OBSERVATIONS ON THE JOURNAL PUBLICATION PROCESS
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
OBSERVATIONS ON THE JOURNAL PUBLICATION PROCESS
B. Wade Brorsen
This paper provides a brief guide to journal publica- Incentives to publish are strong.
tion success. Topics covered include reasons for accep-
tance or rejection, how to organize a paper, how to as- Publications can be important while in
sign authorship, how to select an appropriate journal, graduate school since publications, unlike
and how to handle editors and reviewers. Authors grades, usually count for a lifetime. One
should be able to use the information provided here to
improve their probability of success and to speed up the incentive to publish is financial. In a 1979
review process. study of faculty salaries, Broder and Zie-
mer (1982) found that an additional
In agricultural economics, like American Journal of Agricultural Eco-
most other academic professions, publica- nomics (AJAE) article published every
tions are the primary measure of research other year would realize $738/year more
performance. Adams argues that too in salary. Publications are also usually a
much importance is given to the number requirement for promotion. The mini-
of publications with only limited emphasis mum number of publications required for
on quality, but research that is never promotion varies depending on quality,
communicated to others is indeed of little the university, and time allocated to re-
value. search. Lacy and Busch reported agricul-
tural scientists published an average of 2.2
Young agricultural economists journal articles per year with 0.9 of these
learn about publishing in a variety of as senior author. Publication rates may be
ways, often by trial and error. McCloskey slightly lower for agricultural economists
(p. 188) argues that, even though many due to our journals’ lower acceptance
veteran authors could help younger pro- rates, more generous inclusion of co-
fessionals with their writing, they rarely authors in other fields, and our profes-
do. A widely available set of guidelines sion’s requirement of theory to support
could help young authors improve their empirical results. A survey of 12 agricul-
success rate and reduce wasted effort. tural economics departments (NCA-12)
The purpose of this paper is to meet this showed that a primarily research faculty
need by providing a brief guide to journal member needed a minimum of about five
publication success. This paper represents journal articles to be promoted to associ-
a set of observations derived from the au- ate professor and about eight to be pro-
thor’s own trials and errors as well as ex- moted to full professor. Only three of the
periences related by others. schools in the survey reported that a fac-
ulty member with a 100% teaching and/or
B. Wade Brorsen is currently regents professor and extension appointment was not expected
Jean and Patsy Neustadt Chair at Oklahoma State Uni- to publish refereed journal articles. Publi-
versity. cations can also help graduate students.
Helpful comments from Tim Baker, Peter Barry, Deb
Brown, John Connor, Jess Lowenberg-DeBoer, Scott Hiring decisions are made with imperfect
Irwin, Allan Randall, and Lee Schrader are gratefully information. A publication provides solid
acknowledged. The author would also like to acknowl- evidence of ability to perform publishable
edge that some of this material has been adapted from
the class notes of Rod Ziemer. quality research. Even papers in review
Originally published in North Central Journal of or in preparation can make a difference.
Agricultural Economics 9(1987):315-321, revised Janu- Finally, publications provide personal sat-
ary 2002.isfaction. To publish is to be thrilled knowledge, which is of interest only to
twice, once when the letter of acceptance professional peers, or information that is
is received and again when the paper ap- useful to policymakers, businesses, or ag-
pears in print. ricultural producers. The paper can have
new theory or new methods or may be a
Armstrong argues cynically that new application of established theory or
the formula for success in publishing is: methods to an interesting problem. A pa-
choose unimportant problems, agree with per that has new theory or new methods is
current beliefs, advocate one hypothesis of international rather than regional inter-
rather than multiple hypotheses, write est and thus can be published in a more
confusing prose, use complicated meth- prestigious journal.
ods, and avoid full disclosure of methods
and data. McCloskey also argues that our The methods should be sufficient
peer review process has many problems. to meet the objectives of the paper and be
Rather than attempting to evaluate the the best available. This does not mean
system, this paper seeks to help agricul- methods have to be complex. A reviewer
tural economists succeed within the pre- may take a dim view of methods that are
sent system. Success includes both get- more complex than necessary. But, papers
ting a paper published and having it read that appropriately use complex methods
and referenced by others. seem to get published in more prestigious
journals.
