Writing Manuscripts for Journal Publication

1. Writing Manuscripts for Journal Publication Timothy R. Elliott, Ph.D.

2. Good News! …well, sort of More journals are out there! They all need papers! Some more so than others Low submission rates, some perilously so On-line publishing Diminishing rewards in academia for publishing papers Now is the time to break in!

3. Thinking about the process Professional writing is a craft It requires practice, planning, effort, editing and rewriting Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal requires diligence, commitment, energy, and a thick skin Some insight required Must know basic rules, codes of conduct, and several heuristics to successfully publish technical reports

4. Preparing a Manuscript for Peer-Review Presumes you have something to report ….you know the relevant literature …you know how your study fits in with the extant, relevant literature, and advances the area beyond what we already know Identify the most suitable “outlet” for the paper I always do this before I write

5. Strategically Targeting a Journal Consider the Citation Impact Factor Rule of thumb: higher the impact, greater the readership, greater the likelihood of your work being cited by others Low impact outlets (< .79): typically, for “specialized interests” i.e., restricted audience Moderate impact (.80 to 1.75): still competitive Variable quality of reviews, important to specific fields High impact outlets (> 1.8): competitive, vie for page space, often have > 80% rejection rates; widely read and respected Often provide the best reviews, timely

6. Strategically Targeting a Journal Consider the Circulation and Audience Who do you want to “talk to”? Who do you want to “reach”? What outlets will impress colleagues who will vote on your promotion reviews? You want an interdisciplinary audience? One that is more “medical”? Or one that is primarily “psychological”? Medical journals (and many interdisciplinary ones) do not use APA editorial style. Reformat the paper accordingly. They may not welcome theoretical tests. More clinically-oriented. Some journals have high circulation rates but low impact factors (e.g., Journal of Counseling and Development)

7. Strategically Targeting a Journal Consider if it is in Index Medicus Journals in Index Medicus have greater international visibility, prestige, accessibility (via PubMed) increased exposure for your work Often colleagues from other disciplines want this visibility – essential for interdisciplinary research Most front-line APA journals are in it Some respected journals with high circulation rates are not in this database (e.g., Journal of Counseling and Development)

8. Does your study “fit” the journal? Do you cite articles from that journal in your manuscript? Are there studies like yours in the journal? seen a single-case design lately in Health Psychology? how many papers in the journal report grant funding from NIH? (look for important clues about what the journal values) Does your study address theoretical issues that pertain to several specialty or clinical areas? Constant bane of social-clinical interface research (for one journal, too theoretical; for another, too clinical) Does your study primarily inform clinical practice? Does your study inform interdisciplinary practice? Often less tolerant of psychological theories Consequently, the paper may not receive credit or recognition as “psychological” from peers (in or out of the profession) Does your study inform clinical practice in a fairly specialized area?

9. Editor Rehabilitation Psychology 2006-2011 • Published by the APA, 56th volume • Associated with the Division of Rehabilitation Psychology • CIF was .85 (2005) now 1.19 (2009) • In Index Medicus • Rejection rate around 50%

10. Associate Editor, 1996-2002 Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology • Published by Guilford, now in 30th volume • Premium placed on theory-driven studies • CIF of 1.06 (2009) • In Index Medicus

11. Associate Editor 1999-2006 Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings • Published by Springer, 18th volume • Official journal of the Association of Psychologists in Academic Health Centers • CIF of .68 (2009) • Clinically – relevant studies, training and professional issues

12. Incoming Editor Journal of Clinical Psychology 2011-2016 • Published by Wiley-Blackwell • Founded in 1945, now in 67th volume • CIF of 1.52 (2009) • Publishes approximately 90+ papers per year

13. Goals for the JCLP • Well-written papers • Scientist-practitioner values • Theory-driven intervention and outcome studies across clinical settings • Particular interest in research concerning issues in the public sector • Effective interventions and the convergence of data • from advanced single-case designs to RCTs

14. Submitting Your Manuscript • Electronic, on-line submission • Emails notify our manuscript coordinator • I decide the “action editor” to handle the paper • I triage the submission and may reject it outright • The assigned Associate Editor may do this as well

15. The Review Process • Editor will acknowledge receipt of your paper • Occasionally it will be returned without review (“triage”) because: • the topic is inappropriate for the journal • it has a very low likelihood of being accepted • it does not conform to APA guidelines

16. My initial assumptions about your manuscript Presume you have something to report That you know the relevant literature You know how your study fits in with the extant, relevant literature, and informs what we already know You are familiar with this journal That you have decided it is the most suitable “outlet” for your study

