How to be published in international journals
How to be published in international journals
Journal editors share their suggestions on how to organize a journal, write a cover letter - and handle awkward feedback from reviewers
Writing for international journals is very competitive. Even if you overcome the first obstacle and come up with a valuable idea or research work - how do you then summarize it in a way that will appeal to reviewers?
There is no simple formula to publish - the expectations of editors can vary between and within the field of study. But there are some challenges that all academic writers will face regardless of their discipline. How should you respond to reviewers' feedback? Is there a correct way to arrange paper? And should you always bother to revise and submit again? We ask journal editors from various backgrounds for their tips to be published.
Writing phase
1) Focus on stories that develop logically, not chronologically
Take time before you even write your journal to think about the logic of the presentation. When writing, focus on the story that develops logically, rather than the chronological order of the experiments that you conduct.
2) Don't try to write and edit simultaneously
Open the file on a PC and enter all of your posts and sub-posts and then fill in one of the posts where you have the idea to do it. If you reach your daily target (mine 500 words) write down other ideas as bullet points and stop writing; then use the points to start the next day.
If you write and can't think of the right words (for example for an elephant) don't worry - write (big long nose of an animal) and continue - come back later and get the correct terms. Write not edited; if not, you lose flow.
3) Don't bury your argument like a needle in a haystack
If someone asks you on a bus to explain your journal quickly, can you do it in clear, everyday language? This clear argument will appear in the abstract and the first paragraph (even the first line) of your journal. Don't make us chase down your argument like a needle in a haystack. If hidden on page seven it will only upset us. Oh, and make sure your argument goes along different parts of this journal and brings together theories and empirical material.
4) Ask a colleague to check your work
One of the problems faced by journal editors is poorly written journals. Maybe the first language of the writer is not English and they have not tried hard to proofread it. It might be very difficult to know what is happening in an article if the language and syntax are bad.
5) Published by writing a review or response
Writing a review is a good way to be published - especially for people who are in the early stages of their careers. This is an opportunity to practice writing a work for publication, and get a copy of the book you want for free. We publish more reviews than journals so we continue to look for reviewers (Laraphgirl Journal, 2017)
Several journals, including ours, publish replies to journals that have been published in the same journal. Editors quite like to publish replies to previous journals because it stimulates discussion.
6) Don't forget about international readers
We get people who write from America who think everyone knows the American system - and the same thing happens with British writers. Because we are an international journal, we need writers to enter that international context. You can read more about it at ZAMBRUT.Com.
7) Don't try to cram your PhD into 6,000 words
Sometimes people want to throw everything away at once and achieve many goals. We got people trying to tell us all their PhDs in 6,000 words and it didn't work. More experienced writers will write two or three journals from one project, using certain aspects of their research as a hook.
8) Choose the right journal: that's a bad sign if you don't recognize any editorial boards
Check whether your article is within the scope of the journal you are submitting. This seems very clear but it is surprising how many articles are sent to journals that are totally inappropriate. This is a bad sign if you don't recognize the names of the editorial board members. Ideally, look at a number of current issues to ensure that the article is published on the same topic and has a similar quality and impact.
9) Always follow the correct shipping procedure
Often writers don't spend the 10 minutes needed to read instructions to writers who spend a lot of time on writers and editors and extend the process when there's no need
10) Don't repeat your abstract in the cover letter.
We look to your cover letter for an indication of what you find most interesting and significant about the journal, and why you think it is suitable for the journal. There is no need to repeat the abstract or read the contents of the journal in detail - we will read the journal itself to find out what it says. The cover letter is the place for larger picture outlines, plus any other information you would like us to have.
11) A common reason for rejection is lack of context
Make sure that it is clear where your research is in a broader scientific landscape, and gaps in knowledge are handled. A common reason for articles to be rejected after peer review is lack of context or lack of clarity about why this research is important.
12) Don't mention your methodology too much
Ethnography seems to be a trendy method nowadays, so many articles submitted claim based on that. However, a closer examination revealed very limited and standard interview data. Some interviews in cafes are not ethnographic. Be clear - right from the start - about the nature and scope of your data collection. The same applies to the use of theory. If theoretical insights are useful for your analysis, use them consistently throughout your argument and text.
13) Respond directly (and calmly) to reviewer comments
When resubmitting the journal after a revision, include a detailed document that summarizes all the changes suggested by reviewers, and how you have changed your paper from that perspective. Stick to the facts, and don't shout. Don't respond to reviewers' feedback as soon as you get it. Read it, think about a few days, discuss with others, and then make a response.
14) Revise and submit your paper journal again: don't give up after going through all the main obstacles
You will be surprised how many writers who receive standard "revision and resend" letters never actually do it. But it's worth doing - some writers who are asked to make major revisions endure and eventually publish their work, but others, who have far less to do, never submit again. It seems ridiculous to get past the main hurdles in writing articles, bypassing the editor and returning from peer review only to later give up.
15) It is acceptable to challenge reviewers, with good justification
It is acceptable to reject reviewers' suggestions for changing the components of your article if you have good justification, or can (politely) refute why reviewers are wrong. Rational explanations will be accepted by the editor, especially if it is clear that you have considered all feedback received and received a portion of it.
16) Think about how quickly you want to see your journal published
Some journals rank higher than others so your risk of rejection will be greater. People need to think about whether they need to see their work published quickly - because certain journals will take longer. Some journals, like ours, also access in advance so that after the article is received it appears on the journal's website. This is important if you are preparing for a job interview and need to show that you can be published.
17) Remember: when you read a published journal you only see articles that are finished
Publishing in top journals is a challenge for everyone, but it may seem easier for others. When you read a published journal, you see the finished article, not the first draft, or the first revision and resubmission, or the intermediary version - and you never see the failure.
Laraphgirl Journals is Education Blog Info and Sharing Scientific Journal for All Peoples
How to Submit Your Journal Articles?
How to submit your journal articles
How to submit your journal articles
Please send all new articles via the 'Submit article' link to the relevant journal. If you are a new writer, you need to set up an account before submitting your first article. Before submitting your article, please read 'What we are looking for in your article'.
Please ensure that you enter all the necessary information about your article. You will first be asked to choose the type of article for your paper, to enter a title and abstract, and then to choose a few keywords. Please note that, if your article is accepted for publication, we will display this keyword in the published article.
You will then be asked to enter your author information. Please include all authors (if there are less than 10). We recommend that you use the author's full name and ORCID identifier to avoid ambiguity. Note that you can check whether co-authors are already in the journal database by entering the author's email address.
You can also propose references that are liked (and not liked) when submitted. Suggested referees must have appropriate subject expertise and do not have conflicts of interest (please see the ZAMBRUT Journal ethics policy for journals for more information on conflicts of interest). These suggestions will be considered, but the editorial staff and / or Editorial Board will make the final decision regarding the selection of referees.
Any related information that can affect the way paper is handled can be provided in a cover letter. This might include highlighting something very important or important about their research, and information about an earlier version of this paper that is sent to the current journal or to another journal.
You will be asked to provide information about all funders related to your work. It's important that you enter this information because it helps you to meet the requirements of your funders and makes your research easier to find. Please find the Open Funder Registry for your funding agency, and provide the grant number.
You are then required to choose between issuance under a gold open access license or on a subscription basis, to state whether you have reproduced previously published material or not in your shipment, and to confirm that you want the paper you received available. online in 24 hours after receipt.
Finally, before submitting your journal article, you are required to confirm that you have read and understood the IOP ethics policy for the journal, and that your submission complies with the terms.
File upload: to make sending as easy as possible for you, when submitting new articles, we only ask you to upload one PDF file (and any additional relevant data) for your article. The PDF must contain your complete paper, including embedded images and tables. You can upload your article directly from arXiv by entering the arXiv e-print number. Please also submit any permissions that you have obtained at this stage.
If you experience problems submitting your article online, please contact the journal for assistance.
Please note, ZAMBRUT journal does not charge you to submit articles. If there are publication costs to be paid (for open access, color printing, or page fees), this will be explained to you at the time of delivery, and paid at the time of receipt for publication. \
The files that you need to send during the initial shipment are:
1PDF of the complete paper for review (designated 'Complete Document for Review (PDF Only)'), containing the author's name and institution, as well as pictures and tables embedded in the text. Authors are asked to consider the need for clarity and readability when choosing column types, line spacing, font size, and layout when preparing a PDF, to help reviewers.2 All permissions that you have obtained at this stage.3 Complementary data matches (see below for details about the appropriate file).
We encourage you to submit additional data files with your paper. If you send a video file, most standard file formats are suitable: animated GIF, AVI, MPG, etc. However, we strongly recommend that the video file be sent in an MPEG-4 container, which is coded with H264 codec. Other formats are permitted, but using MPEG-4 will give you the most faithful rendering of your videos in HTML journal articles.
Video files must be up to 10MB each. Exceptions can be made in cases where larger files are very important for the science presented.
Zambrut Publishing considers publishing in our journal articles that:
1 Report original knowledge and add significantly to published research
2 Appeals to the community
3 Scientific accuracy
4 Have strong motivation and goals
5 Has never been published before in peer-reviewed literature
6 Not being considered for publication in a journal or other peer review book available through the library or by purchase
7 Comply with our precast pre-publication policies (see below), and8 Comply with our ethical policies.
It's important for you to consider whether you have enough new results before you start planning and writing a journal to submit to Zambrut journals. Reporting additional steps forward from previous work is usually not enough.
Articles based on a thesis for an advanced degree can be submitted. You must take care to ensure that the article is prepared in a research journal format, which is more concise than is appropriate for the thesis.
Articles that report on work that was originally presented at a conference can be submitted, provided these articles do not appear substantially in the same form in the conference process that is reviewed by peers. Again, you must make sure the research journal format is used. The length of the article must also be in accordance with the content. If in doubt, please ask the relevant journal.
Reports that are not available to the general public are not considered by ZAMBRUT as prior publications. Many journals published by ZAMBRUT consider various types of articles in addition to regular research journals, including special edition articles, topical reviews, comments and replies. However, please check through the journal homepage that your article is an acceptable type of article and appropriate scope before submission.
All articles are judged only on their scientific ability. Consideration without consideration is given to all manuscripts offered for publication, regardless of whether the author requests publication based on open gold access and regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy, sexual orientation, age or author's reputation.
We treat all articles sent as confidential until they are published and will only be shared with referees, board members, editors, and ZAMBRUT staff who are directly involved in the peer review of the article. (An exception to this is if it is necessary to share articles with additional external parties to investigate possible violations of ethical policies.)
You should consider the best way to structure your article before you start writing. If you want to use the LaTeX template to format your paper (this is optional, you don't have to do it) then the files are available in zip format and Unz tar format is gzipped here. Your article must follow the Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion system, and usually consists of the following sections:
Title
The title must be concise, informative, and meaningful for all journal readers. It should include key terms, to help make it easier to find when people search online. Please avoid using long systemic names and abbreviations, acronyms, or symbols that are not standard or unclear.
Author
List of all names and complete institutions of the author. Authors in all ZAMBRUT journals have the option to enter names in Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters in addition to English names. The name will appear in parentheses after the English name. We recommend that you provide an ORCID identifier for all authors to avoid ambiguity. If the author's current address is different from the address where the work was done, this must be explained in the footnotes. Note: this only applies if you submit to a one-blind review journal. If you are sending to a double-blind journal, please do not include the identifying information of the author in your paper.
Keywords
When you submit an article, you will be asked to provide several keywords that are relevant to your work. If your article is accepted for publication, we will display these keywords in published articles, and they will be used to index your articles, helping to make them easier to find. When choosing keywords, think about the types of terms you will use when searching for related articles online.
Abstract
Your abstract should give the reader a brief summary of your article. It should briefly describe the contents of your article, and include key terms (especially in the first two sentences, to improve search engine finding). It must be informative, accessible and not only show the general purpose and scope of the article, but also state the methodology used, the main results obtained and conclusions drawn. The abstract must be complete in itself; It cannot contain unspecified acronyms / abbreviations and no table numbers, image numbers, references or equations that must be referenced. This must be appropriate to be included directly in the abstract service and usually should not be more than 300 words. Some journals ask for abstracts to follow certain structures. Check the instructions for the particular journal to see if you need to submit a structured abstract.
introduction
It should be brief and describe the nature of the problem being investigated and its background. It must also organize your work in the context of previous research, citing relevant references. Introductions should be extended with very specific terms and abbreviations used in the article to make it accessible to readers.
Method
This section must provide sufficient detail from experiments, simulations, statistical tests or analyzes conducted to produce results such that the method can be repeated by other researchers and the results reproduced.
Results
The results section should detail your main findings and research findings. You should use tables only to increase brevity or when information cannot be satisfactorily provided in other ways such as histograms or graphs. Tables must be numbered and referred to in the text with numbers (table 1, etc.). Each table must have an explanation title that must be as level as possible.
Discussion
It should discuss the importance of the results and compare them with previous work using relevant references.
Conclusion
This section should be used to highlight the novelty and significance of the work, and any plans for relevant work in the future.
