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

Further thoughts on Choosing the Right Journal

In my last post, I gave a list of things to consider when choosing a journal. After a few conversations, I've decided to expound on this a bit and add in some more thoughts. So this is just an extension of my previous post, really. It can be accessed here: Choosing the Right Journal.

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}

 Aims & Scope are really, really important. I've mentioned these several times before in previous posts. They are usually only a paragraph or so long, so take the time to read through them. Editors don't write these for fun, and they can spark quite a heated debate at editorial board meetings. The Aims & Scope of a journal will tell you what the editors want to publish and who makes up their audience. You will normally find out how often the journal is published, whether they accept proposals for special issues, and what their review policy is. 

As well as the published Aims & Scope, you should look at the most recent volumes of the journal to see what sort of articles and papers are being published by the current editorial team. Looking at what was published in the early 2000s is often no longer an indication of what is going on with the editorial direction or even the publishing house. Journals can change publisher, which can change several aspects of the way the journal is administered.

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

I go into a bit more detail here about this. Your best chance of getting published is to target a specific journal. This means ensuring your paper is targeted to the journal's specific readership, or submitting to a journal that targets the audience for whom you are writing. You can normally find this information in the Aims & Scope.

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

You might be surprised how many people neglect to glance at the editor and the editorial board. How relevant are the journal's advisors to the subject area and your field? Some editors have been editing the same journal for eons. Whilst in some cases, this works out well, in other cases, a journal will lose relevance if it doesn't keep up with trends in the field. So just do a bit of research. All this information should be available on a journal's website and in the print copies. 

My personal bit of advice is to look and see if the editor is research active. This has to do with knowledge transfer as research is quite an intangible thing - how can you recognize valuable research if you don't know what research is and endeavor to keep your research methods and practices relevant? 

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.

Somewhat self-explanatory. Supervisors and mentors are meant to have more experience than you. Use it. Mentors are an extremely important resource for early career researchers. Don't have one currently? Find one. I have several who I've picked up along the way.  Not all of them are in my field, but they are equally knowledgeable and have encouraged (and challenged) me in different ways.

What it's like when you find the right mentor (Despicable Me/giphy.com)

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.

Calls for papers go out every now and then, usually through publishers and on journal's websites. Conferences are an equally important resource for finding these. If you think your paper might be relevant for a special issue, then submit it!  It might not get in, but you'll have a good chance of getting some very good and specialized feedback from the reviewers.

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

There is a misconception that it's "easier" to get accepted in a regional journal. This is not always true. Both international and regional journals, such as The International Historical Review vs. The Small Country Journal of History, will require going through the same processes. It can be the difference between a general and specialist journal, or it can be a matter of volume.

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

Peer review is always going to be a bit of a hot topic. It varies by discipline what the favoured method is at any given point. It's in your best interest to make sure that a journal does undertake peer review though. Again, this should be mentioned in the Aims & Scope. How long will it take? This also varies depending on the number of submissions and the time of year. I've previously done two posts on peer review here and here. You can always ask the administrative contact, but you should expect a few months at least.

8) Who publishes the journal? 

Publisher's policies and practices vary. So do their software and interfaces. It's always good to know who publishes the journal you're submitting to so that you know what to expect after publication regarding marketing, copyright, and embargoes. Also, it'll be much easier to find the open access policies if you know which publisher.

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.) ?


Open Access is a minefield. I'm putting together a post on some common questions about Open Access that I hope will be of help. You should be aware of the policies for any journal you are considering, especially if you are funded and your funder requires that you publish in an open access journal. Many journals are currently offering a hybrid policy, which is traditional publishing methods unless you opt for open access and pay the fee. Others are purely open access, and some offer no open access. Don't leave it until your paper is accepted and about to be published to find out that you have to pay for open access that is required. Most publishers have their policies posted on their websites and have contact details for queries. To be blunt, it's usually considered the fault of the author not to ask about access until the very last stage.  I get very, very annoyed when published authors badger me for weeks or months about when they can publish in a repository or when they can publish on their own websites when the policy is clearly articulated.

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


Each year, there are rankings released for journals. These are done by discipline and show where they sit amongst comparable journals and concern citations. Does this matter to you? Some "top" journals are lower ranked than expected because impact factors are an imperfect measurement. Specialist journals tend to have higher rankings. It's important to find out how your discipline ranks journals and then decide if this is important. 

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


Yes, there are specific markets that still heavily rely on print copies of journals over electronic copies. Most will be electronic these days, but some journals don't have the resources to host an archive. Alternatively, some journals are solely online as they don't have the resources to print and distribute hardcopy. Online publishing is becoming the norm and electronic versions of practically all journals are becoming common. Just be aware of how accessible your article is. It will affect the ways in which you can disseminate your research.

12) Impact Factor – does this make a difference?