Reasons for Acceptance or Rejection
McCloskey (p. 188) argues that
Most past research has found the “rotten writing causes more papers to be
main reason reviewers give for rejecting a rejected than rotten t-statistics.” A re-
paper is that it failed to make a significant viewer who has trouble reading a paper is
contribution to the current body of knowl- likely to become frustrated and angry.
edge (Coe and Weinstock). The contribu- Angry reviewers are not likely to respond
tion of a paper means different things to favorably. Even more important, a poorly
different people. For Lindsey’s social sci- written paper may fail to communicate
entists the paper’s contribution was re- what is original and important. A re-
lated to theoretical relevance of the re- viewer should not have to guess how the
search question and creativity of ideas in paper contributes to the current body of
the article. Lacy and Busch found agri- knowledge.
cultural scientists associated a paper’s
contribution with increased agricultural A paper will also be rejected if it is
productivity and the value of the article to inappropriate for the journal. A paper will
clients’ needs. Agricultural economics is have the best chance for acceptance if it is
an uncomfortable mixture of the groups sent to a journal, which has published pa-
sampled by Lindsey and Lacy and Busch. pers on the same or closely related topics.
Because of this, there is conflict between
those agricultural economists who argue Berardo also argued for the impor-
for theoretical relevance and those who tance of what he called paradigmatic con-
argue for real world relevance. But, past straints. Reviewers are reluctant to accept
research does tend to agree that the con- a paper that challenges conventional wis-
tribution of a paper has two components: dom (or perhaps in some cases just the
1) importance of the topic and 2) original- reviewer’s own opinion). Reviewers may
ity. The paper can contain important be correct in rejecting papers that disagreewith their beliefs when the cost of adopt-
ing a new and possibly wrong paradigm is 6. Interpret results.
high. But, reviewers do not always sub-
scribe to the same paradigms and thus this 7. Report results.
category is probably responsible for much
of the randomness in responses of review- 8. Have it published.
ers. Widely accepted paradigms can be
challenged successfully, but arguments This list is idealistic in that research rarely
will be held against a higher standard than proceeds in exactly this order. Most pa-
if the results were consistent with conven- pers go through several iterations, going
tional wisdom. from steps 7 or 8 all the way back to step
3 or even step 1. Ladd argues writing is
The Research Process important in each of these steps of the re-
search process. It is important to remem-
Ideally, research starts with a ber this idealized set of steps when writing
problem, not a technique or a data set. Of a paper, since papers are often written as
course, time is saved by selecting a prob- if these steps had been followed.
lem that can be analyzed with a familiar
technique or uses an easily available data Little class time in graduate school
set. A young researcher who has diffi- is spent on steps 7 and 8. This is as it
culty in recognizing publishable topics should be since good writing cannot save
should not hesitate to borrow ideas from a paper if the first six steps are not done
other researchers who have more ideas properly. But, steps 7 and 8 can take
than time. An easy way to fail is to con- about as much time as the other six steps.
duct research without identifying a prob- The prolific author rarely gets past the
lem. early steps without ultimately getting a
publication. It is best to either give up
A list of researchable problems is early or persevere until the end. Re-
useful, since a good idea may be forgotten searchers may decide to quit if they are
if not recorded. But, perhaps more impor- not familiar with the appropriate tech-
tant, writing it down can prevent wasting nique (e.g., an econometrician may not
time thinking about a mediocre idea. want to bother learning the necessary
Later, the best ideas on the list can be math programming techniques) or if ade-
picked out and the rest can be ignored. quate data cannot be obtained.
A set of possible steps in empirical re- The objective of research is to
search is: solve the problem, not apply a technique
or analyze data. The first draft often
1. Recognize a researchable problem. merely chronicles what the researcher has
done and reads as if the purpose of the
2. Define the problem. paper was to apply a technique to a data
set. This first draft is sometimes called
3. Select an appropriate model and writer-based prose since it makes sense to
technique. the writer, but not to anybody else
(Flower). This writer-based prose must be
4. Collect data. transformed into reader-based prose.
How well this transformation is performed
5. Analyze data. affects the reviewers’ evaluation of thepaper. For specifics on style, read Zinser, or were comments on alternative
McCloskey, or Strunk and White. The methods or models. For the papers
most important rules of style are keep it which followed this general outline,
simple and keep it concise. the most common variant was having
multiple theory, procedure, or results
Organization sections. Other variations included
additional sections such as back-
Berardo lists poor organization as ground information, review of litera-
the most common mistake in writing. A ture, limitations, or policy implica-
reviewer may recommend rejection sim- tions and not having a separate theory
ply because the paper would take too section. Details on what information
much work (Berardo). Even more dan- each section should contain are now
gerous is that poor organization may discussed.
cause the reviewer to miss the point of the
paper. Our profession has accepted by Introduction
convention a standard model for a paper.
