Advice on Academic Publishing

I just hosted a publishing workshop for our PhD students, discussing common questions around the academic publishing process. Here I want to share some of our key takeaways about how to select a journal, as well as compile advice and resources I've written over the years about writing, (co)authorship, and peer reviews. I hope this helps demystify some of the academic publication process. Good luck! 

How to select a journal 

• Identify your target journals relatively early in the process of writing a paper. This helps you craft your message and format to that journal. 
• Have a plan A, B, C for journal submission. Be aware of word count and choose accordingly so you won't have to substantially change content if you get a desk reject from A, and can resubmit to B. 
• Start a spreadsheet with some key journals in your field, including Aims & Scope. Add journals where your favorite work is published as potential places to submit. 
• Subscribe to updates from a few of your favorite journals, so you keep up with what is published on a regular basis and develop a sense of where your paper could fit. 
• Remember publishing a paper is engaging in conversation with other scholars. If many of the papers you cite are published in a particular journal, that may be a good home for your paper. 
• Avoid predatory journals. Check out Beall's List and other resources to identify them. Ask a trusted senior mentor when in doubt.  
• Remember that you must submit to only one journal at a time. (Many have a tick box requiring you confirm this.) 
• Try to publish open access, so your work (which is probably mostly or entirely funded by public money) is available to the public. Lund University will cover half the cost of "pure" open access publication (check the rules, and contact a librarian to confirm before submission). 
• Impact factor is imperfect, but it's a number, and people like high ones! Many authors submit to a slightly "reach" journal for their first submission (hoping to go to review, or at least for a quick rejection).  
• Rejection sucks, but it's inevitable. Have a ritual to celebrate your paper getting rejected. Go on a walk with a friend and get ice cream. Remember it's not you, it's the paper that got rejected. 
• Of course, publication is the best revenge... my friend Bethany would resubmit to a new journal the same day she got a rejection. Squad goals. 

How long from submission to publication? 

• Publication is really slow, and that's frustrating for everyone! PhD students shared stories about checking on the paper status every day. That's stressful and anxiety-producing, especially under deadline to e.g., have X published papers by defense time. Having been on the other side, I know it also feels bad to be slow in getting to reviews or editing papers. 
• Remember that basically all editors, and 100% of peer reviewers, are overworked academics who are writing reviews and editing papers on top of all their other commitments, for free. (A few journals, like Nature and Science, pay full-time editors for their work.) Editors and reviewers are also human beings (e.g., they may be on sick leave, or have other personal circumstances that led to delays). 
  
• Noting the above, you can send a very polite email to the editor to inquire about a status update when things have been dragging out.
• As a VERY rough guide, I think you could send a nicely worded email to inquire about the paper's status to an editor after 6-8 weeks if it has not yet gone out for review; after 3 months of having been in review; and after 1 month of the editor having reviews back on which to make a decision (waiting for editor). 
• My total ballpark estimate is that, if you're going to get a desk reject (the editor rejects your paper without sending it to peer reviewers), this generally takes about one month. It is a giant bummer to wait longer than that for a desk reject, but it does happen. 
  
• If the paper goes out to review (meaning the editor has decided it's at least in principle suitable to publish in their journal, and now has to find 2-3 experts who say yes to review, which often requires asking 10+ people), I would consider it pretty quick to get a response within 3 months from submission to an editorial decision (major or minor revisions, or reject after review). An editorial decision within 6 months is quite standard. Much longer than that, up to a year or more, is not good form, but it happens. Sorry. 
  

How do I...? 

• Write the best paper I can
• Make sure I'm citing sources appropriately
• Decide who qualifies for scientific authorship (Vancouver Convention, with examples) 
• Find peer reviewers for an academic paper
• Respond to peer reviews 
• Write a peer review for someone else's paper 

P.S. Free, unsolicited academic and life advice! 

Recommended reading

• Nature on the research fraud of "ghost" and "gift" authorship
• The 8 skills you need to publish (hint: to publish more, work on your weakest link)