: § Rejection by editor without review § Rejection by reviewers § Conditional acceptance with major revisions § Conditional acceptance with minor revisions § Acceptance without revisions (rare!) facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Reasons for rejection § The issue under investigation is not considered important by the editor/reviewers. § Lack of originality § The study does not test the hypothesis. § Research design is inadequate. § Statistical analysis is incorrect. § The conclusions drawn from the data are not justified. § The paper is badly written/difficult to understand. Adapted from Murray, 2005: 198 facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

More reasons for rejection 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Sent to the wrong journal Not a journal article Too long Poor regard to journal house conventions Bad style, grammar, punctuation Fails to say anything significant Not properly contextualised No theoretical framework, (faulty argument, premises or assumptions) 9. Scrappily presented, not proofread 10. Libellous, unethical, rude adapted from Thompson and Kamler facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Peer review § Types of feedback: § § § Non-specific but scathing Scathing but useful Damning with faint praise (rejection) Redirecting to another journal Editorial (grammar, punctuation) Inviting revision and resubmission (Murray, 2006: 125) The editor should synthesise it for you Get a mentor or peer to ‘translate’ feedback for you facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

(British referees) § “I would suggest that…” = DO IT § “It would be helpful if the author…” = DO IT § “Perhaps an improvement might be…” = DO IT facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Dealing with revisions The revision letter to the editor: § Thank the editor and acknowledge useful feedback § Where you agree with the suggested revisions, say where and how (and to what extent) you have addressed them point by point § Where you disagree with the suggested revisions, you can argue your case with the editor. Stay objective, rational, polite and professional. § Now is not the time to make major additions or changes § Get someone to read it before you send it…. facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Case studies What would you do in this situation? facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

More waiting…… § Expect long waits § While your paper is being peer reviewed…. . § While your paper is being prepared for publication…. § While your work is queued for publication… Can you upload a pre-print to your blog/academia. edu/linked-in profile or institutional repository? Check your contract! facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Promoting your work after publication § Present further work at conferences § Upload preprint to institutional repository (check your contract) § Use social media to promote your work: § Department homepage § Twitter (with link) § Academia. edu / Researchgate / Methodspace / Linked. In (check your contract if uploading) § Blog (or guest-blog facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Other things you can do to gain insight into writing for publication: § Start with book reviews § Co-author a paper with a mentor § Co-edit a book with a mentor (from proposal to editing to final stages) § Talk to publishers at conferences § Act as peer reviewer for a journal (probably one with lower impact factor) § Join the editorial board of a journal (probably one with lower impact factor) § Organise a conference and get involved with selecting proposals facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

Really annoying things to avoid: § Submitting a perfectly good paper…. to the wrong journal § Resubmitting a paper to a different journal with no alterations based on feedback or their conventions § Not testing your material out before submitting – missing sections or massive holes in the argument § Not following the author guidelines § Not proofreading or making sloppy mistakes § Not checking out copyright – yours or others § Not resubmitting if invited to! § Getting angry with the referees/editors facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

The Writing Development Centre § Understanding assignment types, questions, instructions and marking criteria § Critical thinking, critiquing and reviewing literature § Note-taking from lectures and reading § Planning and structuring writing (incl. paragraphing) § Academic writing style (incl. fundamentals of grammar) § Understanding and using feedback to improve your work § Referencing, citing and avoiding plagiarism § Managing time, work and writing (incl. writers block and procrastination) § Exams and Revision § Managing research projects, dissertations and theses § Presentations and posters § Learning effectively in lectures, seminars, classes, labs etc facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library

The Writing Development Centre Level 2, Robinson Library Our team offers: - One-to-one tutorials on study skills and all stages and types of academic writing - A programme of workshops on aspects of study and academic writing - Online resources You can book appointments and workshops with us online: http: //www. ncl. ac. uk/students/wdc/ facebook. com/NUlibraries @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre University Library