General introduction
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
(Part I)
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
recommendations).
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
enlightening.
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
II)
Introduction
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 author’s mind.
Which
journal?
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.
The MEL
Cover Letter
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.
Co-authorship
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.
Writing
is and art
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,[2]
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.
Title
and abstract
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.
Literature
review
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.
Tables
and figures
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.
Peer
review
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 publishing experience.
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?
Conclusions
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
[1] A very important econometrician once approached the port of
Rotterdam, with Archimedes lever in hand, and said: “give me the data and I will solve
all your problems”. They are still laughing at the Port of Rotterdam.
[2] I made a mistake: I used superlative, i.e. ‘greatly’ rather than,
say, ‘significantly’.
[3] I was once talking to the EiC of a top economics journal. With a
big smile on his face I remember him telling me that 75% of his rejections were
ending up in two competing journals which, interestingly, had a much higher
impact factor than his own!
[4] As said above, this is ‘research’ you should be doing before
submitting.