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! 

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

This is a tough and thankless job, but science depends on it! Here are a few principles I keep in mind when suggesting (to journals that ask for them) or soliciting (when I'm an editor) peer reviewers. 

When identifying reviewers for a particular paper, I try to find a balance of: 

• expertise (all reviewers need appropriate expertise, but this can range between e.g., specific topic/research question, methods, theory, implications, study region, ...)
  
• regional location of institution (e.g., Global North/South)
• gender balance
  
• career stage (I find that earlier careers, PhDs through postdocs, often write the best reviews, and getting started with peer reviews is helpful). 

Where to find reviewers? 

• It's often good to try to find someone who has published in your target journal (or a journal with similar reach). 
  
• The Journal/Author Name Editor, JANE, can be a good resource for finding reviewers (leans towards medicine). You enter title and/or abstract and it finds similar papers, authors. 

(Along those lines- if you’re publishing make sure you’re giving back to the community by serving as a peer reviewer and/or editor yourself! Read my guide to writing a solid peer review  or how to get started, and register as a potential reviewer with journals in your field). 

Ethics: 

• Suggested reviewers must avoid conflicts of interest, that is, they should not have a personal or professional relationship with any authors that would prevent impartial scientific judgment. Definite conflicts of interest are co-published authors, people at the same institution, former or current academic mentors/advisees.  
  
• I avoid suggesting personal friends even if they have relevant expertise. (I try to put myself in the reverse situation and think, if I were asked to review them, do I start with a positive predisposition just because I know they're a nice person/ in general I think well of them/ it would be awkward to reject them/etc? My goal is to have reviewers who are able to focus on the quality of the work alone, independent from the qualities of the people who produced it, insofar as this is possible in a small community of human beings!) 
• Technically the editors should also screen for conflicts, but this is a time-consuming and imperfectly accurate process done by busy volunteers, so when authors are asked to provide reviewers it's our responsibility to meet all the guidelines.)
  
• Some specific guidelines on conflict of interest below. 

See guidelines for picking reviewers: https://methodsblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/preferred-reviewers/ 


For the PNAS guidelines see here: http://m.pnas.org/site/authors/coi.xhtml
Springer, Conflict of Interest: http://www.springer.com/authors/manuscript+guidelines?SGWID=0-40162-6-795522-0 
Article on COI in medicine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2246405/ 

I remember being confused about what was expected of scientific authorship in grad school. My mentor Pam Matson had a helpful rule of thumb: there are three things you can do to contribute to a scientific paper: (1) have the idea, (2) get the money, and (3) do the work. At least two of these three are required for authorship. (Thus, under this model, a PI who has an idea and gets funding to support a PhD student on that theme would be expected to be a coauthor on all resulting papers.) 

I appreciate having clear guidelines and expectations for authorship, so I was glad to come across the authorship guidelines from the Vancouver Convention. Basically, they recommend 4 criteria for authorship (all four criteria must be met for authorship):

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND

3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND

4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

This is the model I aim to follow in my collaborations. Thus, I expect myself and all authors to make a substantial intellectual contribution (#1) and contribute to writing and editing the manuscript (#2). 

I interpret #3 above as the lead (first) author has responsibility to solicit and integrate input from all authors in making revisions, and obtain their approval before sending to the journal. I interpret this responsibility as applying at three stages: 

1.  During drafting of a manuscript, until all authors approve the MS being submitted to the journal; 

2. During peer review, when the lead author takes primary responsibility for addressing comments from peer review, with input from all authors, and gets approval from all authors for the version to re-submit to the journal (this stage repeated as necessary if there is more than one round of peer review); and 

3. During copyediting, when the lead author shares the typeset and corrected final proof with all authors for their approval before submitting for processing and publication. 

I think all three of these stages are important in order to ensure that the last round (approval before publication) is sufficiently met, so that all authors are in a position to take ethical responsibility for the work (#4).  

(See my tips on how to work with revisions suggested by reviewers here.) 

