Insiders guide to getting published

Editor's Notes

• #3: Emerald Group Publishing – company background Emerald Group Publishing began in 1967 when a group of academics from Bradford Management Centre, dissatisfied with the publishing outlets at the time, decided to start up their own business which focused on niched management disciplines such as strategy, change management, and international marketing. The company has come a long way since then and now employs over 160 people in Bradford with regional offices in the USA, Malaysia, Australia and Japan, China and India. Back in 1996 the company launched its Emerald Fulltext Database – an online collection of over 100 journals. In 2005 we launched Emerald Management Xtra – a product developed for business schools, with the help of business schools, which not only services libraries, but also offers lots of resources for authors, researchers, students, faculty, alumni and managers. This year Emerald moved in to book publishing, with the acquisition of series and books from Elsevier. This brings Emerald into a new and exciting publishing medium and more diverse subject areas. However, if the name Emerald is not familiar to you, then you may know us indirectly from some of our journal titles such as: Management Decision European Journal of Marketing International Journal of Operations & Production Management Journal of Documentation Journal of Knowledge Management Assembly Automation As an academic publisher, we are: international; inclusive (we have a philosophy of theory and practice, rigour and relevance); supportive of scholarly research and its processes; and focused on improving author, reader and customer experiences – the reason I am here today.
• #4: The Emerald portfolio In our portfolio we have more than 160 business and management journals, 28 titles on library and the information sciences and 16 titles in engineering and materials science. 39 these journals are Thomson Scientific (ISI)-ranked and all have a peer-review system appropriate to the journal – largely double blind peer review (Are you all aware of what double blind peer review means?). The only exceptions are the few newsletters and chatty professional magazines we publish. As well as Emerald Management Xtra, our online resources include Emerald Management Reviews (independent reviews of the top 400 management journals in the world), the award-winning Emerald Management First – a portal for practising managers that provides concise, practitioner articles, case studies, interviews, and access to some of our practitioner-focused journals, and Emerald Abstracts (three abstracting & indexing databases give you instant access to article abstracts of the world's leading civil engineering, computer science and computer & communications security collections – over 250,000 articles!). Our online resources greatly increase the dissemination of all our authors’ work world-wide. 97 of the world’s top 100 business schools are our customers. This means that a paper has a potential readership of 15 million people.
• #6: Research you can use So, how do we help make a difference? These four main areas. Diagram: These three areas don’t exist in isolation – they intersect. Sometimes eg during an MBA program in a physical way (public sector/corporate students in an HE setting). Emerald aims to support and contribute to the interaction between these areas – publishing material which speaks to the various communities and working with organisations that share these goals.
• #8: Editorial supply chain and journal management structure: journals Now, the editorial supply chain. This is probably obvious, but is perhaps worth looking at, just to ensure that you know what happens to your paper once it has left your desktop. These are the people who take your paper from your PC to the finished journal and make it available on a library shelf or database. The first stage of the chain is, of course, the authors who submit their work to the journal. The Editor who is responsible for: sourcing new papers and working with the authors; liaising with the EAB to ensure an effective vetting of the papers; attending conferences; and networking and promoting the journal to his or her peers. The publisher, employed by the publishing company, is the direct link between the publishing company and the Editor. Their aim is to help the Editor succeed in turning their title into an internationally recognised journal. At Emerald they work with the Editor to create long-term development plans for each journal and also attend conferences with a view to raising the profile of the journals. They also liaise closely with the sales and marketing departments in order to identify opportunities for promotion. Day-to-day, publishers are responsible for ensuring that journal issues come in from the Editor and are passed to the production department in time to meet the schedule deadlines. From the publisher an issue of a journal will pass through a Quality Assurance process before being converted into SGML/XML formats for the databases and into hard copy for despatch. As with the peer-review process, this is another area where a publisher will add value to your work. Each article is tagged, which makes it searchable within databases and the QA department will correct typographical errors, and inconsistencies within your article. Finally, we come to the users who access Emerald papers in different ways. This could be through a printed copy of the journal, via a database on the internet, or as part of a third-party service (such as Proquest) which has an arrangement with us to host our content. Although your article will be published in a specific journal, it will usually be found and read via a search across a database. All of this then comes back full-circle to you, our authors who, more often than not, are also our users and readers. Ultimately the articles that Emerald publishes feed directly back into the body of research and assist in furthering other researchers, authors and faculty members.
• #9: Timetable from submission to initial feedback to authors This slide helps to show what exactly happens to the paper following submission. It helps to explain why it can take 3-3.5 months before an author gets feedback from first review!
