Presentation Publication

A few random thoughts

Why do a presentation?

• Serious deadline for constructing a product

• Opportunity to hear reactions to that product

• Opportunity to gauge the reactions of various audiences to that product

• Chance to meet people• And travel to faraway

places• An easy first step to a

possible publication

When should a presentation become a publication?

• If it constitutes an MPU*• If you can identify an audience• If all the various lines of analysis have

been pursued• If it is worth the time you will invest in

writing, revising, and maybe re-revising it• If it makes a contribution to an identifiable

discourse

*Thanks to John Willett

Comparingpublications and presentations

• Abstract, lit review, methods, results, discussion

• Primarily textual • Maximally anticipatory• Should be a

substantial contribution

• Question, motivation for question, answer to question, implications of answer

• As visual as possible• Partially reactive• May be a less

substantial contribution (if you are a good talker)

What steps do you take?• Write a first draft

– Write methods and results first

– Forget the RQ you started with

– Formulate the question it turns out you have now actually answered

– Justify that question in the introduction

– Write a discussion linked to the issues raised in the introduction

What steps do you take? • Identify a candidate journal

– Consider the journals you have cited often– Consider journal impact in relation to article quality

– the match is crucial– Find out about publication lag, journal penetration

• Rewrite for that journal– Study the advice to authors

carefully– Read recent issues and link

if possible to prior articles – Note guidelines for blinding, citations, length,

format

What steps do you take?

• Solicit feedback on the draft– Naïve readers and

professional readers can both help, in importantly different ways

– Solicit targeted readers: content, methods, the big picture

What steps do you take?

• Rewrite and proofread– Consider tables and

figures carefully– Decide what needs to

be in the paper and what can be left out

– Figure out what the major limitation of the work is and acknowledge it, explaining why the work is important anyway

What steps do you take?

• Submit– Write a letter to the editor giving a brief

overview of the big point of the paper– Suggest some likely reviewers

• From the editorial board of the journal• Or outside it if necessary

• Communicate with the editor– Inquire politely about the reviews after 3

months– Acknowledge receipt of messages

And then the revision…• Articles almost ALWAYS need revision

• Even if the submission is rejected, you have gotten lots of free advice

• Free advice is not necessarily good

• But at a minimum it suggests where the problems are

And then the revision…• Engage in communication with the editor

– Thank him/her for reviews, even if you get rejected

– Ask for clarification if you need it– Protest a rejection if there are really solid

grounds to do so

• Evaluate the reviews carefully– Some of the comments will be stupid– You don’t need to follow all the advice, but

you do need to solve all the problems identified

– Convergence across reviewers means there is something that needs fixing

And then the revision…• If you resubmit, the letter is even more

important than the revisions– Address every single comment in the action

letter and reviews– Do what they suggest or explain why you

didn’t

• Consider another journal for any rejected article– Use the reviews from the first submission to

improve the draft– Use the reviews from the first submission to

target journal selection more carefully

And then

• A postdoc• An academic job• A promotion• Tenure• Influence• Citations in the

New York Times• Fame• Fortune