Conclusion - From Outsider to Insider in Scholarly Publishing - Writing as Professional Development

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

From Outsider to Insider in Scholarly Publishing
Writing as Professional Development

The first time that I received three independent and anonymous peer reviews on a book manuscript, I had sufficient foresight to go out to my car and read them rather than remain in my university office. The experience was so memorable that, to this day, I can point out the exact parking space where that event took place. Although most of the comments were far from complimentary, the editor’s letter indicated that she was willing to give me another chance rather than terminate the project. After your work has been criticized, it is difficult to remember that peer review is the cornerstone of scholarship. Without a doubt, negative comments sting. The challenge is to use those barbs to spur you into action that will improve the work. Persistence in getting work published does not consist of just flinging the same manuscript into the review process repeatedly with the faint hope that eventually, it will be accepted.

Higher education is, in many ways, grounded in the peer review process. When college students plan a class presentation together or read and respond to one another’s work, they are learning how to take others’ perspectives into account and use their input to improve the work. When a graduate student submits a thesis or dissertation to the committee and responds to recommendations for improvement, it is a form of dress rehearsal for the peer review process used by respected scholarly journals and publishers. Widely published academic authors have learned to handle peer review with poise and aplomb rather than treat it as a personal attack and ego threat. They are sufficiently mature to realize that it isn’t a simple matter of others being “on their side” or “liking” what they have written; rather, peer review and editing is an appraisal of the thinking on paper and the effectiveness of the presentation of ideas. Instead of being wounded by reviews, think of them as troubleshooting. Avoid dwelling on the disappointments of peer review and capitalize on its contributions to improving your scholarly work. At its best, peer review ferrets out the flaws, enhances the accessibility of the work, and makes you look smarter.


American Association of University Professors. (2015). Statement on professional ethics. Retrieved December 30, 2015, from

Amodei, M. L., Myers, J., Onchwari, J., Jalongo, M. R., & Gargiulo, R. (2013). Survey of publication outlets in early childhood education: Descriptive data, review processes, and advice to authors. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(2), 115—123.CrossRef

Blyth, E., Shardlow, S. M., Masson, H., Lyons, K., Shaw, I., & White, S. (2010). Measuring the quality of peer-reviewed publications in social work: Impact factors—Liberation or liability? Social Work Education, 29(2), 120—136.CrossRef

Bromley, K. A. (2009). Writing for educators: Personal essays and practical advice. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press.

Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (Eds.). (2014). Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multi-dimensional indicators of scholarly impact. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Freda, M. C., & Kearney, M. H. (2005). An international survey of nurse editors’ roles and practices. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(1), 87—94.CrossRef

Godlee, F., & Jefferson, T. (Eds.). (2003). Peer review in health sciences (2nd ed.). London: BMJ.

Gonce, M. P. (2013b). The importance of being published. Journal of Professional Nursing, 29(4), 187—188.CrossRef

Hames, I. (2007). Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: Guidelines for good practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRef

Henson, K. T. (2007). Writing for publication: Steps to excellence. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 781—786.CrossRef

Heyman, B., & Cronin, P. (2005). Writing for publication: Adapting academic work into articles. British Journal of Nursing, 14(7), 400—403.CrossRef

Hodge, D. R., & Lacasse, J. R. (2011). Ranking disciplinary journals with the Google Scholar h-index: A new tool for constructing cases for tenure, promotion, and other professional decisions. Journal of Social Work Education, 47(3), 579—596.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R. (2002). Writing for publication: A practical guide for educators. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Jalongo, M. R. (2013). Professional wisdom and writing for publication: Qualitative interviews with editors and authors in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(1), 65—79. doi:10.1007/s10643-012-0569-y.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R., Ebbeck, M., & Boyer, W. (2014). Writing for publication as “tacit” knowledge: A focus group study of doctoral students in education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42, 241—250.CrossRef

Moos, D. D., & Hawkins, P. (2009). Barriers and strategies to the revision process from an editor’s perspective. Nursing Forum, 44(2), 79—92.CrossRef

Murray, F. B., & Raths, J. (1996). Factors in the peer review of reviews. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 417.CrossRef

Panaretos, J., & Malesios, C. C. (2008). Assessing scientific research performance and impact with single indices. Scientometrics, 81(3), 635—670.CrossRef

Plotnick, A. (1982). The elements of editing: A modern guide for editors and journalists. New York: Macmillan.

Randolph, J. J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 14(13). Retrieved January 12, 2016, from

Solomon, D. J. (2007). The role of peer review for scholarly journals in the Information Age. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 10(1). Retrieved October 14, 2012, from;view=fulltext

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

Wang, F. (2007). On the innovative spirit of academic journal editors. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 38(3), 156—161.CrossRef

Wellington, J., & Torgerson, C. J. (2005). Writing for publication: What counts as a ’high status, eminent academic journal’? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29(1), 35—48.CrossRef

West, R., & Stenius, K. (2009). Use and abuse of citations. In T. F. Babor, K. Stenius, S. Savva, & J. O’Reilly (Eds.), Publishing addiction science: A guide for the perplexed. Retrieved March 23, 2015, from