狠狠撸

狠狠撸Share a Scribd company logo

How to get published

?Download as PPTX, PDF?
?
Mark de Reuver
Mark de Reuver

How to get your academic paper published? I reflect on: Finding the right journal, making the paper interesting, getting past the desk-reject, dealing with rejection, getting cited, co-authorship.

1 of 10
Download to read offline
1 How to get published Some anecdotal evidence and wild generalizations Mark de Reuver October 2017
2 Why should you care about publishing? To help science ? Contribute to academic debate ? Transparency ? Legitimacy To help your PhD ? Get external feedback ? Build a track record ? Justify that your contribution deserves a PhD To help yourself ? Tangible outcomes matter whatever your next step ? Show scientific excellence ? Job market paper
3 Finding the right outlet Criteria How to find out Topic fit Are you talking to this community? Aims & Scope Are the editorial board members your (supervisor’s) peers? Do you have references to this / related journal/conference? Does the outlet publish your type of contribution (e.g. method, theory, domain) Legitimacy Is this an appropriate journal? Are the editorial board members of any academic reputation? Is this an appropriate publishers? Google: `journal name’ + `predator’ Quality Is this the appropriate impact level? What matters in your field: Conference or journal? Check the indexing of the journal (e.g. ISI, Scopus) Lists (e.g. Harzing’s JQL; Basket-of-eight; tenure-track criteria) Don’t simply follow your supervisor’s advice Speed & feedback How long are review cycles? What is quality of feedback? Ask around; Some journals / conferences have good reputation Submit Select outlet Write paper
4 What makes a paper? What makes a decent paper What makes an interesting paper ? Well written (see academic writing course) ? Clear & Concise ? All elements in place (field – gap – goal – approach – background – methods – results – discussion) ? Can be replicated by others (in theory) ? Being decent is not enough! ? Examples o What we thought was X, is not X o New perspective / theory from other field o New phenomenon challenges boundary conditions of our existing understandings o Note: Bias towards interestingness! See also: Davis, M. S. (1971). That's interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the social sciences, 1(2), 309-344. Submit Select outlet Write paper
5 Getting past desk-reject Issue Example Lack of basics Survey instrument missing No research objective No topic fit Fully technical paper No references to related journals No contribution stated I’m not going to guess.. No discussion Just data / empirics without theory / discussion Not interesting New context doesn’t mean it’s a new contribution (e.g. mobile banking adoption in country-X) Great execution, boring paper Testing the TAM-model in yet another context Submit Desk reject Sent out for review
6 Getting your first review ? Think about the comments ? Make an action plan ? Revise within 3 months – (also / especially when rejected) ? Write a detailed response note Sent out for review Reject Revise Select outlet Write paper Submit Desk reject
7 Dealing with rejection ? Rejection is normal – You should get more rejection than acceptance (why?) – Reviewers aren’t always right – Frustration is normal too ? Turn frustration into action – Resubmit! – Change your outlet to a better fit / lower ranking – Always revise your manuscript: explain better
8 Getting cited ? Keywords, labeling ? Timeliness – Be ahead but not too far ? Findable, open access ? Why would others cite you? – Contribution! ? It’s quite unpredictable…
9 Authorship ? Who gets to be an author? – Co-author = co-writer? ? What about person carrying out research? ? Or person providing merely intellectual ideas? ? Involve supervisor in the writing team – Funder / reviewer = acknowledgment ? Who gets to be first / last author? – It matters depending on the field! – The PhD student should be the first author – First author should be leading the writing? – Or the person that carried out the research? – You’ll need (1 or 2) papers as first author ? Make agreements early on / be transparent
10 Summary ? Publishing matters ? Make your research decent & interesting ? Don’t give up – Become a reviewer to learn what works – Keep submitting to learn what works

More Related Content

How to get published

  • 1. 1 How to get published Some anecdotal evidence and wild generalizations Mark de Reuver October 2017
  • 2. 2 Why should you care about publishing? To help science ? Contribute to academic debate ? Transparency ? Legitimacy To help your PhD ? Get external feedback ? Build a track record ? Justify that your contribution deserves a PhD To help yourself ? Tangible outcomes matter whatever your next step ? Show scientific excellence ? Job market paper
  • 3. 3 Finding the right outlet Criteria How to find out Topic fit Are you talking to this community? Aims & Scope Are the editorial board members your (supervisor’s) peers? Do you have references to this / related journal/conference? Does the outlet publish your type of contribution (e.g. method, theory, domain) Legitimacy Is this an appropriate journal? Are the editorial board members of any academic reputation? Is this an appropriate publishers? Google: `journal name’ + `predator’ Quality Is this the appropriate impact level? What matters in your field: Conference or journal? Check the indexing of the journal (e.g. ISI, Scopus) Lists (e.g. Harzing’s JQL; Basket-of-eight; tenure-track criteria) Don’t simply follow your supervisor’s advice Speed & feedback How long are review cycles? What is quality of feedback? Ask around; Some journals / conferences have good reputation Submit Select outlet Write paper
  • 4. 4 What makes a paper? What makes a decent paper What makes an interesting paper ? Well written (see academic writing course) ? Clear & Concise ? All elements in place (field – gap – goal – approach – background – methods – results – discussion) ? Can be replicated by others (in theory) ? Being decent is not enough! ? Examples o What we thought was X, is not X o New perspective / theory from other field o New phenomenon challenges boundary conditions of our existing understandings o Note: Bias towards interestingness! See also: Davis, M. S. (1971). That's interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the social sciences, 1(2), 309-344. Submit Select outlet Write paper
  • 5. 5 Getting past desk-reject Issue Example Lack of basics Survey instrument missing No research objective No topic fit Fully technical paper No references to related journals No contribution stated I’m not going to guess.. No discussion Just data / empirics without theory / discussion Not interesting New context doesn’t mean it’s a new contribution (e.g. mobile banking adoption in country-X) Great execution, boring paper Testing the TAM-model in yet another context Submit Desk reject Sent out for review
  • 6. 6 Getting your first review ? Think about the comments ? Make an action plan ? Revise within 3 months – (also / especially when rejected) ? Write a detailed response note Sent out for review Reject Revise Select outlet Write paper Submit Desk reject
  • 7. 7 Dealing with rejection ? Rejection is normal – You should get more rejection than acceptance (why?) – Reviewers aren’t always right – Frustration is normal too ? Turn frustration into action – Resubmit! – Change your outlet to a better fit / lower ranking – Always revise your manuscript: explain better
  • 8. 8 Getting cited ? Keywords, labeling ? Timeliness – Be ahead but not too far ? Findable, open access ? Why would others cite you? – Contribution! ? It’s quite unpredictable…
  • 9. 9 Authorship ? Who gets to be an author? – Co-author = co-writer? ? What about person carrying out research? ? Or person providing merely intellectual ideas? ? Involve supervisor in the writing team – Funder / reviewer = acknowledgment ? Who gets to be first / last author? – It matters depending on the field! – The PhD student should be the first author – First author should be leading the writing? – Or the person that carried out the research? – You’ll need (1 or 2) papers as first author ? Make agreements early on / be transparent
  • 10. 10 Summary ? Publishing matters ? Make your research decent & interesting ? Don’t give up – Become a reviewer to learn what works – Keep submitting to learn what works