about your research is one thing but knowing how to write an article
for publication in a peer reviewed journal is quite another. From his
perspective as a journal editor, Hugh McLaughlin offers
some helpful tips and insights, ranging from demonstrating your
familiarity with your chosen journal and what it has published to the
importance of paying attention to the ‘heavy lifting’.
often at the same time. Most of us know where and when is our best time
to write but perversely this is often one of the most difficult times
for us to find time to write. Writing is not merely a technical activity
but an emotional one as it sets out our position on an issue, our
standpoint on a debate and our claim to being an author or academic.
This is especially so in peer reviewed journals where your work is
likely to be assessed by two unknown peers, which can result in a painful reviews.
Once published, your views cannot be retracted, they are there for all
time for others to view and judge. However, if you wish to be considered
as a serious academic, want to secure tenure, promotion or be submitted
to the next Research Excellence Framework, being published is
have something to write about. The good news is that journals will
accept a wide range of submissions including articles based on research,
theoretical or conceptual pieces, a case study or even a reflective
piece based on your practical or academic experience. You might want to
consider some key questions: does your article contribute new knowledge?
Does it offer a unique way to address a social problem or policy
dilemma? Will it have implications for practice? Considering these
questions and being able to answer in the affirmative is likely to
increase your chances of publication.
Image credit: Quill by rachaelvoorhees. This work is licensed under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license.
remember that each paragraph and page is only a draft. You can change it
later, nothing is fixed until the article is submitted. Don’t
procrastinate over that perfect first sentence; don’t even get stuck
writing in paragraphs if that inhibits you. You can always come back and
correct them later. It is useful at this stage to have identified the
journal you wish to submit to. Be clear about the journal’s focus,
article word limit and referencing style. It is also wise to check
whether it has published an article in your area in recent issues; if it
has, be sure to reference it. Editors like to see that potential
authors are aware of the journal and its content. Reviewers will comment
on these things along with grammar, spelling, structure, and matters of
publication ethics. Most journals ask reviewers to provide comments on a
fixed set of questions, often including the manuscript’s relevance to
the field, whether it is conceptually sound and rigorous, makes a
significant contribution to knowledge and is accessible to an
international audience. It can be very helpful to ask some colleagues to
act as critical friends to read the paper and provide comments for you
important to follow accepted standards and whilst there are a number of
guidelines for quantitative articles (e.g. PRISMA and CONSORT-SPI)
there are fewer guidelines for qualitative manuscripts. This can lead
to difficulties in assessing the rigour and validity of the research.
Some suggestions that might help you with qualitative articles include:
- Know your methodological literature and its epistemological traditions
- Ensure integrity of design, according to the assumptions and rules relating to your epistemological perspective
- Be consistent – once you have identified your philosophical position, stay there
- Align the various pieces into a coherent and well-synthesised whole
- Rigour is generated from the integrity of the overall design.
these, one of the most important things you can do is pay attention to
the ‘heavy lifting’. The three key heavy lifting areas for authors to
address are: focus, infusion and musing. Focus refers to the
crafting of a literature review to support and justify the choices for
the study. Infusion refers to the infusion of theory into the
manuscript, providing readers with new ways of provoking discussion,
challenge and applications to practice. It was noted in our recent publication
that “articles that are theoretically strong receive the most
citations”. Lastly, musing refers to making interesting and useful
connections not only to theory and/or practice but also to social policy
and lived experiences. Manuscripts that convey passion and compassion,
are free from hyperbole, speak with authority and have engaged with the
heavy lifting are most likely to be successful.
against standard categories ranging from immediate accept, accept with
minor revisions, accept with major revisions, revise and resubmit (also
known as reject and resubmit) and reject. What we all want is to see our
manuscript be immediately accepted but this very rare on first
submission and is likely to take two or three revisions. Accept with
either minor revisions or major revisions is a good result. A decision
of revise and resubmit is common and means that the article is within
the focus of the journal but requires major work to bring it up to a
publishable standard. This is not a rejection and gives you the
opportunity to revise your paper.
is important to read and consider these carefully. Remember, these are
provided in the spirit of addressing weaknesses and improving your
article. Respond to each reviewer separately showing how you have
addressed the points they have raised. This does not mean you have to
agree with all comments but you must treat them seriously and offer a
reasoned argument in response to those you may disagree with.
face comes when your prized article is rejected. It is probably worth
remembering that this happens to everyone at some stage of his or her
career. If rejected outright it cannot be resubmitted to that journal.
Rejection might happen because you submitted to the wrong journal,
offered little original to the body of knowledge or for myriad other
reasons. Consider the reviewers’ comments and also ask a trusted
colleague to review the article for you. You may want to consider
putting the manuscript aside for a period so that in time you may gain a
fresh perspective on it, consider how it can be improved and where you
can resubmit it.
magic wand; it takes time, effort and perspiration but it is a wonderful
feeling when you get that email with ‘accepted’ in the decision column!
the author, and not the position of the LSE Impact Blog, nor of the
London School of Economics. Please review our comments policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.
is Professor of Social Work at Manchester Metropolitan University and
Editor–in-Chief of Social Work Education: the International Journal.
Prior to entering academia he was a social worker and manager for 22
years. Hugh’s key research interests include service user involvement in
social work education and research, critical professional practice and
safeguarding. When not working Hugh enjoys running and scuba diving –
preferably in warm waters!
Impact of Social Sciences – How to increase your likelihood of publishing in peer reviewed journals