Image Credit: Dean Terry, Flickr CC BY-ND-2.0
I studied for the MSc Social Research Methods in 2012. My dissertation was a qualitative study of the impact of educational and vocational activities on homeless people’s everyday lives. I conducted semi-structured interviews and small scale participant observation at three homeless centres in London and I used thematic analysis to analyse my data. The findings highlight the importance of these activities in helping to restore homeless people’s self-efficacy, self-confidence and agency.
When I completed my MSc, my supervisor encouraged me to try and publish my dissertation. Thanks to her expertise and guidance, I began the rather daunting task of turning the dissertation into an academic paper (Iveson & Cornish, 2015). This is a long and sometimes difficult process but it is also extremely worthwhile and I would also encourage masters students to consider publishing.
I learned a lot whilst working on the article and I am now putting this knowledge to good use whilst I prepare my first PhD publication. I would suggest some key things to bear in mind when considering publication. My supervisor and I agreed to co-author the paper. This was an important decision for me. I had no experience in academic publishing and probably wouldn’t have had the confidence to take the dissertation any further without her support.
Firstly, identify a journal that ‘fits’ with your research and look at some of its recent publications and writing styles. Whereas a dissertation is writer-centred, a journal article needs to be punchy, reader-centred and argument-driven. Everything you include should be directly relevant to your argument so be prepared to be ruthless and trim or remove a lot of superfluous material whilst preserving the substance. This is not an easy task and I agonised over losing large chunks of my work that had taken me so long to write.
The publication process can take a long time – it took me just under 12 months (this could be a lot longer depending on the journal) from first submission to early view publication so be prepared to update any statistics you may have included. Make sure you critically engage fully with the relevant literature; again, you may need to review what has been published since you wrote your dissertation and include some new references. When reworking your paper, try and cite other authors who have also recently published in your chosen journal. This demonstrates an understanding of your particular field and will increase your credibility. Be prepared for disappointment and frustration if your article is rejected by a journal. It is also very rare not to be asked to revise and resubmit. However, reviewers’ comments ultimately improve the quality of your article and you should follow all the suggestions put forward by them and the editor (unless there is a very good reason not to). Have patience and persevere!
Finally, I would like to reflect on the impact of publishing. The research I undertook for my dissertation was with homeless people, a vulnerable and marginalised group, and I felt a strong responsibility to make the results public and accessible. In order to further disseminate my research and engage with non-academic audiences, I produced a report for the homeless centres I worked with and have now also circulated the finished article. I know from recent contact with one of the centres that they are under continued pressure from funding cuts and I feel that I have at least been able to provide them with some potentially useful research that may help them with their argument against these cuts.
Academic journals though often have a limited audience and I would be naïve to think that my article will have any immediate impact on homeless policy. However, getting published is important for other reasons; it is an indication of the quality of a piece of research and that the journal’s review board consider it will make a useful contribution to the literature. Publishing an article is a challenge, but a very rewarding one. It can build your reputation within your discipline and help you develop as both a writer and as a researcher. And when you finally get your article accepted, it is an amazing sense of achievement.
Mandie Iveson is a graduate of the MSc Social Research Methods, and is currently a PhD student at the University of Roehampton.
Iveson, M., and Cornish, F. (2015) Re-building Bridges: Homeless People’s Views on the Role of Vocational and Educational Activities in Their Everyday Lives. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, doi: 10.1002/casp.2262.
Thank you very much for your simple, honest, and detailed advise! I found it at the opportune time and will use the pointers to work on having my thesis published. Thanks again!
as say prof dr mircea orasanu here we havePeer review has a vital role to play in research and publishing and a key step in that process is the revision of your paper. However, knowing how to respond to reviewers’ comments isn’t always easy – get it right and you could see your paper published, get it wrong and it could mean rejection. So what can you do to increase your chances of success?
There’s plenty of room for improvement, says Imre Pázsit, Executive Editor of the Annals of Nuclear Energy and a Professor at Chalmers University of Technology in Göteborg, Sweden.
“Originally I thought the mistakes in authors’ responses were because of a lack of information on the journal website, or in the letter asking them to revise, but I think it’s actually more than that,” explains Professor Pázsit. “When early career researchers start publishing, they do so under the guidance of more senior researchers, who show them how to write a paper. Except this part – responding to reviewers’ comments – often gets left out.”
He thinks this aspect of the process needs to be systematically included in training for authors, like in our recent Publishing Connect webinar “How reviewers look at your paper”.
Professor Pázsit says: “It’s difficult to systematize manuscript writing in general, a bit like trying to explain how to compose music, but there should be training. Responding to reviews is a point missed by most people who provide professional training. I think there are a few main things that could make the work of editors and reviewers as effective as possible.”
You can disagree, as long as you explain
As an author, it can be difficult to read reviewers’ suggestions – after all, you have probably poured blood, sweat and tears into the manuscript. You might even have a knee-jerk reaction to defend your article.
According to Professor Pázsit, disagreement is fine – in fact, it is actually part of the process – but it’s important you can back it up. “The author may not agree with a comment – this is the essence of the scientific debate, a natural part of the business.”
Explaining why you disagree will help the reviewer and editor understand your point of view and ultimately help them make an informed decision about your paper. As Elsevier Executive Publisher Dr. Jaap van Harten advises, “don’t fall into the trap of writing to the editor to say that the reviewer is crazy, or incompetent. Make it a factual response. You should have a complete, solid and polite rebuttal to the editor. Write in such a manner that your responsecan be forwarded to the reviewer – editors love copy pasting.”
Furtherreading:
Howto submit and revise a paper
PeerReview: the nuts and Bolts (a publication bySense About Science)
Respondingto a reviewer – Academia Stack Exchange
Reviewers’home on Elsevier.com
How reviewers look at your paper – your top 9 questions answered
Spell it out
“The main mistake I see in authors’ responses to reviewers’ comments is in what I call the ‘ergonomy’ of the information – how well it’s described to the editors and reviewers,” says Professor Pázsit. “The editors and reviewers don’t have time to check the new draft line by line and find the author’s changes.”
According to Dr. van Harten, the simplest way to ensure your responses are informative is to “copy paste each reviewer comment, and type your response below it. If you do so, you should be very specific. So if the reviewer says ‘the discussion section is not clear’, it’s not enough to say ‘we changed the discussion section’. What you should say is ‘we changed the discussion section on page 24, lines 7-23’. That makes it clear to the editor what you have changed, and when it goes back to the reviewer, the reviewer sees it immediately and you create a win-win situation”.
Don’t forget to make the changes
One of the biggest mistakes made by authors is to respond to all the comments, but forget to actually update the paper.
Good advice on how NOT to be an academic when you finish your PhD is pretty thin on the ground. Many supervisors have never done anything else, and/or are not well enough connected with industry to know what is ‘hot’. Careers centres at universities tend to shape their offerings around the huge undergraduate cohort, who have very different needs.
The good performance
it is well understood
This is really useful thanks. Just about to finish my dissertation for my MSc and am already thinking ahead to a paper and don’t want to lose momentum.