This model corresponds closely to the The introduction is the most
idealized set of problem solving steps. important part of the paper. The in-
Papers that follow a similar outline are troduction must convince the review-
easier to read as well as easier to write. ers that the topic is important and that
Many award winning and often-cited pa- the paper offers something new. A
pers would not fit this model since they possible outline of an introduction is:
are mainly theoretical. The emphasis here
is placed on applied papers since they are (a) State the problem. Include refer-
what most agricultural economists write ences if they would be helpful.
and they more easily fit a model. The
typical model for an applied paper is: (b) State why the problem is impor-
tant. If the problem is primarily of
1. Introduction academic interest, references will
be needed.
2. Theory
(c) State the purpose of the paper,
3. Procedure and Data preferably in one sentence. The
purpose statement, perhaps the
4. Results most important sentence in the pa-
per, should be the result of careful
5. Summary and Conclusions. thought. An example of an ac-
ceptable purpose statement is:
This outline should not always be fol-
lowed. Of the 53 papers published in The objective of the research re-
the NCJAE in 1985 and 1986, about ported in this paper is to determine
30 followed this general outline but if increases in risk faced by mar-
only five followed it exactly. Ten of keting firms result in increased
the papers which did not follow this marketing margins. The purpose
general outline relied on verbal argu- of a paper should be to determine,
ments and descriptive statistics, usu- discover, find, test, develop, etc.,
ally from a survey. Others not follow- and is not to analyze, investigate,
ing the outline were purely theoretical examine, etc. The purpose state-ment should relate to the problem, pared with those of similar studies.
not the technique. Anticipate reviewers’ comments and
include some misspecification and
(d) State clearly what is new about the fragility tests as part of your proce-
research. This is usually done by dures. Ideally, readers should be able
stating how the paper goes beyond to duplicate the results from the in-
past research. The reader needs to formation provided, although they
be told how the paper relates to may have to read the references to do
past research. Never expect the so. Space limitations will prevent a
reviewer to figure out what is full description of complicated meth-
original. ods. One remedy is to cite a more de-
tailed description of techniques (the
(e) The introduction must state who American Journal of Agricultural
will benefit from the research and Economics now uses an AJAE appen-
answer the question: Why should dix, which can be placed on AgEcon-
anybody care about the paper? Search).
(f) State specifically how the problem
is handled in the paper. This Data
should be more than a paragraph
outlining the paper. The discussion of the data can ei-
ther be combined with the procedure
Theory section or placed in a separate section.
The data section should give complete
The content of the theory section sources and include grades and units
is variable. It can be a discussion or a where appropriate. If primary data are
mathematical model. A more prestig- used, information will need to be pro-
ious journal usually requires a more vided about data collection. Again,
rigorous and original theory section. unless it would be too long, enough
Good theory is necessary to specify information should be provided that
the empirical model. When compet- someone could duplicate the results.
ing theoretical approaches are avail-
able, the paper must argue for the su- If any of the data are proxies for
periority of one approach. the conceptual variables, explanations
The model estimated should be de- should be provided about how this
rived either mathematically or with might influence the results. If the data
discussion and references. Regurgita- are several years old, explanations
tion of textbook material should be should be provided about why more
avoided. If the theory is well known current data have not been used.
or limited, it can be incorporated into
the introduction or procedure section. Results
Procedure Empirical estimates and their eco-
nomic and policy implications should
The procedure should be linked be discussed and results contrasted
with the theory section. All variables with those of previous research. Pro-
and the model specification should be cedures should not be introduced in
described. The model should be com- the results section. Tables should beused to present any large set of num- look like papers already published in
bers, but only those that are necessary the journal to which it is to be submit-
should be included. The text should ted. The paper should have a similar
interpret the tables and should defi- level of mathematical sophistication,
nitely not just repeat what is in the ta- number of equations, tables, refer-
bles. ences, length of introduction, etc.
This is especially important when try-
High quality tables and figures ing to publish outside of agricultural
give the impression of the work being economics.
professional. Look in a journal and
see how tables and figures are done. Authorship
Tables should have three (occasionally
two) complete horizontal and no verti- Who to include as authors and
cal lines. Figures should not have what order to put them in is confusing.
gridlines. A table should be suffi- This is an important topic for career
ciently self-explanatory that it could advancement, yet few general rules
be understood by itself. The title apply. Ideally, judgments should be
should describe what is in the table made on the significance of each per-
rather than what the table does. Be son’s contribution, but this is difficult
generous in using long table titles and to determine. One rule is that when in
precise table footnotes. doubt, err on the side of including too
many authors. At most universities,
Conclusions authorship is not a zero sum game.