When working on revisions, and especially with large and diffuse author groups, the lead author has to herd the cats and balance between giving everyone opportunity for input, and making decisions about the most appropriate direction for the paper (especially when coauthors or reviewers may have contradictory suggestions). After giving all authors a chance for input, during revisions the lead author might send around a version that incorporates changes suggested and say something like,

“Thanks for all your comments, which have been incorporated in the attached version. I had to balance between suggestions X and Y, which I did by Z; I hope everyone is satisfied with this approach. I would like to submit on X date (eg 1 week in the future). Please reply with either (a) any critical changes needed for accuracy or (b) your approval to submit. Thanks!”

It's especially essential to receive positive affirmation (i.e., a verbal or written OK to submit) from each author for the final version to be published. 

In other words, you don't start out deciding to do a survey, then looking for appropriate research questions to ask and attendant philosophies and theories. For a simple breakdown of how philosophy of knowledge, theory of knowledge, and research style combine to produce research programs, see our 2010 article "Thinking about Knowing"- this could help you write the dreaded "philosophy and theory" sections of a master's thesis, for example.  

Another useful resource is this overview of qualitative research in conservation by Moon et al. 2016, including a helpful list of questions in Table 5 that will help you avoid many common pitfalls. 

2. What are the research questions you want to answer? 

It is essential that you have a manageable number (i.e., not more than three) clearly articulated research questions that guide all further research design. Coming up with a good research question is an art in itself (take a look at The Craft of Research for a whole chapter on how to do this).

In short, my view is that a good research question is grounded in a real-world problem, linked to other research and/or theory in the field, specific enough to be answerable with the resources you have available, and something you are passionate about answering.
 
3. Are surveys the appropriate method to answer your research questions? 

Be sure to consider alternatives and convince yourself that surveys are a good way forward, that will help you answer your research question. If you can directly observe behavior or use existing data to answer your question, that will be easier than designing and carrying out a good survey. On the other hand, if you need to know how people think (attitudes) or feel (values) about something, then you need a survey to ask them directly to find out. 

4. Who is your target population, and how will you sample from them? 

Consider that your sampling design will affect the validity and generalizability of your conclusions (i.e., if you want to do inferential statistical analysis to draw conclusions about significance, you need a random sample that is large enough to be representative). William Trochin has a good, concise overview of sampling and social research design issues on his Research Methods Knowledge Base. 

Issues to consider here include how you identify the target population (what characteristics must they have?), and how you identify them (what criteria will you use to include or exclude participants, and how many do you seek?). Write down all your criteria in your Methods section under Sample Selection. 

5. How will you design your survey? 

Here's a really nice, simple, clear overview of best practices for survey research design by Kelley et al. 2003. This is a great place to start.  

Good tips on survey design, question construction, and administration in a book chapter from "Investigating the Social World" by Russell Schutt. 

6. How will you analyze survey data?

The simplest way is using descriptive statistics- e.g., graphing the distribution of the results in a histogram.

​A more complex way is inferential statistics- using statistical tests to draw conclusion about the likelihood of observations being due to chance, attributing numerical confidence to the results. This is a big topic; to get started, check out this guide from The University of Reading Statistical Service Centre on the analysis of survey data. 

For descriptive data (verbal or written textual responses to open questions), the aim is not to condense them into a number, but to use them to represent and explore different views. Here the process of coding can be helped with qualitative analysis software like NVivo or Atlas.ti. You will chose (and should state in your Methods) whether you are using inductive coding (themes emerge from the data) or deductive (trying to match responses to categories from previous literature or theory), or a combination. 

Whatever analysis approach you take, describe it clearly in your Methods, and explain why you chose it. 

7. Research Ethics

Conducting research with human subjects requires the researcher to take responsibility for considering and minimizing the risks presented to participants, and make sure that clear, prior, informed consent is obtained from your participants (this means your participants understand that their participation in the study is voluntary, they understand any risks that may be presented, and they know that they can end their participation at any time of their choice without penalty). You need to think about how you will protect the privacy of your participants and how to handle their data fairly and with what degree of anonymity. It is good practice to obtain written, signed informed consent before enrolling a participant (this might be ticking a box on the front page of an online survey, or initialing and signing a separate consent form including a copy for them for in-person interviews). 

