(Download PDF) How To Get Published and Win Research Funding 1St Edition Abby Day Full Chapter PDF
(Download PDF) How To Get Published and Win Research Funding 1St Edition Abby Day Full Chapter PDF
(Download PDF) How To Get Published and Win Research Funding 1St Edition Abby Day Full Chapter PDF
https://ebookmass.com/product/how-to-get-published-and-win-
research-funding-1st-edition-abby-day-2/
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-get-to-principle-how-to-get-
happy-get-going-and-get-to-it-in-life-ted-larkins/
https://ebookmass.com/product/how-to-do-research-and-how-to-be-a-
researcher-robert-stewart/
https://ebookmass.com/product/how-to-get-your-phd-a-handbook-for-
the-journey-1st-edition-gavin-brown/
Human Judgment: How Accurate Is It, and How Can It Get
Better? 1st Edition John Wilcox
https://ebookmass.com/product/human-judgment-how-accurate-is-it-
and-how-can-it-get-better-1st-edition-john-wilcox/
https://ebookmass.com/product/exit-path-how-to-win-the-startup-
end-game-touraj-parang/
https://ebookmass.com/product/un-civilizing-america-how-win-win-
deals-make-us-better-william-bonner/
https://ebookmass.com/product/disconnect-why-we-get-pushed-to-
extremes-online-and-how-to-stop-it-jordan-guiao/
https://ebookmass.com/product/leadership-and-management-of-
machining-how-to-integrate-technology-robust-processes-and-
people-to-win-patrick-tarvin-auth/
HOW TO GET PUBLISHED AND
WIN RESEARCH FUNDING
Most journal articles and research proposals are rejected. That represents a
waste of everyone’s time, energy, and spirit, especially now when, more than
ever, academic careers are precarious. In this practical book, Professor Abby
Day addresses these two inter-related and most challenging areas for aca-
demics and researchers in their professional careers: how to secure research
funding and how to get research published.
Reviewers, unpaid and often unappreciated, are over-stretched with their
regular academic jobs, and increasingly reluctant to spend time reading
poorly constructed papers or proposals. As fewer reviewers are available, the
waiting time for a decision increases. Everyone loses. It doesn’t have to be
like that. Professor Day’s ground-breaking strategy covers both publishing
and funding challenges in similar, yet distinct ways. Lack of time? Con-
flicting priorities? No idea where to start or what matters most? This book
explains how to overcome these and other common obstacles to successful
publication and funding. For the first time, one book covers both activities,
with practical guidance for setting your strategy and purpose, identifying
the right publisher or funder, and understanding your audience and the key
criteria for success, as well as helpful advice for writing and managing the
challenges of an academic career. This book draws on the first and second
editions of two international bestsellers, How to Get Research Published in
Journals and Winning Research Funding. Based on original research with
editors, funders, and successful academics, plus two decades of running
international workshops on publishing and funding, Professor Day has now
updated and merged these two critically acclaimed texts.
This book is essential reading for graduate students and early career fac-
ulty members, who will gain new and effective insights and strategies to se-
cure funding and publication opportunities to help develop their academic
careers.
Abby Day
Designed cover image: © Getty Images / elenabs
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
The right of Abby Day to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003259718
Typeset in Garamond
by codeMantra
CONTENTS
Prefacevii
PART I
Setting a strategy 1
1 Introduction: a circle of success 3
2 Why publish (or not?) 20
3 Why look for research funding? 35
4 What is good research? 51
5 Diversity and inclusion in research 66
6 A sense of purpose 81
7 So what? implications 98
PART II
Knowing your audience 117
8 Choosing the right publisher or funder 119
9 Understanding editors, reviewers, readers 137
10 Criteria for success 153
PART III
Papers, proposals, and beyond 173
11 Writing better, writing faster 175
12 Managing relationships and academic careers 194
Index205
PREFACE
When the original book HGRPJ was published (1998), academics were
still reading journals in the library and therefore had a tangible, close under-
standing of what a journal is. Now, libraries don’t even stock paper journals
and few students or early career academics ever visit the online site, prefer-
ring instead to keyword search for a particular paper and download that.
This means that the latest generation of academics have a disconnected,
disembodied engagement with journals and are ill-prepared for publishing
when they know so little about the journal or its community.
Further, there are many technological developments concerning paper
and proposal submission, publicity, production, and collaboration, as well
as name changes and new important bodies in the field. This has required
chapter-by-chapter updating and revision. Open Access and proliferation
of publishing sites provide new opportunities and also hidden dangers for
those not prepared for the sometime unscrupulous activities.
There are primarily four new developments with which this volume
engages:
Abby Day
London 2023
PART I
SETTING A STRATEGY
1 INTRODUCTION
A circle of success
Introduction
Becoming a published academic is both a dream and necessity; being funded
these days may be a way to increase visibility and value for some, or the only
means of doing academic work for others. Since the first edition of How to
Get Research Published in Journals was published in 1986, its second edition
in 2008 and Winning Research Funding published in 2003, I have engaged
with academics worldwide, in many disciplines, and at different stages in
their careers. Some people I first met as my students, others as my mentors,
and many more as participants in workshops and webinars. For many years
I hosted separate events – one for getting published, and another for getting
funded. Increasingly, it became less coherent to separate those two strands.
At a writing workshop, people often asked my advice for getting funded,
and at funding workshops, people wanted to know how to increase their
chances of publication.
