Speaking with Editors at Conferences

Something I've been asked quite a bit is about the presence of editors and editorial board members at conferences. We all know what the conference circuit is like - give a paper, listen to a paper, go see the sights, maybe - if you can afford it - go to the conference dinner. But what else could you do at a conference to help increase your chances of getting that conference paper published? Well, to begin with, you could actually speak to journal editors. And I mean actual academic editors, not the journal publisher's representative. Whilst the latter can certainly give you useful information about the scope of the journal (and probably some freebies), the former is who you need to speak to if you want to get your paper closer to being published.

OK theAdmin, you might say. But where to start? I mean, what about the actual speaking with editors part? Here's my top tips:

1.) Firstly, PLEASE DO. Seriously. There's very little at a conference that is more boring for an editor than not having anyone attend a Meet the Editors roundtable session. Speaking with potential authors is exactly their purpose. Forget all your insecurities and imposter syndrome issues and go and say hello, find out what the journal is like and what the editor is looking for. You might find you can save yourself quite a bit of stress (Click here for my post on the main reason for rejection) with a five minute conversation.

An editor waiting at a conference roundtable....giphy.com

2.) Don't feel unimportant. Editors attend conferences in part to find and attract new authors. If you've never published with a particular journal, or if you have and you are likely to do so again, then you are considered a potential author. Having these conversations can help direct your conference paper into a more publishable context once you find the right journal.

3.) Work the room. You can talk to as many editors as are present (You just can't submit to multiple editors at once). Find out about as many journals as possible. Why? You might discover a gem that you'd never considered - or not really heard much about (esp. true at international conferences). You might also find relevant calls for papers. Furthermore, editors are usually on several editorial boards at the same time, so just because they are there for specialist journal A doesn't mean they can't talk to you about generalist journal B if it's a better fit.

4.) Speaking of better fits, editors know their field. If you talk to one and find that maybe it's not right for you, ask if they have any suggestions. Seriously. The academic editorial world is pretty small. If they are a halfway decent editor, then they can recommend another journal that might be a better fit. But, usually, you have to ask. Think about it - if a paper clearly doesn't fit in a journal, an editor can avoid extra work by suggesting somewhere else to you quickly at a conference rather than waiting for a submission and then rejecting it and suggesting somewhere else.

5.) If you know you are interested in a specific journal, then arrange an appointment with the editor or editorial board member if you can. They may just refer you to a roundtable session, but most will consider meeting with you. Conferences are about networking - two birds, one stone. It will also give you something concrete to put on your application for a conference fund....

6.) Last - but not least - INTRODUCE YOURSELF: nobody else will. Get the ball rolling. This may not help immediately, but when you follow it up with an email or submission, you may feel more confident knowing who is on the other end of that system. I've worked with many ECRs in the past - they always seem more confident with submissions if they have met the editorial team.


And, after what feels like a decade long hiatus, those are my top tips for meeting editors at conferences. Go forth and be industrious. And look out for more material soon!

-theAdmin

Deadly Sins of Publishing: The Co-author Calamity

Finally returned to my Deadly Sins series - and apologies for the gap in posts, I've been on a break and also changing to freelance journal admin and copy-editing, which means I'm open to offers and teaching sessions. And yes, that was shameless self-promotion.

 Back to the issue at hand.

Deadly Sin No. 2: The Co-author Calamity.

Firstly, let me state very clearly: this is in no way meant to discourage having, or being, a co-author. Quite the contrary, actually, as I wholeheartedly encourage collaboration and academic partnerships. My discipline rarely uses co-authors, and I think that's a shame.

So what's the deal with co-authors? Why are they on the deadly sins list?

The calamity is when a co-authoring goes wrong. And I'm not talking about disputes in writing. Honestly, from the journal's point of view, we really don't care about how well you and your co-author(s) get along. But omission, fraud, and misattribution are all very serious and can land you on a journal's watchlist. Or even their blacklist if the transgression is worthy of it (yes, I have a list of authors that we won't consider because we can't trust that their work is genuine).

So here's what to watch out for:

1.) Omission:  Ensure all co-authors are listed and full contact details are given, as required by the journal. 

