Writing Manuscripts Writing Manuscripts for Journal for Journal PublicationPublication

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 FactorRule 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 AudienceWho 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 clinically-oriented.

– 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 Psychology2006-2011

• 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

• 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

Submitting Your Manuscript

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 LettersAccept without revision Accept with revisions Revise and resubmit

this is a GOOD outcome!Follow my guidancework 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 VCUSome studies need some age on ‘em before we can really understand ‘em

RE: RejectionsOn 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

telliott@tamu.edu