Thank-you note
All authors and co-authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when submitting articles (eg work, consulting fees, research contracts, share ownership, patent licenses, honorariums, advisory affiliations, etc.). This information must be included in the thank-you section at the end of the paper (before the reference section). All sources of financial support for the project must also be disclosed in the thank-you section. The name of the funding agency and grant number must be given, for example: This work is partly funded by Universitas Negeri Indonesia. When filling out the online submission form, we also ask you to select a funder and provide a grant number to help you meet the requirements of your funder.
How to submit your journal articles
Please send all new articles via the 'Submit article' link to the relevant journal. If you are a new writer, you need to set up an account before submitting your first article. Before submitting your article, please read 'What we are looking for in your article'.
Please ensure that you enter all the necessary information about your article. You will first be asked to choose the type of article for your paper, to enter a title and abstract, and then to choose a few keywords. Please note that, if your article is accepted for publication, we will display this keyword in the published article.
You will then be asked to enter your author information. Please include all authors (if there are less than 10). We recommend that you use the author's full name and ORCID identifier to avoid ambiguity. Note that you can check whether co-authors are already in the journal database by entering the author's email address.
You can also propose references that are liked (and not liked) when submitted. Suggested referees must have appropriate subject expertise and do not have conflicts of interest (please see the ZAMBRUT Journal ethics policy for journals for more information on conflicts of interest). These suggestions will be considered, but the editorial staff and / or Editorial Board will make the final decision regarding the selection of referees.
Any related information that can affect the way paper is handled can be provided in a cover letter. This might include highlighting something very important or important about their research, and information about an earlier version of this paper that is sent to the current journal or to another journal.
You will be asked to provide information about all funders related to your work. It's important that you enter this information because it helps you to meet the requirements of your funders and makes your research easier to find. Please find the Open Funder Registry for your funding agency, and provide the grant number.
You are then required to choose between issuance under a gold open access license or on a subscription basis, to state whether you have reproduced previously published material or not in your shipment, and to confirm that you want the paper you received available. online in 24 hours after receipt.
Finally, before submitting your journal article, you are required to confirm that you have read and understood the IOP ethics policy for the journal, and that your submission complies with the terms.
File upload: to make sending as easy as possible for you, when submitting new articles, we only ask you to upload one PDF file (and any additional relevant data) for your article. The PDF must contain your complete paper, including embedded images and tables. You can upload your article directly from arXiv by entering the arXiv e-print number. Please also submit any permissions that you have obtained at this stage.
If you experience problems submitting your article online, please contact the journal for assistance.
Please note, ZAMBRUT journal does not charge you to submit articles. If there are publication costs to be paid (for open access, color printing, or page fees), this will be explained to you at the time of delivery, and paid at the time of receipt for publication. \
The files that you need to send during the initial shipment are:
1PDF of the complete paper for review (designated 'Complete Document for Review (PDF Only)'), containing the author's name and institution, as well as pictures and tables embedded in the text. Authors are asked to consider the need for clarity and readability when choosing column types, line spacing, font size, and layout when preparing a PDF, to help reviewers.2 All permissions that you have obtained at this stage.3 Complementary data matches (see below for details about the appropriate file).
We encourage you to submit additional data files with your paper. If you send a video file, most standard file formats are suitable: animated GIF, AVI, MPG, etc. However, we strongly recommend that the video file be sent in an MPEG-4 container, which is coded with H264 codec. Other formats are permitted, but using MPEG-4 will give you the most faithful rendering of your videos in HTML journal articles.
Video files must be up to 10MB each. Exceptions can be made in cases where larger files are very important for the science presented.
Zambrut Publishing considers publishing in our journal articles that:
1 Report original knowledge and add significantly to published research
2 Appeals to the community
3 Scientific accuracy
4 Have strong motivation and goals
5 Has never been published before in peer-reviewed literature
6 Not being considered for publication in a journal or other peer review book available through the library or by purchase
7 Comply with our precast pre-publication policies (see below), and8 Comply with our ethical policies.
It's important for you to consider whether you have enough new results before you start planning and writing a journal to submit to Zambrut journals. Reporting additional steps forward from previous work is usually not enough.
Articles based on a thesis for an advanced degree can be submitted. You must take care to ensure that the article is prepared in a research journal format, which is more concise than is appropriate for the thesis.
Articles that report on work that was originally presented at a conference can be submitted, provided these articles do not appear substantially in the same form in the conference process that is reviewed by peers. Again, you must make sure the research journal format is used. The length of the article must also be in accordance with the content. If in doubt, please ask the relevant journal.
Reports that are not available to the general public are not considered by ZAMBRUT as prior publications. Many journals published by ZAMBRUT consider various types of articles in addition to regular research journals, including special edition articles, topical reviews, comments and replies. However, please check through the journal homepage that your article is an acceptable type of article and appropriate scope before submission.
All articles are judged only on their scientific ability. Consideration without consideration is given to all manuscripts offered for publication, regardless of whether the author requests publication based on open gold access and regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy, sexual orientation, age or author's reputation.
We treat all articles sent as confidential until they are published and will only be shared with referees, board members, editors, and ZAMBRUT staff who are directly involved in the peer review of the article. (An exception to this is if it is necessary to share articles with additional external parties to investigate possible violations of ethical policies.)
You should consider the best way to structure your article before you start writing. If you want to use the LaTeX template to format your paper (this is optional, you don't have to do it) then the files are available in zip format and Unz tar format is gzipped here. Your article must follow the Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion system, and usually consists of the following sections:
Title
The title must be concise, informative, and meaningful for all journal readers. It should include key terms, to help make it easier to find when people search online. Please avoid using long systemic names and abbreviations, acronyms, or symbols that are not standard or unclear.
Author
List of all names and complete institutions of the author. Authors in all ZAMBRUT journals have the option to enter names in Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters in addition to English names. The name will appear in parentheses after the English name. We recommend that you provide an ORCID identifier for all authors to avoid ambiguity. If the author's current address is different from the address where the work was done, this must be explained in the footnotes. Note: this only applies if you submit to a one-blind review journal. If you are sending to a double-blind journal, please do not include the identifying information of the author in your paper.
Keywords
When you submit an article, you will be asked to provide several keywords that are relevant to your work. If your article is accepted for publication, we will display these keywords in published articles, and they will be used to index your articles, helping to make them easier to find. When choosing keywords, think about the types of terms you will use when searching for related articles online.
Abstract
Your abstract should give the reader a brief summary of your article. It should briefly describe the contents of your article, and include key terms (especially in the first two sentences, to improve search engine finding). It must be informative, accessible and not only show the general purpose and scope of the article, but also state the methodology used, the main results obtained and conclusions drawn. The abstract must be complete in itself; It cannot contain unspecified acronyms / abbreviations and no table numbers, image numbers, references or equations that must be referenced. This must be appropriate to be included directly in the abstract service and usually should not be more than 300 words. Some journals ask for abstracts to follow certain structures. Check the instructions for the particular journal to see if you need to submit a structured abstract.
introduction
It should be brief and describe the nature of the problem being investigated and its background. It must also organize your work in the context of previous research, citing relevant references. Introductions should be extended with very specific terms and abbreviations used in the article to make it accessible to readers.
Method
This section must provide sufficient detail from experiments, simulations, statistical tests or analyzes conducted to produce results such that the method can be repeated by other researchers and the results reproduced.
Results
The results section should detail your main findings and research findings. You should use tables only to increase brevity or when information cannot be satisfactorily provided in other ways such as histograms or graphs. Tables must be numbered and referred to in the text with numbers (table 1, etc.). Each table must have an explanation title that must be as level as possible.
Discussion
It should discuss the importance of the results and compare them with previous work using relevant references.
Conclusion
This section should be used to highlight the novelty and significance of the work, and any plans for relevant work in the future.
Thank-you note
All authors and co-authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when submitting articles (eg work, consulting fees, research contracts, share ownership, patent licenses, honorariums, advisory affiliations, etc.). This information must be included in the thank-you section at the end of the paper (before the reference section). All sources of financial support for the project must also be disclosed in the thank-you section. The name of the funding agency and grant number must be given, for example: This work is partly funded by Universitas Negeri Indonesia. When filling out the online submission form, we also ask you to select a funder and provide a grant number to help you meet the requirements of your funder.
How to Publish a Research Journal?
How to Publish a Research Journal?
How to Publish a Research Journal
Publishing research journals in peer-reviewed journals is an important activity in the academic community. This allows you to network with other scholars, put your name and work into circulation, and further refine your ideas and research. Publishing isn't easy, but you can increase your chances by submitting research that is technically good and creative but straightforward. It is also important to find an academic journal that is suitable for your topic and writing style, so that you can adapt your research journal to it and increase your chances for wider publication and recognition.
Submit International Journals Papers (and Resend) Your Paper
Ask a colleague or professor to review your research journal. They must edit your paper for grammar, spelling mistakes, typos, clarity, and conciseness. They must also verify your content. Research journals need to present significant and relevant problems. They must be clearly written, easy to follow, and appropriate for the intended audience. [1]
Ask two or three people to review your journal. At least one person must be a non-expert on the main topic - their "outsider's perspective" can be very valuable, because not all reviewers will become experts in your specific topic.
Revise your journal based on the recommendations of your reviewers. Chances are you will go through several concepts before the final submission of your research journal. Give special effort to make your paper clear, attractive, and easy to follow. This will greatly increase your chances of being published. [2]
Prepare your paper according to the journal requirements you choose. Format your research journal so that it follows the guidelines for that publication. Most journals provide a document called "Instructions to Authors" or "Journal Writing Guides" that offer specific instructions on layout, typeface, and length. This guide will also tell you how to submit your journal and will provide details of the review process. [3]
Journal articles in science often follow certain organizational formats, such as: Abstract; Introduction; Method; Results; Discussion; Conclusion; Acknowledgments / References. People in the arts and humanities are usually less organized.
Submit your article when you feel ready. Open the Author's Guide (or something similar) on the journal's website to review the submission requirements. Once you are satisfied that your paper meets all of the guidelines, send the paper through the appropriate channels. Some journals allow online submission, while others prefer printed copies. [4]
Submit your article to only one journal at a time. Go down your list, one at a time, as needed.
When submitting online, use your university email account. This connects you to scientific institutions, which add credibility to your work.
Don't panic when you get an initial journal response. Very few article submissions have received "Receive" direct from peer-reviewed journals. If you get one of them, go celebrate! If not, calmly deal with the reply you get. This may be one of the following: [5]
Accept with Revisions - only minor adjustments are needed, based on feedback provided by reviewers.
Revision and Resubmission - more substantial changes (as described) are needed before publication can be considered, but the journal is still very interested in your work.
Decline and Resubmit - this article is currently not worth considering, but major changes and refocusing might change this result.
Decline - this journal does not and will not be suitable for this publication, but that does not mean it might not work for other journals.
Embrace reviewer comments as constructive criticism. Quite often, you will be asked to revise your journal and resubmit it, based on comments provided by several (often three) anonymous reviewers and editors. Study their criticisms carefully and make the necessary changes.
Don't be too attached to your original shipment. Instead, remain flexible and reload the paper according to the feedback you receive. Use your expertise as a researcher and writer to create a superior journal.
However, you don't need to "roll over" and gently follow the comments of reviewers who you think are off target. Open a dialogue with the editor and explain your position, respectfully but confidently. Remember, you are an expert in this particular topic! [6]
Keep trying to publish your journal. Even if you are ultimately rejected by the journal of your choice, continue to rewrite your research journal and submit it to other publications. [7]
Remember, rejected paper is not always the same as bad paper. Many factors, many of which are completely out of your control, go into determining which articles are accepted.
Move to your second choice journal for submission. You can even ask for guidance on finding better matches from the first journal editor.
Choosing the Right Journal to Receive
Familiarize yourself with potential publications. Be aware of published research and current questions and studies in your field. Pay special attention to how other research journals in your field are written: format, type of article (quantitative versus qualitative studies, primary research, existing journal reviews), writing style, subject matter, and vocabulary. [8]
Read international journals related to your field of study.
Search online for published research journals, conference journals, and journal articles.
Ask a colleague or professor for a list of suggested readings.
Choose the publication that best fits your research journal. Each publication has its own audience and writing tone. Determine, for example, whether your research journal would be more suitable in a highly technical journal and is only intended for other scholars, or a journal that is more general for a wider audience. [9]
"Fit" is very important here - the most famous journal in your field may not be the most suitable for your specific job. However, at the same time, don't sell yourself assuming your paper will never be good enough for the top shelf publication.
Remember circulation or journal exposure in mind. After narrowing down the list of potential submission sites, do a little digging to find out how many articles were read and quoted in these journals. A greater exposure to your work will be a definite benefit, especially when you try to make a name for yourself early in your career. [10]
However, always prioritize journals reviewed by peers - where field scholars review works submitted anonymously. This is the basic standard for scientific publishing.
You can increase your readership dramatically by publishing open access journals. As such, this will be freely available as part of an online peer-reviewed scientific journal repository. [11]
Strengthen Your Submission
Give your paper a clear vision. A good journal article usually gets to the point and stays along the way. Determine what your paper actually explored / investigated / completed from the beginning, and make sure that each subsequent paragraph is based on this vision. [12]
Make a strong and clear statement about this vision in your thesis statement. Compare the following weak vs. strong statement:
"This journal explores how George Washington's experience as a young officer might have shaped his views during difficult circumstances as a commander."
