In this new post of my ‘dos and don’ts’,
I have decided to stitch together Part I (2016) and Part II (2018) of the earlier
MEL editorials, and at the same time update the text with important editorial
policy changes and advice to authors. Unavoidably, some repetition may be
visible in what follows, but I hope we shouldn’t disagree that repetition is
the mother of learning. Posting this note rather than publishing it has the
added advantage of making revisions easy. In this regard, I will be looking
forward to comments and suggestions from authors, readers, editors, referees,
or anyone interested in the further advancement of MEL.
Dos and don’ts of scholarly publishing
Publishing in a good journal is not as
difficult as it may appear at first sight; but there are certain rules on how
this game should be played. In many universities, courses are even given to PhD
students on “how to interact with your editor”. The few points below are
intended as a ‘check list’, throughout the publishing process, until you see
your name in print.
When choosing a journal, try first to
understand its scope and objectives, in order to satisfy yourself that
your paper ‘fits’ there. Otherwise you may be losing your time and eventually
receive a frustrating negative decision. The prestige of the journal itself is
less important. What is important is to select a journal where your paper will
have the highest impact (and thus citations); we have seen papers in the most
prestigious of journals, albeit with 3 citations in, say, 5 years.
When you draft your paper, do so with your
reader in mind. Starting from the abstract, try to make your paper as
‘appetizing’ as possible, constantly ensuring that your reader will continue
reading it to the very end. Your abstract is crucial in this respect. This is
the place where you should tell people what is innovative in your paper, or why
your paper had to be written, over and above what others have done before you.
This is a good point to stress that most journals publish “incremental
contributions”, i.e. contributions which build on the work others have done
before us. Rarely would applied journals such as MEL publish the
‘discovery of the wheel’.
Decide who your reader is and write
accordingly. Does your paper intend to address people with a theoretical
background, or business and policy makers? In other words, is your main
contribution a methodological one, or does it have policy implications of
direct applicability? This decision should determine the choice of journal,
your writing style, and the contents of your paper (e.g. the desirability of
full exposition of technical detail, in a paper whose value is in its policy
As much as reasonably possible, try to avoid
arguing with a referee. Once your paper has been assessed as one worth looking
at further, referees are there to help you publish. To the best of your
ability, try to comply with their requests, rather than stubbornly insist on a
certain opinion. When a referee asks a question, he does not only expect an
answer, but rather to see that answer reflected in your text. Avoid journals
with poor reputation on the ‘rigor’ of their reviewing process. Would you
really submit again to a journal which has accepted your previous paper just by
informing you that “this is a good paper and we would like to publish it”?
Would you really submit to a (predator) journal who is trying hard to get your
paper? Or one which promises you publication in one month? Your peers
understand your need to publish, and to publish rather fast. But they also know
‘who is who’ in the world of publishing and they might not even look at a paper
published in a predator journal, notwithstanding the latter’s impact factor.
It is quite common amongst upcoming academics,
particularly PhD students, to want to publish as sole authors. In some
universities, this may even be a requirement from PhD students. If, however,
you can co-author your paper with a senior academic, e.g. your supervisor, that
would be the smart thing to do. Today, we are overwhelmed by information and
our reading time is limited. No matter how good your paper is, the chances of
it being read (and cited) are much thinner, than if you would co-author it with
an acclaimed scholar. I know a lot of rising academics who even pursue this as
a strategy; i.e., to co-author with everyone who is someone. And do not forget:
the objective is “citations” rather than seeing your name in print.
Writing is an art. A lot of otherwise
technically excellent papers are rejected because of poor style, experience in
academic writing, or command of the English language. Your reader does not have
the time to try to decipher what you “would like” to say. Try to be succinct
and to the point. Use short sentences. Avoid wordiness and repetition. Saying
something once should suffice. Before submitting, always ask a couple of your
colleagues (ideally good English speakers) to have a look and comment.