As academic life changed from an expectation of steady work and ten-
ure to something now much more precarious, becoming a well-published
author and a funded researcher was no longer options for those who had
the time and inclination to write yet another paper and submit yet another
funding proposal. For many early career scholars, their only hope for em-
ployment was a series of short-term, funded projects for which evidence of a
good publication record was a necessary part of their proposal and any hope
for success.
Many novice academics are unaware of one of the most important aspects
of their publishing career: anything they send to a journal must be original.
This means that if in their haste to be published following a PhD they have
already published their thesis as a book, they have likely ruined their chances
of being published in a top journal.
And so, as I introduced key points and answered questions at separate
publishing and funding events it became obvious that much of my advice
DOI: 10.4324/9781003259718-2
4 SETTING A STRATEGY
was the same, whether they were asking about being published or funded.
The detail, of course, differed: which journals I might recommend or what
funding body seemed most appropriate for them would change depending
on their career stage or discipline. But those details were, I knew, necessary
but insufficient conditions for success. What they really needed to know,
and to practise, were the fundamental principles that governed both activ-
ities: how and where in their overall strategy did those options fit? And,
yes, we were all impressed that they could list all their methods, show how
their research fit into a wider body of literature, itemize their findings, and
demonstrate their validity, but so what? Why did it matter, and to whom?
How well did they understand their own originality and contribution to
their fields? Who did they want to reach? Who really mattered and why?
Who cared?
That is why this current book needed to be written. Those stories needed
to be told. I knew that only by combining the shared principles of both pub-
lishing and funding, and then diving deeper into the detail each required,
would the needs of early, mid- and even later career academics be met. Most
importantly, only by bringing together the different aspects of publishing
and funding could I provide the full picture of what, for every academic, is
an inter-locked, inter-dependent Circle of Success.
As an academic gets published, that success feeds into a research pro-
posal and increases the chances of funding; those two activities increase
Research
Research funding
publishing
Research
reputation
1. Pressures to publish.
2. Places to publish.
3. Profitability of publishing.
Pressures to publish
One major change over the last ten years has been an increased pressure from
funders, government, and universities to disseminate more widely. It has
become increasingly apparent during the last decade or so that, one way or
other, academics must publicize their research. Publicly and privately funded
research comes with certain conditions, such as conducting the research eth-
ically, completing it on time and within budget, and – most importantly –
disseminating the results. Research councils, charities, and the private sector
all stipulate that their funding is linked to dissemination. Some funders may
even ring-fence a specific amount of money to pay for dissemination when a
project ends. Research councils often tie end-of-award decisions to dissemi-
nation. Indeed, specifying how you will do that is one of the most important
critical success factors in any funding application.
That is why, as I outlined above, the two activities of funding and pub-
lishing are best reviewed together. Even research that is indirectly funded as
part of an academic’s salary comes with the expectation to publish, which
then feeds into an assessment process that determines promotion, or some-
times how much money an institution will receive from government. In the
UK, for example, the Research Excellence Framework (REF) is carried out
by the UK’s higher education funding bodies: Research England, the Scot-
tish Funding Council (SFC), the Higher Education Funding Council for
Wales (HEFCW), and the Department for the Economy, Northern Ireland
(DfE). Research publications are part of what are known as ‘outputs’: a pub-
lication, a performance, or an exhibition. These are considered according to
three criteria: their quality, their impact beyond academia, and the research
environment (usually the department or wider institution) that supports the
research. The people who make those judgements are academics and mem-
bers of the wider public who sit on panels of 34 subject areas called ‘units
of assessment’.
The Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) which score best on the REF
receive more funding than those that do not. Indeed, one quarter of central
Introduction 7
Popular media
Radio, magazines, newspapers, television, and newsletters all offer excellent
opportunities for academics to publicize their research. Many funding bod-
ies and universities require researchers to issue press releases and co-operate
with in-house public relations experts.
Reports
Most funders expect the Principal Investigator to write a publicly available,
final report summarizing the project’s key findings. These are usually pub-
lished in the funder’s own newsletters or websites. It may also be appropriate
to produce reports for government or other bodies if there are policy issues
to be considered.
Social media
People communicate their research via numerous means, from Twitter and
Meta to personal and institutional blogs. Here, discussion is largely unme-
diated, unedited, and seen to be free from more overt forms of commercial
or political controls.
Predatory journals
Academics are increasingly receiving unsolicited invitations to publish in
journals or edit special issues of journals. If you are an Early Career re-
searcher, receiving such an invitation should be your first clue that some-
thing is not quite right. A reputable journal would never approach an
unknown academic with a direct invitation to publish or edit a special issue.
Any such invitations are made directly from the Editor to a named academic
of considerable reputation. So-called ‘predatory journals’ are concocted by
non-academics in order to lure – prey on – unsuspecting authors to send in
their manuscripts, for which they will be charged a fee. The result may be
something looking like an online publication, with one important differ-
ence: no one respects it, or you for being there.
To flesh out more detail about what constitutes a predatory journal,
scholars and publishers met in 2019 to discuss this worrying trend and de-
cide what could be done about it. As reported in Nature, Grudniewicz et al.