Including extra authors costs little
A well-written conclusions section while helping someone else and avoid-
is important for a casual reader. A ing the risk of hurt feelings.
reader should be able to understand
the main points of the paper by read- The second question is in what or-
ing the introduction and conclusions. der to include the authors. One com-
Therefore, the conclusions section mon, but not entirely satisfactory, rule
should not contain acronyms or is that whoever writes the first draft is
mathematical symbols. the senior author. Applying this rule
Most authors begin the conclu- to a journal article developed from a
sions by briefly summarizing the pa- thesis, the student would be senior au-
per. Next, answer the question: What thor if the student develops the first
can be learned from the study? The draft from the thesis. But if the stu-
reader should understand that the dent’s advisor must develop the first
stated purpose of the paper has been draft from the thesis, the advisor
accomplished. Any limitations that a would be senior author. A student
reviewer is likely to notice should be should not be afraid to push for senior
pointed out. Topics for further re- authorship. The order of authors does
search may be suggested, but Houck not influence acceptance or rejection
argues this adds little of value to the and it costs the advisor little since
paper. Finally, end with a strong work by a student is generally treated
statement. as the advisor’s own work. This is not
true, however, when one faculty
Not all papers will fit this outline. member is placed ahead of another.
As a general rule, the paper should When two faculty members contributerelatively equally to a paper, the au- to publish the paper should eventually
thors are sometimes listed in alpha- be found.
betical order (although random order The Review Process
might make more sense) and a state-
ment is included that senior authorship A paper will not be published
is shared by the two authors. unless it is submitted. At some point
before a paper is perfect it must be
Selection of Publication Outlet submitted and the long wait for a reply
begun. If a reply is not received
In general, a journal is more pres- within four or five months, call, write
tigious if it 1) is older, 2) has a large or e-mail the editor to find out the rea-
circulation, 3) has a lower acceptance son for the delay. When the response
rate, 4) is less specialized, and 5) is from the editor finally arrives it will
technical or theoretical (for specific often contain one of the following re-
rankings of economics journals see plies:
Hawkins et al. or Liebowitz and
Palmer). Rankings based solely on 1. Accepted
these criteria would be quite different
than the rankings Broder and Ziemer 2. Accepted subject to minor revi-
found in a survey of agricultural sions
economists. Their results demonstrate
that there is a bonus for publishing 3. Revise and resubmit
within one’s own discipline and that
people think more highly of journals 4. Reject, but may reconsider/ Not
that are familiar to them. published
A paper should be sent to the most 5. Rejected.
prestigious journal where it has a rea-
sonable chance of acceptance and that The first three replies are all fa-
will allow the intended audience to be vorable. “Accepted subject to minor
reached. If the material could become revisions” usually means only edito-
dated, it should be sent to a journal rial changes are needed and is rarely
that has a quick review time and is given on the first submission. Revise
likely to accept it. But do not always and resubmit means the editor thinks
choose the path of least resistance, the paper can probably be revised into
since a paper may not be noticed by an acceptable form. It is not a guaran-
others if it is published in a minor tee of publication, but it is about as
journal. More prestigious journals are positive of a response as can be ex-
less tolerant of incomplete logic and pected after a first review. “Rejected”
poorly formed ideas. Therefore, a pa- which is sometimes phrased as “re-
per must be in better shape before it is spectfully decline publication” means
submitted to a prestigious journal. Al- that under no circumstances should the
ternatives should always be kept in paper be resubmitted. If a paper is re-
mind, since for most agricultural eco- jected, use the comments to revise the
nomics journals, the odds favor rejec- paper and send it to another journal.
tion. With all the journals available to Sometimes editors say that a resub-
agricultural economists, if the paper is mission will be treated as a new sub-
sound and relevant, a journal willing mission, but what is really meant isthat the paper is rejected. “Rejected, should be numbered one through 42.
but may reconsider,” is ambiguous If the comments are beyond the scope
(Fettig) and is not used by all editors. of the paper or in error, then explain
It usually means the editor is uncertain logically why what the reviewer asked
whether the paper could be revised was not done. Show appreciation to
successfully, but the editor would be the reviewers and do not ridicule them
willing to consider a total revision of in any way.
