Publishing your paper

Transcription

1 Publishing your paper Stan du Plessis Department of Economics University of Stellenbosch October 2012

2 Introduction So it s written, now what? History and purpose of peer-reviewed papers The process is not infallible What do we know about the peer review process? The potential responses by editors and how to react

3 So it s written, now what?

4 Publishing Academic research and writing imply the publication of the material Once you ve written the paper you have to formulate a publication strategy Sometimes that will be given, e.g. when the paper was commissioned More frequently you will have to identify an appropriate journal, with the right audience and where you can realistically hope to publish BEFORE YOU TRY TO PUBLISH YOUR PAPER SEND IT TO A GOOD EDITOR

5 Strategy It is useful to think strategically about publishing Start by presenting the paper at seminars and conferences and identify the strongest objections. Fix those problems Submit your paper to a working paper series Make a list of appropriate journals for your paper and do your homework on their editorial policies Rank the journals in order of preference Then submit to the top journal on your list, working your way down if rejected

6 Diversify It is a good idea to be involved in a number of projects at different stages of completion This way some of your papers will be under review, some under revision, some being published and others still in draft form If you do this you will not be belayed by the vagaries of the publications process, or by co-authors This is very hard to achieve outside research teams

7 History and purpose of peer-reviewed papers

8 The Royal Society invented peer reviewing and scientific publishing Founded in 1660 in London

9 The purpose of peer reviewing The historical link with the Royal Society helps us to see the purpose of peer reviewing: It is about assisting and promoting the accumulation of useful knowledge The role of the peer is to judge whether the proposed publication adds to our existing body of knowledge and whether it is presented accessibly The primary question is: what do we learn from this that we had not already known? The Royal Society supposed that (mainly) scholarly peers could judge this 9

10 Recent developments in peer reviewing Some associations are abandoning double-blind peer reviewing The arguments are: Double-blind has become impractical Transparency is required to audit conflicts of interest 10

11 The process is not infallible

12 All s well that ends well In 2001 George Akerlof received the Nobel memorial prize in economics for his paper on asymmetric information in the used car market Akerlof, G. A. (1970). "The market for 'Lemons'." Quarterly Journal of Economics 84(3): How was this paper judged by the referees of scholarly journals?

13 American Economic Review *Source: Akerlof, G. A. (2006). "Writing the "Market for 'Lemons'": a personal and interpretive essay." from nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2001/akerlof-article.html.

14 American Economic Review By June of 1967 the paper was ready and I sent it to The American Economic Review for publication. *Source: Akerlof, G. A. (2006). "Writing the "Market for 'Lemons'": a personal and interpretive essay." from nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2001/akerlof-article.html.

15 American Economic Review By June of 1967 the paper was ready and I sent it to The American Economic Review for publication. Fairly shortly into my stay there, I received my first rejection letter from The American Economic Review. *Source: Akerlof, G. A. (2006). "Writing the "Market for 'Lemons'": a personal and interpretive essay." from nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2001/akerlof-article.html.

16 American Economic Review By June of 1967 the paper was ready and I sent it to The American Economic Review for publication. Fairly shortly into my stay there, I received my first rejection letter from The American Economic Review. The editor explained that the Review did not publish papers on subjects of such triviality... no referee reports were include * *Source: Akerlof, G. A. (2006). "Writing the "Market for 'Lemons'": a personal and interpretive essay." from nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2001/akerlof-article.html.

17 Review of Economic Studies *Source: Akerlof, G. A. (2006). "Writing the "Market for 'Lemons'": a personal and interpretive essay." from nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2001/akerlof-article.html.

18 Review of Economic Studies Michael Farrell, an editor of The Review of Economic Studies, had visited Berkeley in , and had urged me to submit Lemons to The Review, but he had also been quite explicit in giving no guarantees. *Source: Akerlof, G. A. (2006). "Writing the "Market for 'Lemons'": a personal and interpretive essay." from nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2001/akerlof-article.html.

19 Review of Economic Studies Michael Farrell, an editor of The Review of Economic Studies, had visited Berkeley in , and had urged me to submit Lemons to The Review, but he had also been quite explicit in giving no guarantees. I submitted Lemons there, *Source: Akerlof, G. A. (2006). "Writing the "Market for 'Lemons'": a personal and interpretive essay." from nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2001/akerlof-article.html.