(2019), the group agreed with the following definition:
They also found that there were few ways to immediately spot the predator,
as many have infiltrated reputable databases and have cloaked themselves
with an aura of respectability. To help potential authors recognize a preda-
tory journal, the group agreed that there were several revealing characteristics
including false information on their websites about, for example, composi-
tion of editorial boards and incorrect claims of membership of organizations
or indexing systems; lack of transparency; inconsistency and often incorrect
spelling or use of grammar; aggressive, indiscriminate, repeated, excessively
flattering solicitations. One of their other ‘warning signs’ is, to me, the most
obvious: there is a clear mismatch between the purported scope of the jour-
nal and the expertise of the author. This problem easily occurs when the
Introduction 9
journal and author are not in the same academic community. That is why,
as I discuss in detail throughout this book, it is important to develop a co-
herent and sustainable strategy about who the main audiences are for your
work, and where you are most likely to find them.
Books
Many academics want to publish a book, either as a result of their PhD or
other major research project. This can be an excellent way to publicize a
large project and can give a satisfying feeling of ‘closure’ to a lengthy piece
of research. Before rushing to write your book, remember that all publishers
require detailed proposals: you can visit their websites and look at their tem-
plates and helpful suggestions. If they accept your proposal, they will then
send it for review to judge from external assessment whether or not there is
a market for your proposed book.
Apart from a book you’ve written, you might also consider contributing
a chapter to someone else’s book. This usually happens because someone ap-
proaches you and invites you to do so. In that event, you must bear in mind
that the editor will expect your chapter to fit into the collection as a whole
and you may therefore have to adapt your work considerably.
Book publishing does have several disadvantages. It is time-consuming,
with little financial compensation unless you’ve written a best-selling text-
book. It will also not reach a large audience, given that academic books sell
in the hundreds and low thousands at best, and its content may be digitized
and made freely available through the internet. Academic books are often not
reprinted once they sell out, and therefore your book may disappear forever.
More worryingly for many academics, books are not subject to the same
rigorous review process as are journal papers. And, once the book is pub-
lished it may become more difficult to publish the content in journals be-
cause it is no longer original. Journal websites are clear about the need for
originality and exclusivity. Originality: The Brazilian Journal of Physics (Sub-
mission Guidelines n.d.), for example, states clearly that ‘submission of a
manuscript implies: that the work described has not been published before;
that it is not under consideration for publication anywhere else’.
The Legon Journal of the Humanities (Promoting Access to African Re-
search 1974) makes a similar point, and also calls attention to the practice
of self-plagiarism: when authors duplicate their own material they have pub-
lished elsewhere:
For all its issues, LJH only publishes original contributions (i.e., papers
that have not been published elsewhere) and therefore, disapproves of
10 SETTING A STRATEGY
Profitability of publishing
In the mid-1990s, people were accessing research mainly through reading
paper-based journals and occasionally by finding journal papers on the in-
ternet. Today, the reverse is more likely: we read paper-based journals less
and download the electronic version more.
It may be helpful here to summarize briefly the process from submission
to publication. An author usually submits a paper to a journal via an elec-
tronic platform, enters their personal information, submits an abstract, pro-
vides a title and keywords, and attaches the paper. The editor (or assistant)
is notified by email that a paper has been submitted and the author receives
an automatic email acknowledgement. If the editor concludes that the pa-
per meets the editorial objectives of the journal (and much more about this
Introduction 11
later), then the editor, often with an assistant, selects referees and sends the
paper for review. Referees receive an email notifying them a paper is available
for review. Referees download the paper, review it, and send their comments
through the system to the editor, who makes one of only three possible deci-
sions: accept, revise, or reject. The editor notifies the author.
If the paper is accepted outright – which rarely happens – then the au-
thor celebrates, signs forms regarding copyright and warranties, and awaits
publication in several months or a year’s time. In the case of ‘revise’, the
author should also celebrate (but often sulks – and more about this later)
revises, resubmits the paper and, (subject, sometimes, to further review and
revision), eventually receives the final paper, known as a ‘proof ’ in the form
of a PDF file to check. The journal is then assembled according to its pag-
ination budget and mix of papers, book reviews, research notes, and so on,
and signed off by the editor. Many publishers then send their journals to a
printer that produces a paper-based version and mails the final copies to sub-
scribers. Numbers are small because most subscribers to academic journals
are university libraries, not individuals. Most publishers today are seeking to
reduce their print copies as libraries are clearing their shelves and relying on
digital versions.
There are also, apart from paper-based traditional academic journals,
peer-reviewed digital journals which have only ever existed in digital format
and offer added benefits to authors not found in the traditional model. For
example, digital journals can be timelier, shortening the interval between
submission and publication. Because they are not constrained by space
and cost factors, many allow longer papers than would be possible in paper
journals – although some editors of electronic journals still maintain word
limits in the interest of coherence. Publishing in a digital journal allows
more interesting ways to present data in a flexible, electronic format, which
may make it more attractive to authors using tables and graphs and wanting
to link to other internet-based sources.
Whether existing first as a digital journal or a paper-based, traditional
journal, journal content available on the internet is digitally encrypted so
that the content is accessible only to subscribers. This is when the perception
of ‘the journal’ may begin to be obscured. Most people accessing a paper
on the internet find it through keyword searches, not through navigating
through the journal’s home page and browsing through the most recent is-
sue. The practice of key-word access may hide the paper’s source and, con-
sequently, the means by which it was produced. What is not obvious to
the researcher using search engines is that the source of the paper is most
often a traditional journal, created initially through the traditional means
12 SETTING A STRATEGY
become part of a research project’s budget, and therefore the funder (often a
government research council) pays the fees on behalf of the researcher.
One consequence is that authors who are neither funded nor can afford
author submission fees are increasingly denied access to places to publish.