Be aware that you are responsible for following ethical guidelines in the country where you conduct your research. In the US and Canada among other countries, completion of a formal course in research ethics and approval of a human subjects protocol is often required before conducting survey research.

Here is the human subjects protocol I submitted to Stanford University for my PhD research in 2006- there are lots of helpful questions here to consider. And here is the consent form I used with my study participants.  Feel free to use these as templates for your own research. Answers to the protocol questions can go in the Methods section of your thesis, and the consent form can be modified and used with your study participants. 

In Sweden, research should follow the Swedish Research Council Vetenskapsrådet's  guide to Good Research Practice, with many useful areas to consider. Research conducted for a master's thesis generally does not require a formal application to the regional review board (meets monthly, costs 5000-16000 SEK to review applications, which must be in Swedish). Here is the Swedish law regarding research ethics, for research conducted in Sweden, that presents a sufficient risk or sensitive data.   

However, researchers still have a responsibility to follow good practices. Please be aware that you may be required to demonstrate good practices were followed and informed consent was obtained in order to publish your research results in a peer-reviewed journal. See below for two examples of text published in peer-reviewed articles describing how informed consent was obtained in Sweden. 

Text about informed consent: "Although the study scope exempted it from Swedish requirements for formal ethical review by an institutional review board, all procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Prior, written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study (See consent form in S1).”​
--Source: Wynes and Nicholas, in second review Feb 2019, PLOS ONE

"According to the Swedish regulations for conducting research on humans, there was no need to seek ethical clearance for this study. All participation was voluntary after informed consent, and the participants could withdraw from the study at any time. In order to protect the participants’ identity, revealing information has been removed from the results such as specific faculty, discipline, gender, ethnicity, and age. Furthermore, before data was analysed, all participants were invited to confirm their own interview transcripts and remove quotations that they did not want to share with others."
--Source: Brodin & Avery, in press

I hope these tips are helpful- happy research! 

Last October, I gave a Sunday morning talk to a group of early-career researchers attending the Earth Systems Governance conference. It was a day-long program on "Developing a career in earth system governance: opening up science." I enjoyed the chance to gather my thoughts and pass along some good advice I've been given (and some earned through experience!).

Thanks very much to Ina Möller, who made a podcast from our conversation. You can have a listen here.

Here's a condensed list and links to resources I've found helpful. Hope they're useful to others! 

Here’s a short summary I co-wrote with Céline Fernandez compiling the highlights of our November meeting for the LuPOD professional development program. ​

Best practices for films for educational purposes:

• Max length: 5 min
• Availability: no more than 2 clicks to access
• Sound quality is important to the viewer
• Think about the voice melody of the speakers (no monotonous tone)
• Lifetime: since the film will most probably remain on the web for a long time, use a layout that is likely to age well   

 
Issue regarding available learning material online: often no quality control. Therefore, make sure to review material before assigning, point out to students to be critical when using information online, and consider making your own material.
 
 
Teaching portfolios

• Why you need one: it helps you document and reflect on your teaching, and may be required for application to positions (e.g., lecturer or docent) or for merits like the Pedagogical Academy/Excellent Teaching Practitioner.
• Get a model: Applications for positions (such as Docent) at Lund University are public documents and should be available on request. These are valuable to study when working on your own application. Also ask colleagues to share their successful applications for inspiration.
• Pedagogical philosophy: Get beyond buzzwords from LATHE courses and show how you expressed pedagogical ideas in practice.
• Pedagogical reflection: Give both good and bad examples from your teaching practice to demonstrate your own reflection and development.

• Scholarship of teaching and learning: taking an investigative approach to teaching and learning, applying an iterative cycle of reflection and improvement.