20 Review of Economic Studies Michael Farrell, an editor of The Review of Economic Studies, had visited Berkeley in , and had urged me to submit Lemons to The Review, but he had also been quite explicit in giving no guarantees. I submitted Lemons there,...which was again rejected on the grounds that the The Review did not publish papers on topics of such triviality. * *Source: Akerlof, G. A. (2006). "Writing the "Market for 'Lemons'": a personal and interpretive essay." from nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2001/akerlof-article.html.

21 Journal of Political Economy *Source: Akerlof, G. A. (2006). "Writing the "Market for 'Lemons'": a personal and interpretive essay." from nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2001/akerlof-article.html.

22 Journal of Political Economy I sent Lemons to the Journal of Political Economy, which sent me two referee reports, carefully argued as to why I was incorrect *Source: Akerlof, G. A. (2006). "Writing the "Market for 'Lemons'": a personal and interpretive essay." from nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2001/akerlof-article.html.

23 Journal of Political Economy I sent Lemons to the Journal of Political Economy, which sent me two referee reports, carefully argued as to why I was incorrect After all, eggs of different grades were sorted and sold, as were other agricultural commodities. If this paper was correct, then no goods could be traded (an exaggeration of the claims of the paper). *Source: Akerlof, G. A. (2006). "Writing the "Market for 'Lemons'": a personal and interpretive essay." from nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2001/akerlof-article.html.

24 Journal of Political Economy I sent Lemons to the Journal of Political Economy, which sent me two referee reports, carefully argued as to why I was incorrect After all, eggs of different grades were sorted and sold, as were other agricultural commodities. If this paper was correct, then no goods could be traded (an exaggeration of the claims of the paper). Besides and this was the killer if this paper was correct, economics would be different. * *Source: Akerlof, G. A. (2006). "Writing the "Market for 'Lemons'": a personal and interpretive essay." from nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2001/akerlof-article.html.

25 Quarterly Journal of Economics I may have despaired, but I did not give up. I sent the paper off to the Quarterly Journal of Economics,... where it was accepted * It became a more or less instant classic And in 2001 Akerlof won the nobel prize, largely for that paper *Source: Akerlof, G. A. (2006). "Writing the "Market for 'Lemons'": a personal and interpretive essay." from nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2001/akerlof-article.html.

26 What do we know about the peer review process?

27 Papers on peer reviewing Hamermesh, D. S. (1994). "Facts and myths about refereeing." Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(1): Martin, B. (2008). "Surviving referees' reports." Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2008(April):

28 Peer reviews Peer reviewing has been central to the scientific era But is not infallible: There is suspicion of home-bias even in leading journals Many famous papers (especially when innovative) were initially rejected There are concerns over power, inequality and gate-keepers

29 Who are chosen as referees? Hamermesh (1994) reports on a survey of referees in Economics journals: Referees were: highly cited, with average age of 45, with no gender bias, are often involved with the journal as authors, or often affiliated with the institution hosting the journal Papers sent to the highest ranked journals are refereed by authors with the highest citations (with interesting implications for the final paper) The referee process is slow, though most referees who submit reports work fairly quickly *Source: Hamermesh, D. S. (1994). "Facts and myths about refereeing." Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(1):

30 The tone of referee reports DON T be upset by the tone of a referee report: These reports are often written in haste Remember that the referee is expected to judge the quality of the paper. Regrettably, a referee might think that a strongly worded report will create the impression that she had done her work thoroughly If you are inexperienced, ask a more experience colleague to help you understand what the referees probably meant

31 Sometimes referees will go crazy Dit is soos die rooi lipstiffie van n straatvrou opgeplak en goedkoop tiperend van n onderrok wat uithang.