17. Determining Reviewers:A Critical Editorial Decision “Mix” of reviewers Senior, established and younger, junior Reviewers have varying levels and “pockets” of expertise Clinical, methodological, theoretical Two, three or four requested Who is willing to review? We allow several weeks for the review

18. Reviewing a manuscript Parameters: Appropriateness Significance, relevance, prior literature Quality of theory, rationale Methodology, design, analyses, interpretation Organization, clarity, writing We are notified when a review is submitted We “tickle” late reviewers

19. My role as Editor Evaluate the quality of: The manuscript The reviews Evaluate the contribution of the paper New issues, “timeliness” The quality of the “idea”

20. My role as Editor Evaluation in context: How many papers do I have ready to publish? What is the quality of those papers? What is in the best interest of the journal? The toughest decisions occur with mediocre submissions

21. IT IS NOT MY JOB…. To teach you APA style To proof read your paper To spell check Reformat your paper Correct your references Rewrite a phrase or paragraph for you Tell you how to finesse a reviewer’s criticism Call you on the phone and beg you to send in your revised manuscript

22. The Decision Letter I do not like to rush this Tactful, but clear Guide and Gatekeeper Integrate key points in reviews My decision I will tell you what I want and what I do not want If I am open to a revision, I will say that If I reject the manuscript and say that, then I am not interested in a resubmission I have been described as an “active” editor

23. Action Letters • Accept without revision • Accept with revisions • Revise and resubmit • this is a GOOD outcome! • Follow my guidance • work to improve your manuscript (revise, revise, revise!) • Reject

24. Kazdin on the review process “The review process has its own issues…excellent readings are available to prepare the author for the journal review process (Kafka, The Trial, The Myth of Sisyphus, and Dante’s Inferno).” Kazdin, 1995

25. Working with reviewer feedback If I am open to a revision, this is good Good reviews are thought-provoking, good journals should give good peer reviews and provide you with good ideas Good reviews improve a paper Mike McCullough on Health Psychology reviewers: “We did everything they said, and the paper got better each time. They finally gave in – they ran out of things for us to do.” If we say the paper is confusing, difficult to read, unclear, convoluted – by definition, we are correct It is your responsibility for clarity, accuracy and communicating TIP: Ask someone you trust to read it and give you an opinion. If they give you a criticism and you verbally try to explain your point: You must rewrite that section.

26. The Reality of Peer-Review Everyone has papers rejected No one gets a free ride – No one should

27. Handling rejection It happens for many reasons Bad writing Poor fit with the journal Limited page space and/or bad timing Poor study Sometimes a bad idea If they reject outright, learn what you can from the reviews. Study the reviews carefully

28. Handling rejection Don’t be careless in your correspondence Don’t be angry. Don’t be snide. This isn’t personal* This is scholarship.Do not leave an angry paper trail! Look for hints in an editor’s letter An editor may have ideas for improving the piece, or have suggestions for redirecting a paper elsewhere Many editors try to keep an eye out for up-and-coming junior colleagues *This blithe comment didn’t work for me, either.

29. Knowing When to “Move On” Send the manuscript out to another outlet as soon as possible to another outlet if you find absolutely no wisdom or constructive insights in the reviews you realize the paper was not appropriate for the journal that just rejected you. Do not obsess over a rejection of this sort – mistakes will be made. Do not rewrite for a journal that has rejected you for this last reason Keith Byrd Learn when to put a study on the shelf and come back to it later. Steve Harkins at VCU Some studies need some age on ‘em before we can really understand ‘em

30. RE: Rejections On Edward Gibbon: Gibbon’s style is detestable but is not the worst thing about him Samuel Taylor Coleridge, 1853 On Lewis Carroll: We fancy that any real child might be more puzzled than enchanted by this stiff, overwrought story.

31. Did we ACCEPT your paper? Congrats! Now get the proper forms and sign them, get them to us Be ready to proof read a copy from the publisher and return it promptly, as instructed! If you want a copy of the issue or reprints, talk to the publisher, not to me And be ready to review a manuscript when I request one from you sometime in the future

32. References Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. L. Roediger, III (Eds.), The Compleat Academic: A Practical Guide for the Beginning Social Scientist (2nd Ed.). Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association. http://dbem.ws/online_pubs.html Brown, R. T. (2004). Editorial: A general approach to publication in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology: From the process of preparing your manuscript to revisions and resubmissions. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 29, 1-5.

33. References Kazdin, A. E. (1995). Preparing and evaluating research reports. Psychological Assessment, 7, 228-237. Pollard, R. Q. (2005). From dissertation to journal article: A useful method for planning and writing any manuscript. The Internet Journal of Mental Health,2(2), 1-11. White, L. (2005). Writes of passage: Writing an empirical journal article. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 791-798 telliott@tamu.edu