"This journal argues that George Washington's experience as a young officer on the Pennsylvania border in the 1750s directly affected his relationship with Continental Army troops during the harsh winter in Valley Forge."
Narrow your focus. A clear vision can also be a big vision, but journal articles are not suitable for a thorough examination of large-scale topics. Scholars who revise the content of a thesis or dissertation often struggle with this element; You should be able to remove (or at least return significantly) things such as background information, literature reviews, and methodological discussions for journal articles. [13]
This is especially true for young scholars who enter this field. Leave great exploration (but still only 20-30 pages) for more established scholars.
Write upper class abstracts. Abstraction is the first impression a reviewer will get from your work, so you have to make it count. Make sure there are absolutely no typos or unnecessary elements; You will only have around 300 words to work on. Be bold in your claims and original in your approach, but don't over-sell what your articles actually provide. [14]
Abstract You must get people excited to start reading articles, but never be disappointed when they finish an article.
Get as many people as possible to read your abstract and provide feedback before you submit your journal to the journal
How to Publish a Research Journal
Publishing research journals in peer-reviewed journals is an important activity in the academic community. This allows you to network with other scholars, put your name and work into circulation, and further refine your ideas and research. Publishing isn't easy, but you can increase your chances by submitting research that is technically good and creative but straightforward. It is also important to find an academic journal that is suitable for your topic and writing style, so that you can adapt your research journal to it and increase your chances for wider publication and recognition.
Submit International Journals Papers (and Resend) Your Paper
Ask a colleague or professor to review your research journal. They must edit your paper for grammar, spelling mistakes, typos, clarity, and conciseness. They must also verify your content. Research journals need to present significant and relevant problems. They must be clearly written, easy to follow, and appropriate for the intended audience. [1]
Ask two or three people to review your journal. At least one person must be a non-expert on the main topic - their "outsider's perspective" can be very valuable, because not all reviewers will become experts in your specific topic.
Revise your journal based on the recommendations of your reviewers. Chances are you will go through several concepts before the final submission of your research journal. Give special effort to make your paper clear, attractive, and easy to follow. This will greatly increase your chances of being published. [2]
Prepare your paper according to the journal requirements you choose. Format your research journal so that it follows the guidelines for that publication. Most journals provide a document called "Instructions to Authors" or "Journal Writing Guides" that offer specific instructions on layout, typeface, and length. This guide will also tell you how to submit your journal and will provide details of the review process. [3]
Journal articles in science often follow certain organizational formats, such as: Abstract; Introduction; Method; Results; Discussion; Conclusion; Acknowledgments / References. People in the arts and humanities are usually less organized.
Submit your article when you feel ready. Open the Author's Guide (or something similar) on the journal's website to review the submission requirements. Once you are satisfied that your paper meets all of the guidelines, send the paper through the appropriate channels. Some journals allow online submission, while others prefer printed copies. [4]
Submit your article to only one journal at a time. Go down your list, one at a time, as needed.
When submitting online, use your university email account. This connects you to scientific institutions, which add credibility to your work.
Don't panic when you get an initial journal response. Very few article submissions have received "Receive" direct from peer-reviewed journals. If you get one of them, go celebrate! If not, calmly deal with the reply you get. This may be one of the following: [5]
Accept with Revisions - only minor adjustments are needed, based on feedback provided by reviewers.
Revision and Resubmission - more substantial changes (as described) are needed before publication can be considered, but the journal is still very interested in your work.
Decline and Resubmit - this article is currently not worth considering, but major changes and refocusing might change this result.
Decline - this journal does not and will not be suitable for this publication, but that does not mean it might not work for other journals.
Embrace reviewer comments as constructive criticism. Quite often, you will be asked to revise your journal and resubmit it, based on comments provided by several (often three) anonymous reviewers and editors. Study their criticisms carefully and make the necessary changes.
Don't be too attached to your original shipment. Instead, remain flexible and reload the paper according to the feedback you receive. Use your expertise as a researcher and writer to create a superior journal.
However, you don't need to "roll over" and gently follow the comments of reviewers who you think are off target. Open a dialogue with the editor and explain your position, respectfully but confidently. Remember, you are an expert in this particular topic! [6]
Keep trying to publish your journal. Even if you are ultimately rejected by the journal of your choice, continue to rewrite your research journal and submit it to other publications. [7]
Remember, rejected paper is not always the same as bad paper. Many factors, many of which are completely out of your control, go into determining which articles are accepted.
Move to your second choice journal for submission. You can even ask for guidance on finding better matches from the first journal editor.
Choosing the Right Journal to Receive
Familiarize yourself with potential publications. Be aware of published research and current questions and studies in your field. Pay special attention to how other research journals in your field are written: format, type of article (quantitative versus qualitative studies, primary research, existing journal reviews), writing style, subject matter, and vocabulary. [8]
Read international journals related to your field of study.
Search online for published research journals, conference journals, and journal articles.
Ask a colleague or professor for a list of suggested readings.
Choose the publication that best fits your research journal. Each publication has its own audience and writing tone. Determine, for example, whether your research journal would be more suitable in a highly technical journal and is only intended for other scholars, or a journal that is more general for a wider audience. [9]
"Fit" is very important here - the most famous journal in your field may not be the most suitable for your specific job. However, at the same time, don't sell yourself assuming your paper will never be good enough for the top shelf publication.
Remember circulation or journal exposure in mind. After narrowing down the list of potential submission sites, do a little digging to find out how many articles were read and quoted in these journals. A greater exposure to your work will be a definite benefit, especially when you try to make a name for yourself early in your career. [10]
However, always prioritize journals reviewed by peers - where field scholars review works submitted anonymously. This is the basic standard for scientific publishing.
You can increase your readership dramatically by publishing open access journals. As such, this will be freely available as part of an online peer-reviewed scientific journal repository. [11]
Strengthen Your Submission
Give your paper a clear vision. A good journal article usually gets to the point and stays along the way. Determine what your paper actually explored / investigated / completed from the beginning, and make sure that each subsequent paragraph is based on this vision. [12]
Make a strong and clear statement about this vision in your thesis statement. Compare the following weak vs. strong statement:
"This journal explores how George Washington's experience as a young officer might have shaped his views during difficult circumstances as a commander."
"This journal argues that George Washington's experience as a young officer on the Pennsylvania border in the 1750s directly affected his relationship with Continental Army troops during the harsh winter in Valley Forge."
Narrow your focus. A clear vision can also be a big vision, but journal articles are not suitable for a thorough examination of large-scale topics. Scholars who revise the content of a thesis or dissertation often struggle with this element; You should be able to remove (or at least return significantly) things such as background information, literature reviews, and methodological discussions for journal articles. [13]
This is especially true for young scholars who enter this field. Leave great exploration (but still only 20-30 pages) for more established scholars.
Write upper class abstracts. Abstraction is the first impression a reviewer will get from your work, so you have to make it count. Make sure there are absolutely no typos or unnecessary elements; You will only have around 300 words to work on. Be bold in your claims and original in your approach, but don't over-sell what your articles actually provide. [14]
Abstract You must get people excited to start reading articles, but never be disappointed when they finish an article.
Get as many people as possible to read your abstract and provide feedback before you submit your journal to the journal
How to Write for International Journals?
How to Write for International Journals?
Writing for international journals: 10 tips
What seems like common sense is not a common practice, said Rowena Murray, who shared her best tips for publication
1) Have a strategy, make a plan
Why do you want to write for a journal? What is your purpose? Did you write for research assessment? Or to make a difference? Does your writing have an impact or impact factor? Do you want to develop a profile in a certain area? Will this determine which journal you write? Have you calculated the impact factor?
Have you researched other researchers in your field - where were they published recently? Which group or conversation can you join? Some people write international journals first and then look for a 'home' for them, but because everything in your article - content, focus, structure, style - will be formed for a particular journal, saving you time by determining the target journal and finding out how to write in a manner consistent with that journal.
Having a writing strategy means making sure you have an external driver - like scoring points in a research assessment or going up the promotion ladder - and an internal driver - which means finding out why writing for international journals is important to you. This will help you maintain the motivation that you must write and publish in the long run. Because the time between submission in international journal call for papers and publications can take up to two years (although in some fields it is much less), you must be clear about your motivation.
2) Analysis of writing in journals in your field
Take a few journals in your field that you will target now or soon. Scan all abstracts for the past few problems. Their analysis: pay close attention to all first and last sentences. The first sentence (usually) gives a reason for research, and the last one confirms 'contribution to knowledge'. But the word 'contribution' might not exist - it's related to a doctorate degree. So which word is used? What is new knowledge in this journal at this time? How can you build a similar form of contribution from the work you do? What two sentences would you write to begin and end your abstract for the journal?
Scan the rest of the article: how is the structure? What is the component of the argument? Highlight all topic sentences - the first sentence of each paragraph - to show the stages in the argument. Can you see the taxonomy of writing genres that appear in this journal? Can you determine the different paper types, different structures and decide which is the most suitable for your paper? Choose two types of paper: one is the type of paper that you can use as a model for you, and one that you can quote on your paper, so that it joins the ongoing research conversation in the journal.
3) Outline and write only
Which type of writer are you: do you always outline before writing, or just dive in and start writing? Or do you do both? Both outlines and just writing are useful, and therefore a good idea to use both. However, make your outline very detailed: outline the main body and calibrate it with your target journal.
What type of titles are usually used there? How long does it usually take part? Set word limits for your section, sub-section and, if necessary, for sub-sections. This involves deciding about the content you want to include, so it might take time, and feedback will help at this stage.
When you sit down to write, what are you actually doing: using writing to develop your ideas or writing to document your work? Do you use the outline as an agenda for writing parts of your article? Determine your writing assignments by thinking about verbs - they define goals: to summarize, summarize, critique, define, introduce, conclude etc.
4) Get feedback from start to finish
Even at the earliest stages, discuss your ideas for a journal with four or five people, get feedback about your abstract draft. It only takes a few minutes for them to read and respond. Make a few revisions before you submit your article to the journal.
5) Set specific writing goals and sub-goals
Making your writing goals specific means defining the content, verbs, and word length for the section. This means that it does not have writing goals such as, 'I plan to have this article written at the end of the year' but 'My next writing goal is to summarize and criticize the twelve articles for the literature review section in 800 words on Tuesday between 9 am and 10:30'. Some people find this too mechanical for academic writing, but this is a way of forcing yourself to make decisions about the content, order, and proportions for your article.
6) Write with other people
While most people see writing as a solitary activity, writing together - writing with others who are writing - can help develop confidence, fluency and focus. This can help you develop regular writing discipline. Conducting your academic writing in groups or writing retreats is a way to do your own writing, but - if you pull out email, the internet and all other tools - also develops the concentration needed for regular and high-level academic writing.
At some point - ideally on a regular basis - you can get more done if you only focus on writing. If this seems like common sense, it is not a common practice. Most people do several things at once, but this will not always work for writing regular journal articles. At some point, paying writing privileges for all other tasks, for a certain period of time, such as 90 minutes, is long enough to get something done on your paper, but not so long that it's impossible to find time.
7) Warm up before you write
When you decide what you want to write, a successful warm-up is to write for five minutes, in sentences, in response to the question: 'What writing for the publication you have done [or the closest thing to it], and what you want to do in the long, medium and short term? '
After you start writing your article, use variations on this question as a warm up - what writing for this project have you done, and what do you want to do in the long, medium and short term? Top tip: end each writing session with 'written instructions' for you to use in the next session, for example, 'on Monday from 9 to 10 am, I will arrange the concluding section in 500 words'.
As discussed, if there are no numbers, there is no purpose. The goals that work must be specific, and you need to monitor the extent to which you are achieving them. This is how you learn to set realistic targets.
8) Analyze reviewers' feedback on your submissions
What exactly do they ask you to do? Find out if they want you to add or cut something. How many? Where? Write a list of revised actions. When you resubmit your article, include this in your report in the journal, which determines how you respond to reviewers' feedback. If your article is rejected, it is still useful to analyze feedback, find out why and revise it elsewhere.
Most of the feedback will help you improve your journal and, perhaps, writing your journal article, but sometimes it feels too hot, personalized or even vindictive. Some of them even look unprofessional. Discuss the reviewers' responses - see what others think about it. You might find that other people - even prominent researchers - still get rejection and negative reviews; every refusal is a reason for celebration. Repair and resubmit as soon as possible.
9) Be persistent, thick-skinned, and tenacious
This is a quality that you might develop over time - or you might already have it. It might be easier to develop it in discussions with other people who write for journals.
10) Take care of yourself
Writing for international journals is very competitive. This can be very stressful. Even taking the time to write can be stressful. And there are health risks in sitting for a long time, so try not to sit writing for more than an hour at a time. Finally, be sure to celebrate thoroughly when your article is received. Remind yourself that writing for an international journal is what you want to do - that your writing will make a difference in several ways.
