Guest Post: Writing and Writer's Block as an ECR

Firstly, Happy New Year to all my readers! I hope 2015 brings you all health, wealth, and, of course, published papers! 

Secondly, I just wanted to take a moment to thank everyone for all the follows, retweets, posts, emails, messages, and comments. It's been great exercising my editorial muscles over the past year and trying to catalogue some of the knowledge that I've accumulated over the past 7 (yikes! has it been that long?) years. 2015 has some exciting things in store - I officially made the switch to freelance at the end of 2014 so will have more time to devote to blogging (haha) alongside my academic career. So do tell all your friends about me. And keep asking questions! 

reactiongifs.us

For being such loyal readers, for your belated Christmas gift, I decided to post this and its counterpart Guest Post: Writing and Writer's Block as a Professor rather than the normal drivel spewing forth from my own keyboard. The two posts are from two ends of the academic spectrum. In the first, theECR comments on getting through the early years of publishing, as well as the lingering fears and anxiety that we all feel. In the second post, LaProfesseur comments on the established years of publishing, as well as the lingering fears and anxiety that we all feel. And thus the idea behind the two guest posts: ECRs are not alone in fears and anxieties. I'm not saying this to scare you into thinking that it'll never go away. Quite the opposite. The intention is to show you that such things are normal and an integral part of an academic career. Learn to deal with them now, and you'll find they'll become much less of an issue. 

So without further ado, here is a completely unedited version of theECR's words:

It’s been over three months since I had my first peer-reviewed article accepted by a top journal in my field and I’m still pinching myself… and still sort of waiting for them to tell me they’ve made some terrible mistake. To put the imposter syndrome aside for a moment (don’t worry, it’s just for a moment…), when theAdmin asked if I’d contribute a post on the writing process, I agreed immediately. I mean, loads of people blog. How hard could it be?

Actually, it’s pretty hard.

So here I am, trying to write a post about writing, writer's block, and my experience, and, guess what? Yep. I have full on writer's block. You really couldn’t make it up. Underpinning this latest bout of writer’s block was the gnawing question of ‘what if people think my post is rubbish’? In fact, substitute ‘post’ for ‘thesis’, ‘chapter’, or ‘article’ and that pretty much typifies my perception of my academic career to date.

How I Feel Most Days...    Tumblr.com

It would’ve been so easy to suffer in silence, to walk even further into what The Thesis Whisperer has called ‘The Valley of Shit’. I was staring at a blank screen. I was worried about how the blog post would be received. I was convinced I couldn’t write anything useful. Worse than that though, I just felt very alone... just me and this blank screen. All this was uncomfortably familiar. It was exactly how I felt when writing my first article.

Yep...my usual response to The Valley of Shit imgur.com

I knew what I had to do… cue a whiney, late night conversation to theAdmin. It didn’t take long before I soon realised that staring at a blank page and all the various neuroses that come with it are actually totally normal. In fact, they’re fairly typical of the ECR experience.

So, that was a pretty long meandering introduction to a simple truth: we get stuck all the time and there’s no shame in that. In fact, part of being an ECR is learning to use our resources and to ensure that we don’t travel through ‘The Valley of Shit’ on our own. We have guidance and enthusiasm. We have structure and plans (my PhD work plan is my pride and joy…). We have serious support networks, which include our supervisors and mentors, colleagues and friends, and lovely people like theAdmin.

These resources are important. They help you get started and they can even keep you going. I mean, is there any better feeling than someone telling you that you’re on the right track, or that your work is actually good?

Feels GOOD!    imgur.com

My experience was one of trial and error, just like yours will be. But let me start at the beginning of the article writing process. As in all academic disciplines, publishing is paramount. What is it they say? Publish or perish? Unfortunately, it’s a reality for all researchers even ECRs. I knew that I needed to have something accepted for publication otherwise I could kiss goodbye any chance of making it on to a job application long list…

The idea for my article came from the first chapter of my thesis. My supervisor thought it was good enough to publish from and actively encouraged me to turn it into an article. He even suggested a journal that would be most suitable. His buy in and belief in my work gave me an initial boost. However, the prospect of transforming an 11,000 word chapter into a 7,000 word article was tough. What should I cut? Would the journal actually like it? Was it too theoretical?