 
References and further reading:

• Application for Excellent Teaching Practitioner at Lund University, including instructions for the teaching portfolio required, are listed by faculty. Here are links to the Social Science Faculty and LTH, which were easy to find in English on the Lund website. :) 

Here are some tips I compiled with my friend and colleague Josh Goldstein when we were both finishing our PhDs and tackling the job market. Good luck, job seekers! 

• Preparing during school
  1. Gain teaching experience, and document teaching effectiveness
     1. get teaching evaluation letters from professors that you TA for (ideally right after the class finishes while thoughts are fresh in their mind)
     2. get evaluated by CTL and save evals
     3. make up your own evals for students you mentor
     4. do mid-quarter evals for sections/classes you teach
     5. consider students writing letters for you
     6. consider developing or co-teaching your own course
  2. Research experience
     1. Publish! Aim for good journals.
     2. Present at conferences
  3. Academic/professional service and development
     1. Society involvement
     2. Campus and departmental leadership
     3. Outreach
     4. Professional networking- make and maintain contacts; use conferences for networking (make meal plans)
  4. Professional materials
     1. Develop a professional web site where you can list your research and teaching interests and accomplishments.
     2. Maintain a complete and up-to-date CV
     3. Write a catchy, current bio for your web page and IPER web page (make it something you would like to be introduced by at a conference where you were presenting)
     4. Order transcripts if you don’t have them in hand.
  5. Vision
     1. Be thinking about, and be able to articulate, how your specific dissertation projects fit into a larger research program, directions you’d go in the future.

• Applying for jobs

1. Look for job postings
   1. Professional societies (Ecological Society of America, Women’s Earth Science Network, etc.)
   2. Chronicle of Higher Education
   3. Higheredjobs.com, phDjobs.com
   4. Science, Nature, etc.
   5. Word of mouth- let professional contacts know you’re looking and to keep you in mind
   6. Check websites for schools of particular interest
   7. Check out academic wiki to anonymously post status of current searches: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/BiologyPositions

1. Decide on application strategy in consultation with advisors and any significant others
   1. Departmental, geographical, two-body considerations, number of applications, faculty jobs vs. postdocs
   2. Be aware of timing considerations (most ads in the US are posted August-December but there are exceptions; be aware of important professional conferences where interviews are conducted)

1. Prepare “Dossier”
   1. Everything described below takes considerable time (especially the first time around) but it is definitely time well spent to ensure that you make a strong and exciting sales pitch for yourself!
   2. Talk with mentors about job postings; ask if they know anyone there (a good word from a friend can really help your case!)
   3. Maintain and update CV, have friends, profs, counselors look at it. Consider creative categories for interdisciplinary work. List academic references w/ contact info on last page.
   4. For all materials, make sure the are visually appealing (nice font, plenty of white space on the page, sub-headings, bold or bullet points where appropriate… make them “skimmable”.)
   5. Draft research statement
      1. Focus around big questions your research aims to address. Consider starting with a question or puzzle that motivates your overall research program before getting into specifics. Try to avoid chronological descriptions of your research (first I did this, then I did that), which tend to be less engaging and read like grad school statements of purpose.
      2. Instead, highlight 2-3 key areas of research or questions or sub-fields, and describe the methods/approaches you use within those areas
      3. Cite concrete examples from past & current work
      4. Be sure to offer some ideas about what you would do in the future, particularly at that particular institution to take advantage of current resources/strengths.
   6. Draft teaching statement
      1. Brainstorm classes you would teach- those currently offered in department (you never know which are someone’s undisputed territory vs. something everyone wants to get rid of, so indicate a willingness to co-teach or other flexibility), and new ones you could offer
      2. Describe teaching and mentoring philosophy
      3. Convey interest in and commitment to teaching
   7. Draft cover letter
      1. A good idea, even if not called for in job ads
      2. Keep to 1 page, convey enthusiasm for position, be specific about why this position, highlight key strengths from CV and rest of application
   8. In general, try to make your application really reflect you, rather than trying to make it a “perfect fit” with the job description (and thus having to rewrite it every time, and also feel like you are trying to be all things to all departments). Have some specific parts (for me, first and last paragraph of cover letter, sprinkled throughout research statement, and in the classes section of teaching statement) that you tailor to the job and institution, but work to get the majority widely applicable. You can work on a “generic” version of materials with specific things tailored to each place highlighted to make future cutting & pasting easier
      1. Job postings vary widely in how detailed vs. general they are. In general, it’s good to specifically address in your statements and/or cover letter key items from the posting (e.g., specific classes or research topics that they expect the candidate to undertake).
      2. Communicate with the search chair when a job is posted. A conversation to find out more about what the department is looking for can be really valuable to understand if this is the right fit for you, and also what to emphasize in your application. 
   9. Ask faculty in advance if they can write strong letters of support for you (asking for "strong" gives them a graceful out if for some reason they can't rave about you, in that case much better to get another letter writer). If they accept, be organized and efficient when sending them info organized by due date. A reminder as the due date approaches can be a good idea. Be sure to keep them posted and thank them for their help- a note or a treat is appreciated! 
   10. Scan complete copies of transcripts to submit for unofficial versions.
   11. Organize and scan teaching evaluations and other materials to demonstrate teaching effectiveness. 