Writing for international journals: 10 tips
What seems like common sense is not a common practice, said Rowena Murray, who shared her best tips for publication
1) Have a strategy, make a plan
Why do you want to write for a journal? What is your purpose? Did you write for research assessment? Or to make a difference? Does your writing have an impact or impact factor? Do you want to develop a profile in a certain area? Will this determine which journal you write? Have you calculated the impact factor?
Have you researched other researchers in your field - where were they published recently? Which group or conversation can you join? Some people write international journals first and then look for a 'home' for them, but because everything in your article - content, focus, structure, style - will be formed for a particular journal, saving you time by determining the target journal and finding out how to write in a manner consistent with that journal.
Having a writing strategy means making sure you have an external driver - like scoring points in a research assessment or going up the promotion ladder - and an internal driver - which means finding out why writing for international journals is important to you. This will help you maintain the motivation that you must write and publish in the long run. Because the time between submission in international journal call for papers and publications can take up to two years (although in some fields it is much less), you must be clear about your motivation.
2) Analysis of writing in journals in your field
Take a few journals in your field that you will target now or soon. Scan all abstracts for the past few problems. Their analysis: pay close attention to all first and last sentences. The first sentence (usually) gives a reason for research, and the last one confirms 'contribution to knowledge'. But the word 'contribution' might not exist - it's related to a doctorate degree. So which word is used? What is new knowledge in this journal at this time? How can you build a similar form of contribution from the work you do? What two sentences would you write to begin and end your abstract for the journal?
Scan the rest of the article: how is the structure? What is the component of the argument? Highlight all topic sentences - the first sentence of each paragraph - to show the stages in the argument. Can you see the taxonomy of writing genres that appear in this journal? Can you determine the different paper types, different structures and decide which is the most suitable for your paper? Choose two types of paper: one is the type of paper that you can use as a model for you, and one that you can quote on your paper, so that it joins the ongoing research conversation in the journal.
3) Outline and write only
Which type of writer are you: do you always outline before writing, or just dive in and start writing? Or do you do both? Both outlines and just writing are useful, and therefore a good idea to use both. However, make your outline very detailed: outline the main body and calibrate it with your target journal.
What type of titles are usually used there? How long does it usually take part? Set word limits for your section, sub-section and, if necessary, for sub-sections. This involves deciding about the content you want to include, so it might take time, and feedback will help at this stage.
When you sit down to write, what are you actually doing: using writing to develop your ideas or writing to document your work? Do you use the outline as an agenda for writing parts of your article? Determine your writing assignments by thinking about verbs - they define goals: to summarize, summarize, critique, define, introduce, conclude etc.
4) Get feedback from start to finish
Even at the earliest stages, discuss your ideas for a journal with four or five people, get feedback about your abstract draft. It only takes a few minutes for them to read and respond. Make a few revisions before you submit your article to the journal.
5) Set specific writing goals and sub-goals
Making your writing goals specific means defining the content, verbs, and word length for the section. This means that it does not have writing goals such as, 'I plan to have this article written at the end of the year' but 'My next writing goal is to summarize and criticize the twelve articles for the literature review section in 800 words on Tuesday between 9 am and 10:30'. Some people find this too mechanical for academic writing, but this is a way of forcing yourself to make decisions about the content, order, and proportions for your article.
6) Write with other people
While most people see writing as a solitary activity, writing together - writing with others who are writing - can help develop confidence, fluency and focus. This can help you develop regular writing discipline. Conducting your academic writing in groups or writing retreats is a way to do your own writing, but - if you pull out email, the internet and all other tools - also develops the concentration needed for regular and high-level academic writing.
At some point - ideally on a regular basis - you can get more done if you only focus on writing. If this seems like common sense, it is not a common practice. Most people do several things at once, but this will not always work for writing regular journal articles. At some point, paying writing privileges for all other tasks, for a certain period of time, such as 90 minutes, is long enough to get something done on your paper, but not so long that it's impossible to find time.
7) Warm up before you write
When you decide what you want to write, a successful warm-up is to write for five minutes, in sentences, in response to the question: 'What writing for the publication you have done [or the closest thing to it], and what you want to do in the long, medium and short term? '
After you start writing your article, use variations on this question as a warm up - what writing for this project have you done, and what do you want to do in the long, medium and short term? Top tip: end each writing session with 'written instructions' for you to use in the next session, for example, 'on Monday from 9 to 10 am, I will arrange the concluding section in 500 words'.
As discussed, if there are no numbers, there is no purpose. The goals that work must be specific, and you need to monitor the extent to which you are achieving them. This is how you learn to set realistic targets.
8) Analyze reviewers' feedback on your submissions
What exactly do they ask you to do? Find out if they want you to add or cut something. How many? Where? Write a list of revised actions. When you resubmit your article, include this in your report in the journal, which determines how you respond to reviewers' feedback. If your article is rejected, it is still useful to analyze feedback, find out why and revise it elsewhere.
Most of the feedback will help you improve your journal and, perhaps, writing your journal article, but sometimes it feels too hot, personalized or even vindictive. Some of them even look unprofessional. Discuss the reviewers' responses - see what others think about it. You might find that other people - even prominent researchers - still get rejection and negative reviews; every refusal is a reason for celebration. Repair and resubmit as soon as possible.
9) Be persistent, thick-skinned, and tenacious
This is a quality that you might develop over time - or you might already have it. It might be easier to develop it in discussions with other people who write for journals.
10) Take care of yourself
Writing for international journals is very competitive. This can be very stressful. Even taking the time to write can be stressful. And there are health risks in sitting for a long time, so try not to sit writing for more than an hour at a time. Finally, be sure to celebrate thoroughly when your article is received. Remind yourself that writing for an international journal is what you want to do - that your writing will make a difference in several ways.
How to Submit Journal Articles?
How to Submit Journal Articles?
How to Submit Journal and Published Articles
I am a post-doctoral researcher who helps run research groups. Every week we spend half an hour meeting our groups to discuss important topics for young academics. Last fall I wanted to give an article on how to submit journal articles - a format that is intrinsically connected to professional success and the pleasure of being an academic. I have read many books about writing for academics, such as Author Howard Becker for Social Scientists, Thinking Like Your Editor, and How to Write Many (just to name a few). However, no one directly discussed how to avoid the trap of submitting journal articles for publication. So I wrote one for my students, which turned into a story in front of you.
Here I will guide you how to submit journal articles. This process involves selecting journals, preparing submissions, evaluating reviews, revising papers (crossing), and publishing articles after they appear. This guide is biased towards communication - my discipline - but it will apply to others as well.
Excitement of Journal Articles
Academics rarely write just for the sake of writing. The notion of "mind life" is a comfortable metaphor that rarely reflects reality. We usually write for specific purposes. Maybe we want to write opinion editorial works for newspapers, monograph books, or journal articles. Each of these formats and audiences requires different considerations. For op-ed work you must connect your work with a public audience in an accessible way. A book may be revealed for several years and requires writing a book proposal, a very specific genre of writing. But nothing captivates most academics than journal articles.
There are several reasons why journal articles are the most important writing genres in the academic world. In most disciplines, success is tracked through journal articles. A friend recently told me about how his department evaluates his work for a term. The chair collects a spreadsheet of each article and the impact factors of each journal - figures that illustrate how influential the journal is. Total dictates the possibility of accepting a term of office and as such, remains in his job. This stressful example shows how in an academic career journal article determines success or failure. But writing journal articles can and should also be fun!
For many academics, journal articles are an interesting format for their scholarships. They let them work on challenging questions and have public conversations with peers. Writing journal articles also helps us explore new disciplinary topics and fields. I am an interdisciplinary scholar and regularly publishes in journals outside my own discipline, communication. Academics are rarely satisfied with what they did last year. There are always other ideas round the corner! To be honest, it's rather addictive to do research. This is an interesting, and sometimes frustrating, part of academic life.
Although I cannot predict the chances of your article, I can tell you that the manuscript will not be accepted if you do not submit it! It starts by choosing a journal.
Select Journal
The first step is to determine which journal is best for publication. The journal you choose determines how you write the article. For example, many journals exclusively accept empirical articles and need a methodology that is clearly described, while others adhere to a critical and cultural approach in which a methodology is not strictly enforced. Other journals allow more experimental formats. The Science, Technology & Society involved accepts delivery formats such as review essays, critical involvement, and "footprints," in addition to standard research articles. This will save you time if you decide on a journal before you even start writing!
If you are new to your discipline, you may not know which journal is the most important. It is difficult to trace, because there are always new journals that appear and old ones disappear if there is not enough interest. How did you find out about high-quality journals? All kinds of places! You might hear about them from your fellow students or professors. Maybe you saw a journal appear in Google's undergraduate search for your research topic. Once you start finding journals, monitor them. An easy way to achieve this is by maintaining a spreadsheet. Mine is a simple Google spreadsheet with columns for titles, categories (e.g. Communication, political science, STS), impact factors, ratings, open access (yes / no), and comments.
How should you evaluate the journal? There are no easy answers because there are many factors. Impact and ranking factors are the most obvious. The impact factor is statistical: the frequency with which each article in the journal has been cited annually. Ranking is more a rough guide than numbers that determine how important journals are to your discipline. Interdisciplinary journals often receive ratings for various disciplines. For example, American Behavioral Scientists have developed from their origins in psychology. As a result, it is currently ranked 76/121 in clinical psychology, and 30/96 in interdisciplinary social science. While these and other statistics have been criticized, as my friend's tenure review example shows, they remain the way the institution evaluates the potential for promotion.
You might be interested in another aspect of the journal that escapes statistics. things that fit the theme; A good sign that you are publishing in the right journal is that you are quoting a published journal! Maybe the review board has members that you suspect will be sympathetic to the journal you are writing, or there are special problems in this journal that will be very suitable. Some academics prioritize the issuance of open access. Being open access means that, at the very least, people can access articles for free - although that also often means that they don't charge for publishing. Science is built to be able to utilize and criticize the work of others.
But beware, some unscrupulous journals touting their "open access" status while deceiving statistics so that they appear to have a high reputation, only to extract exorbitant fees from the author. Librarian Jeffrey Beall keeps a list of "predatory" open access journals. If you stay in the academic world long enough, you will start receiving daily doses of spam emails from these unscrupulous publishers and can recognize them. If you are not sure, check the Beall list and evaluate their editorial board - do you see anyone you know and respect? When in doubt, ask a trusted professor!
All of these factors - impact, relevance, and open access - must be part of your decision to publish in a journal. Then there are pragmatic factors, such as how fast you want your article to come out. When I was just starting out at the academy, my friend Danah Boyd stressed the importance of publishing in journals that have a quick turnaround time. Websites like Journal Reviewer allow you to understand how quickly you can expect your paper through peer review. If you see a timely topic - such as the dissemination of misinformation in the 2016 presidential election - you might want to get your work done quickly. To this day, danah blog about work in progress. He also made his work papers and lecture transcripts publicly available at no charge. This cuts across journal barriers which can often prohibit the spread of scholarships outside academics. Early publishing and often became part of his recipe for success as a leading public intellectual, making him the director and founder of the Data & Society research institute.
Prepare and Submit Paper
After you find the appropriate journal, start writing articles using their formatting requirements. Reformatting articles for different journals can easily waste your free time! You will find journal publishing requirements on their website under links with titles such as "information for authors" or "submission guidelines." There you will find information such as the number of articles and the style you like. Journals accept articles written in a particular style such as APA or Harvard. Some even insist on slight variations on established styles.
Tracking references will be able to hinder your writing. One way to track references is to use the right writing tools. Quote management software such as Zotero and Endnote are very important for maintaining your sanity. They also allow you to use formatting templates to automatically generate citations in the text and reference sections. This will produce results if you send to a different journal later because you don't need to hand format references!
How to Submit Journal and Published Articles
I am a post-doctoral researcher who helps run research groups. Every week we spend half an hour meeting our groups to discuss important topics for young academics. Last fall I wanted to give an article on how to submit journal articles - a format that is intrinsically connected to professional success and the pleasure of being an academic. I have read many books about writing for academics, such as Author Howard Becker for Social Scientists, Thinking Like Your Editor, and How to Write Many (just to name a few). However, no one directly discussed how to avoid the trap of submitting journal articles for publication. So I wrote one for my students, which turned into a story in front of you.
Here I will guide you how to submit journal articles. This process involves selecting journals, preparing submissions, evaluating reviews, revising papers (crossing), and publishing articles after they appear. This guide is biased towards communication - my discipline - but it will apply to others as well.
Excitement of Journal Articles
Academics rarely write just for the sake of writing. The notion of "mind life" is a comfortable metaphor that rarely reflects reality. We usually write for specific purposes. Maybe we want to write opinion editorial works for newspapers, monograph books, or journal articles. Each of these formats and audiences requires different considerations. For op-ed work you must connect your work with a public audience in an accessible way. A book may be revealed for several years and requires writing a book proposal, a very specific genre of writing. But nothing captivates most academics than journal articles.
There are several reasons why journal articles are the most important writing genres in the academic world. In most disciplines, success is tracked through journal articles. A friend recently told me about how his department evaluates his work for a term. The chair collects a spreadsheet of each article and the impact factors of each journal - figures that illustrate how influential the journal is. Total dictates the possibility of accepting a term of office and as such, remains in his job. This stressful example shows how in an academic career journal article determines success or failure. But writing journal articles can and should also be fun!
