Upload
lilian-holmes
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Brent Gloy, July 2008
Increasing the Odds of Publishing
Academic Research
2008 AAEA Annual MeetingsGrad Student Section Symposium
Brent A. Gloy
Cornell University
Brent Gloy, July 2008
Increasing the Odds of Publication
Peer review publication is the cornerstone of academic research
Key for sharing knowledge Most journals today have an acceptance
rate less than 30% Submit 10 articles to publish 3? Many articles will be submitted multiple times Reducing the amount of churn is key to getting
your work out, read, and used How can one increase these odds?
Brent Gloy, July 2008
The Publishing Process
1. The research project
2. Writing the papers and documenting the effort
3. Submitting the paper for peer review
4. Responding to peer review
Identify key things that can be done to increase likelihood of eventual success
Brent Gloy, July 2008
1. The Research Project
The Most Important Step Sound design is key to eventual publication Invest in the literature to find opportunities
and build a sound project Get input from colleagues (AND LISTEN)
Present research early on to allow for adjustment and identification of obvious problems
Identify and utilize collaborators Listen to suggestions from senior colleagues
Brent Gloy, July 2008
1. The Research Project
Start with the end in mind Every research project you do should be
designed for publication in peer reviewed journals (as well as other outputs)
Don’t be afraid to make investments in well conceived big projects
Diversify and be opportunistic
Brent Gloy, July 2008
2. Writing the Papers and Documenting the Results
JUST DO IT! Manuscripts are required in order to publish Research is not done until it is written for peer
review We are in the business of creating AND
disseminating knowledge Writing is hard work
Start with research and extension bulletins to document the project completely and build the text
Brent Gloy, July 2008
2. Writing the Paper for Peer Review
Get feedback early and often Meeting presentations Multi-state projects Departmental seminars Department internal review
LISTEN TO FEEDBACK Utilize collaborators effectively
Brent Gloy, July 2008
3. Submitting the Paper for Peer Review
Avoid temptation to achieve ultimate perfection
Choose journal wisely Publishing papers on the topic Appropriate content for journal
Brent Gloy, July 2008
3. Submitting the Paper for Peer Review
Quality matters but so does volume Not all quality work winds up in journals
universally perceived to be highest quality Marginal difference in perceived quality levels off
very quickly Remember ultimate goal is to have your work
read and used Good research should eventually be published Peers will find and use high quality work
especially if it is part of a stream of work
Brent Gloy, July 2008
3. Submitting the Paper for Peer Review
The “little things” are often taken for granted and can cause big problems Well written – get help if you need it No typos Appropriate motivation Organization Results CLEARLY described Conclusions appropriate and well thought out Be able to clearly articulate your contribution
Brent Gloy, July 2008
4. Responding to Peer Review
If you get your foot in the door DON’T take it out – always resubmit if offered
Respond in a timely manner – within a month
Take reviewer comments seriously and use them
Engage colleagues for advice If rejected see if you can use points from
review to make the paper better Get it back out to another journal quickly if
rejected
Brent Gloy, July 2008
4. Responding to Peer Review
Don’t let up before the finish line -- write a thorough and thoughtful response Use tact Point by point is best Be specific on how you changed the paper as a
result of review If you don’t understand a point explain why you
don’t understand – don’t just ignore it Reviewers spend time on this and feel good
when you carefully address their concerns Response may be nearly as long as the paper
Brent Gloy, July 2008
4. Responding to Peer Review
Spot on comments – make the changes Confusion/miscommunication – fix the
manuscript Disagreements – pick which battles to fight
Style – only marginally important Conceptual – worth arguing Model nuances – do the work and show the
reviewer that it either does or does not matter
Brent Gloy, July 2008
4. Responding to Peer Review
Strategies for responding to major point of contention Must clearly lay out to reviewer why your
opinion is different (and more correct) Put burden back on reviewer -- where
can this data be found, what literature am I missing, etc.
Brent Gloy, July 2008
Summary
Publishing is hard work Get the paper written and off your desk Get input from peers throughout the process LISTEN TO PEERS Much of the work occurs after initial
submission Shorten the time that the paper is on your
desk – top priority is always responding to reviews