Playing the Perilous Publication Process:
Reflections of a Sometimes Author, OneTime Editor, and Too-Frequent Reviewer
Richard J. Sexton
Department of Agricultural and
Resource Economics
University of California, Davis
Outline of the presentation
„
„
„
„
Discuss why publishing in peerreviewed journals is important
Talk about journals
The process from submission to
acceptance . . . or rejection
Tips on preparing papers
Why is it important to publish?
„
Peer reviewed journal papers are crucial in
terms of
{
{
{
{
{
Obtaining academic positions
Advancing to tenure
Attaining professional recognition
Establishing credibility as an expert in a field
Enhancing the reputation of your institution—
rankings of academic units are usually based on
publications
Why it is important to publish
(cont.)
„
Although work can be widely available by posting it
on line at sites such as the Social Science
Research Network, professional journals play an
important certification or screening role for many
potential readers
{
Papers in peer-reviewed journals are much more likely to
be read and cited than papers posted on line or in thesis
form
Where to submit?
„
The number of journals has proliferated in
recent years, including the addition of many
on-line-only journals
{
{
So you have lots of outlets for your work
But just “counting” publications is viewed
increasingly as a poor way to measure a
scholar’s performance
„
„
Evaluators try to measure quality of outlets
“Impact” of a scholar’s research and publication outlets
is becoming increasingly important, and is usually
measured through citations
Where to submit? (cont.)
„
Optimal strategy in targeting journals is to aim high
{
{
„
Payoff to publishing is an increasing (and probably
convex) function of journal quality
Papers in better journals are much more likely to be read
and cited than papers in lesser journals
But you need to be realistic
{
{
{
Rejection rates at top journals are very high
You may encounter long delays in getting an answer
There is a definite risk-reward tradeoff. Downside of
shooting too high is delay in getting your papers published
Where to submit? (cont.)
„
Target journals that have published work
recently in the topic area and genre (e.g.,
theoretical, empirical, simulation) of your
paper
{
Does your paper “look” like papers published
recently in the journal in terms of style and
methods?
„
{
For example, some journals publish empirical papers
almost exclusively
Does your reference list include papers
published in the journal you are targeting?
Some information on journals
„
A handful of top general economics journals
represent the most elite outlets
{
{
{
{
Am. Econ Rev, J. Political Economy,
Econometrica, Review of Economic Studies,
Quarterly J. Econ, Int’l Econ Rev
“General” journals supposedly publish papers
across all fields of economics
But it is very hard to publish applied papers on
agricultural and resource economics in these
journals
Rejection rates at these journals typically
exceed 90%
Some information on journals
(cont.)
„
“Field journals” specialized to a particular subject
area of economics have become prominent
publication outlets
{
{
„
Electronic-only journals
{
{
„
They have surpassed a second tier of general economics
journals in terms of desirability as outlets
Reject rates here are lower but still may be around 75%
for the top journals in a field
Much quicker than print journals in both review process
and time from acceptance to publication
Do not rank highly compared to established print journals
Interdisciplinary journals
Some information on journals
(cont.)
„
Many attempts have been made to rank
journals in economics and ag economics
{
{
{
{
{
Such rankings are widely available and worth
reviewing—administrators may use them
Rankings are usually based upon citations or
“impact” of papers published in the journal
Rankings vary based upon the criteria used
There is far from full agreement on rankings of
journals, even within a field
German survey
Some top field journals
{
{
{
Agricultural Economics: American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, European Review of
Agricultural Economics
Resource/Environmental Economics: Journal of
Environmental Economics & Management,
Ecological Economics
Development Economics: Journal of
Development Economics, Economic
Development and Cultural Change, World
Development
Steps in the Process:
Submission
„
Almost all submissions are electronic and
made to websites that specialize in handling
editorial matters for many journals
{
„
Any correspondence at these stages is
automated
Most journals have multiple co-editors, so
getting assigned an editor is the first step,
and even that may take some time
Steps in the Process: Review
„
The editor provides a first-layer of review
and a first hurdle
{
{
Desk rejection: The editor may decide the paper
either doesn’t fit the journal or that it doesn’t
meet the quality standard, and reject the paper
without further review
Desk rejections are becoming more common as
editors conserve on reviewer resources
Review (cont.)
„
Outside referees
{
{
If the paper passes the editor’s initial review, he/she will
seek from one to three external referees to review the
paper, write a referee’s report, and recommend a decision
How do editors find referees?