Don't leave co-authors off with the thought that you'll add them at a later date. If you can't remember Jimmy's email address, don't submit the paper and think you can go back. Wait until you have Jimmy's email address to include in the submission. When a paper is submitted the system will email you and all your co-authors to say the submission has been received. And always double check you have everyone.

2.) Fraud: Do NOT include someone who is not a co-author, especially if you have never met them.

We received emails from our publishing house not too long ago asking us to be especially aware of this rising issue. Simply put, authors are adding bogus co-authors to their papers to try to get them accepted sooner due to the bogus academics' names and reputations. This is why it's so important that we have full contact details of all co-authors and why they receive communication as well. If you have a paper on a topic, fraudulently adding Eminent Professor's name to it will not help your acceptance. It'll get you blacklisted from a journal, just like any major ethics violations. Fraud like this doesn't just harm your reputation though, it jeopardizes everything else a journal publishes, as well as the editor's, the publisher's, and Eminent Professor's reputations. 

3.) Misattribution: Make sure that all your co-authors are actually co-authors. 

What do I mean by this? Simple. The person who proof-reads your paper is not a co-author. Do not list him/her. Is your supervisor a co-author because s/he helped you revise your paper for submission? Most likely not. If you are not sure, ASK. A competent and honest supervisor can easily judge whether or not the work s/he did constitutes authorship. If someone helps you out with a small piece of data analysis, is s/he a co-author? That's up to the level of work. Don't forget about acknowledgements. But if you aren't sure, just ask a more experienced researcher or your supervisor/mentor.

Another point is that if you are the corresponding author, then you must correspond. If we send a query or quibble, then it'll go to you. Don't leave your co-authors in the dark about the process. I once had an email from a very anxious co-author asking for an update because no one had heard anything. I had to break it to them that their corresponding co-author had neglected to tell them the paper was rejected six months ago (clearly they hadn't read this or this about selecting a journal). 

And that's the deal with co-authors. Be clear, be honest, be precise. Above all, enjoy the collaboration that a good co-author can provide. 

Next on the docket: Guest posts! You finally get to read from someone other than me. I've got an exciting two-parter lined up about writer's block and the experience of publishing. 

As always, questions and comments are welcome. Just tweet, email, or comment. 

-theAdmin

Choosing the Right Journal (The No. 1 Reason For Rejection)

Finally going to finish this series of the top reasons for rejection. The main reason we reject papers outright is extremely easy to avoid – the paper simply does not belong in the journal. You’ve chosen the wrong journal. It’s that simple.

theAdmin's face when we receive papers that don't belong

 reactiongifs.com

  

Usually, the situation is one of the two scenarios below, though there are of course lots of exceptions:

The journal is a general research journal, and your paper deals with a topic that is far too specific for the journal’s audience.

This generally means that, for example, you are writing about the minutiae of a specific methodology  that a handful of people use in a small area of literature research, but you’ve submitted to the Interdisciplinary Journal of Eighteenth Century Studies. Unless you are able to make a very strong and concrete argument that would appeal to the wider audience, you’d be better off looking for the Journal of Literature Minutiae.

One of my favourite real life examples of this was when “my” journal received a submission with beautiful pictures and artwork of a regional variety of architecture. Don’t get me wrong, the pictures were very pretty, but the journal is not an architecture journal, nor does it specialise in the particular region. We’re also not an art journal and do not publish coloured photographs. Another was about the specifics of training for Turkish traffic enforcement – no relevancy whatsoever for what we actually publish.

The journal is a specialist journal and your paper deals with a topic that is far too general for the journal’s audience.

This would be the opposite of the above scenario – you submit something about the broad implications of Eighteenth Century literature to the Journal of Literature Minutiae without making the argument for relevancy at the micro level.

So, in other words, you most likely haven’t researched the journal’s audience and you haven’t gone through the Aims & Scope of the journal to find out what they are and- equally as important – are not looking to publish. This also applies to the internationalism versus regionalism of the journal.

How do you select  an appropriate journal and what should you be considering?

1) Have a look at the articles that you use in your research – in which journals do they appear? How long ago were they published and is that journal still following the same aims & scope? Journal practices change over time, especially with an editor or publisher change. {“my” journal, for example, has changed drastically due to a change in editor}

2) Really think about your audience. Who is your target? Theorists, practitioners, researchers, policy makers..? Who reads this journal and why?