After bashing the article into some sort of respectable first effort, I realised that I needed to call on my support network. I was too close to this work. It was too precious to me and there was the danger that I had lost a certain amount of objectivity. Was I killing enough of my darlings? Thankfully, my supervisor, theAdmin, and another ECR chum were willing to give up their time to read through my first effort. To be honest, it was pretty nerve wracking just asking for their feedback, but I knew that I had to get the article into the best possible shape before I cast it into the depths of the dreaded peer-review process…

I must’ve printed out the article six times to edit it, edit it some more, and maybe a little more after that. Throughout that period, I had convinced myself that this manuscript was going to be instantly rejected. I soon began to doubt the originality of my approach, the breadth and depth of my research, and my ability to write coherently and, more importantly, academically.

This is not an ideal mindset... tumblr.com

Needless to say, submitting through the journal portal (in this case, ScholarOne) was nerve wracking and daunting. I’d followed the formatting instructions (always remember to do that, otherwise people like theAdmin get peeved), I’d uploaded the anonymised document, I’d dotted the Is and crossed the Ts. And I’d seriously run down the battery on theAdmin’s mobile owing to frantic late night nervous texting.

Why so nervous you might ask? Well, there were many reasons… I was putting my research out there for the first time in written form. It was going to be reviewed and critiqued by experts in my field. I was worried that, if it was rejected, I’d have let down both my supervisor and myself. Clicking that ‘Submit Manuscript’ button was hard because it was loaded with so many hang ups and expectations… all of which I’d placed upon myself.

But you know what? The bit that happened after clicking the button was pretty straightforward and far from the nightmarish experience I thought it would be. We’re not really taught what to expect with the whole peer-review journal process. My misguided belief was that two academics would tear apart my article with glee abandon, laughing their way through my tenuous arguments and flimsy evidence. We’re led to believe that it’s an unknown, mysterious abyss from which a polished paper will magically appear. This is completely false. Contrary to my unfounded, initial expectations, both the editorial and peer-review process were incredibly helpful. The editors were extremely approachable and flexible. The comments received from both reviewers were considered and aimed to strengthen the piece rather than denigrate it. Imagine my pleasure when one of the reviewers even suggested that my manuscript should be published in its current form. That felt like a win in its own right, but, perhaps more importantly, it was a vindication that my work was sufficiently original and interesting.

This is what winning feels like.... imgur.com

Ultimately, my article was accepted with minor revisions. All in all, it wasn’t the nightmarish process I’d psyched myself up for. As theAdmin has mentioned countless times, this is a process run by fellow academics that have probably felt just as nervous, have had writer’s block, and have worried about clicking that ‘Submit Manuscript’ button just like you.

This is the bit where I try and distill some insightful words of wisdom to help you with the writing process. Firstly, don’t be afraid of using your support network… even if it’s just chatting about ideas over a coffee. Second, remember that the peer reviewers are there to help strengthen your work. They’re not evil ogres. They’ve more than likely been in exactly the same position. Third, without wanting to sound all Disney, believe in your own ability and don’t be scared of writer’s block. It happens to all of us.

I hope this has been useful. Also, make sure you keep reading theAdmin's blog! There's got to be some good stuff coming at some point, right?

-theECR

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

Deadly Sins of Publishing: The Multiple Submission

Deadly Sins of Publishing: Submission of a Paper to Multiple Journals

This is a periodic column I plan to write that outlines some of the worst things you can do as a prospective author. These are things that might get you “watchlisted” if not blacklisted (no joke, I used to have a whiteboard up in my office with a list of names to watch for).  A journal’s reaction to them will vary – some will just tell you how you are wrong, others will chalk it up to a rookie mistake, and then there’s the ones that will simply not engage with you in the future. I plan to do another column of “Lesser sins and misdemeanors” that will outline what we more or less file under rookie mistakes and hope they aren’t repeated. But this column is for the ones that are more serious than that. 

