Writing for Publication: Transitions and Tools that Support Scholars’ Success - Mary Renck Jalongo, Olivia N. Saracho 2016

Conclusion
From a Research Project to a Journal Article
Conference Proposals and Article Types

A team of researchers consisting of two Educational Psychology professors, one Curriculum and Instruction professor, a school administrator and a program director worked together on a project for an entire school year. One professor and the school personnel were the program developers; they implemented the program and collected the data. One member of the team was a statistician; he analyzed the data. Another was a prolific author on the subject; she wrote the literature review. The literature review was revised significantly 17 times before sharing it with the team and the statistician said, “It would have taken me months to write that—and it probably would not have been that good.” The statistician analyzed data gathered on the experimental and control groups; he returned to the data set several times to get different “cuts” of the data and to complete a post hoc test. Proud of their work, they submitted it to the premier journal in the field and, 12 weeks later, the decision was “revise and resubmit”. Instead of balking at the outcome, they corresponded back and forth and make every effort to address each recommendation. The editor responded with a few minor suggestions that required additional attention. After those were completed, the work was accepted. The entire process, from project to print, took 2 years but, when the final revision was filed and accepted, the editor wrote, “I understand your study well now and we are pleased to be publishing it in the journal.” Contrast this experience with the expectations of some authors who, feeling pressured to publish in time for a fall review, begin sending out e-mails in May to editors asking if it is possible to get something published by October. Given that each round of reviews takes 8—12 weeks and that leading journals often are planned 1 or 2 years in advance of actual publication, such inquiries only serve to annoy editors and expose ignorance of scholarly publishing processes. When it comes to peer-reviewed academic writing, abandon all hope of immediate publication, uncritical acceptance, and bulging bank accounts. Replace it with the expectation that it will take time that revision will be necessary, and that rewards are many times intangible. To bring expectations back down to earth, remember three things. First, developing research manuscripts is just as difficult as designing and conducting the study. Researchers—both inexperienced and experienced—need to revise the manuscript many, many times; they also need to revisit the work based on feedback from colleagues who are both familiar and unfamiliar with the area of study. Secondly, manuscripts need to be clear, straightforward, and understandable. However, if you carefully follow the very structured formats outlined in this chapter to generate their first drafts, you will be well on your way to producing a better research manuscript. Third, part of the responsibility of a quantitative researcher is to clearly communicate the purpose of the study, research questions, and expected outcomes; accurately describe the methodologies (e.g., subjects, measures, treatment); and appropriately present the results to assist the editors and reviewers to determine the quality and the importance of the manuscript that is submitted for publication. By adhering to the guidelines offered here, quantitative researchers will significantly improve their chances of getting a manuscript accepted for publication as an article, book chapter, or even a book.

References

Albers, C. A., Floyd, R. G., Fuhrmann, M. J., & Martínez, R. S. (2011). Publication criteria and recommended areas of improvement within school psychology journals as reported by editors, journal board members, and manuscript authors. Journal of School Psychology, 49(6), 669—689.CrossRef

American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33—40.CrossRef

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Annesley, T. M. (2010c). If an IRDAM journal is what you choose, then sequential results are what you use. Clinical Chemistry, 56(8), 1226—1228.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010d). “It was a cold and rainy night”: Set the scene with a good introduction. Clinical Chemistry, 56(5), 708—713.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010e). Put your best figure forward: Line graphs and scattergrams. Clinical Chemistry, 56(8), 1229—1233.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010h). The discussion section: Your closing argument. Clinical Chemistry, 56(11), 1671—1674.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010i). The title says it all. Clinical Chemistry, 56(3), 357—360.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010j). Who, what, when, where, how, and why: The ingredients in the recipe for a successful methods section. Clinical Chemistry, 56(6), 897—901.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2011). Giving credit: Citations and references. Clinical Chemistry, 57(1), 14—17.CrossRef

Baruch, Y., Konrad, A., Aguinis, H., & Starbuck, W. (Eds.). (2008). Opening the black box of editorship. New York: Pelgrave Macmillan.

Booth, W. C., Columb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef

Boyd, J. C., Rifai, N., & Annesley, T. M. (2009). Preparation of manuscripts for publication: Improving your chances for success. Clinical Chemistry, 55(7), 1259—1264.CrossRef

Coughian, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(11), 658—664.CrossRef

Croce, N. (2013). Enhancing your academic digital footprint. New York: Rosen.