For many academics, journal articles are an interesting format for their scholarships. They let them work on challenging questions and have public conversations with peers. Writing journal articles also helps us explore new disciplinary topics and fields. I am an interdisciplinary scholar and regularly publishes in journals outside my own discipline, communication. Academics are rarely satisfied with what they did last year. There are always other ideas round the corner! To be honest, it's rather addictive to do research. This is an interesting, and sometimes frustrating, part of academic life.
Although I cannot predict the chances of your article, I can tell you that the manuscript will not be accepted if you do not submit it! It starts by choosing a journal.
Select Journal
The first step is to determine which journal is best for publication. The journal you choose determines how you write the article. For example, many journals exclusively accept empirical articles and need a methodology that is clearly described, while others adhere to a critical and cultural approach in which a methodology is not strictly enforced. Other journals allow more experimental formats. The Science, Technology & Society involved accepts delivery formats such as review essays, critical involvement, and "footprints," in addition to standard research articles. This will save you time if you decide on a journal before you even start writing!
If you are new to your discipline, you may not know which journal is the most important. It is difficult to trace, because there are always new journals that appear and old ones disappear if there is not enough interest. How did you find out about high-quality journals? All kinds of places! You might hear about them from your fellow students or professors. Maybe you saw a journal appear in Google's undergraduate search for your research topic. Once you start finding journals, monitor them. An easy way to achieve this is by maintaining a spreadsheet. Mine is a simple Google spreadsheet with columns for titles, categories (e.g. Communication, political science, STS), impact factors, ratings, open access (yes / no), and comments.
How should you evaluate the journal? There are no easy answers because there are many factors. Impact and ranking factors are the most obvious. The impact factor is statistical: the frequency with which each article in the journal has been cited annually. Ranking is more a rough guide than numbers that determine how important journals are to your discipline. Interdisciplinary journals often receive ratings for various disciplines. For example, American Behavioral Scientists have developed from their origins in psychology. As a result, it is currently ranked 76/121 in clinical psychology, and 30/96 in interdisciplinary social science. While these and other statistics have been criticized, as my friend's tenure review example shows, they remain the way the institution evaluates the potential for promotion.
You might be interested in another aspect of the journal that escapes statistics. things that fit the theme; A good sign that you are publishing in the right journal is that you are quoting a published journal! Maybe the review board has members that you suspect will be sympathetic to the journal you are writing, or there are special problems in this journal that will be very suitable. Some academics prioritize the issuance of open access. Being open access means that, at the very least, people can access articles for free - although that also often means that they don't charge for publishing. Science is built to be able to utilize and criticize the work of others.
But beware, some unscrupulous journals touting their "open access" status while deceiving statistics so that they appear to have a high reputation, only to extract exorbitant fees from the author. Librarian Jeffrey Beall keeps a list of "predatory" open access journals. If you stay in the academic world long enough, you will start receiving daily doses of spam emails from these unscrupulous publishers and can recognize them. If you are not sure, check the Beall list and evaluate their editorial board - do you see anyone you know and respect? When in doubt, ask a trusted professor!
All of these factors - impact, relevance, and open access - must be part of your decision to publish in a journal. Then there are pragmatic factors, such as how fast you want your article to come out. When I was just starting out at the academy, my friend Danah Boyd stressed the importance of publishing in journals that have a quick turnaround time. Websites like Journal Reviewer allow you to understand how quickly you can expect your paper through peer review. If you see a timely topic - such as the dissemination of misinformation in the 2016 presidential election - you might want to get your work done quickly. To this day, danah blog about work in progress. He also made his work papers and lecture transcripts publicly available at no charge. This cuts across journal barriers which can often prohibit the spread of scholarships outside academics. Early publishing and often became part of his recipe for success as a leading public intellectual, making him the director and founder of the Data & Society research institute.
Prepare and Submit Paper
After you find the appropriate journal, start writing articles using their formatting requirements. Reformatting articles for different journals can easily waste your free time! You will find journal publishing requirements on their website under links with titles such as "information for authors" or "submission guidelines." There you will find information such as the number of articles and the style you like. Journals accept articles written in a particular style such as APA or Harvard. Some even insist on slight variations on established styles.
Tracking references will be able to hinder your writing. One way to track references is to use the right writing tools. Quote management software such as Zotero and Endnote are very important for maintaining your sanity. They also allow you to use formatting templates to automatically generate citations in the text and reference sections. This will produce results if you send to a different journal later because you don't need to hand format references!
Why is Plagiarism so Much in the Academic World?
Why is Plagiarism so Much in the Academic World?
When a professor tore up my work in a journal, they escaped without penalty. How can we expect academic originality from students if we do not uphold it?
I always consider plagiarism mainly done by some lazy students and overly ambitious politicians. But since finding plagiarism from my own work, I see it as more pervasive.
Three years ago, I read about the latest research in my field, when I found a sentence that was quite familiar. Rereading the entire paragraph, I realized these were my words - I had published them on an academic blog two years earlier.
It turns out that the 301-word cut of defeat in the article was copied verbatim, only slightly changed, but several other parts in the article used my argument without credit. There are no footnotes or references that acknowledge my work.
Students cheat in more creative ways: how can academics stop them?
I was stunned because I didn't believe that a professor full of high global standing - a respected leader in their field - would do this. I am also honored because, of course, imitation is a form of praise. Mostly I'm angry that my important article was recently rejected, but here are other people who made my half-baked blog published under their name. But I am also worried, because now I have to prove the authenticity of my work. Even now, I am still afraid of retribution if I ever publicize the incident; I avoided my institution while a plagiarist recently visited.
As a first step, of course I consulted the internet, and, oddly enough, I found many sources of advice for plagiarism - but not for those who have plagiarized. This includes suggestions that make no sense to academics, such as "the five legal proving strategies when destined for plagiarism".
I decided to bring this case to the high-level economic journal in question. The editors handle it very professionally. They chased the writer for several months, and finally got a lame response: plagiarists admitted that they "did (inadvertently) depend heavily" on my work, and suggested that publishers revise the online version of the article by repeating the words. paragraphs meant by their own words. I insist 303 words are set as block excerpts, carried out by journals. The editors of international journals also print a corrigendum in the next issue.
But not once in the process did the writer or editor admit that the problem was, in fact, plagiarism. Retraction should have been discussed.
Even though this happened three years ago, something still tickles: the plagiarist escapes without penalty. We try to instill a deep respect for our students in source and reference material. But if an established academic tries to dismiss someone else's work as their own, and is caught, is a receding quote the only consequence?
Of course anyone who reads the article will now find my work quoted. Corrigendum will probably warn some readers about the next print problem for something suspicious, and the editorial board can put question marks on certain colleagues. But I wonder whether such violations of academic integrity usually have minimal consequences.
I also realized I was very lucky: I actually found a violation, was able to prove it, and suffered minimal damage because a blog entry, rather than an entire book or paper, was used. From other senior academics I've heard far worse cases. One tells of how, as members of the editorial board, they presented an article by a professor, which they recognized as work stolen from a PhD student. The student's fortune is that the editor has seen them present this work at a conference.
Perhaps the order of academic power is a contributing factor. Both cases involved senior academics who dismantled the less well-known baccalaureate. I doubt they will plagiarize the work of other professors without thinking, for fear of retribution and loss of reputation.
After talking with colleagues for years, I had the impression that the use of other people's ideas without permission is something that is widely known and very hated, but rarely discussed or openly problematic. In academia, praise for original analysis must be the key to success, and we must be open to recognizing the contributions of others.
A simple plagiarism check must be done for respectable journals - as well as for student journals. A few minutes running the software can prevent this whole mess, because my article is easy to find on the internet. However, I am not sure about how to counter the more dangerous use of junior intellectual power, such as with professors who submit student articles, or with those who use assistants to do heavy work without acknowledging their work.
Perhaps the most practical advice I can give is to always self-publish: even the most abusive work papers, discussion papers, or blogs thrown on the internet are proof that the idea is yours first.
When a professor tore up my work in a journal, they escaped without penalty. How can we expect academic originality from students if we do not uphold it?
I always consider plagiarism mainly done by some lazy students and overly ambitious politicians. But since finding plagiarism from my own work, I see it as more pervasive.
Three years ago, I read about the latest research in my field, when I found a sentence that was quite familiar. Rereading the entire paragraph, I realized these were my words - I had published them on an academic blog two years earlier.
It turns out that the 301-word cut of defeat in the article was copied verbatim, only slightly changed, but several other parts in the article used my argument without credit. There are no footnotes or references that acknowledge my work.
Students cheat in more creative ways: how can academics stop them?
I was stunned because I didn't believe that a professor full of high global standing - a respected leader in their field - would do this. I am also honored because, of course, imitation is a form of praise. Mostly I'm angry that my important article was recently rejected, but here are other people who made my half-baked blog published under their name. But I am also worried, because now I have to prove the authenticity of my work. Even now, I am still afraid of retribution if I ever publicize the incident; I avoided my institution while a plagiarist recently visited.
As a first step, of course I consulted the internet, and, oddly enough, I found many sources of advice for plagiarism - but not for those who have plagiarized. This includes suggestions that make no sense to academics, such as "the five legal proving strategies when destined for plagiarism".
I decided to bring this case to the high-level economic journal in question. The editors handle it very professionally. They chased the writer for several months, and finally got a lame response: plagiarists admitted that they "did (inadvertently) depend heavily" on my work, and suggested that publishers revise the online version of the article by repeating the words. paragraphs meant by their own words. I insist 303 words are set as block excerpts, carried out by journals. The editors of international journals also print a corrigendum in the next issue.
But not once in the process did the writer or editor admit that the problem was, in fact, plagiarism. Retraction should have been discussed.
Even though this happened three years ago, something still tickles: the plagiarist escapes without penalty. We try to instill a deep respect for our students in source and reference material. But if an established academic tries to dismiss someone else's work as their own, and is caught, is a receding quote the only consequence?
Of course anyone who reads the article will now find my work quoted. Corrigendum will probably warn some readers about the next print problem for something suspicious, and the editorial board can put question marks on certain colleagues. But I wonder whether such violations of academic integrity usually have minimal consequences.
I also realized I was very lucky: I actually found a violation, was able to prove it, and suffered minimal damage because a blog entry, rather than an entire book or paper, was used. From other senior academics I've heard far worse cases. One tells of how, as members of the editorial board, they presented an article by a professor, which they recognized as work stolen from a PhD student. The student's fortune is that the editor has seen them present this work at a conference.
Perhaps the order of academic power is a contributing factor. Both cases involved senior academics who dismantled the less well-known baccalaureate. I doubt they will plagiarize the work of other professors without thinking, for fear of retribution and loss of reputation.
After talking with colleagues for years, I had the impression that the use of other people's ideas without permission is something that is widely known and very hated, but rarely discussed or openly problematic. In academia, praise for original analysis must be the key to success, and we must be open to recognizing the contributions of others.
A simple plagiarism check must be done for respectable journals - as well as for student journals. A few minutes running the software can prevent this whole mess, because my article is easy to find on the internet. However, I am not sure about how to counter the more dangerous use of junior intellectual power, such as with professors who submit student articles, or with those who use assistants to do heavy work without acknowledging their work.
Perhaps the most practical advice I can give is to always self-publish: even the most abusive work papers, discussion papers, or blogs thrown on the internet are proof that the idea is yours first.
How do You Review and Publish a Journal?
How do You Review and Publish a Journal?
Journal Review and Publishing
There are several things to keep in mind when you want to submit your article. You want to click on send, but wait! Make one final edit to grammar and spelling. Check the formatting requirements, and image inclusion. Some journals require tables and figures in separate documents, while others are fine with them in the body of the main document.
If given a choice, write a cover letter to the editor of a reputable international journal. This helps them understand who you are and how they can provide the best review for your paper. Feel free to suggest reviewers if this question is submitted by a journal in the submission form. Obviously, don't suggest reviewers who can identify your work, or who have read the paper. One graduate student suggested their advisors as reviewers be a clear no-no. However, in my experience, editors are grateful when you save their time by suggesting potential reviewers in subject areas that are sometimes mysterious.
Evaluating Review
The cornerstone of academic publishing is the peer review process of reputable international journals. Usually it's "double-blind" - neither the reviewer nor the author know who the other party is. Although there are many things I like and hate about peer reviews, here I will discuss pragmatics of receiving and responding to feedback. It might come in a day or six months. Prepare yourself for criticism, and don't be frustrated if the review is revealed in person. Feel free to set aside emails to read when you are in a good mood and have time to think about their feedback.
There are four types of international journal reviews that you may receive:
Desk refused: editors might simply say an article is not suitable for their journal. Hopefully this does not happen if you have done your homework in choosing a journal, but sometimes it still happens. Be polite and friendly, then move on to the next journal that seems acceptable in your article.
Accept: direct acceptance without revision is very rare. In ten years of publishing more than fifteen articles I have never received one. When reviewing the paper I have given, as far as I can remember, there were two direct admissions. Simply put, there are always a number of things that need to be dealt with to get the paper to death.