See, for example, Paige Mann (2022) for more discussion, and Chapter 5
in this volume. Another consequence is that the pressure to receive research
funding increases as academics realize that this is, increasingly, the only way
their research papers can be published.
The battle for the rights and profits of publishing will continue to rage.
For academics wanting to publish their work, the questions will always be
the same: what is the best route to those I need to reach, how will it benefit
them and me, and how do I do it in the least amount of time with the most
chance of success?
This book has been written to make researchers’ tasks easier and more fruit-
ful, to understand ‘luck’ for what it really is – careful positioning and astute
judgement. That, more than anything, is what takes the researcher to the
right place and the right people at the right time. The book’s central propo-
sition is that there is poor, good, and best practice in research funding today.
In exploring best practice, we need to go further than our ten top tips. Those
are, indeed, the structural components of research best practice, but not its
foundation.
Winning research funding consistently depends on concepts like value
and partnership. These concepts turn a one-off experience into a long-term,
mutually satisfying relationship where both partners benefit equally. The
benefits extend far beyond money to prestige, knowledge, and influence.
While the top ten tips may seem components of obvious good practice,
these success factors are often ignored by people who fail to win funding.
This may reflect their inexperience or time pressures. We will be discussing
these factors in detail and offering the benefit of many people’s experiences.
Yet beyond those process-related issues is another question: why, all other
things being equal, are some researchers more successful than others? It does
not seem enough to simply do well: it is necessary to do better than that.
What is the meaning of that ‘better’? In other words, what, in research, is
best practice?
• Themes are designated each year by research councils – how can you
know in advance what they will be?
• A proposal just may not have the right ‘fit’ with the funder.
• Referees may not like you! You may have offended them previously.
It’s a small world and even so-called blind refereeing processes may
be transparent. As one referee remarked: “It’s easy to tell who the
authors are – they’re the ones most frequently referenced”.
Several people, as mentioned earlier, told me that their success was a matter
of ‘luck’. But what is luck? Should we abandon the quest for best practice in
favour of astrology? The following is a typical response to my question – ‘but
what is luck?’. In this case, she was discussing research into a hotly contested
topic that had received a lot of public attention:
Introduction 15
Well, I mean, there’s always a bit of luck. You can never, you know, you
haven’t got a sort of magic ball to see in the future. You can actually
anticipate that this has got the conditions which is likely to lead to con-
troversy, but it doesn’t mean that controversy is likely to occur. I mean,
of course you can’t, but you can have good hunches and our hunches in
fact were correct at the time.
aims to help you create a context, a process, and an approach which will
make those partnerships worthwhile and enjoyable.
One of the strongest temptations challenging those who want funding
is to jump into the application stage without thinking through what they
are doing and why. I examine in more detail the question of why research
funding is important. Not everyone needs it and not everyone wants it. We
therefore need to look at research issues, not only from your perspective but
also from that of the funders and other stakeholders.
The research may, for example:
Even when the themes and priorities have been articulated by the funding
body, it is the researcher’s task to identify the implications and the result.
Funding bodies, public or private, want to see value for money. The re-
searcher who receives funding needs to demonstrate that it will be used ap-
propriately and that the investment will be worthwhile.
Sometimes, applications fail because the budget is beyond anything the
funder can meet, but they also fail because the cost estimates are unrealis-
tically low. Those who fund research do not evaluate proposals based on
a notion that ‘cheapest is best’. They are, by and large, experienced and
committed people with good judgement about likely returns on investment,
likelihood of successful completion, and the right balance of costs and ben-
efits. Poor budgeting – either too high or too low – may suggest that the
applicant has not reviewed the project carefully or is too inexperienced to
complete it successfully.
I also take a closer look at how funding bodies work and what motivates
them, to help you assess which may be a well-suited partner. Too many
researchers rush around looking for a funding partner in a panic-stricken at-
tempt to find money. Many do not find one or, worse (in the long run), find
one who is not suitable. What do you really want, and who will want you?
This is the time to think about what you can gain from a research part-
nership and what you can give. Funders talk more about ‘value’ than they
Introduction 17
do about money. The need to deliver value applies to all potential funders,
not just the corporate sector. We look in more detail at particular kinds of
funders: government, research councils, the European Community, charita-
ble foundations, and professional bodies. Getting to know these people and
how they work is a necessary step in forging long-term relationships.
A theme running throughout this book is about creating the relationship.
How will you know if this is the right partner, and you can meet their expec-
tations? Assessing a potential partner’s needs does not need to be a difficult
task. Unfortunately, it is one most often ignored and said to be the most
common cause of application rejection: ‘we often wonder if academics can
read’, one funder said bluntly. One successful researcher explained:
researchers satisfy the need to publish within this complex context? This
becomes increasingly difficult in an environment where contract research is
more prevalent. Here, every moment counts, every day is billed. Research-
ers who successfully manage both research and writing plan for publication
from the outset. It is easier to think through prospective publication routes
when the research is fresh and thriving than when it is finished and grow-
ing stale. As I described at the outset, publishing and funding decisions are
usually intertwined and co-dependent and therefore a thoughtful, strategic
approach is most beneficial.
References
Grudniewicz et al. (2019). ‘Predatory journals: no definition, no defence’, Na-
ture 576(7786): 210–212. Available at: www.nature.com/articles/d41586-
019-03759-y
Private Investment in Culture Survey (2019). Available at: www.artscouncil.org.uk/
sites/default/files/download-file/Private%20Investment%20in%20Culture%20
Survey%202019.pdf
Promoting Access to African Research (1974). Legon Journal of the Humanities.