32 The potential responses by editors and how to react

33 Possible outcomes Paper is rejected (with no comments) Paper is rejected (with referee reports raising points of criticism) Revise and resubmit (with referee reports raising points of criticism) Special case: the never-ending revise and resubmit Conditional accept (with referee reports raising some of criticism or clarification) Unconditional accept

34 Start with the worst case

35 Paper is rejected (with no comments) Of course you will feel discouraged Don t take any immediate decisions about the paper After a day or two (or a week) you can try to uncover the reason for the rejection It was the wrong journal: then you need to find an appropriate journal The paper was inadequate: you now have to decide whether you can fix it or drop it The editor made a mistake: then you need to find another journal

36 When should you cut your losses Sometimes a paper cannot be saved This should not be an emotional decision. A better procedure is the following: You already have the referee s opinion Ask a colleague or two for their frank assessments Use your judgment (and compare it to other papers you ve published) If your colleagues and your own judgement support the editor s view, then it is time to move on Don t forget the lesson about sunk-costs you learnt in economics

37 Paper is rejected (with comments) You will still feel very discouraged But now you have something to work with If you think the paper has potential then consider the referees comments If these comments are sensible then respond to them Ignore them if they are irrelevant, e.g. To be quite frank, any business cycle analysis outside a microfounded Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) framework (explicitly accounting for demand, supply and policy shocks) makes very little sense to me. You might have chosen the wrong journal (look at the acceptance rate) If so, then submit the paper as quickly as possible to an alternative journal

38 Can you appeal? If your paper was rejected by (i) a single referee and (ii) you are convinced that the referee had misunderstood your paper, then you can ask for a reconsideration It is possible (though not likely) that the editor will then reassign the paper to a new referee You have a far better chance if the editor s letter indicated sympathy for your side of a disagreement with the referee. This might be the signal that the editor is keen to re-assign the paper to a tie-breaker In this case you should respond after dealing as thoroughly as possible with the useful criticisms raised by the referee

39 Revise and resubmit (with referee reports raising points of criticism) There is still a risk of dejection here When you can assess the reports calmly you need to decide whether it is worthwhile to respond to the criticisms Remember that revise and resubmit is the least costly answer for a referee, and might not mean that the paper will eventually pass If you you think you can respond to the comments, then do so very thoroughly (and keep precise record of how you responded) Report these changes in a very thorough letter to the editor and referees. This letter can hardly be too long and must start by thanking the editor and referees The list of responses should be sorted by referee

40 How not to respond: Your paper ignored relevant literature: do not respond by including a reference to a survey paper with a comment literature X is surveyed in Mankiw (2002) Something is wrong with your application: Do not reply others have done it too or if I don t do it the wrong way, my model doesn t work Your choice of method or model is criticized: Do not respond with a shrug, e.g. there are difference of opinion on this, or this is the model I m looking at...etc

41 Managing the process of revision It is useful to make a list of the points that require attention Write down a short answer to each point. You should be able to see where more work (even fundamental work) is needed, and where the required response is trivial You can contest points raised by the referee, but be VERY sure of your case

42 Special case: the never-ending revise and resubmit If your paper has gone through a number of rounds of revise and resubmit then you have to consider the likelihood that it will never pass at that particular journal You should seriously consider switching to another journal A clear sign is when the goal post are shifting This should be weighed against the widespread experience that a resubmission has a better chance of early publication than a new submission at an equivalent journal

43 The never-ending revise and resubmit, July 2003 to November 2011

44 The never-ending revise and resubmit, July 2003 to November 2011

45 The never-ending revise and resubmit, July 2003 to November 2011

46 The never-ending revise and resubmit, July 2003 to November 2011

47 Really good outcomes

48 Conditional accept (with referee reports raising some of criticism or clarification) This should be the cause of celebration; you are almost there Attend to the remaining points as soon as possible (though thoroughly) and return the paper Wait for the good news

49 Unconditional accept

50 Unconditional accept Read the letter again to make sure that you are not mistaken

51 Unconditional accept Read the letter again to make sure that you are not mistaken If you are mistaken, go to the earlier slides

52 Unconditional accept Read the letter again to make sure that you are not mistaken If you are mistaken, go to the earlier slides If you really did get an unconditional accept, invite your friends to dinner and start celebrating

53 Unconditional accept Read the letter again to make sure that you are not mistaken If you are mistaken, go to the earlier slides If you really did get an unconditional accept, invite your friends to dinner and start celebrating Don t worry; you will not be bankrupted as there are very few unconditional accepts

54 tweede pouse