How to Get an Article Published
Editors have to pick reviewers. Acceptance of an article
depends more on the choice of reviewers than on the merits of the
research because reviewers tend to disagree, sometimes wildly, on
the same manuscript's merits. Editors are busy, we take
shortcuts. We look to see who on our board you have cited, or
whose work in our journal you have cited, or who we know
personally or professionally whom you have cited. Up to a point
you can guide us in our choices.
Review is never really blind. Most fields are small and people
know each other's styles, methods, terminology, and key reference
citations. As a new researcher you will tend to be identified
with your advisor or principal research mentor. Reviewers are
always curious about authorship because it is usually relevant to
our judgments: you give the benefit of the doubt to people who
have earned it, or people who are trained by well-known mentors.
The journal may blank out your name and references to your own
work, but not those to your mentor's work. Blind review is really
rather pointless; someone who cannot identify you or your
provenance is probably not competent to judge your manuscript. Grant
applications, where serious money is involved, are not usually
reviewed blindly. The reputation of the investigator is
considered central to their ability to carry out the proposed
project. Their research experience is no less relevant to the
final publishable product. Reviewers need to be anonymous to keep the
enterprise minimally honest (as it is, there is a lot of
horse-trading), but blind review seems rather pointless to me.
Work around it.
The function of the review of the literature is to show that you
know the relevant work by significant people in the field. It is
very much a sign of club membership, and not much more. Good
writers weave this into their theoretical discussion, otherwise
it is the theories you are actually going to use that count, not
general literature on the topic. It is really pointless to cite
things you aren't going to use, but it is expected and it is wise
to do so. Insightful theoretical discussion is the hallmark of
good researchers, but it is also hard to do well, and very hard
to do in a short space. Keep the theory section short; most
reviewers are not really interested, and few readers will be,
unless you are publishing in a theory-oriented journal. Make your
point, present your evidence (be selective, don't dump redundant
evidence on busy readers), make your point again, and stop.
Editors and readers will bless you.
Almost all articles which are accepted for publication require
revisions. Sometimes fairly extensive revisions. Regard this as
helpful, not as punitive. Articles to some degree reflect the
state of the field, not your personal opinions (put those on your
website!), and you should compromise with reviewers' suggestions.
Only those suggestions endorsed by the editor need to be taken
seriously; others are optional, do not follow those that would
unduly lengthen the article or lead you off-topic. Do take
seriously all points of misunderstanding; they arise not from
stupidity but from the inherent ambiguity of language. Rephrase
to reduce the chances of other readers' making the same
misinterpretation; sometimes you need to add a few key words to
sharpen the contextual cues for readers.
Once you have been published in a particular journal, you are
likely to have work accepted by that journal again in the future,
but probably not more than one article per year. It's a good idea
to cultivate two journals as your home base, and alternate
submissions to them.
If your manuscript is rejected, do not despair. Everybody gets
rejected, a lot, at the beginning of their careers. Why? Mainly
because you either have not followed the advice above, or because
you have not yet picked up the particular style and currently
fashionable discourses of the subject. Probably you just
submitted to the wrong journal or got the wrong pick of
reviewers. Read articles in the journal you are submitting to
before you finalize your manuscript. Try to lightly imitate the
general style and recurrent concerns and buzzwords; show that you
belong to the club.
Of course it is also possible that what you wrote is not
considered important enough for a first-rank journal. In every
field there is a hierarchy of journals. It is nearly impossible
to write a professionally executed research article with
empirical data in it that no one will publish. Take a look at
some of the useless and meaningless stuff that gets published in
the average journal. (Do you know that most journal articles are
never requested from libraries, and so far as we can tell are
never read by subscribers either? about one article per issue
actually matters to anyone). Your work cannot be worse than what
gets published by other people.
Make a list of journals in your area in rank order of prestige
(consult your mentors about this). Make a realistic judgment how
high to aim for the first time (usually number two or three for
new researchers, except maybe for the principal result of your
dissertation, which could make number one if well written). If
you are rejected at that level, work your way down the list.
Always revamp the manuscript slightly to pitch it to the
editorship, likely reviewers, and reader interests of that
journal.
You can send to more than one journal at the same time, but don't
get caught doing this. Editors and reviewers spend time and money
vetting your manuscript; even if they reject it, they don't want
to be wasting their time. If two editors send your near-identical
manuscripts to the same reviewer (not unlikely), you are in
trouble. Even a kindly reviewer cannot personally contact you to
warn you to withdraw one of the manuscripts; he or she is not
supposed to know who you are.
Don't put all your eggs in one basket. You should be planning and
writing lots of articles; some of them will be winners. Be very
careful however not to publish something that is really mediocre
early in your career, especially not in a widely read journal. It
can happen and it will do more harm than good for you.
Early in your career you will be pigeon-holed. People in the
field will associate you with a particular methodology or
research interest or theoretical approach. Be sure you are happy
with this because you may be stuck with that identification for
quite a while. Your first book is your opportunity to change it
if you're not happy with it. One or two articles will not do the
job.
If you can turn a phrase, invent catchy, but
sophisticated-sounding names for concepts or phenomena you write
about. If the name catches on, you will gain status in the field.
Some Important Journals in the fields in which I work:
These are journals in which people whose work interests me, particularly in discourse analysis and social semiotics, frequently publish. A great deal of the interesting work in these fields is also published in edited volumes as individual chapters by various researchers.