Writing for Publication: An Introduction
Dr Paul Frazer
([email protected])
International and Postgraduate Student Centre
(http://qub.ac.uk/postgraduate)
([email protected])
1
Contents
Writing and Academia
Understanding how Writing Makes You Feel
The Value of Publication
Virtues of Publishing Research
Why Types of Publication are Open to You?
3
4
6
6
7
The Journal Article
Selecting and Starting Your Article
Refining the Argument
Constructing the Argument
Constructing the Abstract
Drafting the Abstract
8
8
10
10
12
13
Selecting a Journal
Evaluating Academic Journals
Making a Final Decision
Finding and Analysing a Module Article
The General Structure of a Journal Article
Structural Strategies
Finishing Your Article: The Perils of Perfection
Journal Reactions
Dealing with Journal Decisions and Feedback
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Further Reading
25
2
1: Writing and Academia
Writing is to academia what sex was to nineteenth-century Vienna:
everybody does it and nobody talks about it. The leading researcher
on academic writers found that most academics were more willing to
talk about even their most personal problems, including sexual
dysfunction, than about problems with writing ... The prevalent belief
among academics seems to be that writing, like sex, should come
naturally and should be performed in polite privacy. (Belcher 2009, 1)
One of the reasons that academics do not talk about writing is that it involves talking
about feelings. Academics tend to be more comfortable with the rational that the
emotional. However, if we consider the very definition of the verb ‘to publish’, it is
easy to see just how uneasily this word sits against the ‘closed’ and ‘private’ nature
of academic writing generally. According to the Oxford English Dictionary:
Etymology: < Anglo-Norman poeplier , poplier , pubblier , publier , pubplier ,
puplier , pupplier and Middle French publier to make public, to make known, to
make famous, to announce, to proclaim […] (Classical Latin pūblicāre to make
public property, to place at the disposal of the community, to make public, to
make generally known, to exhibit publicly, to publish a book, to confiscate.
I. a. To make public or generally known; to declare or report openly or publicly; to
announce; (also) to propagate or disseminate (a creed or system).
4. a. To declare (a person) publicly to be a particular thing, to brand as; (also,
without complement) to expose so as to discredit or disgrace.
As you can see, the act of publishing actively evokes terms such as public, declare,
openness, and exposure. This is entirely at odds with learning cultures that seem to
esteem highly individualistic writing environments. Clearly, learning how to write for
publication must eventually become a ‘public’ process, but how do we get from
solitude and introversion to openness and public exposure?
3
Understanding How Writing Makes You Feel
This workbook contends that to become a productive writer you must confront how
the process of writing makes you feel. This might seem like a needless or
unnecessary task, but in order to make the production of words easier you must
come to terms with your own ‘writing identity’. There is very little structured writing
support out there (beyond the often problematic supervisor-supervisee relationship)
for research students, so thinking about how you engage with the task of writing is a
good starting point. To begin with, list some immediate reactions to the below
heading – these can be positive or negative, just whatever springs to mind:
My Feelings about My Writing Experience
Next, take your negative feelings (if you have any!) and think about what links them
together. Do they revolve around one or two anxieties, perceptions, habits? Do they
point toward a particular fear, such as what others will think of you? Or to a
particular negative self-assessment, such as labelling yourself lazy? Use the next
chart to identify these links:
Common Elements in My Negative Feelings about Writing
4
If you have positive feelings about writing, then try and remember the contexts in
which they arose. During experiences when writing felt ‘good’, what was making that
happen? What are the lessons you can learn from those experiences?
Lessons to be Learned from My Positive Experiences of Writing
5
The Value of Publication
With these feelings in mind, it is worth evaluating the values of publishing your
research. Here are some questions that you might wish to consider when deciding
whether or not you will attempt to publish:
What will I gain from publication?
What (if anything) will a potential readership gain from reading the findings of
my research?
Is my work original (enough)?
Is there a sufficient market-readership for my research findings?
What forms of publication best meet my professional and/or research profile?
Do I have sufficient time and energy to commit to a publication?
Will this commitment detract from the quality of my other work?
Am I ready to circulate my writing and research?
All of the above are worthwhile questions. You need to be sure that undertaking
publication is worthwhile, so asking questions like these is a valuable exercise.
Think long and hard about them, particularly the last one, and evaluate your answers
against the below values of publication…
The Virtues of Publishing Research
There are several reasons why academics choose to publish their research findings.