• Submit app and follow up
  1. Read the job description carefully to make sure that you submit everything that they ask for (and usually no more, though some things like # of references can be flexible).
  2. Keep track of due dates, where you have applied, and current application status (reject/no answer/etc.)
  3. Respond promptly to any requests for additional information
  4. Might be a good idea to contact places you have heard nothing back from to ensure they have all your materials, and perhaps inquire about search timing.

•  Getting a phone call from the search chair!
  1. Try to sound like a potential colleague, and not like a surprised grad student interrupted while having lunch with friends, as I did my first time around! (Avoid saying, “Sweet!” like I did. But express enthusiasm for the position and thank them for inviting you to interview).
  2. Scheduling the interview- be aware it's an advantage to be the last candidate they meet. Push (nicely!) for the last date offered. 
  3. Have a few questions ready to ask; you can also plan to make an appointment to ask more specifics later
     1. Your presentations
        1. How many talks, when, and what format are you giving? (Research seminar/job talk; “chalk talk”; guest lecture for undergrad class; part of existing seminar series)
        2. Can you get scheduled for some prep time before your talks?
        3. What audiovisuals are available? (presumably ppt)
        4. If giving a guest lecture, ask to see the syllabus, copy of assigned reading (think about assigning your own), number of students in class, usual format of class (discussion, activity, lecture, lab?)
        5. How much time usual for Q&A?
     2. Meeting with people
        1. Who is on the search committee (you will be meeting with all of them- research them & their work).
        2. Also look at other junior faculty and people outside the department to meet with.
        3. Request (insist) on meeting with undergrad and grad students (important to assess department climate, your future grad students, and win bonus “s/he cares!” points)
     3. Department and school
        1. What’s the history of the department? Hiring plans for the future?
        2. What’s the teaching load?
     4. Will you have a chance to see labs, research facilities, offices, surrounding community?
     5. Logistics
        1. Usually they will put you in touch with an administrator to make your air, hotel, transit etc.  arrangements. Probably easier to book your own ticket and get reimbursed.
        2. Work hard to get last scheduled interview slot (early candidates are often a vehicle for committees to fight out their differences)
        3. Ask for copy of meeting schedule (including locations) and get map of campus ahead of time
•  The Visit!
  1. Bring your A game! (And realize it’s in everyone’s best interest if you do a great job.)
  2. Interviews typically last 1-2 days (be well rested in advance, probably won’t be your best night’s sleep ever the night before)
  3. Preparing your “job talk”/research seminar:
     1. Be sure to put your research in context (five minutes on why we should care about this before diving into details)
     2. Tailor to the locale to the extent possible (give local examples or mention possible collaborations appropriate to that place)
     3. Give a run-through to friends and colleagues at home ahead of time. Provide a written form for feedback for those who have to leave early, and to capture small things like “fix title font on slide 7” and avoid having to detail them on everyone’s time. (Add slide numbers to faciliate this.) 
     4. Consider practicing the talk at the Center for Teaching and Learning, using video critique and other resources there.
  4. Packing for the trip:
     1. Carry-on bag only (no luggage to lose)
     2. Multiple copies of your talks, in multiple formats (on laptop, USB drive, email to yourself)
     3. Dress for success… suits! Accessories. Shoes. Professional briefcase/laptop bag. Professional folder for papers. Watch. Consider setting your cell phone alarm to go off at the end of appointments so you can exit gracefully and not be late for the next person.
     4. Cash for meals, taxis etc; envelope for receipts (save everything)
     5. Print out your meeting schedule and campus map to bring with you
     6. Bring easy to eat and non-messy snacks for the interview day(s) when you're running around! 
  5. Interview strategy
     1. Make quick notes you can refer to in the hallway between meetings on each person you’re meeting with (e.g., Mongolia, writing, saxophone to remind you of the topics you want to discuss with them based on your Internet stalking!)
     2. let them take the lead in interviews, but also be prepared to ask questions of everyone you meet, from the Dean to students
     3. Be prepared to ask and answer LOTS of questions! (See separate articles for examples)
     4. Consider how you’ll demonstrate independence from your dissertation advisor and his/her research agenda (esp. for natural sciences)
     5. For student meetings:
        1. Circulate a sign-in list so you can keep names straight and get their emails to follow up later if needed (students can be hard to find on the web)
        2. These are fun and important meetings; remember that students will often have some say in the decision.
     6. Teaching
        1. Be ready to discuss 2-4 classes you would teach, including potential texts and labs; be flexible. It looks great if you have a syllabus outline or can talk about the texts you’d use.
     7. Ask for a bathroom break if you need one!
     8. Meals: order food with care (not the time to don the bib for the crab with spaghetti). Limit alcohol consumption. Follow the lead of your interviewees in how much to talk about work vs. more casual conversation, but remember to stay professional- you are being evaluated on everything you say and do! 
        