Reject: in this case the paper was sent for peer review, and reviewers considered it unsuitable for publication. This does not mean that this is a wasted effort, because you can read the comments of reviewers. What this means is that there are sufficient problems with the manuscript that reviewers cannot identify a clear path for revision. However, they must justify the problems they see, which can be useful feedback for publication. Be sure to thank editors and reviewers for their time, even if you disagree with their decision.
Revision & resend: many shipments will accept "R&R." This means reviewers have suggested changes that they believe will bring the paper to the level where it will be suitable for publication. Often R&R will be the two reviewers who suggest a revision. However, you can also get one enthusiastic reviewer and one recommending rejection. In this case, the editor can ask the third reviewer to make a decision, which can make your life a little more difficult! Because R&R is the majority of responses, I will discuss how to deal with it in the section below.
How to Handle R & D
Not all R & D is the same! Some ask for very small edits that you can complete in an hour or two. This is basically acceptance with some adjustments. Others may ask you to do seemingly impossible tasks, such as collecting new data or rewriting your journal using an unknown theory. Before you panic, read the notes from the editor carefully. Do they signal what changes they expect you to make? A good editor will provide some guidance on the path to acceptance. It might be difficult to read uncarnished comments about articles that you have put in so much time. Sometimes it is difficult not to receive feedback personally, but remember that reviewers will evaluate your work based on factors that you might not have considered. They might misunderstand your main argument, or never evaluate an article using the methodology of your choice.
After you read the review, come forward with the understanding that reviewers are trying to improve the article. If you decide to revise the manuscript, make a list of their requests and check them one by one. When you answer their requests, make a note of what you did and highlight changes in the updated manuscript. When you submit a review, be sure to enter your response (still anonymous) to reviewers, indicating that you pay attention to their feedback and respond to each of their comments. If there are suggestions you don't make, explain why you didn't follow their advice. Keep your response relatively professional. Reviewers may not force you to take every suggestion, but they want to know why you don't.
When there is no clear agreement on whether an article should be published, you might be surprised by three reviewers. Additional reviewers are usually invited to settle disputes. While this helps editors make decisions, it can make your life more difficult, because you are in a position to make changes to please three people, at least one of them might not like your work, and you don't know if they will be assigned to review papers. next round. Don't be afraid to pull your paper out of consideration if the change is too difficult to complete. Remember, that will be your name in this article at the end of the day! The editor will not be offended if you pull the paper - it happens all the time. However, don't write a letter explaining your decision, and address some of the reviewers' responses before submitting back to another journal. However, you might get one of the same reviewers again, and the last thing they want is an article they have given feedback to!
Finalization and Publication of Articles
As you move through the review process you will finally get to the point of reviewers showing they are fine with the concept. In rare cases, they can recommend rejection after several rounds of revision. Once accepted, the editor may have some final suggestions. At this point your article will move to the editing stage, when different editors make grammar and spelling changes to help your article shine through. Then you will review the "evidence" - PDF exactly what your article will look like. You may already be bored with this article now, but read carefully! The line editor may have made changes that change the arguments you make. This was never intentional, and they will change it back if you request it. Also review the evidence when you can concentrate!
There are still two final steps after you submit the PDF evidence that is marked the end of it. First, celebrate! You have passed a milestone. Don't just add another line to your C / V - do something good for yourself. Go to dinner with your partner, buy yourself a bottle of your favorite drink, or watch a movie. Academics are very bad at valuing themselves for hard work. We are much better at valuing work with more work! But this is not a healthy way of life. Second, once the "pre-printed" version comes out online - this is a digital copy that's identical to the printed version - if your journal allows it, publish it on social media and upload it to your website. If your university has staff to publish work, be sure to contact them too.
I hope this article has helped you think through the process of sending journal articles! Please share if you feel helped.
Journal Review and Publishing
There are several things to keep in mind when you want to submit your article. You want to click on send, but wait! Make one final edit to grammar and spelling. Check the formatting requirements, and image inclusion. Some journals require tables and figures in separate documents, while others are fine with them in the body of the main document.
If given a choice, write a cover letter to the editor of a reputable international journal. This helps them understand who you are and how they can provide the best review for your paper. Feel free to suggest reviewers if this question is submitted by a journal in the submission form. Obviously, don't suggest reviewers who can identify your work, or who have read the paper. One graduate student suggested their advisors as reviewers be a clear no-no. However, in my experience, editors are grateful when you save their time by suggesting potential reviewers in subject areas that are sometimes mysterious.
Evaluating Review
The cornerstone of academic publishing is the peer review process of reputable international journals. Usually it's "double-blind" - neither the reviewer nor the author know who the other party is. Although there are many things I like and hate about peer reviews, here I will discuss pragmatics of receiving and responding to feedback. It might come in a day or six months. Prepare yourself for criticism, and don't be frustrated if the review is revealed in person. Feel free to set aside emails to read when you are in a good mood and have time to think about their feedback.
There are four types of international journal reviews that you may receive:
Desk refused: editors might simply say an article is not suitable for their journal. Hopefully this does not happen if you have done your homework in choosing a journal, but sometimes it still happens. Be polite and friendly, then move on to the next journal that seems acceptable in your article.
Accept: direct acceptance without revision is very rare. In ten years of publishing more than fifteen articles I have never received one. When reviewing the paper I have given, as far as I can remember, there were two direct admissions. Simply put, there are always a number of things that need to be dealt with to get the paper to death.
Reject: in this case the paper was sent for peer review, and reviewers considered it unsuitable for publication. This does not mean that this is a wasted effort, because you can read the comments of reviewers. What this means is that there are sufficient problems with the manuscript that reviewers cannot identify a clear path for revision. However, they must justify the problems they see, which can be useful feedback for publication. Be sure to thank editors and reviewers for their time, even if you disagree with their decision.
Revision & resend: many shipments will accept "R&R." This means reviewers have suggested changes that they believe will bring the paper to the level where it will be suitable for publication. Often R&R will be the two reviewers who suggest a revision. However, you can also get one enthusiastic reviewer and one recommending rejection. In this case, the editor can ask the third reviewer to make a decision, which can make your life a little more difficult! Because R&R is the majority of responses, I will discuss how to deal with it in the section below.
How to Handle R & D
Not all R & D is the same! Some ask for very small edits that you can complete in an hour or two. This is basically acceptance with some adjustments. Others may ask you to do seemingly impossible tasks, such as collecting new data or rewriting your journal using an unknown theory. Before you panic, read the notes from the editor carefully. Do they signal what changes they expect you to make? A good editor will provide some guidance on the path to acceptance. It might be difficult to read uncarnished comments about articles that you have put in so much time. Sometimes it is difficult not to receive feedback personally, but remember that reviewers will evaluate your work based on factors that you might not have considered. They might misunderstand your main argument, or never evaluate an article using the methodology of your choice.
After you read the review, come forward with the understanding that reviewers are trying to improve the article. If you decide to revise the manuscript, make a list of their requests and check them one by one. When you answer their requests, make a note of what you did and highlight changes in the updated manuscript. When you submit a review, be sure to enter your response (still anonymous) to reviewers, indicating that you pay attention to their feedback and respond to each of their comments. If there are suggestions you don't make, explain why you didn't follow their advice. Keep your response relatively professional. Reviewers may not force you to take every suggestion, but they want to know why you don't.
When there is no clear agreement on whether an article should be published, you might be surprised by three reviewers. Additional reviewers are usually invited to settle disputes. While this helps editors make decisions, it can make your life more difficult, because you are in a position to make changes to please three people, at least one of them might not like your work, and you don't know if they will be assigned to review papers. next round. Don't be afraid to pull your paper out of consideration if the change is too difficult to complete. Remember, that will be your name in this article at the end of the day! The editor will not be offended if you pull the paper - it happens all the time. However, don't write a letter explaining your decision, and address some of the reviewers' responses before submitting back to another journal. However, you might get one of the same reviewers again, and the last thing they want is an article they have given feedback to!
Finalization and Publication of Articles
As you move through the review process you will finally get to the point of reviewers showing they are fine with the concept. In rare cases, they can recommend rejection after several rounds of revision. Once accepted, the editor may have some final suggestions. At this point your article will move to the editing stage, when different editors make grammar and spelling changes to help your article shine through. Then you will review the "evidence" - PDF exactly what your article will look like. You may already be bored with this article now, but read carefully! The line editor may have made changes that change the arguments you make. This was never intentional, and they will change it back if you request it. Also review the evidence when you can concentrate!
There are still two final steps after you submit the PDF evidence that is marked the end of it. First, celebrate! You have passed a milestone. Don't just add another line to your C / V - do something good for yourself. Go to dinner with your partner, buy yourself a bottle of your favorite drink, or watch a movie. Academics are very bad at valuing themselves for hard work. We are much better at valuing work with more work! But this is not a healthy way of life. Second, once the "pre-printed" version comes out online - this is a digital copy that's identical to the printed version - if your journal allows it, publish it on social media and upload it to your website. If your university has staff to publish work, be sure to contact them too.
I hope this article has helped you think through the process of sending journal articles! Please share if you feel helped.
Good Academic Blogging is Like This
Good Academic Blogging is Like This
Academic blogging: Top 10 tips
Find your authentic blogging voice, take advantage of the power of social media and, remember, only blog if you want, experts say
Academic blogging is a valuable part of broader ecology of scholarship, with potential for involvement, outreach, and strengthening of academic impact. Despite our background in science, we hope this list of tips will be useful for all blogging academics.
1) Write about yourself and your life. People are also interested in researchers (and their activities) like their research; also wrote about what was wrong and right - human stories about experiments that failed to be interesting but were rarely told.
2) Find the voice of your academic blog. Don't worry if it takes a year or more. Your blog will evolve when you find your style, which may be in the form of a short topical cut or a reflective essay in the long form (or a combination of both). Read other academic blogs and you will quickly see the variety of sounds that people use.
3) Explain what your blog is for. Do you write to share your reflections on life, the universe and everything, or a particular theme or topic? Once again let scope expand; It may be difficult to start a blog with a mission statement, but it is useful to start by thinking about what you want to achieve with your blog.
4) Blog as yourself. Even though there are circumstances where anonymous blogging is needed, it is generally better to be clear and open about yourself and your academic position. It is also important to explain whether you are writing on behalf of your university.
5) Think about how controversial you want to be. Calibrate the level of controversy according to risk (especially for early career researchers compared to tenured professors); in general, just be prepared to put something on your blog that you are ready to say in front of someone (or shout in a crowded room). Dating controversies can be fine if you are a senior academic, but please note that your position gives authority to what you write - so make sure you are happy that your words are quoted.
6) Remember: blogpost is a publication. If you write about ongoing research that has not been published or patented, be careful of the danger of disclosing details of potential intellectual property discoveries or premature.
7) Let your university know about your blog. Chat with your line manager about your intention to start an academic blog. You might not need their permission, but it's best if your blog doesn't surprise your manager or institution at the wrong time.
8) Think about how often you want to blog. If your blog gets followers then your readers will look forward to your next post, so don't put yourself under pressure by creating hope, say, a blog post every few days when you know you can't keep doing it for a longer time. term.
9) Use social media to promote your posts. Twitter is an easy way to let the world know that you have just posted new work on your blog, opening wider interaction and engagement.
10) Blog because you want to. Don't create a blog because you have to - it must be fun, not a task! There are already many hard tasks for an academic; this should not be one of them.
How to Write an International Journal
Writing a journal for school can be challenging and time-consuming. In this article, you will learn the format of successful quality journal writing and tips on what each teacher is looking for. The deadline is immediate - let's get started!
Submitting Your Paper
Review your assignment sheet and rubric. Your journal must meet the requirements of your teacher, so make sure the topics you plan to write are appropriate to the assignment. Then, check that you are writing the correct type of paper and using the right research material. You don't want to do all the work of keeping a journal and know you did it wrong. [1]
If you have a rubric, then you know exactly what to do to get high scores. Think of your rubric as a checklist for your paper.
Research your topic to find your thesis. Learn about your topic and try to form your own ideas about it, based on your research. Make notes when you find points of interest and follow your interests. The form of your notes becomes a thesis on the topic. [2]
The research you find will be used as your source, so make sure it's valid and can be shown to your teacher.
Utilize the internet, books and various academic databases to find solid primary and secondary sources.
If you have chosen a topic that doesn't match what you think, it's still too early. Choose something else that you think is easier to write.
Brainstorm a thesis. This journal will present your ideas. When you did your research, what questions did you find? What pattern do you notice? What are your own reactions and observations? Dive into yourself to find your thesis - the string that binds everything [3].
A good thesis will briefly express the main idea of your journal in one or two sentences. It must also:
Touch all points made on your paper
Explain the importance of your argument
Logically sound
Appears at the end of the introductory paragraph
Here is an example: In his story, forgiveness shows his hypocrisy by admitting that he satisfies his own greed, commits the same sins he cursed, and tries to sell his forgiveness after the story.