the paper. In most cases it is best to
consider a paper that is in this cate- Summary
gory to be rejected if the problem
choice or entire procedure is criti- This paper provided a brief guide
cized. Sometimes editors will use the to journal publication success. Much
phrase “unacceptable in its present wasted effort could be eliminated if
form,” which is relatively positive. authors would follow the rules pro-
Some people say that if the editor posed in this paper. Success in pub-
leaves any window of opportunity for lishing comes through selecting im-
a revision that you should take it, but I portant and original topics, using ap-
do not agree. The editor’s letter is the propriate procedures, and effectively
key because sometimes reviewers communicating the results to others.
place their most serious criticisms in Knowing how to organize a paper, se-
their letter to the editor rather than in lect an appropriate outlet, and deal
their comments to the author. with editors and reviewers can im-
prove the probability of success. The
Sometimes an experienced col- review process can be frustrating, but
league can help decipher the meaning rewards go to those who persevere.
of an editor’s letter. If the editor’s let-
ter says “encourage revision,” revise References
the paper and send it back without de-
lay. Adams, Dale W. “Assessing the Use-
fulness of Publications by Agricultural
The quality and relevance of re- Economists through Citations.” The
view comments are quite variable, but Ohio State University, Economics and
in most cases review comments will Sociology Occasional Paper No. 1215,
help improve the paper. Arguing with October 18, 1985.
the reviewers or the editor unless they Armstrong, J. Scott. “Barriers to Sci-
are clearly wrong is rarely productive. entific Contributions: The Author’s
When a reviewer fails to understand Formula.” The Behavioral and Brain
something, it is often the author’s fault Sciences 5(1982):197-99.
for failing to write clearly. Be pre-
pared to re-estimate the empirical Berardo, Felix M. “The Publication
model since the reviewer may ask for Process: An Editor’s Perspective.”
alternative specifications to be consid- Journal of Marriage and the Family
ered (some of this can be prevented by (November 1981):771-79.
presenting alternative specifications in
the paper). If the reviewer’s com- Broder, Josef M. and Rod F. Ziemer.
ments are numbered one through 42, “Determinants of Agricultural Eco-
then the responses to the reviewer’s nomics Faculty Salaries.” American
comments provided to the editorJournal of Agricultural Economics Lacy, William B., and Lawrence
64(1982):301-03. Busch. “Guardian of Science: Jour-
nals and Journal Editors in the Agri-
_______. “Assessment of Journals cultural Sciences.” Rural Sociology
Used by Agricultural Economists at 47(1982):429-48.
Land-Grant Universities.” Southern
Journal of Agricultural Economics 16- Zinsner, William. On Writing Well.
1(1984):167-72. New York: Harper and Row, 1976.
Ladd, George W. “Artistic Research
Coe, Robert K. and Irwin Weinstock. Tools for Scientific Minds.” Ameri-
“Editorial Policies of Major Economic can Journal of Agricultural Econom-
Journals.” Quarterly Review of Eco- ics 61(1079):1-11.
nomics and Business (1967):37-43.
Liebowitz, S.J. and J.P. Palmer. “As-
Fettig, Lyle P. “An Editorial Perspec- sessing the Relative Impacts of Eco-
tive on Getting Manuscripts Accepted nomic Journals.” Journal of Eco-
for Journal Publication.” North Cen- nomic Literature 22(1984):77-88.
tral Journal of Agricultural Econom-
ics 5(1983):1-3. Lindsey, D. The Scientific Publication
System in Social Science. San Fran-
Flower, Linda. “Writer-Based Prose: cisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978.
A Cognitive Basis for Problems in
Writing.” College English 41(1979):17- McCloskey, Donald. “Economic Writ-
37. ing.” Economic Inquiry 24(1985):187-222.
Hawkins, Robert G., Lawrence S. NCA-12. ”Responses to Promotion
Ritter, and Walter Ingo. “What and Tenure Policy Survey.” (unpub-
Economists Think of Their Journals.” lished document), 1985.
Journal of Political Economy
81(1973):1017-32. Strunk, William, Jr. and E.B. White.
The Elements of Style, 3rd ed. New
Houck, James. “Publishing Research York: MacMillan Publishing Com-
Findings: Perspective of a Journal pany, 1979.
Editor.” Career Development of Ag-
ricultural Economists Pre-conference Vandermeulen, Alice. ”How to Fabri-
to annual AAEA meetings, Reno, Ne- cate an Article.” American Econo-
vada, July 27, 1986. mists (1975):55-59.You can also read
