The Submission Process

Jane Pritchard

Learning and Teaching Advisor

Session Outcomes

By the end of this session you will be able to…

• Describe the various stages of a typical journal submission process

• Decide how to respond to a reviewers and editors comments Undertake a review of a small paper and define what should be responded to by the author

• Describe the final stages of journal paper layout and attention to journal criteria such as referencing and copyright issues

The 10 step submission process

1. Identify a suitable journal2. Look at the Instructions for Authors, Aims and Scope of the

journal3. Agree authorship of the paper4. What are editors/reviewers looking for?5. Write the paper6. Submit paper7. Review process8. Responding to reviewers and editors comments9. Proof reading10. Paper published or persist

1. Identify a suitable journal

• Review examples of papers from that journal– Journals have an audience - know who you are writing for

before you start writing• http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/index.htm

– Does the journal accept papers using the methodologies you have engaged with?

– Is it a national/international journal– Bias towards qualitative /quantitative approaches?

2. Look at the Instructions for Authors, Aims and Scope of the journal

• Instructions for authors– Is the paper prepared according the journals instructions?– Note headings, fonts, margins, referencing systems, abstracts– http://www.pestlhe.org.uk/index.php/pestlhe/about/submissions#aut

horGuidelines– http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/submissions.htm

• LENGTH – Stick to the word limit – it helps everyone

• Obeying the rules of the journals layout will help all in giving feedback on the content of the paper and not get distracted by visual discrepancies

3. Agree authorship of the paper

• If solo authorship no worries…..

• If more than one author agree who is writing what and when and the order of the authors names on the paper and the corresponding author

4. What are editors/reviewers looking for?

• Editors– The authors appears to know the journal– The authors appears to know who will be reading the paper– What is the ‘USP’ of the paper– Is the level of the paper suitable for the readers?– What is to be learned from the paper?

• Reviewers– Does the paper match the journals aims and scopes and

instructions for authors– Is of sufficient quality to be published– Look closely at literature and meaning– Context for research in area– Reviewers chosen because of familiarity with subject area

5. Write the paper

Easier said than done

6. Submit paper (1/2)

• Note the submission instructions– E.g. numbers of copies, electronic

• This all saves time and eases the process

• Referencing again – but it’s a common weakness of papers – poor referencing, missing references, people thinking they know what the referencing system is – check!

– Note how your name should appear – the review process will dictate this – check journal guidelines

• Blind review – no names on paper but sometimes a front title page

• Seen reviews – names on title page

6. Submit paper (2/2)

• The editor/editorial board will review the paper and decide whether:

– Its subject matter is suitable for the journal– Of sufficient interest to the journal’s audience– Of sufficient quality to justify peer review

• If it passes all 3 criteria the paper will be sent for peer review.

7. Review process (1/2)

• This may take some time - be patient. – You can ask the editor what is the average return time of

reviews• What is the review process

– Blind/seen– http://www.pestlhe.org.uk/index.php/pestlhe/about/

editorialPolicies#peerReviewProcess– Usually 2 peer reviewers, with expertise in the area the

paper is dealing with, are selected. – The reviewers are asked to agree to review the paper within

an agreed time period. If a reviewer declines the paper, it is returned to the journal and another reviewer is found.

7. Review process (2/2)

• Reviewers are normally given several weeks to review the paper.

• They are asked to comment on its accuracy, the validity of the comments made and the conclusions reached by the authors and then categorise the paper under the headings of:

• reject• accept, this might include a judgement on the

priority/importance of the paper• make suitable revisions; these could be minor changes in text

to more major changes, e.g. repeated or additional experiments• The reviewers are also asked to give specific feedback to the

authors of the paper. Peer reviewers normally remain anonymous.

Reviewing practice exercise

8. Responding to reviewers and editors comments (1 of 2)

• What are the major comments?– Content questions, Perhaps a lack of literature– Unclear aims unsubstantiated conclusions, – Theoretically flawed

• What are the minor comments?– lay out, referencing, rewrite abstract, shorten, lengthen etc,

further develop conclusion

1. Make all the changes you can.

2. Write a covering letter highlighting your response to the reviewers comments1. Note where you have responded positively

2. Note where and why you have chosen not to respond to some comments. You cannot make all the changes, or may not feel it is appropriate to do so.

3. If in doubt talk to the editor – but be polite!

[REF http://www.rddirect.org.uk/documents/writingpapers.html#_Toc49051709]

8. Responding to reviewers and editors comments (2 of 2)

Example of reviewers and editors comments

9. Proof reading

• Sometimes journals will send back layouts/galleys of papers– Often with some minor referencing adjustments to be made

• Check them VERY carefully • Your paper should read as you sent it back after the

reviewers comments – check that this is true and if not try and ascertain why not

10. Published/persist

• HURRAH

• Sometimes persistence may be needed – DON’T GIVE UP

• Take some time out and look at another journal

Some useful web resources

• How to review– http://www.leighthompson.com/tips/review_a_paper.htm– http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/Buildings/ALAN/PUBLICATIONS/

how.to.review.html

• Writing academic papers– http://www.rddirect.org.uk/documents/writingpapers.html– http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=2397– http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/13/5/417.pdf (very

useful short paper)