„
„
„
„
{
From personal knowledge
From the reference list in your paper
From internet sites such as the SSRN
From referencing sites such as Google Scholar or Econ Lit
Referee reports range from only a few lines to many
pages
Review (cont.)
„
The review process is either “single blind” or
“double blind”.
{
{
Authors are never supposed to know the identify
of their reviewers, unless the reviewer chooses
to reveal it.
Authors names may or may not be revealed to
the reviewers
„
„
General economics is often single blind, but
agricultural & resource economics is almost always
double blind
But authors and reviewers are often known de facto
despite formal attempts to make the process “blind”
Review (cont.)
„
Who gets chosen as referees?
{ Editor has complete discretion
{ Referees can range from the leader in a field of
study to graduate students
„
„
If you submit papers to a journal, you will likely
be asked to review for it
Can you “game” the selection of referees?
{
„
“Big shots” may give their reviewing assignments
to their students
Number of papers can exhaust the reviewer pool
→ more and more desk rejections
Steps in the process: the
editor’s letter
„
A “decision letter” from the editor will arrive by email
{
„
„
„
Amount of time lapsed can vary greatly—3 to 6 months is
normal, but horror stories of much longer delays abound
There is great heterogeneity in the length, form, and
content of these letters
{ Did the editor ever read the paper?
Referee reports will be enclosed
Possible outcomes
{
{
{
{
Outright rejection
Rejection but revision is solicited
Rejection with “weak” opportunity for a revision
Acceptance—not going to happen in a first-round review
After the decision letter . . .
rejection
„
„
Don’t bother arguing with the editor—almost
certainly not worth it and will just lead to more delay
Revise the paper, incorporating whatever lessons
are possible from the reviews
{
„
Even if reviewers are wrong in their criticisms, it means
you weren’t clear enough in explaining what you did and
why it matters
{
You may get the same referees again elsewhere
{
Weigh referees’ comments objectively
Update your beliefs as to appropriate outlet based
upon reviews, and submit the paper elsewhere
{
Editor or referees may suggest alternative outlets
After the decision letter . . .
revision
„
When any opportunity is given to revise and
resubmit, take it!
{
Do not be discouraged if the editor sounds
“negative”
„
„
„
Editors often take a rather negative tone even when
allowing a revision
Your paper may be formally “rejected” even if you are
given a chance to revise
Although editors never offer guarantees at
this stage, the acceptance rate for revised
papers is very high
Preparing the revison
„
Adopt as many of the reviewers’ comments and
suggestions as you possibly can in your revision
{
{
Most editors ask you to prepare a separate response to
each reviewer, which is returned to him/her, along with
your revision. Use this forum to politely argue your case
Don’t pick a fight with the reviewers or “trash” the
reviewers in writing to the editor
„
{
{
{
Remember, the editor chose the referees
Even if a reviewer is wrong, gently explain (in detail) why
and take the “blame” based upon your failure to be
sufficiently clear.
Respond in some way to every reviewer comment
Make it easy for the reviewer to follow what you have done
in response to his/her comments
Steps in the process:
Resubmit
„
Try to send in your revision as quickly as possible
{
{
„
„
Some editors will give you a maximum time allowance to
resubmit
Get it back to your reviewers while they still remember it
The process of resubmitting is much the same as
for the original submission
The editor will usually send the paper back to the
same referees
{
This is why it is important that you not antagonize them by
arguing and/or being unresponsive to their suggestions.
Resubmit (cont.)
„
You may be asked to provide a second, or
even third, revision before obtaining formal
acceptance of your paper
{
{
{
Editors will usually allow the process to
continue, as long as they believe it is moving
towards producing a publishable paper
Each successive revision should involve fewer
issues and less work
It usually will take at least a year from
submission to formal acceptance
Steps in the process:
Acceptance!
„
„
„
Once your paper has been accepted, you
can list it as “in press” on your CV, and it
counts as if it is actually in print
However, you still face more work to bring
your paper into conformity with the journal’s
style, reading galley proofs, etc.
You may wait a year or more after
acceptance until the paper appears in the
journal
{
Many journals now post in-press papers on line
before they come out in the printed journal
Tips to maximize your chances of
success: Subject matter
„
Choosing good and interesting topics is the most
important step
{
„
Have a lot of papers been published recently in the
general area you are considering?
