Transcript Slide 1

Writing Manuscripts
for Journal Publication
Timothy R. Elliott, Ph.D.
Good News! …well, sort of
• More journals are out there!
• They all need papers!
–
–
–
–
Some more so than others
Low submission rates, some perilously so
On-line publishing
Diminishing rewards in academia for publishing
papers
• Now is the time to break in!
Thinking about the process
• Professional writing is a craft
• It requires practice, planning, effort, editing
and rewriting
• Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal requires
diligence, commitment, energy, and a thick
skin
Some insight required
• Must know basic rules, codes of conduct, and
several heuristics to successfully publish
technical reports
Preparing a Manuscript for
Peer-Review
• Presumes you have something to report
• ….you know the relevant literature
• …you know how your study fits in with
the extant, relevant literature, and
advances the area beyond what we
already know
• Identify the most suitable “outlet” for the
paper I always do this before I write
Strategically Targeting a Journal
Consider the Citation Impact Factor
Rule of thumb: higher the impact, greater the readership, greater
the likelihood of your work being cited by others
– Low impact outlets (< .79): typically, for
“specialized interests” i.e., restricted audience
– Moderate impact (.80 to 1.75): still competitive
• Variable quality of reviews, important to specific fields
– High impact outlets (> 1.8): competitive, vie for
page space, often have > 80% rejection rates;
widely read and respected
• Often provide the best reviews, timely
Strategically Targeting a Journal
Consider the Circulation and Audience
Who do you want to “talk to”? Who do you want to “reach”? What outlets
will impress colleagues who will vote on your promotion reviews?
– You want an interdisciplinary audience? One that is
more “medical”? Or one that is primarily
“psychological”?
– Medical journals (and many interdisciplinary ones) do
not use APA editorial style. Reformat the paper
accordingly.
– They may not welcome theoretical tests. More clinicallyoriented.
– Some journals have high circulation rates but low
impact factors (e.g., Journal of Counseling and
Development)
Strategically Targeting a Journal
Consider if it is in Index Medicus
– Journals in Index Medicus have greater
international visibility, prestige, accessibility (via
PubMed)
increased exposure for your work
– Often colleagues from other disciplines want this
visibility – essential for interdisciplinary research
– Most front-line APA journals are in it
– Some respected journals with high circulation
rates are not in this database (e.g., Journal of
Counseling and Development)
Does your study “fit” the journal?
Do you cite articles from that journal in your manuscript?
Are there studies like yours in the journal?
–
–
seen a single-case design lately in Health Psychology?
how many papers in the journal report grant funding from NIH?
(look for important clues about what the journal values)
Does your study address theoretical issues that pertain to
several specialty or clinical areas?
– Constant bane of social-clinical interface research (for one journal, too
theoretical; for another, too clinical)
Does your study primarily inform clinical practice?
Does your study inform interdisciplinary practice?
• Often less tolerant of psychological theories
• Consequently, the paper may not receive credit or recognition as
“psychological” from peers (in or out of the profession)
Does your study inform clinical practice in a fairly specialized
area?
Editor
Rehabilitation Psychology
2006-2011
• Published by the APA, 56th volume
• Associated with the Division of Rehabilitation
Psychology
• CIF was .85 (2005) now 1.19 (2009)
• In Index Medicus
• Rejection rate around 50%
Associate Editor,
1996-2002
Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology
•
•
•
•
Published by Guilford, now in 30th volume
Premium placed on theory-driven studies
CIF of 1.06 (2009)
In Index Medicus
Associate Editor
1999-2006
Journal of Clinical Psychology
in Medical Settings
• Published by Springer, 18th volume
• Official journal of the Association of
Psychologists in Academic Health Centers
• CIF of .68 (2009)
• Clinically – relevant studies, training and
professional issues
Incoming Editor
Journal of Clinical Psychology
2011-2016
•
•
•
•
Published by Wiley-Blackwell
Founded in 1945, now in 67th volume
CIF of 1.52 (2009)
Publishes approximately 90+ papers per year
Goals for the JCLP
• Well-written papers
• Scientist-practitioner values
• Theory-driven intervention and outcome
studies across clinical settings
• Particular interest in research
concerning issues in the public sector
• Effective interventions and the
convergence of data
– from advanced single-case designs to
RCTs
Submitting Your Manuscript
• Electronic, on-line submission
• Emails notify our manuscript coordinator
• I decide the “action editor” to handle the
paper
• I triage the submission and may reject it
outright
• The assigned Associate Editor may do
this as well
The Review Process
Editor will acknowledge receipt of your
paper
Occasionally it will be returned without
review (“triage”) because:
 the topic is inappropriate for the journal
 it has a very low likelihood of being
accepted
 it does not conform to APA guidelines
My initial assumptions about
your manuscript
• Presume you have something to report
• That you know the relevant literature
• You know how your study fits in with the
extant, relevant literature, and informs
what we already know
• You are familiar with this journal
• That you have decided it is the most
suitable “outlet” for your study
Determining Reviewers:
A Critical Editorial Decision
• “Mix” of reviewers
– Senior, established and younger, junior
• Reviewers have varying levels and “pockets”
of expertise
– Clinical, methodological, theoretical
• Two, three or four requested
• Who is willing to review?