Available at: www.ajol.info/index.php/ljh
Submission Guidelines (n.d.) Brazilian Journal of Physics. Available at: www.springer.
com/journal/13538/submission-guidelines
UK Research and Innovation. (2005). ‘RCUK position on issue of improved access
to research outputs’. Available at: www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/outputs/access/
2 WHY PUBLISH (OR NOT?)
Introduction
Ideas are cheap. No one succeeds because they have good ideas. No single
person ever became famous, rich or even promoted on the strength of an
idea. It was because they did something with their idea that they reached
their desired goal.
Have you ever heard people say that they’re afraid to write about their
research or give a conference paper because someone might steal their ideas?
You might have even said it yourself. But remember, an idea is just an idea.
The theft of an idea is only a problem if the thief is going to do something
with it. Maybe you have heard people say, on seeing some new invention,
book title, TV show, or such like, ‘I thought of that years ago! If only I’d got
round to doing something with it!’ The trouble is, they didn’t. Someone else
did, and that’s what makes the difference.
There is a Japanese story of a Zen master who listened patiently to his stu-
dent describe his current state of near Enlightenment: ‘I’ve discovered, mas-
ter, that all ideas are just false and artificial constructs!’ The master nodded
and replied: ‘You can carry around that useless idea of yours if you want to.’
The only thing that counts is action. No one really cares about what you
think. How would they know? They will only begin to care if you articulate
it. If they want to ‘steal’ your thoughts, let them. Most of them will stay
where you were before you decided to put your idea on paper. Most people’s
ideas stay as just that – ideas.
The world is filled with wannabees, wouldbees, shouldbees, and gosh-I-
nearly-did-its. The worlds of academia and business are no different in that
regard. Drawers upon drawers are filled with the beginnings of papers and
books, half-hearted attempts to put words to paper, only to be interrupted
by something really important, like the telephone ringing.
Let’s not have any delusions about this. Getting published begins with
the desire to do so, swiftly followed by action. Like anything else, it depends
DOI: 10.4324/9781003259718-3
Why publish (or not?) 21
on your priorities. If your priority is to write, you will write. If it is not, you
probably will not. This book explores ways in which you can direct your
energies and organize your priorities to best effect in getting your work pub-
lished, but it cannot manage your priorities for you. There are many reasons
to publish and just as many not to.
Why publish?
Clarity
There are always competing priorities but, at some point, writing has to
become number one. Prof. Linda Woodhead shared her experience with
me, and as a successful academic: she was, for example, Programme Di-
rector of the UK’s largest research programme in the sociology of religion,
‘Religion and Society’. The five-year programme jointly sponsored by the
Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Economic and Social Re-
search Council ran between 2007 and 2012, funding 75 separate projects
with a total budget of £12 million. Not many academics were as busy, or
as well-published as Prof. Woodhead. One of the reasons she publishes, she
says, is that the effort of writing and revising helps her clarify her thoughts:
Lincoln illustrates this point. He agreed to give a speech and was asked how
much time he needed to prepare. He suggested that he would need a few
days for a 20-minute speech, a week for a ten-minute speech, but if they
wanted the speech to last two hours then he was ready immediately.
Revisiting
There’s nothing like seeing your idea in black and white to make you take it
seriously. Did I really say that? Am I sure about this?
Usually, to get it right, you have to get it wrong first. To achieve a fin-
ished draft, you have to go through a first and second draft. There is a great
temptation to put off writing until you think you have the perfect paper
to write. Take advice from those whose research may, indeed, be close to
perfect but who will not let their quest for perfection delay their publica-
tions. Prof. Christian Grönroos was Professor of Service and Relationship
Marketing at the Swedish School of Economics in Helsinki, Finland when
I interviewed him for this book. A prolific author and researcher, he has
received several international awards and distinctions for his work. He en-
courages people to publish their work even when there may be potential
for further amendments and corrections. He remembers the advice given
to him by his own doctoral supervisor: ‘There are only two types of articles;
those that are perfect and never get published, and those that are good
enough and do.’
During the process of writing a paper, whether empirically based or the-
oretical, you will have the opportunity to re-examine your method, impli-
cations, discussion, findings, and all the other components of an academic
paper. You may often choose to alter sections then, or you may most likely
decide it is good enough for now, send it away for publication, and continue
to refine your approach for the next paper. In either case, you have had the
opportunity to review your work and either make improvements or note
those points which you need to work on next time.
Feedback
Someone is likely to comment on your work either when you show your
draft to colleagues or after the paper is published. Of course, that’s a very
good reason why some people are reluctant to publish, but we’ll examine
that later. Let’s look at the benefits first.
If your field of interest is growing – and let’s hope it is – it grows by peo-
ple adding their evidence and theories as they examine it. Your contribution
causes other people to look at the field in a different way and, when they
Why publish (or not?) 23
tell you about it, they are adding their ideas or evidence to yours. Another
person’s perspective can enrich yours. And, if another perspective causes you
to reconsider, or even discard, your theory or idea, that’s no problem. It is
merely another road you have seen and chosen not to take, and you can be
thankful that someone pointed it out before you lost your way.
Feedback can lead to collaboration from unexpected sources. Once pub-
lished, you begin to meet people who know you through your writing. ‘I saw
your paper in such-and-such journal’ a total stranger may say at a conference
and will probably offer a constructive comment or another source of infor-
mation you hadn’t considered.