Another problematic factor. Importantly, not all disciplines use impact factors, which are released every June and compare citations from the preceding two years against the number of total papers published in a journal. That being said, there are clear pro- and anti- Impact Factor camps out there. If you are in a discipline that uses IF, then you need to research and decide if this is important to you and your career. But keep in mind that IF are just statistical comparisons, which can actually be manipulated by the way journals place highly citable papers. 


I'll post something original next time. Promise.

-theAdmin

Tweet

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!)

Reasons for Rejection (Part III)

Finally, some more reasons for rejection! Again, these have very little to do with the academic content of your paper. In fact reasons 4, 3, and 2 have one thing in common: following the guidelines. I'll do a separate post on the number one reason for rejection because it's a standalone post. 

So, what do I think are three of the top reasons that papers are rejected? It's pretty simple: you haven't followed our guidelines. Every journal posts "Instructions for Authors" of some sort. Follow them. Exactly. We don't write these guidelines for fun. In fact, they are quite carefully constructed and have reasons behind every seemingly bizarre thing we ask. (For example, sometimes we ask that tables be uploaded as separate documents to the main text. Why? Because the system we use imports them differently, and it's much easier for editing and typesetting). 

So, carrying on from Parts I and II, here are three more of the most common reasons for rejection:

4. DOES NOT FOLLOW GUIDELINES: Language Requirements

This specifically refers to grammar, style, punctuation, and academic language. Specifically, I'm referring to academic English, but journals in other languages will require the academic version of that language. Yes, this can be a disadvantage if English is not your first language, but more importantly, not everyone who speaks English has a command of grammar and academic English. Do not assume that you are an expert simply because it is your first language. Use a proofreader. This can be a colleague, a supervisor, or a professional proofreader. Importantly - please please please - make sure your proofreader knows how to proofread. Refer to my point about native speakers not automatically being experts.

For an idea of what is appropriate language, you should look at recent copies of the journal to which you wish to submit your paper. Does yours fit within its style? Is it formal enough language without being riddled with jargon? Some ECRs make the mistake of going too far with formal, academic English and submit papers that are nearly incomprehensible due to the amount of jargon. If you are unsure, have a colleague who is not in your specialty read through your paper. They should be able to follow even without specific subject knowledge (this may differ for science journals - if you are a science editor and wish to do a guest post, get in touch!). And stay away from contractions.

3. DOES NOT FOLLOW GUIDELINES: Word Length

Editors actually have some autonomy here, but stick to the word length as close as possible. Some journals won't even consider a paper that does not fit within their word limit (both the upper AND lower limits). Word lengths are important because they are used as a predictor of length. We have a specific page budget each year that we must meet. We can go a bit under (not advised), but we certainly can't go over. So by limiting the word count, we can predict the page length, keeping in mind that the pages of a Word document do not necessarily correlate to the pages in a journal. Aside from the actual length of papers, it lets us predict how many papers we will be able to publish per issue and per volume, as well as predict the size of our backlog.

It also keeps papers relatively uniform and encourages papers of the right kind. For example, in my discipline, there is a journal specifically dedicated to longer than average papers. If we get a paper that the author insists cannot be condensed (usually not true, but there are some studies where this applies), we recommend The Journal of Longer Papers. The lower limit of a word count helps to weed out things like book reviews, short pieces, opinion pieces, and papers that are not yet fully formed.

I frequently reject papers from my journal for not being within our limits, which is annoying because it's easy to avoid.

2. DOES NOT FOLLOW GUIDELINES: Not Blinded

This ranks as one of my top pet peeves of submitted papers. Make sure you read the policy of peer review. Usually, you will need to remove any identifying information from your paper. This means do not include a title page unless there is a way to upload one separately. Do not include your acknowledgements in the main text (either add these to a revision or the unblinded version you are asked to submit - if in doubt, ask the administrator or the editor). Do not include self-cites, especially if they give you away. It's perfectly acceptable to cite yourself as (Author, 2005), for example. Do not include contact details on the submission. Do not include your institution. If you have a study that you conducted at your institution, anonymise it in the text and edit it at the proofs stage (tip: don't forget what you've anonymised. Keep a non-anonymised version. We require you to submit this as a separate file so that our proofreaders and copy-editors can compare the two).

All of your details will be attached as metadata for the correct people to see when you submit through an online portal. Not all journals operate double blind review, but I'm a fervent believer in it. In fact, I just read a great post on it in the sciences: http://www.nature.com/news/journals-weigh-up-double-blind-peer-review-1.15564.

Follow the guidelines on blinding/anonymisation. Papers are rejected pretty quickly for this in order for you to rectify and resubmit. I've had a few emails over the years that obviously haven't followed my advice on contacting a journal and have been very patronising and rude, saying I should just anonymise their papers for them because it's such a small thing.It is indeed a small thing for the author (who doesn't have dozens of active papers at a single time).

That's all for now - next will be my post on the main reason for rejection: Choosing the wrong journal. And shortly thereafter, I'll have my first guest post.

Questions, comments, and suggestions always welcome. Email,Tweet to @ECRPublishing , or comment below.

-theAdmin

Tweet