Long literature reviews are usually not
appreciated by many readers who often tend to skip them, particularly when the
cited works are remotely related to yours. Stick, therefore, to works that are
relevant to yours, i.e. works that you have actually used, or they have
influenced the development of your paper. When reviewing a work, rather than
describing what that author did, try instead to discuss his conclusions and the
way they impact your own work. If possible, instead of discussing each author
separately, which may involve repetition, try to identify central themes
in your work (e.g. your methodology), and list authors who have work on them.
Depending on how the journal has
prioritized your paper, reviewing time can be quite lengthy and good referees
are an ‘endangered species’. An occasional inquiry to the editor would be
appreciated but do not overdo it.
Finally, there is the big question of
‘publishing ethics’; e.g. submitting your paper simultaneously to more than one
journals, or publishing it electronically at various depositories while your
paper is under consideration, etc.. Many journals blacklist such authors. On
this, I would advise you to take a good look at COPE: Committee on Publication
Ethics – www.publicationethics.org
which I am sure you will find very
Good luck with your research and I am
looking forward to considering it in MEL.
Professor HE Haralambides
Dalian, China, 2016
Dos and Don’ts of Scholarly Publishing (Part
to Part I (above) was written with the rising star in mind: the
‘promising young academic’ or the one on a career path / tenure track. Today,
these colleagues represent a growing body of both our readership and of our
contributing authors. Senior academics are familiar with all that follows below,
of course, but their advice on improving our procedures would be more than
Be knowledgeable about the subject you want
to write about (if possible, co-author your paper with industry executives). If
you write about a ship, or a port, or a terminal, make sure you have actually
seen one. MEL is an applied journal. If visiting
(e.g. a dry port) is difficult, and often it is, do keep in mind
that, today, there are hundreds of good videos around, freely accessible on the
internet. When you thus talk about a ‘containership bay’, or a ‘terminal
apron’, or a ‘container twist lock’, it is important that you have seen one and
understand how it works. Shipping companies and ports are run by some very
successful, albeit practically-minded, executives, often with a notable disdain
for the maritime academia
With your paper, try to bridge this gap and allay their misgivings. In the same
vain, while preparing your paper, do not read only scientific works;
familiarize yourself with the professional world around your subject, including
newspapers and sectoral Press.
Before you submit your paper to a journal,
distribute a working paper and invite comments from colleagues and
business contacts. Even better, organize a staff
seminar and present your paper. Do not be afraid to do that. This is the
best advice I could give you. Most likely, upon submission, your editor may
also ask you: “have you ever shown your paper to anyone before submitting?”.
MEL, same as many other applied journals, very rarely publishes ‘exercises on paper’, or research no one
has asked for, or research that addresses questions that exist only in the
Unless you already have considerable
publishing experience and are familiar with the journals of your sector,
choosing the right journal (and editor) is no easy job. The first question you
should ask yourself is ‘whom am I writing for?’. Are you addressing a broader
audience (business; government; policy-making) or rather technical academics (Operations Research / Econometrics)?
This should determine your writing style. In other words, is your contribution
to be found in the paper’s methodology, or in its policy/business
ramifications? If your contribution is methodological, then submit to an OR/Econometrics
journal. If however your contribution is in your paper’s “policy/business
ramifications”, the technical discussion (as well as math) should be limited to
a bare minimum in the main text; a good reference provided for the interested
reader; and the methodology placed in an appendix. There, the detail should be
sufficient so that your model(s) can be easily replicated by others.
Most journals do not take well to
declarations of confidentiality (e.g. the company name cannot be mentioned, or
the data cannot be submitted due to confidentiality, etc.). Your editor will
ask you to explain the reasons for the confidentiality and if they are not
valid/strong, your paper will probably be rejected. In the same vain, for
papers based on surveys, be prepared to disclose the names of the interviewees,
if requested by the editor.
Read many issues (abstracts) of the
proposed journal and try to understand its Aims
and Scope: is it for you? Does it publish papers like yours? This
understanding is crucial to avoid a disappointing rejection. If in doubt, it is
not a bad idea to send an abstract to the journal’s editor and ask; most
editors will be happy to enlighten you. Always submit to a journal with a proper
impact factor. If your proposed
journal did not have an impact factor in certain years, inquire with the EiC as
to the reasons why. Consult JCR (journal citation reports) for journals that
may have been suspended and/or not given an impact factor.