Feedback from others gives the lie to the old expression that you can-
not get something for nothing. Consider the refereeing process. Referees
are anonymous authorities, appointed by editors, who will recommend that
your piece of work will be accepted as is, rejected, or should be revised and
resubmitted. Most experienced authors welcome the ‘revise’ instruction, al-
most as much as a straight acceptance. ‘Revise’ feedback usually includes
precise comments about which parts of the paper should be revised, and
often how. We will explore the whole nature of refereeing later but, for now,
it is enough to point out that the referee is most likely to be a respected
leader in your particular field, who is freely giving an opinion on how you
can improve your work. And it costs nothing.
Self-worth
There are many theories about human motivation. Behavioural psychologist
Abraham Maslow said it was all about needs satisfaction which he neatly
described as a hierarchy:
According to this theory, you cannot paint while you are worrying about
where your next meal is coming from. A little simplistic when you think
about it, but it can suit as a reason to publish and not publish, and it is a rea-
son many people give to explain their inability to make a start. ‘I’ve a lot of
things on my mind right now, but in a month or two I’ll be less pressured’,
they might say. We have all said that, only to find that the months roll on
and we are as pressured as ever, taking care of the basics and thinking we
cannot devote time to the pressure to publish.
24 SETTING A STRATEGY
By actually publishing your work you will see tangible evidence that you
are clever. Nothing breeds success like success and seeing your name in print
gives a satisfying frisson of excitement. And don’t tell me you don’t send a
copy to your mum!
When, later on, we explore how to target journals, a number of tech-
niques will be discussed. For now, it’s wise to remember that, not surpris-
ingly, the most sought-after journals have the highest rejection rates. It
therefore makes good sense not to aim too high at first. There are more
journals than you may know about: these will be easier to get into, with
editors and reviewers who have more time to discuss your work with you.
With the constantly growing numbers of journals there are likely to be sev-
eral respectable, accessible journals in any given field that the aspiring author
can try. Although famous authors will often say that they lived for years with
rejections, not many of us want to do that forever. Be kind to your frail ego
and do not start by aiming at the stars: it is crowded up there.
Net worth
Publishing itself rarely makes anyone rich, unless you’re a best-selling author,
but there are tangible benefits that arise as a result.
Research funding, as discussed in Chapter 1, has become increasingly
tied to published results. Although you might worry that you will not be ac-
cepted by the journals with the highest impact factors, working through the
other journals will help you refine your approach, improve your style, and
make it more likely that, sooner rather than later, you will become published
where you want. Having your papers published makes you more sought af-
ter for other reasons too, depending on your field: conferences, workshops,
teaching, speeches, and consultancy are all ways to create opportunities for
further research. Some publishers and other organizations give awards for
best papers, either as cash prizes, scholarships, research funding, or books.
Promotion
It is fair to say that those who publish in the best journals are good at what
they do, but are they really so smart and more deserving of that new job or
that promotion than you? Yes, in several ways they are, but not just because
they are intellectually advanced, but because they are smart with their time
management. They have recognized the importance of publishing and got
on with it, which is another reason they deserve promotion.
And do they know something you don’t know? Yes, to that as well.
They know how to write good papers and how to target the right journals.
Why publish (or not?) 25
They know how to prioritize. They know how to transfer ideas from their
heads on to paper where others can read them. By the time you finish this
book you will know too, because they’ll be telling you in the pages that fol-
low. They are not worried you will steal their ideas. They have made it. So
can you.
Institutional
Your college or university needs you. More than ever before, institutions
are being held accountable for their ‘outputs’. One of the measures being
applied is the number of papers published in quality journals. Increasingly,
institutions are including publishing obligations in contracts. They want
to make sure that the people they hire will not just promise to publish, as
everyone does, but will actually do it.
Body of knowledge
Whatever your field, from education research to embryonics, you belong to a
body of knowledge. The field only grows because people add to it: people like
you, who have something to say. If they did not, the field would atrophy, be-
come stale, and perhaps die altogether. That does not mean everything you say
must be brilliant or paradigm-busting. Perhaps your contribution is to revisit
the body of knowledge with a new perspective or perhaps it is only to synthe-
size what has remained unsynthesized. At the very least, perhaps all you will
do is clarify the current position or cause a minor stir that can provoke debate.
Either way, it is a matter of making the choice of whether to be in or out
of it – whether to fish or cut bait, as my American colleagues say. Are you a
passenger, or do you add your own energy to driving the machine? You are
paid to teach in that body of knowledge, paid to research about it, and paid
to contribute to it. Writing up your findings or articulating your concepts
is an obligation.
Concurrent publishing
Finally, most well-published authors think of their research as organic: it
changes over time and can be improved endlessly. Each time you submit a
paper to a journal you think about your work differently. That is why many
authors publish papers as their research develops. Sometimes, a paper on the
research design itself will be valuable; another might tackle some aspects of
the literature; another might discuss emerging findings, and so on. One ex-
ception to this practice might be research that is contracted by a commercial
organization hoping to produce a patent or product. People in those fields
26 SETTING A STRATEGY
are often reluctant to share their early findings for fear that their colleagues
working elsewhere on the same problem or opportunity will see what they’re
doing and use it to accelerate their own research.