Do additional research to support your claim. In most cases, your first round of research won't be enough to write a good journal. You need to do special research to find sources that support the claims you are planning. You will move from a general search on your topic to a targeted search that aims to find information that supports your own ideas. [4]
Choose the source that most strongly supports your ideas.
Make sure your sources are reliable by making sure they are unbiased, finding author credentials, and verifying that the publisher is trusted.
Books, international journals, and online databases are the best places to find good resources.
Make an outline. It must regulate your mind and become your point frame. Don't worry about citing examples now, just plan how you want your paper to flow. This will save you a lot of time in the long run. [5]
Write down what points come from where. Finding information a second time can be like finding a needle in a haystack.
Arrange your outline to discuss the introduction, content, and conclusions. Take the reader and state your thesis on the intro, support your reasons in the body, and wrap it all up at the end.
Academic blogging: Top 10 tips
Find your authentic blogging voice, take advantage of the power of social media and, remember, only blog if you want, experts say
Academic blogging is a valuable part of broader ecology of scholarship, with potential for involvement, outreach, and strengthening of academic impact. Despite our background in science, we hope this list of tips will be useful for all blogging academics.
1) Write about yourself and your life. People are also interested in researchers (and their activities) like their research; also wrote about what was wrong and right - human stories about experiments that failed to be interesting but were rarely told.
2) Find the voice of your academic blog. Don't worry if it takes a year or more. Your blog will evolve when you find your style, which may be in the form of a short topical cut or a reflective essay in the long form (or a combination of both). Read other academic blogs and you will quickly see the variety of sounds that people use.
3) Explain what your blog is for. Do you write to share your reflections on life, the universe and everything, or a particular theme or topic? Once again let scope expand; It may be difficult to start a blog with a mission statement, but it is useful to start by thinking about what you want to achieve with your blog.
4) Blog as yourself. Even though there are circumstances where anonymous blogging is needed, it is generally better to be clear and open about yourself and your academic position. It is also important to explain whether you are writing on behalf of your university.
5) Think about how controversial you want to be. Calibrate the level of controversy according to risk (especially for early career researchers compared to tenured professors); in general, just be prepared to put something on your blog that you are ready to say in front of someone (or shout in a crowded room). Dating controversies can be fine if you are a senior academic, but please note that your position gives authority to what you write - so make sure you are happy that your words are quoted.
6) Remember: blogpost is a publication. If you write about ongoing research that has not been published or patented, be careful of the danger of disclosing details of potential intellectual property discoveries or premature.
7) Let your university know about your blog. Chat with your line manager about your intention to start an academic blog. You might not need their permission, but it's best if your blog doesn't surprise your manager or institution at the wrong time.
8) Think about how often you want to blog. If your blog gets followers then your readers will look forward to your next post, so don't put yourself under pressure by creating hope, say, a blog post every few days when you know you can't keep doing it for a longer time. term.
9) Use social media to promote your posts. Twitter is an easy way to let the world know that you have just posted new work on your blog, opening wider interaction and engagement.
10) Blog because you want to. Don't create a blog because you have to - it must be fun, not a task! There are already many hard tasks for an academic; this should not be one of them.
How to Write an International Journal
Writing a journal for school can be challenging and time-consuming. In this article, you will learn the format of successful quality journal writing and tips on what each teacher is looking for. The deadline is immediate - let's get started!
Submitting Your Paper
Review your assignment sheet and rubric. Your journal must meet the requirements of your teacher, so make sure the topics you plan to write are appropriate to the assignment. Then, check that you are writing the correct type of paper and using the right research material. You don't want to do all the work of keeping a journal and know you did it wrong. [1]
If you have a rubric, then you know exactly what to do to get high scores. Think of your rubric as a checklist for your paper.
Research your topic to find your thesis. Learn about your topic and try to form your own ideas about it, based on your research. Make notes when you find points of interest and follow your interests. The form of your notes becomes a thesis on the topic. [2]
The research you find will be used as your source, so make sure it's valid and can be shown to your teacher.
Utilize the internet, books and various academic databases to find solid primary and secondary sources.
If you have chosen a topic that doesn't match what you think, it's still too early. Choose something else that you think is easier to write.
Brainstorm a thesis. This journal will present your ideas. When you did your research, what questions did you find? What pattern do you notice? What are your own reactions and observations? Dive into yourself to find your thesis - the string that binds everything [3].
A good thesis will briefly express the main idea of your journal in one or two sentences. It must also:
Touch all points made on your paper
Explain the importance of your argument
Logically sound
Appears at the end of the introductory paragraph
Here is an example: In his story, forgiveness shows his hypocrisy by admitting that he satisfies his own greed, commits the same sins he cursed, and tries to sell his forgiveness after the story.
Do additional research to support your claim. In most cases, your first round of research won't be enough to write a good journal. You need to do special research to find sources that support the claims you are planning. You will move from a general search on your topic to a targeted search that aims to find information that supports your own ideas. [4]
Choose the source that most strongly supports your ideas.
Make sure your sources are reliable by making sure they are unbiased, finding author credentials, and verifying that the publisher is trusted.
Books, international journals, and online databases are the best places to find good resources.
Make an outline. It must regulate your mind and become your point frame. Don't worry about citing examples now, just plan how you want your paper to flow. This will save you a lot of time in the long run. [5]
Write down what points come from where. Finding information a second time can be like finding a needle in a haystack.
Arrange your outline to discuss the introduction, content, and conclusions. Take the reader and state your thesis on the intro, support your reasons in the body, and wrap it all up at the end.
Peer Review: How to Do it Right?
Peer Review: How to Do it Right?
Peer review: how to do it properly
Shanty Shahron shared some expert advice on how to be a useful, scientific and professional person when reviewing a journal
1) Become professional. This is called peer review for a reason. You, putative reviewer, are partners. If you don't do it for them, why do they have to do it for you? This is a core part of your work as an academic. This shows that you are part of the academy and are willing to engage in interactions that make the profession work. Reviewing is a great way to balance out the literature and a wonderful way to sharpen your own writing.
2) Fun. If this journal is really bad, suggest a rejection but don't get involved in home ad comments. Rejection must be a positive experience for all. Don't say things in a reputable peer review journal that you won't say to that person's face in the presentation or in the bar after the conference.
3) Read the invitation. When you receive an email inviting you to review a journal, most reputable international journals will provide a link to accept and or reject. Don't respond to the editor with a long apology about how you want to do it but your cat has a kitten and you have your own paper to do, plus classes to teach and however won't prof von Juntz at Miskatonic get better? Click. That. Link. An invitation tells you when. This can also give you specific instructions, so follow this.
4. Be helpful. Suggest to the author how to overcome the deficiencies you identified. This is the easiest thing in the world to make a hole in something. It's usually more difficult to suggest ways to fix it. Reviews are more than suggestions for revising, rejecting, or accepting. It must be meaningful. It should guide the writer about what is good and what is not so good as you see. If it's too short, then maybe it won't do it. So be polite. Explain what is happening in your thinking. Suggest alternative approaches.
5) Be scientific. Your role is a scientific colleague. That is not an editor either in the sense of proofreading or decision making. Don't re-fill the review with editorial and typographic issues. If the journal is full of errors, tell the editor and give an example. Concentrate more on showing the added value of your scientific knowledge and not so much on missing comas etc. If as part of your revision, you think that the journal must be edited professionally (as I sometimes do with myself), then say so. The caveat to this is that journals (and indeed reviews) are acts of communication. If it's built so badly that it fails in its communication role, then tell me that. Remember that in the end this journal is not about style but substance, unless style is blocking.
6) On time. There is no point in complaining about how slow the journal publishing process is if you are part of the problem. When you agree to review a journal with a given timeline (unless there is a very good reason), you must obey it. Believe it or not, editors keep track of who reviews what and when. We must balance the natural tendency to give more reviews to those who do the most, with the realization that people do this are basically pro bono and have limited time. So the time period that we provide is designed to be on time but a bit stressful. Deadline is good. Stay with them.
7) Be realistic. Be realistic about the work presented, the changes you suggest, and your role. You, the reviewer, are part of the process. You do not have a final decision about determining the paper. I, as an editor, have it. Sometimes editors ignore suggestions from reviewers (hopefully with good reason). You can, and in this case get involved, in a dialogue with the editor about why - ideally this is a learning opportunity for all. Sometimes this override is because the bar set by the reviewer is too high for the journal. Data may not be available, the suggested paradigms are not appropriate. This might be a useful suggestion for other journals but each journal, or should, one main idea.
8) Be empathetic. Think about the best review you get in guiding a journal forward. Then think of the worst. Which do you want on average? Then place yourself in the position of the writer whose journal you reviewed. Where along the scale will your review fall? What is around appears and therefore ensures that your review is scientific, useful, and polite is a good idea.
9) Open. Unless it is a review for the Journal of Incredible Specialization, specialists and generalists both have a role to play. Editors, especially public interest journals, will try to get specialized and more general reviewers. Saying "this is not my area" is rarely the reason, especially when you recently published a very related journal. Saying "I'm just one of the writers" in answer, don't cut it either. The editor tries to balance the review. That's why we asked a number of reviewers. We might want a generalist, a subject specialist, someone with experience in methodology and someone whose work is being criticized. If we ask you, assume you have a valid and useful role to play.
10) Organized. Reviews, like paper, are communication. Because it needed a logical structure and flow. It is impossible to criticize the paper for logical holes, grammar, poor structure etc. if your own criticism is full of these deficiencies. Draft the review as you proceed, then re-create. Most publishers provide a brief guide to preparing peer reviews on their websites. Read some of them and follow the main principles. Initially, provide an overview of one or two short sentences from your review. Then provide feedback on the following: the structure of the paper, the quality of the data sources and the investigative methods used, the specific problems regarding the methods and methodologies used (yes, there are differences), the logical argument flow (or lack thereof), and the validity of the conclusions pulled out. Then comment on the style, voice and lexical concern and choice.
Peer review: how to do it properly
Shanty Shahron shared some expert advice on how to be a useful, scientific and professional person when reviewing a journal
1) Become professional. This is called peer review for a reason. You, putative reviewer, are partners. If you don't do it for them, why do they have to do it for you? This is a core part of your work as an academic. This shows that you are part of the academy and are willing to engage in interactions that make the profession work. Reviewing is a great way to balance out the literature and a wonderful way to sharpen your own writing.
2) Fun. If this journal is really bad, suggest a rejection but don't get involved in home ad comments. Rejection must be a positive experience for all. Don't say things in a reputable peer review journal that you won't say to that person's face in the presentation or in the bar after the conference.
3) Read the invitation. When you receive an email inviting you to review a journal, most reputable international journals will provide a link to accept and or reject. Don't respond to the editor with a long apology about how you want to do it but your cat has a kitten and you have your own paper to do, plus classes to teach and however won't prof von Juntz at Miskatonic get better? Click. That. Link. An invitation tells you when. This can also give you specific instructions, so follow this.
4. Be helpful. Suggest to the author how to overcome the deficiencies you identified. This is the easiest thing in the world to make a hole in something. It's usually more difficult to suggest ways to fix it. Reviews are more than suggestions for revising, rejecting, or accepting. It must be meaningful. It should guide the writer about what is good and what is not so good as you see. If it's too short, then maybe it won't do it. So be polite. Explain what is happening in your thinking. Suggest alternative approaches.
5) Be scientific. Your role is a scientific colleague. That is not an editor either in the sense of proofreading or decision making. Don't re-fill the review with editorial and typographic issues. If the journal is full of errors, tell the editor and give an example. Concentrate more on showing the added value of your scientific knowledge and not so much on missing comas etc. If as part of your revision, you think that the journal must be edited professionally (as I sometimes do with myself), then say so. The caveat to this is that journals (and indeed reviews) are acts of communication. If it's built so badly that it fails in its communication role, then tell me that. Remember that in the end this journal is not about style but substance, unless style is blocking.
6) On time. There is no point in complaining about how slow the journal publishing process is if you are part of the problem. When you agree to review a journal with a given timeline (unless there is a very good reason), you must obey it. Believe it or not, editors keep track of who reviews what and when. We must balance the natural tendency to give more reviews to those who do the most, with the realization that people do this are basically pro bono and have limited time. So the time period that we provide is designed to be on time but a bit stressful. Deadline is good. Stay with them.
7) Be realistic. Be realistic about the work presented, the changes you suggest, and your role. You, the reviewer, are part of the process. You do not have a final decision about determining the paper. I, as an editor, have it. Sometimes editors ignore suggestions from reviewers (hopefully with good reason). You can, and in this case get involved, in a dialogue with the editor about why - ideally this is a learning opportunity for all. Sometimes this override is because the bar set by the reviewer is too high for the journal. Data may not be available, the suggested paradigms are not appropriate. This might be a useful suggestion for other journals but each journal, or should, one main idea.
8) Be empathetic. Think about the best review you get in guiding a journal forward. Then think of the worst. Which do you want on average? Then place yourself in the position of the writer whose journal you reviewed. Where along the scale will your review fall? What is around appears and therefore ensures that your review is scientific, useful, and polite is a good idea.
