How published in international journals
Journal editors share their advice on how to make a journal,
write a cover letter - and awkward to handle feedback from reviewers
Writing for the
highly competitive international journals. Even if you overcome the first
hurdle and generate ideas and valuable research work - how do you then
summarize it in a way that will interest reviewers?
There is no
simple formula for publication - editor expectations can vary between and
within the field of study. But there are challenges to be faced all academic
writers regardless of their discipline. How should you respond to feedback
reviewers? Is there a correct way to prepare the paper? And should you always
bother revise and submit it back? We asked the editor of the journal from a
variety of backgrounds to tip them for publication.
writing stage
1) Focus on the
story develops logically, not chronologically
Take time to
write a journal even before you think of the presentation logic. When writing,
focus on the story develops logically, rather than chronological order your own
experiments.
2) Do not try to
write and edit at the same
Open the file in
the PC and enter the sub-headings and your posts and then fill in under one of
the headings in which you have an idea to do so. If you reach your daily goal
(mine 500 words) write down other ideas as points and stop writing; then use
those points to start the next day.
If you write and
can not think of the right words (eg for elephants) do not worry - write (long
nose of an animal) and continue - to come back later and get the correct term.
Write do not be edited; if not, you lose the flow.
3) Do not bury
your argument like a needle in a haystack
If someone asked
you to describe your journal bus quickly, can you do it with everyday language
clear? This clear argument will appear in the abstract and the first paragraph
(even the first line) of your journal. Do not make us hunt for your argument like
a needle in a haystack. If hidden on page seven it will only make us upset. Oh,
and make sure your argument runs along a different part of this journal and
combining theory and empirical material.
4) Ask a
colleague to check your work
One of the problems
faced by the journal's editors are poorly written journal. Perhaps the author's
first language is not English and they have not been trying hard to correct the
mold. It may be very difficult to know what is going on in an article if the
language and bad sintaksis.
5) Published by
writing a review or comment
Writing a review
is a good way to publish - especially for people who are in the early stages of
their careers. This is an opportunity to practice writing paper for
publication, and get a copy of the book you want for free. We publish more
review than a journal so that we continue to look for reviewers.
Some journals,
including our journal, published a reply to a journal that has been published
in the same journal. Editor quite like to publish a reply to a previous journal
for stimulating discussion.
6) Do not forget
about international journal readers
We get people who
write of Americans who assume everyone knows the American system - and the same
thing happened with a British writer. Because we are an international journal,
we need writers to enter the international context.
7) Do not try to
cram your PhD in writing 6,000 words
Sometimes people
want to throw it all at once and achieve many goals. We get people who are
trying to tell us their entire PhD in 6,000 words and it did not work. More
experienced writers will write two or three journals of the project, using a
specific aspect of their research as a hook.
8) Select the
appropriate journal: it's a bad sign if you do not recognize any editorial
board
Check to see if
your article is within the scope of the journal you submit. It seems very
obvious but it is surprising how many articles submitted to the journal
entirely inappropriate. It's a bad sign if you do not recognize the names of
members of the editorial board. Ideally, look at a number of current issues to
ensure that the article was published on the same topic and have a similar
quality and impact.
9) Always follow
the correct delivery procedures
Often the author
does not spend 10 minutes it takes to read instructions to authors who spend a
lot of time for writers and editors and prolong the process when it is not
necessary to
10) Do not repeat
your abstract in the covering letter.
We looked into a
letter of introduction to an indication from you about what you think the most
interesting and significant about the journal, and why do you think it is
suitable for the journal. No need to repeat the abstract or read the journal
entries in detail - we will read the journal itself to find out what it says.
The cover letter is to outline a larger image, plus any other information you
would like us to have.
11) A common
reason is lack of context rejection
Make sure that it
is clear where the research you are in the wider scientific journal landscape, and gaps
in knowledge are addressed. Common reasons for rejected after peer review
article is the lack of context or lack of clarity about why this research is
important.
12) Do not
mention your methodology
Ethnography seems
to be a trendy method at this time, so many articles submitted claims based on
it. However, closer inspection reveals a very limited interview data and
standards. Some of the interviews in the cafe is not an ethnography. Be clear -
since the beginning - about the nature and scope of your data collection. The
same thing applies to the use of theory. If the theoretical insights useful for
your analysis, use it consistently throughout the argument and your text.
13) In response
to direct (and quietly) reviewer's comments
When submit this
journal after revision, include a detailed document that summarizes all the
changes suggested by the reviewers, and how you have to change your paper from
that standpoint. Stick to the facts, and do not shout. Do not respond to
reviewers feedback as soon as you get it. Read it, think of a few days, discuss
with others, and then make a response.
14) Revise and
submit back: do not give up after going through all the major hurdle
You'd be
surprised how many writers who received the letter "and resubmit the
revised standard" never actually do it. But it was worth doing - some of
the writers who were asked to undertake a major revision to survive and
eventually published their work, but others, who have far less to do, never
submit back. It seems silly to pass major hurdle in article writing, past
editor of the peer review and come back only to then give up.
15) It is
acceptable to challenge reviewers, with good justification
Acceptable to
reject a proposed reviewers to alter component of your article if you have a
good justification, or to (politely) argue why reviewers are wrong. Rational
explanation would be accepted by the editor, especially if it's clear you have
considered all the feedback received and receives a portion of it.
16) Think how
quickly you want to see your journal published
Some journals are
ranked higher than others so the risk of rejection you would be bigger. People
need to think about whether they need to see their work published quickly -
because of certain journals will be longer. Some journals, such as our journal,
also make access in advance so that after the article appeared on the website
received the journal. 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 the journals published you only see the finished article
Publish in top
journals is a challenge for everyone, but it may seem easier for others. When
you read the journal published, you see the finished article, not a first
draft, or the first revision and resubmit, or version intermediary - and you
never see failures.