And so here is the launch of my “Deadly Sins” category:

DEADLY SINS 101: THE MULTIPLE SUBMISSION

Other than more obvious sins such as plagiarism (diatribe about that planned for the future), this is one of the most serious, unethical issues that you can possibly perpetrate. Usually, it is done by early career researchers who simply don’t know how bad it is.

What do I mean by multiple submission of an article?

I mean you’ve taken a paper and submitted it to multiple journals at the same time.

Why would anyone do this?

It’s pretty simple really. The best way I’ve had it described is as a “scattergun approach” with the misguided argument that if you submit a paper to, say, six different journals, then you’ve instantly increased your chances of someone accepting it.

What’s wrong with this?

There is so much wrong with this that I don’t even know where to start. Mainly, you have wasted the time of multiple administrators, reviewers, and editors with absolutely no intention of publishing a paper with that journal. As I’ve said in previous posts, reviewers are not paid for their contribution; they do it as good citizenry and part of their wider academic duty. If you have six journals using a minimum of two reviewers each, you’ve wasted the time of at least twelve reviewers and six editors (and possibly six administrators).  Editors have to contend with a major balancing act to avoid what I’ve seen called reviewer fatigue. That’s when reviewers are used too extensively and  simply don’t have much time left in their days to do any more reviews. Simply put, they stop taking our calls (well, more accurately, our emails).  That means they aren’t available to other scholars who may submit their work because you have wasted their time. 

How are you supposed to know this?

It’s a general rule in academic publishing. But more than that, if you have submitted a paper, chances are, you have confirmed that this is the only active submission of this paper that you have.  In pretty much all submission systems there is a box you must tick that confirms this; or, alternatively, you are required to submit a cover letter that clearly states that the paper is not currently under consideration in any other journal. So basically, if you have submitted to six separate journals, then you have violated the submission policies of six separate journals, and they have every right to reject your paper (and most likely keep a close eye on anything else you submit in the future, because, hey, copyright rules).

What else is wrong with this?

What happens if all six papers agree to publish your paper and send it automatically to the publisher after the final acceptance? Most online portals do it like this. You obviously can’t publish the same paper in different journals, so you must then confess to the editor what you’ve done and ask that your paper not be published. This will leave five out of six very unhappy editors, and chances are that the editor of the journal you want it published in will reject the paper out of principle.

So in other words, the efforts to increase your paper’s likelihood of being published will do the exact opposite.

When CAN you submit a paper to another journal?

When it is released by the journal. This means once a decision has been made, whether that be a rejection or one of the “needs revisions” decisions. If you decide you wish to submit to another journal whilst it’s still in process, you need to write to the editor or administrator and request to withdraw your paper from consideration.

So basically, one journal at a time. This is also better for you because even if you get a rejection from Journal A, then your submission to Journal B will be built upon reviewers’ and editor’s comments to improve your paper. 

Have I ever seen cases of this?

Yes, unfortunately. It never really ends well. Usually a reviewer responds with a “decline” and a comment that s/he has JUST reviewed an identical paper for X journal.  This is when alarm bells start going off.

I have known a case in which the Editor sent a paper to Reviewer A and Reviewer B. Reviewer A returned the review, but Reviewer B got in touch. As it turns out, Reviewer B is also an editor of a journal that had just reached a decision on an identical article. This is how you get simultaneously rejected from two journals and a very stern email from both editors (assuming both editors are nice people and feel you simply aren’t aware that you can’t do this).  Keep in mind how relatively small the world of publishing is - whilst you think no one will ever find out, it’s actually high risk, especially if you are in a specialised field.

And that is the end of my first Deadly Sins post. I do hope it was helpful. Thanks for all your lovely, lovely emails and tweets so far! Please, keep them coming. Remember, if you have a question or an idea for something you think I could shed some light on, then by all means, get in touch either via email or Twitter.

Now for some pumpkin bread, methinks.

-theAdmin

Tweet