9) Open. Unless it is a review for the Journal of Incredible Specialization, specialists and generalists both have a role to play. Editors, especially public interest journals, will try to get specialized and more general reviewers. Saying "this is not my area" is rarely the reason, especially when you recently published a very related journal. Saying "I'm just one of the writers" in answer, don't cut it either. The editor tries to balance the review. That's why we asked a number of reviewers. We might want a generalist, a subject specialist, someone with experience in methodology and someone whose work is being criticized. If we ask you, assume you have a valid and useful role to play.
10) Organized. Reviews, like paper, are communication. Because it needed a logical structure and flow. It is impossible to criticize the paper for logical holes, grammar, poor structure etc. if your own criticism is full of these deficiencies. Draft the review as you proceed, then re-create. Most publishers provide a brief guide to preparing peer reviews on their websites. Read some of them and follow the main principles. Initially, provide an overview of one or two short sentences from your review. Then provide feedback on the following: the structure of the paper, the quality of the data sources and the investigative methods used, the specific problems regarding the methods and methodologies used (yes, there are differences), the logical argument flow (or lack thereof), and the validity of the conclusions pulled out. Then comment on the style, voice and lexical concern and choice.
How to Overcome Three or More Journal Writers?
How to Overcome Three or More Journal Writers?
Tips for Overcoming Three or More Journal Writers
Academics tend to use procrastination as an explanation for writer's block, Rowena Murray said, but really, they only avoid asking for help
A common thread in conversations about how difficult academic writing is the persistent feeling of not being ready to write. Or not good enough to write. While academics and PhD students might not mention this writer's block, they talk a lot about procrastination and perfectionism. They register the transfer activity - checking emails, Facebook, references, washing clothes, cleaning the room, mowing the lawn, watching it grow - and they know that all of this involves not writing.
This is a known problem. In his book Laraphgirl Journal says: "The most common writing block among undergraduate students, graduate students, scholars, and other professional writers who should not need help writing and do not need the type of writing instructions offered in typical composition classes."
But why are writer's blocks so common among academics? Does talking about procrastination only deny the need for help or instruction? Academic and PhD students should know everything they need to know, right?
Is the request for help seen as a critical weakness? Or is the writer's block caused by writing-related anxiety? Or unrealistic demands, leading to impossible writing goals? Or is there no agreed upon writing time, creating a workload where written output is defined but the writing process is not seen? Or is it isolation? We write ourselves, and we don't talk about it.
You can go directly to the access link in the Zambrut Reputable Journalist.
Given this mix of strengths - emotional, cognitive, behavioral, rhetorical - we must use three strategies to deal with, or avoid, writer's block.
1) Set realistic goals and monitor the extent to which you are achieving them
Clear! Maybe that's the problem - the belief that writing is too complicated to have such a simple solution. Surely high-quality academic writings cannot be reduced to targets? But that's the problem - choose not to use strategies that help.
There is a misconception that writing cannot be defined in the same way as other academic assignments, in terms of sub-goals and sub-routine. Once that trust arises, writing seems impossible.
Instead, think about writing in terms of quality levels. For example, to write a chapter, working on one level can involve writing about all content, but not clarifying arguments. Working at another level can mean writing to make the argument line explicit, but not adding or cutting anything. Others can harmonize the chapter summary and contents. Each layer is a realistic goal.
This is not about lowering expectations - even though it might feel like it at first - but defining writing in terms of sub-tasks. Working at all these levels at once will be an unrealistic goal. Achieving realistic goals reduces anxiety and what an academic calls a "constant low-level feeling of failure", and prevents the writer's barrier.
2) Make a special writing time - when writing is all you do
Writers are more focused and less anxious when they don't do many tasks. Even checking references - important as they are in academic writing - literally stops writing. The key is writing wirelessly. Turn off all devices, exit email and internet and ignore other people's writing (books, articles, etc.) for a certain period of time. Set realistic writing goals for 90 minutes.
Why hasn't everyone done this? Perhaps because of worrying about quoting someone else's work correctly, not losing someone and general anxiety about the quality of writing.
3) Do social writing - write with other people.
As with other academic activities, interacting with others about ideas and plans is very valuable.
Social writing involves writing with other people - not collaborative writing, but writing with other people in the room. Writing with others, talking about writing-in-progress and sharing the goals and achievements of writing help us to understand writing better. Social writing results in realistic goal setting and specific writing time.
It also makes writing a part of work and life. It's no longer something we only do in solitude. Discussing the writing is interesting. Social writing reduces the main cause of writer's block - anxiety - and stimulates writing. With social writing, it might not need help or instruction.
I am an academic. This is why my next book will be self-published and publicly funded.
Publishing one's own book is an unusual decision in the academic world. Academics are expected to write books for publishers who have a high reputation in their respective fields. The publishing itself has little academic credibility on the streaks on cocktail napkins. I have been quite successful in publishing articles in the top publications for my field, and the edited volume on the Hackers and Constructions I wrote together will come out in early 2017. It is very possible that I can publish monographs in academic media.
There is an academic press that does a very good job. They give writers creative control, have extraordinary series, and offer inexpensive paperback versions. For example, I really appreciate the Andrew Chadwick Digital Politics series for the Oxford series, MIT Science, Technology & Society. The problem is that most writers are not fortunate enough to publish with a decent press and a supportive editor. Nor is it the right model for the purposes of all writers. Here we can begin to see gaps in the academic publishing model.
Some of the less reputable presses pushed for light edited dissertations and edited volumes as expensive hardcovers. They like books on contemporary topics that require little editing and no publication. This is because they sell 300 copies or more mainly to libraries. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with the library. Heck, you will have trouble finding people who trust the library more than me! The problem is that poorly edited and distributed books do nothing to connect with readers. This "publisher pipeline to the library" drains academic funding from vital institutions and especially benefits publishers. Institutional rethinking needs to be considered.
The sad thing is that writing is fun and emotionally satisfying. This is one of the great benefits of an academic lifestyle. Writing a book can be a way to (I know how hard this sounds) to find excitement in your work. It can also make your ideas relevant to a new audience. This is not a new idea in my discipline, communication. Communication researchers have been involved in community activism, policy work, and non-profit organizations for decades. However, the discipline of communication as a whole is too slow to understand the idea that scholars should not be practitioners and public intellectuals. Once again this problem is institutional. It seems that you have to make choices for who you are writing to.
An assistant professor once told me that he hoped to do more research in the local community. The problem is he needs to issue to get a term of office. He felt uncomfortable with the idea of doing more interesting research. I feel he considers research related to local communities and public institutions too time-intensive. That's a lot of commitment to speculative rewards. This perception speaks volumes about how professors define themselves the definition of "real research".
The book that I wrote traces the story and the project "civil technology." This modern movement of community activists, designers, software engineers and bureaucrats strives to progressively improve democratic institutions. This passionate scene grew under me as I researched the ideas behind open data, and how the concepts of citizenship were worked on in "civic hackathons." I also worked for the city of Los Angeles and volunteered for my own Long Beach city. So I was in the middle of the same public sector who was afraid of my communication professor friend. What excites me is that civil technology collaboratively rebuild institutions in a time of public distrust of something "political." They are trying to improve government infrastructure, communication and policy. In their work I saw the seeds of a classic argument and some new approaches. The civil technology movement was also at a time when I might be able to help their good ideas grow and be formed.
Tips for Overcoming Three or More Journal Writers
Academics tend to use procrastination as an explanation for writer's block, Rowena Murray said, but really, they only avoid asking for help
A common thread in conversations about how difficult academic writing is the persistent feeling of not being ready to write. Or not good enough to write. While academics and PhD students might not mention this writer's block, they talk a lot about procrastination and perfectionism. They register the transfer activity - checking emails, Facebook, references, washing clothes, cleaning the room, mowing the lawn, watching it grow - and they know that all of this involves not writing.
This is a known problem. In his book Laraphgirl Journal says: "The most common writing block among undergraduate students, graduate students, scholars, and other professional writers who should not need help writing and do not need the type of writing instructions offered in typical composition classes."
But why are writer's blocks so common among academics? Does talking about procrastination only deny the need for help or instruction? Academic and PhD students should know everything they need to know, right?
Is the request for help seen as a critical weakness? Or is the writer's block caused by writing-related anxiety? Or unrealistic demands, leading to impossible writing goals? Or is there no agreed upon writing time, creating a workload where written output is defined but the writing process is not seen? Or is it isolation? We write ourselves, and we don't talk about it.
You can go directly to the access link in the Zambrut Reputable Journalist.
Given this mix of strengths - emotional, cognitive, behavioral, rhetorical - we must use three strategies to deal with, or avoid, writer's block.
1) Set realistic goals and monitor the extent to which you are achieving them
Clear! Maybe that's the problem - the belief that writing is too complicated to have such a simple solution. Surely high-quality academic writings cannot be reduced to targets? But that's the problem - choose not to use strategies that help.
There is a misconception that writing cannot be defined in the same way as other academic assignments, in terms of sub-goals and sub-routine. Once that trust arises, writing seems impossible.
Instead, think about writing in terms of quality levels. For example, to write a chapter, working on one level can involve writing about all content, but not clarifying arguments. Working at another level can mean writing to make the argument line explicit, but not adding or cutting anything. Others can harmonize the chapter summary and contents. Each layer is a realistic goal.
This is not about lowering expectations - even though it might feel like it at first - but defining writing in terms of sub-tasks. Working at all these levels at once will be an unrealistic goal. Achieving realistic goals reduces anxiety and what an academic calls a "constant low-level feeling of failure", and prevents the writer's barrier.
2) Make a special writing time - when writing is all you do
Writers are more focused and less anxious when they don't do many tasks. Even checking references - important as they are in academic writing - literally stops writing. The key is writing wirelessly. Turn off all devices, exit email and internet and ignore other people's writing (books, articles, etc.) for a certain period of time. Set realistic writing goals for 90 minutes.
Why hasn't everyone done this? Perhaps because of worrying about quoting someone else's work correctly, not losing someone and general anxiety about the quality of writing.
3) Do social writing - write with other people.
As with other academic activities, interacting with others about ideas and plans is very valuable.
Social writing involves writing with other people - not collaborative writing, but writing with other people in the room. Writing with others, talking about writing-in-progress and sharing the goals and achievements of writing help us to understand writing better. Social writing results in realistic goal setting and specific writing time.
It also makes writing a part of work and life. It's no longer something we only do in solitude. Discussing the writing is interesting. Social writing reduces the main cause of writer's block - anxiety - and stimulates writing. With social writing, it might not need help or instruction.
I am an academic. This is why my next book will be self-published and publicly funded.
Publishing one's own book is an unusual decision in the academic world. Academics are expected to write books for publishers who have a high reputation in their respective fields. The publishing itself has little academic credibility on the streaks on cocktail napkins. I have been quite successful in publishing articles in the top publications for my field, and the edited volume on the Hackers and Constructions I wrote together will come out in early 2017. It is very possible that I can publish monographs in academic media.
There is an academic press that does a very good job. They give writers creative control, have extraordinary series, and offer inexpensive paperback versions. For example, I really appreciate the Andrew Chadwick Digital Politics series for the Oxford series, MIT Science, Technology & Society. The problem is that most writers are not fortunate enough to publish with a decent press and a supportive editor. Nor is it the right model for the purposes of all writers. Here we can begin to see gaps in the academic publishing model.
Some of the less reputable presses pushed for light edited dissertations and edited volumes as expensive hardcovers. They like books on contemporary topics that require little editing and no publication. This is because they sell 300 copies or more mainly to libraries. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with the library. Heck, you will have trouble finding people who trust the library more than me! The problem is that poorly edited and distributed books do nothing to connect with readers. This "publisher pipeline to the library" drains academic funding from vital institutions and especially benefits publishers. Institutional rethinking needs to be considered.
The sad thing is that writing is fun and emotionally satisfying. This is one of the great benefits of an academic lifestyle. Writing a book can be a way to (I know how hard this sounds) to find excitement in your work. It can also make your ideas relevant to a new audience. This is not a new idea in my discipline, communication. Communication researchers have been involved in community activism, policy work, and non-profit organizations for decades. However, the discipline of communication as a whole is too slow to understand the idea that scholars should not be practitioners and public intellectuals. Once again this problem is institutional. It seems that you have to make choices for who you are writing to.
An assistant professor once told me that he hoped to do more research in the local community. The problem is he needs to issue to get a term of office. He felt uncomfortable with the idea of doing more interesting research. I feel he considers research related to local communities and public institutions too time-intensive. That's a lot of commitment to speculative rewards. This perception speaks volumes about how professors define themselves the definition of "real research".
The book that I wrote traces the story and the project "civil technology." This modern movement of community activists, designers, software engineers and bureaucrats strives to progressively improve democratic institutions. This passionate scene grew under me as I researched the ideas behind open data, and how the concepts of citizenship were worked on in "civic hackathons." I also worked for the city of Los Angeles and volunteered for my own Long Beach city. So I was in the middle of the same public sector who was afraid of my communication professor friend. What excites me is that civil technology collaboratively rebuild institutions in a time of public distrust of something "political." They are trying to improve government infrastructure, communication and policy. In their work I saw the seeds of a classic argument and some new approaches. The civil technology movement was also at a time when I might be able to help their good ideas grow and be formed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)