• #10: Being published means … I now move on to the part of the workshop in which I expect you are most interested – the things you need to consider for publishing success. Before I do though, I have to stress that nothing I am about to say will come as a surprise. It is all very simple and really just common sense. However, just because it’s all so simple may mean that you overlook something that then causes your paper to be rejected. I hope that you will be able to take away at least one or two new ideas that will help you improve your writing and submissions for publication. But why go through a publisher in the first place? What does it mean to be published? Your material is permanent, once published - and will have a place within the “body of knowledge”. It will always be there for future research. This is particularly important when you bear in mind the fact that many of the articles that are downloaded from the Emerald Fulltext database are not from current volumes, but from previous ones. In fact, our most downloaded article was published in 1994 [a marketing paper by Christian Grönroos] and that has been downloaded over 20,000 times (From Marketing Mix to Relationship Marketing: Towards a Paradigm Marketing Shift, Christian Grönroos, Management Decision, Vol 32, No 2, 1994) Emerald is also part of the LOCKSS programme (Lots Of Copy Keep Stuff Safe). Even if we go bust tomorrow, or all our own databases and back-ups fail completely, all our content will still be available to libraries worldwide via LOCKSS. Your paper is improved through the interventions of the reviewers, especially if revision is required, and the careful checking and corrections by the sub-editors and proof-readers. And, finally, your paper is promoted through the journal’s name and the databases to a much wider audience. Being published means that your material is trustworthy – someone apart from you thinks that it is good. Other influential people, such as the editor and the reviewers in your field, think that it is worthy of publication. Reviewers are subject specialists, with whom you normally may not have the opportunity to share your research and findings. Their comments should be viewed not as criticism but as constructive feedback on how to improve and refine your work, and so contribute more effectively to the body of knowledge.
• #11: Ideas: where to start What are you going to write? Authors are people like you! Authors can be at the beginning of their academic careers like many of you in this room who are undertaking research degrees. Authors may be more senior and experienced and may have been published many times. However, what all authors have in common is that they all have a very particular story to tell, be it from a Doctoral or a Master’s thesis, a project or a research problem. Emerald also encourages authors from the world of business – perhaps they’ve been working as an advisor, research collaborator or consultant. Whatever the stimulus you have the basis for a publishable paper.
• #12: Target! This is about targeting the paper and finding the right journal. The single most common cause of failure in getting published is not selecting the right journal! Having done all the hard work in writing up the research and getting the paper as close to publication as possible many authors fail at this point. When selecting a journal, do your homework. You have spent all this time getting your paper as near to perfection as possible – do not rush this part. Do not just look at a journal title, dig a little deeper. For example, you may have a 1,500-word case study on information systems in a major company that looks ideal for a journal, only to find that it does not accept short, practitioner-oriented papers. Journals usually have very tight requirements for the papers they publish. The more highly thought of the journal, the more strict the editor can afford to be. Be realistic – the journal that everyone wants to publish in may have a very high rejection rate simply because they cannot possibly publish all comers, the quality of paper notwithstanding. For example, the British Medical Journal has a rejection rate of about 95%.
• #13: Author guidelines Author guidelines are your best guide and you must read them. They can usually be found on a publisher’s web site or in a copy of the journal and will give you the journal’s subject scope, its aims, desired length of paper and the sort of papers for which it is looking. Also, do not forget to read the submission process – this may sound obvious but I can promise you that many hundreds of submissions each year do not follow submission guidance. If the Editor wants electronic submissions, do not send hard copy. If they want two copies of the paper, do not send just one. Although it is highly unlikely that your paper will be rejected on such grounds, you want to make the process as smooth as possible for all parties, as this will certainly increase your chances. It will certainly speed up the process. If you are still unsure about whether your paper will be right for a particular journal, then send an abstract of the paper to the Editor to see if the article is of interest. Their contact details will be published in the journal and on the website. Visit your library, read an issue of the journal. These particular author guidelines are included in full at the end of the handouts. You will see just how pernickety a publisher and editor can be.
• #14: What do editors and their reviewers look for? I think perhaps this is the most important slide I’ve prepared for today. I have listed 8 points on this slide – many of which can make or break your chances of having your paper accepted. Editors will supply their reviewers with clear instructions as to what to look out for in any paper they are asked to review. These criteria will normally comprise some or all of these factors. Usually a reviewer will complete a document ticking off the requirements and listing the missing factors or problems for the editor. Your paper should have something new to say. It should refer to and relate to what has gone before, correctly citing and acknowledging others’ work. If a research paper, the methodology should be clear so that any conclusions can be assessed and validated. The paper has to communicate well – employ a clear structure, use sensible headings to break up the text, avoid undue repetition, use short rather than long involved sentences, spell out acronyms in the first instance and don’t include illustrations and appendices, etc. unless they are essential for meaning. A reviewer’s time is given freely and is precious – they don’t want to waste time trying to understand what someone is nearly but not quite saying. They also don’t want to read something that is twice as long as it need be. You don’t get extra brownie points for spinning it out!! Everyone already has too much to read. Be logical in your discussion. Let it be clear how you are building up your case. Try to include the “so what” factors. For example, what might your work mean to the systems engineer? What are the implications for future research? References should be complete, accurate, recent and relevant. You need to demonstrate that you have taken on board all the recent work in the field. And last but by no means least (and repeating what I have already said) you must be absolutely sure your paper fits within the journal’s editorial scope and objectives.