3) Who is the editor? Also take a look through the editorial board – are they relevant and active?

4) Ask your supervisors, mentors, and peers for their opinions and advice. Supervisors are especially helpful in this area, as are academic mentors for those past the PhD stage.

5) Look for calls for papers – this will often be around special issues and special topics, so it’s worth keeping an eye out and signing up for announcement emails from publishers.

6) Is the journal international or just regional? Is this important?

7) Is it peer-reviewed? How long will this take?

8) Who publishes the journal?

9) What are the Open Access and repository policies? This is why it's important to know who actually publishes the journal.  How does this affect your options (grant requirements, etc.) ?

10) Is the journal ranked? Is this important to you? How does your discipline rank journals?

11) Is it available online and/or print? How important is each of these? Some publishing markets still heavily rely on print journals.

12) Impact Factor – does this make a difference?

13) If you’re still not sure if your paper fits, ASK THE EDITOR.

What if you find out you’ve been rejected for this reason?

Sometimes, if the editor is worthwhile, s/he will suggest another, more suitable journal for you to consider. It was theEditor’s practice to be as supportive as possible (again, all editors, journal policies, and publishers are different) in suggesting other avenues as it also works in the journal’s best interest and creates academic goodwill. The editors of those other journals tend to be appreciative of having good papers pointed in their direction.

 

Editors often comment on good papers sent their way - this is how I like to imagine it. gifphy.com

  

But if this is the reason you are rejected, then you need to do more research about where to submit. You might think your paper is very general, but if you’ve had tunnel-vision (often developed during PhD writing), then you might not realise how very specific your paper actually is. Take it as a positive to have a quick rejection due to this reason. It means you were trying the wrong places and can now target better.

Realistically, how long does it take an editor to determine if it’s a good fit or not?

Usually, a single read through. If that. I’ve seen it happen from the abstract or the first page. You need to start and demonstrate relevance rather quickly in articles. Waxing lyrical for a few pages is a massive disadvantage, especially if your paper is borderline of interest. Never underestimate the power of a good and concise abstract.

Sometimes, an editor will give you a chance to rewrite a paper to fit their journal's audience a bit better. If they offer you this option, then by all means take it - it means there is merit in your work and are willing to spend a bit of time in helping you avoid rejection.

**

And there ends my series of the top reasons for rejection. (Click here for Parts I, II, and III). I'm going to be working on a series of smaller questions/FAQs for some future posts, as well as having a few guest posts on specific topics. If you have any questions, comments, or thoughts you'd like to contribute, please do get in touch. 

-theAdmin

Tweet   (go on...tell your friends!)

Contacting a Journal

Today’s post is dedicated to a friend of mine, who is petrified of contacting an editor.

Why is my friend scared, you may ask. I honestly don’t know, but my main guess is that the editor represents all of academia and stands to cast out judgment. It’s pretty common to develop at least a shade of imposter’s syndrome during graduate studies, and this really comes to the fore when postgraduate students start discussing article submissions. 

So here are my thoughts on the issue. The part of my friend will be played by bold. The conversation isn’t verbatim because when I said “friend”, I quite obviously meant a composite of every graduate student I’ve ever met. Though I do have friends. I promise.

I have a question about something in my paper, and I’m really not sure what common practice is. It’s a non-standard term, and I don’t want to sound dumb. What would you do? I’ve asked around and everyone is saying something different.

Well, composite friend, I know what I would do, but that’s irrelevant. You’re interested in what the journal would want. If you are so very concerned about it, contact the journal and ask. It’s very rare for something like this to decide whether your paper is accepted or not, but chances are, it’s not the first time someone has asked. Is there an administrator to contact? Email and ask.

But won’t that make me look overly paranoid and pesky?

No. That’s why there’s a contact for queries like that. Same goes for word counts...concerned whether the word count includes references, etc.? Ask. Editors and administrators don’t bite (usually).

What if they don’t respond?

Read the guidelines for authors (the answer might be in there), then submit the paper with the best guess you’ve got. Don’t wrap yourself into knots over such a small issue – be more concerned about the overall paper. Quite often when authors get wound up over a small issue, they lose the plot. Usually, if your non-standard use is going to be queried, it will be at the reviewer stage. They are, after all, the experts.