Your editor is probably a senior colleague;
treat him as such and write to him personally, rather than asking your
secretary (or a student assistant) to submit the paper. If you do not have time
for him, perhaps he and his referees may not have time for you.
Your Cover Letter (CL) is very important
and it is an immediate ‘sample’ of your paper. By reading your CL, your editor
will get a first idea (and there is never a second chance for a good first
impression) about the quality of your paper, as well as about your skills and
Do not duplicate your abstract in the CL;
rather, and just in a few lines, try to convince your editor why publishing
your paper has merit and it is a good idea.
Give full details of all co-authors,
including their (institutional) email, affiliation, and designation.
Mention some key publications of each
co-author, in the English language, and published in an English medium. If
possible, quote papers in refereed journals. Usually, editors have a lesser
interest in conference proceedings or book chapters.
Try to answer, as accurately and to the
point as possible, the three questions posed at the end of the Cover Letter.
Declare (no) conflict of interest and your
acknowledgements (if any).
The template of the MEL Cover Letter can
be downloaded from the journal’s website.
A common mistake, usually made by aspiring
academics, is to try to publish as a sole author. It is a mistake because a
senior co-author, e.g. your supervising professor, will bring you citations.
This should be your real objective and not to see your name in print, albeit
with zero citations. Our reading time becomes scarcer and scarcer, while at the
same time we are drowning in information and new publications. Many people will
read a paper co-authored by a famous professor, but very few (if any) will read
one by a relatively unknown young researcher, no matter how good her paper
A senior co-author brings another benefit onboard:
most probably he is also a seasoned writer and, as I discuss below, writing is
an ‘art’ which takes years to develop. A common reason for rejecting a paper is
poor English and writing style, notwithstanding how good, technically, the
paper might be.
As regards authors name order, in MEL and in many other journals, most of the
time, co-authors appear in alphabetical order of family name. MEL assumes that all co-authors are equally and
indistinguishably responsible for the paper. If this is not the case, and thus
authors require a different name order, the journal may need to explain ‘respective
roles’ in a footnote.
is and art
The minute a student assistant sits behind
a computer, he often believes they are ready for the Nobel Prize. This is
particularly true if the SA is a skillful and talented mathematician, trying to
apply his skills to a relatively under-researched problem in humanities and social
However, it is one thing to come up with good
results, or prepare nice tables and graphs, and another thing to write a good paper.
Differently, it is one thing to put words in a sentence, and another to compose
a sentence conveying a clear message in a structured and impactful way.
Write succinctly. Use short sentences and
avoid wordiness and repetition. If your English is good, do not try to show it
off; our discipline is an applied one; not literature. Avoid the superlative and words like ‘fabulous’,
‘tremendous’, etc., which are quite common in expressions of many countries.
If you are not native English speaker, use the
services of an English editor prior to submitting. There are many of them
around, from the prestigious ones of international publishers, to one-person
internet-based companies. Their prices vary greatly,
ranging from $100 to $500 per paper or even more. If necessary, seek advice
because what matters is not price but
price-quality, as well as the amount of work your paper requires (which can
range from light grammatical improvements to actual ‘heavy rewriting’).
Finally, write with your readers in mind
and not yourself or your colleagues. Your readers may not know as much as you
do and thus you should not take too many things for granted. A part in your
introduction should provide your reader with all the information necessary to
understand your paper.
Think of an “appetizing” title which should
be as brief as possible but also representative of your contents. A good title,
consisting of carefully selected, albeit ‘hot’, words is your ticket to
citations. I have come across many papers of mediocre content but with hundreds
of citations, just because the author was smart enough to choose the right words
in the title. Unfortunately, life is not always serious and sometimes –for
longevity too- it should not be taken too seriously either.