{
„
„
“The more important the question asked, the lower the bar
to publishing the paper”
Much publishing activity is probably a good sign, but you
could come in at the tail end of a saturated subject area
Can you point to recent interest/concern regarding
your topic in policy discussions?
Take the time to complete the research project;
don’t rush to submit incomplete research
Preparing the paper:
Introduction
„
„
„
„
Say what your paper does and how it contributes to
knowledge in the first couple of pages
Editors will read intro and conclusion sections
before assigning referees. Doing a good job will
avoid desk rejections and help get the paper to the
right referees
Rejection is the default outcome, so you need to
convince reviewers from the outset that your paper
has something to offer
Actually DO what you claim you will do in the
introduction
{
Don’t “oversell” the paper
Preparing the paper: Literature
review
„
„
„
„
You need not have a separate section to review literature (it
can go in the introduction)
Know the literature and cite all the relevant papers. Don’t miss
a paper by one of your referees!
Your discussion of literature should indicate its “gaps” or
incompleteness that you intend to fill, at least in part
A good literature review DOES NOT consist of writing a
paragraph on each paper you cover
{
You need to concisely synthesize the relevant literature
Preparing the paper: Model
development
„
Avoid gratuitous math even in technical papers
{
„
But you cannot skip crucial steps in derivations.
{
„
„
„
Increasingly math and proofs are in appendices, either at the end
of the paper or published on line
Referees will be frustrated if they cannot follow what you do
Provide a verbal explanation for mathematical results
Don’t have a theory/model section that is unrelated to what
you do empirically
Don’t replicate well-known theory just so your paper has a
“theory section”
{
An empirical paper does not require a theory section
Preparing the paper: Empirical
analysis
„
Discuss your data and provide sources
{
{
„
„
„
Provide a table with summary statistics on your data
Journals may require you to provide your data so it can be
made available to researchers for purposes of replication
Provide context and interpretation to empirical
results; what do they mean?
Make tables and figures clear and informative
You should normally report sensitivity analysis, i.e.,
show that your results are robust to alternative
specifications
Preparing the paper:
Conclusions
„
Keep this section relatively short
{
„
„
„
„
Reviewers are tired by this point
Reiterate your paper’s key contributions, but don’t
repeat language from the introduction
Do not introduce new information in the conclusions
Don’t conclude with a point that is not supported by
your results
Be careful in making suggestions for “future
research”
{
This often comes off as a list of the things you failed to do
Preparing the paper:
Reference list
„
„
„
„
It should contain a citation for every paper
mentioned in your text
It should not include any papers not
mentioned in your text—it is not a
bibliography
It should have a consistent citation style,
ideally the style used by the journal,
although this is not required in a first
submission
It should be free of errors
Preparing the paper: Style
„
The paper should be free of grammatical and
spelling errors and typos
{
„
Each journal has its own style but initial
submissions need not conform precisely
{
„
Make it appear that you care
So make your submission as readable as possible—e.g.,
use footnotes not endnotes, embed figures & tables in
text, not at the end
Don’t cheat on fonts and margins to make the paper
look shorter. These actions fool no one and make
the paper harder to read
Preparing the paper: Length
„
„
„
„
Shorter is better, ceteris paribus
Some journals impose a page limit
Most new Ph.D.s have trouble shortening
their theses to make them into journal length
Very lengthy papers discourage referees
{
„
. . . But you need to take the space necessary to
explain things carefully
Editors commonly demand that a paper be
shortened at the very end of the review
process
Getting the credit you are due
„
What about co-authors?
{
{
{
{
{
Authorship is normally alphabetical
A non-alphabetical listing denotes presence of a
“lead author”
A normal practice is for grad students to be lead
authors on papers from their dissertations
Three or more authors usually results in “et al.”
being used
New Ph.D.s should strive to have at least a few
single-author papers
Getting the credit you are due (cont.)
„
What about alternatives to refereed journal
articles?
{
Book chapters
„
{
Papers in special issues or proceedings issues
of journals
„
{
Book chapters are likely not widely accessible
compared to journals; In general they have less value
These will normally be discounted
Publications targeted to lay audiences
„
Have an entirely different payoff; they cannot
substitute for articles in journals targeted to a
professional audience
Conclusions
„
„
Publication in peer-reviewed journals
is very important
You can do much to enhance your
success in this process by
{
{
Carefully preparing your paper and
communicating effectively with editors
and referees,
But most important is to choose good
topics and do good work . . . of course