The path for getting published: 9 key observations you may need to consider

There are number of variables and elements to be considered when conducting a research. We were blessed with a world of puzzles to solve, and skills to find a way out with some assumptions and implications served with evidence. It can be challenging, but the real trauma starts with the post-research process. For the mortal creators like us, researchers, the system works on a simple fact: publish or perish. Thus, it is important to understand the dynamics of publication process. Just like in our science, there are number of variables affecting the process. But unlike our science, it may require some social skills, or some engineers like to call without compromising their holy name: social engineering skills.

1. Do not be yourself, be the editor!

First of all, you need to know who you are dealing with. Do your homework, read journal's publication rules, published papers, Editor's background and editor's publications. Try to see the process from the Editor's perspective and provide the only necessary information required in the communication process. The more you help for the evolution process, the more favor and respect you will get. Do not forget that this will be a long term relationship, and following wrong path may not help you to publish in this journal in the future.

2. Be clear & concise

In each communication attempt with editor and reviewer, you need to remember that these people are very busy, and dealing with pile of significant papers as yours. Thus, for any inquiries via e-mail or editorial system, try to be concise and clear. For instance, if you are pointing out a misunderstanding, make your argument and provide the evidence briefly pointing out the date, paper ID, page, line that is relevant.

3. Don't overestimate you work in abstract and in manuscript

It is understandable that believing in your work may go radically out of hand, and you may find yourself arguing and claiming some significant implications that is not even proven in your study. Thus, that might seen as a sign of lack of your knowledge in the field. Your findings can be excellent, but while presenting it, take a one step back and see the whole picture (you may use couple of days off before revising, overview other papers or get help from off-the-field academic to read). If you do not know how to polish your work in academic manners, keep it simple or do not hesitate to ask for help from colleagues.

4. Give extra care for proof-reading

You can introduce yourself only with your paper to the editor and reviewers. The first impression comes from the text. Thus, the grammar mistakes, writing errors and typos are the way you show your characteristics, and it mostly points out that you are a lacking (and disrespectful) person. It may be harsh but thing of this way: it is the only evidence about your work and yourself, and you already failed in ıt. This may easily raise questions that you may not even care your research. As aforementioned, these people are busy, and you are getting an easy rejection because of skipping comprehensive proof-reading.

5. Readability is a key ingredient

This part needs more practice than some suggestions I put here. The more readability and concrete structure your paper has (clear aim, problem statement, method, story, flow and connection among paragraph etc.), the more you pull the reader into your research. That shows that you know what you are doing and that would attract editors. Some may say a well-structured (as well as well-promoted) paper may go published without any significant scientific input at all! These are the moments when you usually say to yourself "How did this paper get published in this journal?". So mind marketing your work, highlight the right things.

6. Be objective

It may be hard to be objective for something that you put a lot of effort and time, and creating it from a scratch. Little mistakes may seem harmless at all. Remember it is not something you will keep to yourself but sharing with the world, and it is brutal outside. So, prepare your work resilient by being objective on your judgements throughout the writing process. You will also benefit from that while maintaining your relationship with co-authors, editor and reviewers. It will also help you not to miss ethical and scientific biases.

7. Extra work on revision and revision letter

Revision and revision letter requires professional and rigorous approach. Paying attention to details in your revision and the response letter will be rewarded. For instance, addressing each comment of reviewers, adding line numbers in your response letter and highlighting your revisions in the manuscript would be beneficial for both parties. This will speed up the evaluation process and you will gain +1 respect point for your dedicated work.

P.S. To be clear, the reward could be not getting a rejection to your paper, yet it is still a reward.

8. Be polite

In the revision letter and communications, put your interpersonal skills in play instead of scientific skills. Being humble and being cooperative will help you a lot in this process, like in any other parts in your life.

9. Don't push so hard

Publish or perish thinking may force researchers to play in gray area. In order to keep your job, and try to meet the demanding performance criteria, researcher may fall into a conflict*. However, it is important to be aware of common ethical rules that crossing would effect your entire career. There are many arguments about this topic, thus it is important to discuss with the colleagues, PI or administration about how to proceed with your science in accordance with the ethical rules, procedures, regulations and "common beliefs".

* I called that conflict as "integrity or commodity dilemma". Briefly, it refers to the dilemma that a researcher have between keeping the scientific integrity (this may be classified as self-actualization needs at Maslow's hierarchy of needs) in their work versus keeping their "commodity" (such as paying for goods and services to maintain their life, which is physiological needs at Maslow's hierarchy) in their life. It is sort of a reflection of "publish or perish" thinking in sociological context. In some cases, this may apply in the same level, self-actualization, between scientific integrity versus selfishness (falsified image creation). -This topic needs to be discussed in another post.

Thank you for reading.

Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Dr. Bert Blocken for his Elsevier web seminar "10 tips for writing a truly terrible journal article". He helped me to wrap up my thoughts in this blog post.