Those who are so affected, and few are, will have to decide what is best
for themselves. My advice is to check with your supervisors, sponsors, and
research coordinators who will usually be the best judge of whether the po-
tential threats of publications outweigh the opportunities. Prof. Woodhead
says of her students in Religious Studies:
Publishing and writing are like racing cars – you have to practice to be
any good at it. That is one reason I encourage research students to try
to publish as soon as they can – alongside writing their thesis if at all
possible. Having some published articles on your CV will set you apart
from people who only have a thesis. If someone has already published,
you can be fairly confident they will keep on publishing.
To be eligible, the student must be the lead author of the paper, and
the paper must be submitted for publication while the student is en-
rolled for a higher degree, or within two years of graduating for a higher
degree.
on one’s CV’. She explained that she introduced the Australian Journal of
Botany student prize in 2002, to encourage young researchers to publish their
work in the journal, and subsequently introduced the student prize for the
other journal for which she has responsibility, Australian Systematic Botany.
If previously unpublished students have the self-confidence to submit
papers to an academic journal, what is stopping everyone else? The central
issue is ‘going public’: the word ‘publish’ derives from the Latin publicare, to
make public. It is not without reward, and it is not without risk. Today, it is
becoming less of an option and more of an expectation, whilst at the same
time the competition is increasing, and the standards are rising. Fortunately,
the process is well understood and can be managed.
There remain, however, as many good reasons not to publish as there
are to publish. When I run workshops on getting published, I always make
sure people in the audience tell me all the reasons they know not to publish
as well as the reasons they should. That is because it is often more useful to
discover why we do not do things we want to do than it is to nag ourselves
with all the reasons we should. One approach makes us feel guilty and apa-
thetic while the other may help remove the obstacles and spur us into action.
Fear
Fear is the most common reason people give for not publishing. There may
be many more excuses, but when they really clear their throats and decide to
be honest, it is fear that they admit to. Every time I ask people at workshops
why they don’t publish, they answer with all sorts of compelling reasons,
such as those I review below, before finally adding ‘and fear’. That admission
is guaranteed to generate a ripple of nervous laughter throughout partici-
pants. Although it may be one of the last reasons we are prepared to admit,
it is almost always the most powerful. This is reasonable! Your research is
important to you; it means something. You do not want to put yourself in a
position where someone might dismiss it.
What if people laugh? What if they say that all the work we feel so good
about is actually completely off-base? What if someone has done it all before?
Everyone has fears about all sorts of things, and some of the fears we have
are ancestral and useful. A rush of fear if we are alone in a dark house and
hear someone moving around downstairs is useful, but it is not so good if
the house is silent, we have never yet met a burglar, we have locked all our
doors and yet we still lie awake night after night worrying.
A field in psychology called cognitive behaviour explores how people
convert thought to emotion and back again. Therapists try to help people
28 SETTING A STRATEGY
‘I can’t write!’
How bad a writer can you be? You got through school and into university,
didn’t you? Have you ever managed to express yourself on a birthday card or
in a love letter? Did the recipients understand the message? Of course, they
did. Did you fail every essay or paper sent in for marking, on the grounds
that they were incomprehensible? Of course, you did not.
So, what exactly is the problem? The word ‘bad’, at the very least, might
be changed to ‘mediocre’ or ‘inconsistent’. Is that what you must accept?
NO.
Perhaps writing does not come easily to you; perhaps you do not find
the words miraculously flowing from your fingertips. That’s okay. No one
else does either, not even professional writers. There are only three attributes
which separate good writers from mediocre writers:
• preparation
• practice
• patience
Why publish (or not?) 29
All of those are skills you can develop, and this book will show you how.
Now, if you can see that your writing cannot be truly bad, but may need
developing, and you can see that there are ways to develop it, what does that
do to your fear?
Note again on your paper the key points that helped reduce your fear
and make a note of how much you now believe your first statement, ‘I can’t
write’. Twenty per cent? Ten per cent? Finally, note the action or actions you
plan to take. We waste far too much time worrying about our fears.
would be unusual for someone not to look on your work critically, as you
look on the work of others. But that does not mean they will reject it out-
right, although it does mean they might, even should, evaluate it critically.
Would you expect any less of your peers or your students? We know from
our own experience of evaluating research that we are not criticizing the per-
son when we criticize the work. We can therefore rest assured that criticism
of our own work will be fully in the spirit of academic enquiry. If we have
done all the right preparation and have passed the final review stages, we do
not need to fear that anyone will dismiss our work at a glance.
Review now how strongly you believe your original statement that people
will reject your work outright. It probably is not a reasonable fear, once you
think about it. What is it worth – 10 per cent? What is your plan of action
to further reassure yourself?
we know that our papers will stand up to the scrutiny of the editor and his
or her review board? How will we even know to which journal to send it?
How will we start to write? How long will it take? Will we ever finish it? Few
people take pleasure in being lost. Publishing is a mysterious process, but it
is one that anyone can understand, learn, and master.
This is the central thesis of this book, but it is not your only source of
help. Attending writers’ workshops, meeting colleagues who have published,
and talking to people who edit and review journals will help demystify the
publishing business and help you write the kind of papers which will eventu-
ally be published. For now, the answers to the following questions are brief:
• How can I push myself into an abyss…? You will not do that. The first
rule of a successful publishing strategy is to do your homework. Most
papers fail because the writer has not considered the needs of the
journal and its readers. The following chapters will show you how.
• How will I know that my papers will stand up to the scrutiny of the ed-
itor and review board? By following the straightforward guidance of
reviewers, editors, and other authors, either by contacting them di-
rectly, or learning from their ideas distilled in the pages of this book.