• #15: Some essentials of a research paper We categorise papers by type. For example we talk about case studies, research papers, view points, theoretical or discursive papers, etc. but today I am concentrating on research papers – those that arise from original research. To ensure that a research paper meets most of the editors’ and reviewers’ requirements listed in the last slide it’s important that all this information is clearly spelled out: tell them why you wrote the paper, what is new about it. Tell them what you set out to do. Outline the methodology used for collecting the data – why you chose that method and how it worked. Include questionnaires, detailed data collection, etc. as Appendices so that it’s there if needed but isn’t part of the main text. It’s important to identify any research limitations. The fact that something didn’t work out quite as expected, didn’t give the anticipated result or was based on a limited sample is very important. Double check that you have read all the pertinent literature and have referred to it correctly. Be careful not to use someone else’s words as your own. Plagiarism is a growing concern for both academia and the publishing industry. We all use, or are considering using, plagiarism detection software now (in fact Emerald was the first international publisher to make all its content freely available to an anti-Plagiarism company – i-Thenticate, who run turnitin.com in the UK). From 25 September 2006, the Turnitin service will be expanded to include Emerald content. This innovative move reinforces Emerald’s proactive stance on plagiarism, and ensures that Emerald content continues to maintain its high standard of integrity.  Additionally, Emerald now has five iThenticate licenses to allow its editors to verify that articles submitted for publication are free from plagiarism and do not duplicate previously published work.  More details at: http://info.emeraldinsight.com/about/news/archive.htm?id=31 Take great pains with your referencing – ensure you have provided all the detail so that a source can be located, use a recognized style and do include all of them. The findings and discussion should clearly lead to sound conclusions.
• #16: Emerald has introduced structured abstracts One of the most common problems that Editors and reviewers have is quickly ascertaining what an article is about. From experience, it is not unusual to have to read through the whole thing to get to what the paper is about. This is where an honest well-written abstract comes in to its own. What you need to remember is that not everyone who sees this article is going to be as knowledgeable about the subject as you are. A busy Editor is not going to want to read an entire article when deciding whether it is suitable for the journal and it is the editor who usually makes that initial decision as to whether to proceed with review or reject outright. Submissions are absolutely vital to journals and we do not want to turn any potential author away – but we need the author’s help! Therefore take the time to prepare a proper abstract. A good abstract will help all concerned. At Emerald we recognise the need for clear, concise abstracts and have recently copied the practice of medical and clinical researchers and have introduced our own form of structured abstracts. Using no more than 250 words and using these six sub-headings all authors are required to write an abstract. (1) Purpose – aims of the research? Why write the paper? (2) Design – or methodology or approach (3) Findings – what were the main results? (4) Research limitations/implications – where should the research go after this or what needs to change in the method (5) Practical implications – of what value is this in practice? Do the “so what?” test. (6) Originality/value – this is critical. How does your research add to the body of knowledge? What is its value in this context? You could use these headings to create an extremely useful abstract for any journal. Writing one forces you to pick out the key issues that matter. Once published, a clear and informative abstract makes a user want to click through to the Fulltext article. In an electronic environment the abstract is often all a reader or researcher will see until they pay their money. They may go no further if the abstract doesn’t tell them clearly what is in the paper. The abstract sells your article to the Editor or the reader. This will be the first, and sometimes the only, thing they see, so make sure that you are clear, honest, concise and have covered all the major points.
• #17: Some key questions Now before you submit the final paper, there are five key questions you should ask yourself. Whilst self-critical review is probably one of the hardest things to do, once you have mastered the art, it can be one of the most beneficial steps. Ask yourself these questions? Answer as honestly as possible: (1) Is the article readable? Does it communicate with the audience? Don’t forget that not all readers will be subject experts. Try to minimise jargon. Do not over-simplify your article but try to keep it as straightforward as possible. (2) Is it original? This is another common failure – being original is of course what you are all searching for. Finding that angle and exposing it will give you the advantage. (3) Credibility – Is the methodology robust? Is it clear? Could it be replicated? (4) Applicability – How can your new research be used? What are the practical applications? This is another shortcoming of many papers – great, but what does it mean? How will it change the way we work? What does it do for us? Where should future avenues of research go? (5) Internationality – In a global economy domestic papers are less appealing. Most publishers are international ... most authors and EABs are international. If your work is local, think how it could be applied or adapted for an international audience.
