Writing a journal article in 12 weeks: Week X

Several months ago I wrote a series of blog posts on preparing an article for publication. I followed Wendy Belcher’s book Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success.  The book structures the revision process and explains how to prepare an already written paper for journal submission. I followed its steps. Each week I read a corresponding chapter and performed assigned tasks, and, after 12 weeks of revision, I submitted my paper to a journal. Three weeks ago I heard back from the editor and returned to Belcher’s last chapter, titled “Week X,” which deals with responding to journal decisions.

First, I read through the “theoretical” part of the chapter, where Belcher discusses the emotional side of waiting for the journal’s decision and reading it. She recommends to avoid “opening the letter if you are just about to teach or enter a meeting” (p. 290). According to her, authors need to allow themselves the time and space for the emotional journey of reading and responding to the journal’s decision.  Belcher acknowledges that reviewers’ comments frequently are problematic and of poor quality. “At the same time, studies have repeatedly shown that peer review improved the quality of articles, especially in the discussion of the study’s limitations, the generalization of the findings, the tone of the conclusion, and general readability” (p. 291).

Then, Belcher describes different types of journal decisions, including various forms of editorial acceptance and rejection.  She explains that pure accept is extremely rare and almost never happens. The next best thing is revise minor problems and resubmit.  According to Belcher, 

You can only get this kind of decision if all the peer reviewers and the editors like your article. The journal has taken your article seriously, given you a few recommendations for improvement, and asked you to resubmit the article once you have revised it accordingly, Therefore, your chance of publication are now very high. So, if you have received such a decision, drop everything, make the revisions, and resubmit it. (p. 292)

Revise major problems and resubmit is also a good decision to receive.

You usually get this kind of decision when the reviewers and editors liked the piece but at least one had substantial suggestions for improvement. Sometimes you will get this decision even if one of the reviewers had major reservations, but only if the editors did not agree that the identified problems were serious or difficult to fix. (p. 293)

At the same Belcher points out that, unlike revise minor problems and resubmit, a revise-major-problems-and-resubmit decision often takes the revised article back to the original reviewers for vetting. And as a result, the publication process is likely to take longer.

Belcher also describes different forms of editorial rejection, such as rejected but will entertain a resubmit, rejected and dismissed, and rejected by editor. The latter means that the article never went through the peer-review process; the editor made the decision alone. Such a rejection may have to do with the article’s quality or with the circumstances that have nothing to do with in it. For example, “the editors may have accepted too many articles on your topic, period, theory, population, country, etc.” (p. 297). The main problem with this type of decision is a lack of feedback, which complicates future revisions. Last year I received this type of rejection, but my experience was slightly different from the one described by Belcher. My rejected-by-editor decision came with the editor’s constructive feedback. In fact, his comments were more helpful than those that I previously received from reviewers for a different article.

Then, Belcher describes 6 steps that need to be taken to respond to the journal’s decision. The first one is reading the workbook, which I did on the next day after receiving the decision. The second step is evaluating and responding to the journal decision. Belcher recommends to read the review and put it away for several days, since what appears shocking at first may seem more manageable in a few days. Following her advice, I read the review and put it aside for couple of days. This cool-off period gave me time to digest the comments and to think about possible ways of addressing them. Then, Belcher suggests to “make sure you are clear on what decision you have received” because editors’ decisions are not always explicitly worded, but responding to the decision depends on the nature of that decision (p. 299). I was confident that the decision I received was revise minor problems and resubmit. It said, “The reviews are in general favourable and suggest that, subject to minor revisions, your paper could be suitable for publication.” At the same time, I had no idea how common this type of wording (“could be suitable for publication”) is and what exactly it means.

The third step is planning the revision. Belcher warns against putting the revision off until you have more time and suggests, within 2 weeks of receiving the decision, to “open the article, reread it, and make at least one change to the article” (p. 304), aiming to send the revised article back to the journal within a month or two. Since the journal gave me only a month, I started making changes earlier, on the 4^th day after receiving the decision. The comments I received were clear, so I did not need to contact the editor for clarification and moved directly to drafting a revision cover letter, which is usually submitted along with the revised article. Such a letter explains how the reviewers’ comments were addressed.  According to Belcher, starting this letter early on in a revision process allows to keep track of what exactly the reviewers want to be changed. I analyzed the comments and divided them into 5 categories. Then, I started drafting my revision cover letter.

The fourth step is revising the article. Belcher argues that “the biggest mistake authors make when asked to revise and resubmit an article is planning to do too much in response to the reviewers’ recommendations” (p. 306). I followed her suggestion to start off by making the smallest possible changes to solve the largest objections. I felt that the editor was concerned about the absence of the exact year when my interviews were conducted, as well as the pertinence of my findings to the contemporary situation. Before submitting my paper for peer review, I took off all personal identifying information, including the citation of my Master’s Thesis, which was the original source of the data. That’s how the date of the project got missing from the article. This was an easy thing to fix, and I started my revision with that change. My next move was to figure out how to demonstrate that my findings are still relevant. I decided to analyze the media’s use of the concept which I explore in my paper and compare it to the interviewees’ accounts. As I expected, there were lots of similarities, which indirectly proved the relevance of my study’s findings. Then, I worked on the other areas identified in my revision cover letter. When I finished with all of them, I sought peer feedback on my revised article.