So you’re saying it’s OK for me to contact an editor before I submit a paper to them?

YES. A THOUSAND TIMES YES. Editors and administrators, in general, do not have a problem about being contacted about possible, potential papers. It actually makes a nice change sometimes to get an email from someone that isn’t an automated email from our online portals saying that “X has submitted a paper entitled Y. Please do something about it.”

No one has EVER told me I could contact an editor before.

I know. It’s one of the flaws of the system. We pressure students and early career researchers to publish, but the system provides very little guidance on the practical process and the nitty gritty of actually getting to the point of publishing. Yes, you can contact the journal. Yes, you can ask questions before submitting your paper. Yes, you can send an abstract and ask if the journal is right for your paper your paper is right for their journal.

What was that last bit?

Choosing the correct journal is one of the single most important parts about getting your paper published. It’s the number one reason for rejection. The onus of finding the right journal is on the author – and it’s well worth your time to research this carefully. I’ll be doing a separate post on this sooner or later. It’s not uncommon for potential authors to email an abstract and ask whether the journal would be interested in the paper. Usually, editors will respond with a clear Yes, we’d love to consider it or no thanks, this one isn’t for us. Why would an editor do this? It saves them time. But there are rules to this.

The (previously) unwritten rules of contacting an editor or administrator:

       1. Be polite and be professional.

You would be surprised how many people forget this rather obvious starting point.

      2. Be clear and to the point. Do not give your CV in introduction.

To be frank, we don’t really care who you are. We operate a blind reviewing system, remember?

      3.  Include the title and abstract.

In-text is usually best. The abstract should conform to the guidelines for submission. Don’t send a 250 word abstract if the journal’s limit is 150 words. Don’t attach it as a separate file. Make it easy for us.

      4. IMPORTANT: Do NOT include the entire paper.

NEVER  send your paper to an editor outside of the formal submission/review process. It’s unethical and unprofessional. It also wastes time and makes it appear that you want to bypass the system that everyone else uses.

      5. Include your contact details

Yes, we should just be able to click reply, but things happen. This is a formal email. Treat it as such.

6.  Don’t overdo it.

Don’t email every editor under the sun. Don’t do this every time, only when you really need to or are unsure about the Aims & Scopes of a journal. Speaking of...

      7.  Be sure you have FULLY read the Aims & Scopes  and Author Guidelines before contacting an editor or administrator.

If you ask us something that is on those pages, we’ll just refer you to them. Take the time to see if we’ve already answered your question elsewhere. Chances are, we have.

       8.   Don’t give a deadline.

Again, you may be surprised how many emails include a phrase similar to “if you could let me know by...” These sorts of demands really irritate me. You’re the one emailing to ask for something extra.

      9. Always include manuscript reference IDs and previous correspondence.

This is for after submission. If you are emailing about a paper, ALWAYS include the reference identifier for your paper. We don’t keep track of authors, we keep track of IDs. It’s infuriating when I have multiple queries to deal with and have to go searching for which paper we’re talking about. We have hundreds of papers in our system.  If you have previous correspondence, include the email trail. We’re more likely to know the answer to what you’re asking if we actually know what you’re talking about.

Treat contacting an editor or even the administrator as emailing a colleague in another institution. Because that’s what you are doing. And don’t expect a glossy response. It’ll probably be short and to the point. We can’t spend oodles of time on a potential paper. Editors will usually, in good faith, say whether or not it falls into the interest area, but keep in mind that ALL submissions are good for a journal for two reasons: (1) it will end up with a good article (2) it will increase the rejection numbers, thus decreasing the acceptance percentage, thereby attracting better quality papers that will result in (1). 

I suppose my closing thoughts are this: Editors and administrators are just people. Academic people, yes, but just people who were once at the same stage of their careers as you. That being said, don’t be scared to contact us, especially if it’s likely to come up later on down the line.  Editors edit because they enjoy it. Trust me, what pay there is for editors isn’t enough to make someone do it unless their heart is truly in it, which means they enjoy encouraging early career scholars whenever they can.

Still scared?  One last thought: if you do email, you’ll probably get a response from someone like me. Which can’t be too bad, can it? (maybe don’t answer that...)

Anything else? Email or comment - or tweet Tweet to @ECRPublishing

-theAdmin

Tweet