• #18: Your own peer review Another useful step prior to publication is to conduct your own peer review. Let others see your work or give it to someone who is not a subject expert and see how it reads. Ask for honest criticism and try to accept what is said, even if it is not what you want to hear. After all, the end result will be a far superior paper. We are always TOO close to our own work to see its failings. Our sub-editors and proof-readers NEVER receive a perfect paper. You will look at your paper over and over again but there will be an error that will elude you. Yet the guy in the next desk will spot it straight away. Check your figures – do they add up, include a note if you have rounded them up. Read and re-read your paper for typos – at the very least run your paper through a computer spell-checker but don’t rely on it.
• #19: Improve electronic dissemination I mentioned before how the electronic environment and dissemination impacts on an author but I cannot stress how important this is! I offer the following tips: (1) Use short but descriptive titles containing the main keywords/topics. Less is definitely more in this respect! We have seen some of 20-30 words which often won’t fit in the fields provided for them in databases. Be descriptive – remember, people are more likely to find your paper if the title accurately describes its content. Amusing titles can backfire e.g. a paper on scheduling but entitled “The cart before the horse” may only ever be accessed by students at an agricultural college! See also (From Marketing Mix to Relationship Marketing: Towards a Paradigm Marketing Shift Christian Grönroos, Management Decision, Vol 32, No 2 1994), our most downloaded paper ever. Yes, it is a seminal paper, but it also contains “marketing” in the title three times and numerous times in the abstract and keywords. It comes up first in most searches for articles about marketing!!! (2) The better the title and the abstract, the greater the chance of your article being read online. This is very important, as more people will see your article via electronic databases than via any other medium. When confronted with a list of 300 relevant article abstracts which are they going to pick? Just remember your own “Google behaviour”. (3) Choose five to six broad but relevant keywords that accurately describe your paper – the better the keywords, the more likely it is that your paper will be found by users searching the database. Don’t make up new terms for the ideas in your paper – if you do your paper may well disappear down a proverbial black hole. (4) Complete and correct references will aid reference linking. It just doesn’t do to make errors in citing others’ work. The electronic environment has made it both easier to commit plagiarism and to detect it so it’s even more important to make correct attributions.
• #20: Revising It is understandable that you may not see a request for revision as good news, but rest assured that it really is! You have made it - you are now in the publishing cycle. Editors and reviewers will not request a revision unless they genuinely think that the paper is right for the journal. Do not forget that nearly every published paper is revised at least once. Authors are asked to revise their work right through their careers – honestly, it’s not just the newcomers! And do not be discouraged if reviewer comments are sharp or blunt. Bear in mind that these are very busy people and the comments are not personal, particularly as most journals operate a blind peer-review system.
• #22: How to revise your paper This now gives you an opportunity to enter into dialogue with the Editor about your paper. First, acknowledge the Editor and set a revision deadline, which you must then keep. If you are unsure about any of the comments do not be afraid to ask and, if you disagree with any, then say so (although give good reasons why you do not think a change is necessary). Clarify your understanding to avoid wasting any of your time. You should work on the comments, one by one and with the help of colleagues, as this will vastly increase your chances of acceptance. When complete, send the paper back with a covering letter that clearly states what revisions were requested and how you addressed each point (if you can provide specific page numbers, even better!).
• #23: If your paper is rejected Whilst no one likes rejection, do not see it as the end of the line. The reviewer or Editor comments should give you the information you need to strengthen the weak areas of the paper. Ask for reasons if they are not immediately forthcoming. Do not forget that there are hundreds of other journals out there, so you can always re-submit to another journal. Go back to those author guidelines, re-read your paper and make sure that you really have found the right fit. Most importantly – keep at it!! At least 50 per cent of papers in business and management do not get published and everybody has been rejected once. It is hard, but try not to take it personally or be so discouraged that you don’t try again. Keep trying.
• #25: Beyond authorship As well as writing articles for Emerald there are other opportunities to get involved in the world of scholarly publishing. These can bring all sorts of additional benefits, as well as enhancing your status and allowing you to keep up to date with key developments in your discipline it offers the opportunity to make a contribution to your field of research and build a network of peers around the globe.
• #26: Thank you. Any questions? This concludes my presentation. I hope that I have given you an insight into academic publishing and maybe even provided you with some tips and thoughts to help you achieve your publishing goals. Thank you for your time and wishing you all publishing success in the future. Finally, please take the time to fill in the feedback form provided – we need your help to provide the best help possible for new authors.