Writing Development Centre University Library You can add your own images on top of these default ones if you wish. It’s recommended to stick to the

Writing Development CentreUniversity Library

facebook.com/NUlibraries

@ncl_wdc

Dr Helen WebsterOn behalf of the Writing Development CentreRobinson Library

Writing for PublicationFMS PGR

For enquiries about workshops, please email [email protected]



@ncl_wdc

The Cast

The Publisher The Editor

Peer Reviewer 1 who thinks XPeer Reviewer 2 who thinks YPeer Reviewer 3 who thinks ?!

The Author (you) The Reader



@ncl_wdc

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 well-constructed 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 8th Jan 2015, p. 51



@ncl_wdc

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 15th Jan 2015, p. 51



@ncl_wdc

What makes an article look like a student piece?

Overlong literature review, detailing each contribution without much critique, too many references

Too much method, overly detailed and justified (especially if not a novel method)

No new or significant angle, demonstration of existing knowledge rather than contribution to it

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

Remember that your aim is not to prove your credentials or learning, it is to make a valuable contribution to scholarship

– your peers



@ncl_wdc

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?)



@ncl_wdc

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 the 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



@ncl_wdc

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.f1000.com Write a blog, tweet, start a wiki…..

http://posters.f1000.com/



@ncl_wdc

Where to publish?Hierarchy of publication formats

Journal articles (journal impact factors) Research papers Letters Reviews and review articles Technical reports

Monographs Edited books (and chapters in them) Conference proceedings Teaching materials (textbooks, professional books) ‘Grey’ literature



@ncl_wdc

Beware of 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?

Beall’s list: http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria-2015.pdf

http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/






@ncl_wdc

Never mind you, what about your reader?

What’s your point?Who cares?So what?



@ncl_wdc

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….



@ncl_wdc

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



@ncl_wdc

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 Copyright and Open Access: Gold and Green Beware predatory publishing…

http://www.iflscience.com/technology/journal-accepts-paper-reading-get-me-your-fucking-mailing-list



@ncl_wdc

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

http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors



@ncl_wdc

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…..

http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers



@ncl_wdc

One slide about 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



@ncl_wdc

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



@ncl_wdc

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



@ncl_wdc

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.



@ncl_wdc

And then you submit (usually online)And then you wait……



@ncl_wdc

I’ve got a career to build - Can you speed things up?

Can I skip peer review? Can I pay for faster publication? Beware preditory 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



@ncl_wdc

Getting the response from the Editor and Referees



@ncl_wdc

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!)



@ncl_wdc

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



@ncl_wdc

More reasons for rejection

1. Sent to the wrong journal

2. Not a journal article

3. Too long

4. Poor regard to journal house conventions

5. Bad style, grammar, punctuation

6. Fails to say anything significant

7. Not properly contextualised

8. No theoretical framework, (faulty argument, premises or assumptions)

9. Scrappily presented, not proofread

10. Libellous, unethical, rudeadapted from Thompson and Kamler



@ncl_wdc

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



@ncl_wdc

(British referees)

“I would suggest that…” = DO IT

“It would be helpful if the author…” = DO IT

“Perhaps an improvement might be…” = DO IT



@ncl_wdc

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….



@ncl_wdc

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!



@ncl_wdc

Think about your impact right at the start

Before submitting your work, make sure all your publications count…

Decide on the form of your name and be consistent Use the agreed form of the University’s name [ Newcastle

University] and / or research group

Create an online profile Academia.edu ResearchGate LinkedIN

Author Identifier Tools ResearcherID ORCID

http://www.researcherid.com/

http://orcid.org/



@ncl_wdc

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 /

LinkedIn (check your contract if uploading) Blog (or guest-blog



@ncl_wdc

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



@ncl_wdc

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



@ncl_wdc

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



@ncl_wdc

The Writing Development CentreLevel 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/

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/students/wdc/

Documents

Writing Development Centre University Library You can add your own images on top of these default ones if you wish. It’s recommended to stick to the