        

•  Follow-up, Offers, Negotiation
  1. Thank search chair promptly after your visit (email is fine). If very interested in the position, say so and contact others with whom you met.
     1. If you are pursuing multiple positions, ask the search chair about the department’s expected timeline for making a decision; this will help you figure out a plan for juggling the different timelines inevitably associated with your opportunities.
  2. Getting an offer!
     1. Congrats!!! This is a huge honor and well-deserved recognition that you are a superstar. But you’re not finished yet… so keep your A game up.
     2. Offer could come by phone or email. Sound enthusiastic!
        1. get details about the offer
        2. talk about a timeline for making a decision or taking the next step in the negotiating process.
  3. Negotations – a start 
     1. Get advice from your mentors – they are here to help you and probably thrilled to do so!
        1. when talking with them, get a sense for what is typical in the department in which you will be hired (adjusted for the type of institution where the offer comes from)
     2. After considering your offer (and the advice from mentors), brainstorm changes and additions to your offer that you’d like to talk about with the search chair
        1. What do you need to be successful in the position? [salary, startup, teaching load, etc.]. Consider a lab budget for equipment, etc.
     3. Carve out time for self-reflection
        1. is this the job for you?
        2. how does it compare to other jobs you have applied for?
     4. Try to find neutral people at the institution that you can talk to about the general feeling of the place (e.g., friends of friends; junior and senior faculty are useful to talk with)
     5. Be patient and don’t feel (or appear) anxious to say “yes” or “no”… easier said then done! We have heard the conventional wisdom that once a department has made you an offer, they’d like to work with you to get you to “yes”. So keep in good communication and be fair, but also push for things that you will need to succeed.
  4. Not getting the initial offer
     1. Thank the search chair for their time, say that you enjoyed the opportunity, and ask for feedback on areas of improvement in the future.
     2. If still interested in the job, stay in touch with the search chair, since people do turn down job offers. Also, realize it was a great opportunity to broaden your connections and present your work to new audiences, and it may lead to other opportunities down the line. Consider if any new collaboration opportunities arose.