Cunningham, S. J. (2004). How to write a paper. Journal of Orthodontics, 31(1), 47—51.CrossRef

Davie, G. S. (2012). How to write a research paper, proposal, or thesis. Retrieved from https://masscommunicate.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/mct-how-to-research.pdf

Day, R., & Sakaduski, N. (2011). How to write and publish a scientific paper. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Derntl, M. (2014). Basics of research paper writing and publishing. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 6(2), 105—123.CrossRef

Dixon, N. (2011). Writing for publication for the first time—Try the hunter style. International Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, 1(2), 38—45.

Docherty, M., & Smith, R. (1999). The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. British Medical Journal, 318, 1224—1225.CrossRef

El-Serag, H. B. (2006). Scientific manuscripts: The fun of writing and submitting. Gastro-intestinal Endoscopy, 64(6 Suppl), 19—22.CrossRef

Fahy, K. (2008). Writing for publication: Argument and evidence. Women and Birth, 21(3), 113—117.CrossRef

Floyd, R. G., Cooley, K. M., Arnett, J. E., Fagan, T. K., Mercer, S. H., & Hingle, C. (2011). An overview and analysis of journal operations, journal publication patterns, and journal impact in school psychology and related fields. Journal of School Psychology, 49(6), 617—647.CrossRef

Hess, D. R. (2004). How to write an effective discussion. Respiratory Care, 49(10), 1238—1241.

Hittleman, D. R., & Simon, A. J. (2006). Interpreting educational research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Jenkins, S. (1995). How to write a paper for a scientific journal. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 41(4), 285—289.

Koopman, P. (1997). How to write an abstract. Retrieved October 2015, from http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/essays/abstract.html

Maloy, S. (2001). Guidelines for writing a scientific paper. University of California, Irvine. Retrieved from http://www.marshfieldclinic.org/proxy/mcrf-admin-oswp-rm-guidelines_for_writing_a_scientific_manuscript.1.pdf

Martínez, R. S., Floyd, R. G., & Erichsen, L. (2011). Strategies and attributes of highly productive scholars and contributors to the school psychology literature: Recommendations for increasing scholarly productivity. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 691—720.CrossRef

Milardo, R. M. (2015). Crafting scholarship in the behavioral and social sciences: Writing, reviewing, and editing. New York: Routledge.

Nihalani, P. K., & Mayrath, M. C. (2008a). Educational psychology journal editors’ comments on publishing. Educational Research Review, 20(1), 29—39.

Nihalani, P. K., & Mayrath, M. C. (2008b). Publishing in educational psychology journals: Comments from editors. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 29—39.CrossRef

Ortinau, D. (2011). Writing and publishing important scientific articles: A reviewer’s perspective. Journal of Business Research, 64(2), 150—156.CrossRef

Peat, J., Elliott, E., Baur, L., & Keena, V. (2002). Scientific writing—Easy when you know how. London: British Medical Journal (BMJ) Books.CrossRef

Pyrczak, F. (2012). Evaluating research in academic journals. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Russell, C. L. (2005). Interpreting research in nephrology nursing. Evaluating quantitative research reports. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 32(1), 61—64.

Saracho, O. N. (2013). Writing research articles for publication in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(1), 45—54.CrossRef

Selvanathan, S. K., Udani, R. D., Udani, S. D., & Haylett, K. R. (2006). The art of the abstract. Student: British Medical Journal, 14, 70—71.

Sharp, D. (2002). Kipling’s guide to writing a scientific paper. Croatian Medical Journal, 43(3), 262—267.

Skelton, J. R., & Edwards, S. J. L. (2000). The function of the discussion section in academic medical writing. British Medical Journal, 320(7244), 1269—1270.CrossRef

Stolerman, I. (2009). Preparing manuscripts and responding to reviewers’ reports: Inside the editorial black box. In T. F. Babor, K. Stenius, S. Saava, & J. O’Reilly (Eds.), Publishing addiction science: A guide for the perplexed (2nd ed.) (pp. 124—137). London: International Society of Addiction Journal Editors. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://www.parint.org/isajewebsite/bookimages/isaje_2nd_edition_chapter9.pdf

Todorovic, L. (2003). Original (scientific) paper: The IMRAD layout. Archive of Oncology, 11(3), 203—205.CrossRef

Udani, R. D., Selvanathan, S. K., Udani, S. D., & Haylett, K. R. (2007). Writing up your research. Student: British Medical Journal, 15, 406—408.