To the extent possible, your Abstract
(200-250 words) should be written in non-technical language, aimed at the
general reader. It should not contain formulas, symbols, references or
footnotes. This is the most important part of your paper, and the one that
everybody will read; it needs to convince the reader that the paper is worth
reading. In non-technical language, explain to the reader why you wrote this
paper; who has asked for it; what do you add to existing knowledge; what is
your methodology; what are your main conclusions. Remember: your abstract is
something very different from your introduction, which will probably follow. Thus,
do not duplicate.
Long literature reviews are usually not
appreciated by readers. This does not mean you should neglect important
contributions, but instead of discussing each work individually (which might
involve some repetition), try instead to discuss a theme or an issue, and
put in parentheses the authors who have dealt with it.
When you discuss a work, don’t mention only
what the author did but, more importantly, discuss his results and how these
impact your own work; this is the reason you quote a work, and not just to show
that you have read a lot. In this sense, your literature review should comprise
works relevant to yours in a narrow sense; e.g., when you optimize stowage on a
ship, don’t review papers on stacking yard optimization, although both subjects
may be using the same methodology).
Identify top researchers (and top papers)
and stay away from the trivial ones (no citations). Most definitely, do not
build your paper, based on trivial publications. Finally, your references
should be as recent as possible, in English, and easily traceable.
Spare no effort to produce high quality,
professional, tables and figures. If you do not have such skills, seek advice,
or help from a colleague or a graphic designer. Tables and figures are the
‘mirror’ of your paper and they show to the reader the degree of diligence and
amount of investment you have put into the drafting of your paper. An impressed
referee my feel obliged to reciprocate and invest in your paper as a quid pro quo.
Tables and figures should be
self-explanatory; thus, you should not repeat/discuss them (a lot) in the text.
It is easy to create lots of tables and
figures; however, readers are not impressed by their number. Often, a table or
a figure is redundant, just taking up journal space which is very expensive. If
you can say something in conventional sentences, instead of a table or figure,
do so. Same is true for bullet lists: if you can avoid them, and structure your
text in the usual way, do so.
Once your paper is submitted, the EiC will
decide if it should be considered further or returned as not fitting into the
journal’s aims and scope.
In the former case, the paper is forwarded
for refereeing. Referees will have to do the same test: i.e., advise the EiC on
Outright Rejection (ORR), or proceed with their review. Instances where ORR is
common are “exercises on paper” -mostly of the optimization/simulation type-,
with little or zero practical relevance. Other ORR cases consist of “attempted
solutions” to problems that exist (or created) only in the author’s head, i.e.
solutions no one has asked for. Finally, several editors feel that an
additional reason for an ORR might be their expectations on a paper’s impact
(citations); something not totally uncorrelated with an author’s prior
If the referee decides to review your paper,
he becomes your friend and your advisor (at least in MEL); thus, treat him
nicely! His objective is to help you improve your paper. He will be
constructive, therefore, and will not ask you to do impossible things, e.g.
re-estimate a model. If he wanted to do that, he would have rejected the paper
at the beginning (ORR).
Dedicated and reliable referees are
difficult to find; an ‘endangered species’ I would say. We therefore need to treat
them with a lot of understanding as regards their time and busy agendas. The
refereeing process of a serious journal is a lengthy one. If you look for
‘quick and dirty’ refereeing, there are plenty of journals around, but think of
your reputation: Would you submit again to a journal whose only comment was
“this is a good paper and we accept it”? Or one that promises to publish your
paper in one month?
For journals like MEL, the ramifications of
your results for business and society are more important than figures and
percentages in the conclusions.
Start from your most important results and
move down to the less important.
Same as in the abstract, conclusions should
be written in non-technical language, to the extent possible. As many people may
decide to start reading from your abstract and then conclusions, both should be
written in ‘perfect English’; if necessary, seek advice.
Conclusions are ‘conclusions’ and although
you may also want to summarize the paper (legitimate), you should not introduce
aspects of it, or new ideas, which have not been discussed in the main text.
Also, try not to include references, tables, or graphs in your conclusions.
Finally, also discuss the limitations of your paper and your ideas on
furthering your work.
Good luck with your research!
Professor HE Haralambides
Rotterdam, 2018 / Paris 2020