The fifth task was to draft my revision cover letter, which I started earlier and finished after all necessary revisions were completed. As Belcher suggested, I arranged this letter as a series of bullet points with the reviewers’ critiques grouped by category followed by the alterations I made to solve the problem. The sixth task was requesting permissions, but I didn’t need any of them. So instead, I checked everything one more time and resubmitted my article. At that point, it was two and half weeks since I received the editor’s decision. I have no idea how soon I will hear the final decision. Until then, I’m keeping my fingers crossed and hoping for the best.

End of the Year

It’s the end of the year, a time for reflection, evaluation, and goal setting. This year has been much better for me than 2013. I’m in a better shape now, have more energy and less pain than before. This year I defended my dissertation prospectus. I wish I have already received my IRB approval, got an article published, developed a daily writing routine, cleaned the house, etc. That’s what I hope to accomplish in 2015. Next year I also need to complete data collection for my dissertation.

What have I learned in 2014? To take better care of myself and to stay positive. After a long break from going to conferences, I attended CADAAD 2014 in Budapest, Hungary. I realized how much I was missing by not conferencing. I decided to go to at least one conference per year. To ensure that, I organized a panel for ICQI 2015. This panel has been accepted. Thus, all I need to do now is to revise my paper, book a hotel room, buy plane tickets, and attend the conference in May. In 2014, I revised a paper and submitted it to a journal. Belcher’s book Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success gave me some structure and taught me how to better approach editing on both macro and micro levels. I will use this model again, starting January 2, to revise my other paper and will reflect on that process in February and then in March.

During 2015, I will blog twice a month.  In January, I plan to write about Yuri Lotman, his approach to cultural studies, and how this approach may help me in grounding my dissertation project. In February, I will reflect on my trip to Russia and discuss how the revision of my paper is going. In March, I plan to write about my data collection and report on submitting my second paper to a journal. If some more interesting or more urgent topics surface, I may change this plan, but my goal is to write regularly. In 2015, I plan to use this blog to discuss various aspects of my life, including my non-academic goals. Hope you’ll come back in January and share this journey with me! Happy Holidays, everyone!

Writing a journal article in 12 weeks: Weeks Eleven and Twelve

I’m using Wendy Laura Belcher’s book Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success to prepare my paper for publication. During this week I worked on two weeks: Week Eleven and Week Twelve. 

Week Eleven is about wrapping up your article. Belcher warns her readers of the perils of perfection and emphasizes the importance of finishing. She recommends to spend the first day of the week finalizing your argument, the second finalizing your lit review, the third finalizing your introduction, the fourth finalizing your evidence and structure, and the fifth finalizing your conclusion. It took me two days to finalize my article. Then, I moved to Week Twelve.

Week Twelve is devoted to sending your article to a journal. Belcher opens this chapter with a brief section on the perils of finishing, which echoes her discussion of the perils of perfection in Week Eleven. After that, she describes several last steps necessary for getting your submission ready, such as writing a cover letter to accompany the article, preparing illustrations, putting the article in the journal’s style, preparing its final electronic version, sending it to the journal, and celebrating. My article doesn’t have any illustrations, and it’s already in the journal’s format. So, on the third day of the week, I drafted a cover letter. The fourth day was devoted to preparing the final electronic version of my article and revising the cover letter. On the fifth day, I submitted my article to the journal. I was surprised to find out that I’m required to list the names of three potential reviewers along with their academic affiliations and contact information. It took me awhile to decide on that. After the article was eventually submitted, I started working on IRB documents, which I should've finished long time ago. By the end of the day, I felt rather tired and had no energy to celebrate. I gave myself a rain check, planning to have a celebration at the end of the week.  I will reflect on the past 12 weeks and evaluate my experience of revision and journal submission in my next blog post.

Writing a journal article in 12 weeks: Week Ten

I’m using Wendy Laura Belcher’s book Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success to prepare my paper for publication. This is Week Ten. 

In this chapter, Belcher distinguishes between marcostructure revising and microstructure revising. Revisions discussed during previous nine weeks dealt with marcostructure revising, which, according to Belcher, is the most difficult type of editing. This week is about editing sentences. Belcher lists several basic principles of microstructure revising:

• Don’t use two words when one will do;
• Don’t use a noun when you can use a verb;
• Don’t use an adjective or adverb unless you must;
• Don’t use a pronoun when a noun would be clearer;
• Don’t use a general word when you can use a specific one;
• Don’t use the passive voice unless the subject is unknown or unimportant.

Belcher believes that certain words can signal possible need for microstructural revisions. She offers a diagnostic test to help her readers locate those signal words and improve their writing. The diagnostic test consists of three parts. The goal of the first part is to cut unnecessary words. The second part involves adding extra words for better clarity. The third part of the diagnostic test is designed for revisions that can’t be accomplished by either cutting or adding words and require replacing a weak word with a strong one. 

On the first day, I read the workbook. On the second day, I ran the entire diagnostic test. I used the Microsoft Word search function and applied different colors to different test components. It was a rather mechanical work, but I felt exhausted by the end. Belcher allocates Days Three and Four to making revisions based on the diagnostic test. However, it took me three full days to revise the entire paper. On the sixth day I worked on correcting other types of problem sentences (i.e., problems with comas, quotation marks, capitalization, hyphens, spelling, etc.).

I find this week one of the most productive (except maybe for Week Three, which dealt with building an argument). Belcher’s diagnostic test was very helpful. I remember several years ago I took a qualitative data analysis course, where I learned a lot. One week at the end of the course, we were told to work on micro editing of our analyses. The guidelines were similar to Belcher’s principles of microstructure revising, but, without her diagnostic test, I felt lost and wasn’t quite sure how to implement those principles. This time having the test made all the difference. Now I better understand what to do at this stage of revision.