• We allow several weeks for the review
Reviewing a manuscript
• Parameters:
–
–
–
–
–
Appropriateness
Significance, relevance, prior literature
Quality of theory, rationale
Methodology, design, analyses, interpretation
Organization, clarity, writing
• We are notified when a review is submitted
• We “tickle” late reviewers
My role as Editor
• Evaluate the quality of:
– The manuscript
– The reviews
• Evaluate the contribution of the paper
– New issues, “timeliness”
– The quality of the “idea”
My role as Editor
• Evaluation in context:
– How many papers do I have ready to
publish?
– What is the quality of those papers?
• What is in the best interest of the
journal?
• The toughest decisions occur with
mediocre submissions
IT IS NOT MY JOB….
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
To teach you APA style
To proof read your paper
To spell check
Reformat your paper
Correct your references
Rewrite a phrase or paragraph for you
Tell you how to finesse a reviewer’s criticism
Call you on the phone and beg you to send in
your revised manuscript
The Decision Letter
• I do not like to rush this
• Tactful, but clear
– Guide and Gatekeeper
• Integrate key points in reviews
• My decision
– I will tell you what I want and what I do not want
– If I am open to a revision, I will say that
– If I reject the manuscript and say that, then I am
not interested in a resubmission
– I have been described as an “active” editor
Action Letters
Accept without revision
Accept with revisions
Revise and resubmit
 this is a GOOD outcome!
 Follow my guidance
 work to improve your manuscript
(revise, revise, revise!)
Reject
Kazdin on the review process
• “The review process has its own
issues…excellent readings are available
to prepare the author for the journal
review process (Kafka, The Trial, The
Myth of Sisyphus, and Dante’s Inferno).”
– Kazdin, 1995
Working with reviewer feedback
• If I am open to a revision, this is good
• Good reviews are thought-provoking, good journals should give
good peer reviews and provide you with good ideas
• Good reviews improve a paper
– Mike McCullough on Health Psychology reviewers: “We did
everything they said, and the paper got better each time. They
finally gave in – they ran out of things for us to do.”
• If we say the paper is confusing, difficult to read, unclear,
convoluted – by definition, we are correct
– It is your responsibility for clarity, accuracy and communicating
• TIP: Ask someone you trust to read it and give you an opinion.
If they give you a criticism and you verbally try to explain your
point: You must rewrite that section.
The Reality of Peer-Review
Everyone has papers rejected
No one gets a free ride –
No one should
Handling rejection
• It happens for many reasons
–
–
–
–
–
Bad writing
Poor fit with the journal
Limited page space and/or bad timing
Poor study
Sometimes a bad idea
• If they reject outright, learn what you can from
the reviews.
– Study the reviews carefully
Handling rejection
• Don’t be careless in your correspondence
• Don’t be angry. Don’t be snide. This isn’t personal*
This is scholarship. Do not leave an angry paper trail!
• Look for hints in an editor’s letter
– An editor may have ideas for improving the piece, or have
suggestions for redirecting a paper elsewhere
– Many editors try to keep an eye out for up-and-coming junior
colleagues
*This blithe comment didn’t work for me, either.
Knowing When to “Move On”
• Send the manuscript out to another outlet as soon as possible to
another outlet if
– you find absolutely no wisdom or constructive insights in the
reviews
– you realize the paper was not appropriate for the journal that just
rejected you.
Do not obsess over a rejection of this sort – mistakes will be
made.
Do not rewrite for a journal that has rejected you for this last
reason Keith Byrd
Learn when to put a study on the shelf and come back to it
later. Steve Harkins at VCU
Some studies need some age on ‘em before we can really
understand ‘em
RE: Rejections
On Edward Gibbon:
Gibbon’s style is detestable but is not the worst
thing about him
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, 1853
On Lewis Carroll:
We fancy that any real child might be more
puzzled than enchanted by this stiff,
overwrought story.
Did we ACCEPT your paper?
• Congrats!
• Now get the proper forms and sign them, get them to
us
• Be ready to proof read a copy from the publisher and
return it promptly, as instructed!
• If you want a copy of the issue or reprints, talk to the
publisher, not to me
• And be ready to review a manuscript when I request
one from you sometime in the future
References
• Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M.
Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. L. Roediger, III (Eds.), The Compleat
Academic: A Practical Guide for the Beginning Social Scientist (2nd
Ed.). Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.
http://dbem.ws/online_pubs.html
• Brown, R. T. (2004). Editorial: A general approach to publication in
the Journal of Pediatric Psychology: From the process of preparing
your manuscript to revisions and resubmissions. Journal of
Pediatric Psychology, 29, 1-5.
References
• Kazdin, A. E. (1995). Preparing and evaluating research reports.
Psychological Assessment, 7, 228-237.
• Pollard, R. Q. (2005). From dissertation to journal article: A useful
method for planning and writing any manuscript. The Internet
Journal of Mental Health, 2(2), 1-11.
• White, L. (2005). Writes of passage: Writing an empirical journal
article. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 791-798
[email protected]