• How will I start? By thinking through a few main points discussed
later, concentrating on purpose, implications, and the right target
journal.
• How long will it take? To do what? To write before undertaking the in-
itial preparatory stage? A few months, maybe years, possibly forever.
After spending some directed preparation time and then writing? A
few days.
• Will it ever be finished? The paper, yes. The ongoing quest for perfec-
tion, no.
Indeed, why not think of other ornaments you can make with the pages of
unfinished, nearly perfect articles? As we saw earlier, the competition in this
market is fierce. As you are patiently perfecting your article, there will prob-
ably be two or three people submitting a paper similar to you. They will be
published in six months while you are still chasing another reference.
Priorities
‘I’m too busy!’ you say. Of course, you are. And so are the authors who are
being published right now in your field. If being published is important
to you, you will find the time. But first, consider what you mean by time.
Is it time spent nervously staring at the screen, going nowhere? Or time,
maybe an hour each day, putting your thoughts on paper and organizing
your approach?
The Performance Group in Oslo (Bjelland et al. 1994) studied similarities
amongst those described as peak performers – writers, musicians, politicians,
academics, and industrialists. Amongst their several shared characteristics
was their ability to concentrate intensely on whatever they were doing.
They quoted the then Nokia Chief Executive Jorma Ollila saying: ‘If
someone focuses on what they are doing, they can do in 15 minutes what
would otherwise take them four hours.’
Why publish (or not?) 33
Summary
This chapter has drawn together some of the most common reasons people
give for why they should, or should not, publish. Each point has a flip side:
the benefits of people knowing about your work does open up the possibility
that they may not approve of it. This, as we have seen earlier, is the nature of
learned debate and not something to take personally.
Each of us has different incentives in mind and experience different con-
straints. Before going much further, you might like to note your own reasons
for publishing and all the reasons which have prevented you so far. It is then
a matter of concentrating on the benefits and seeing how you can minimize
the risks. After all, people who have no fear are not brave, they are fearless.
Bravery is having the fear but doing it anyway.
As publishing and funding are so inter-related, the next chapter will re-
view key principles and obstacles to getting funded.
Action points
Each chapter in this book will conclude with a task which will help you
shape your ideas for publication. You can do it right now or, if you want to
read on further, do it later. But do it soon, even if you revise and change it
later on. Use a notebook, or make a file on your PC, to keep the notes you
make. When taken together they will create a plan for you to work through
every time you write an article for publication.
First, write a list of five to ten benefits to you of becoming published.
Benefits are things that mean something to you. They might be personal
benefits, such as: ‘I would like to see my name in a well-respected journal’,
or they might be professional benefits such as ‘Writing an article about my
research will expose it to others and might bring me speaking engagements
34 SETTING A STRATEGY
• I can talk about my ideas, but I become stuck when I try to write
them down (thought).
• That makes me feel worried about exposing something I’ve written to
an audience (feeling).
• But the paper I discussed at the graduate seminar was well received
(counterargument).
• I can express my ideas if I care about something and think carefully
about my audience (conclusion).
• I need to start with something I’m really interested in, that will be of
benefit to me, and consider carefully who will be reading it (action).
Reference
Bjelland, Dahl and Partners (1994). The Keys to Breakthrough Performance. Oslo:
Performance Group.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Maa elon-kaitsija, Maa manan-loitsija,
hengen-haltioitsija,
tule meille turvaksi työssä ja taistossa!
Kun korpi kohisee, syystuuli tohisee,
yön siipi suhisee,
vieri kesävirtenä veressä ja vaistossa!
2.
Meren virsi.
3.
Ilman virsi.
Kirkonkupuun kirjaeltu
kaikk' on tähdet taivaan,
kiertämähän, kaartamahan
kuolevaisen vaivaan.
Alttariksi asetettu
vain on pilven parras,
siitä puhuu ukkonen
ja haastaa liekki harras.
Eikä opinkappaleita
siellä kukaan muista,
mutta sama soipi virsi
myrjaadeista suista.
Siellä eri-uskolaista
valtio ei vainoo,
luonnon laajan lakikirja
esivalta ainoo.
Tulen virsi.
Epilogi.
Sähkön sävel.
Tähtitarha
Pyhä Martti.
Legenda.
1909
Kuolemattomuuden toivo.
Kantaatti.
Kaupunki nukkuu,
paukkaa pakkasen harmaja henki
Yön äänet hukkuu,
turtuvat tuskat jo ihmisienki.
Kuu kumma valvoo,
leimuavat tähtien tulikirjat yössä.
Tähtiä palvoo
mies yksinäinen, mi istuvi työssä.
Huojuvi heinä,
kuiskivi kukka,
virkkavi viita:
"Saapuvi syys,
heilimme jälleen,
heili ei koskaan,
henkesi nuori,
halla min hyys'."
"Voita ei kenkään
valtoja kuolon,
nuoret ja vanhat
viikate lyö,
kaikki ma voitan,
kaikki ma korjaan,
kaikki ma peitän
kuin pyhä yö."
Minkä luonnonvastaiseksi
luuli mies valon-väkevä,
luonnonmyötäista olikin.
Suurimmassa, pienimmässä:
elää itsensä ylitse,
suojata oman-sukuista.
1910.
Pikku Helka.
1911.
Vanha Täti.
Hapses jo harmeni, vanha Täti,
etkö jo levätä voisi?
1911.
Tähtitarha.
1912.
Titanic.