Consider the following list against any worries or anxieties that you have:
(The right kind of) Publication…
Brings my research out into the open
Can stimulate academic debate about my research field
Can correct or illuminate oversights in the field
Helps to build my professional profile
Demonstrates my academic integrity, ability, and ambition
Makes me more employable
Each of these points has an opposite connotation, however. Consider the list we
might write of the wrong type of publication.
6
What Types of Publication are Open to You?
Depending upon your career stage and subject-background, there are different
publication avenues open to you. The major opportunities for academic publication
are through:
Book Review
Conference Proceedings
Conference Publications
Chapter for an Edited Collection
Encyclopaedia/Reference Entry
Journal Article
Book
Each of these avenues have their own drawbacks and merits. It is worth, for
instance, being aware of the REF (Research Excellence Framework) status of the
publication that you have in mind. For more information on REF points visit
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/.
Also, asking for advice from your
supervisor, friends, and colleagues can keep you on the right track.
Typically, REF-accredited research pieces include chapters in (some) edited
collections, articles in peer-reviewed journals, and books with established university
presses. As this workbook has been designed for emerging academics who are still
completing their research, peer-reviewed journal articles will be focused upon.
7
The Journal Article
Publishing an article in a peer-reviewed journal is a challenging but worthwhile
achievement. Getting your name out there, alongside other academic voices from
your field, can substantially increase your reputation and employability prospects. It
can seem daunting, however, to undertake the process of moving your writing from
the ‘safe-house’ of the thesis, to the publically read and critiqued journal domain.
The following pages are designed to help you to break down this challenge into
achievable tasks. To begin with, let’s think about deciding upon a piece of work to
prepare for publication.
Selecting and Starting Your Article
Many students believe that in order to be published they must start from scratch.
Nothing will do but to begin a brand new article on a brave new topic. This is not
true. Most students have already written classroom essays, conference papers, or
thesis chapters that contain the seed of a publishable journal article. Some students
have drafts of co-authored articles that their professors have asked them to improve.
Others have been asked to write up parts of a research study they did not conduct.
Since revising is the key to publication, I recommend that you focus on reworking an
already written text, however poor or insufficient you may feel this to be. The trick is
to identify a text that provides you with this fertilisable seed.
a. Choose a (provisional) paper title from your existing written work:
Title
Key Words
b. Outline (at least) six key-words for the content of this piece:
c. Thread these words together to create a provisional ‘thesis argument’:
8
9
Refining the Argument
Organise your article around your argument by reviewing the following:
Do I state my argument early and clearly?
Is my introduction arranged around this argument?
Have I organised the body of my article around this argument?
Do I regularly return to aspects of the argument using clear and direct language?
Have I presented convincing evidence relating to my argument?
Do I restate my argument forcefully and/or persuasively in my conclusion?
Sometimes it can be difficult to see the answers to these questions on your own.
Don’t be afraid to share your article with another writer and ask her or him to identify
where the argument appears or fades. This is vital work. Don’t get discouraged if
you find this process time consuming; a clear and well stated argument is worth the
effort.
Constructing the Argument
One Argument Formula:
If you still aren’t sure you know what an argument is or how to make one, take some
advice from Steven Posusta. After teaching in a UCLA composition tutoring lab as
an English major, Posusta wrote a sixty-two page book for undergraduates titled
Don’t Panic: The Procrastinator’s Guide to Writing an Effective Term Paper (You
Know Who You Are) (1996). The aim of the book is to provide the “cool tricks” and
“fast fixes” that can enable a student to read Posusta’s book tonight “and still hand in
your paper tomorrow”. One tool Posusta provides is his ‘Instant Thesis Maker’. It
goes like this:
#1. Although_________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
(general statement, opposite opinion)
#2. nevertheless _____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
(thesis, your idea)
10
#3. because _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
(examples, evidence: #1, #2, #3, etc.)
E.g.: “Although Posusta’s Instant Thesis Maker is reductive and pedagogically
problematic, nevertheless it distils the requirements of academic discourse to an
easily understood essence that can be useful to students struggling with their
arguments because it forces students to engage in a debate and to provide proofs in
one sentence.”
11
Constructing the Abstract
Now you need to turn this argument into a viable (and defensible) abstract. An
abstract is a condensed version of your article: a distillation of the most important
information. Several common problems plague even published abstracts. Be sure
to avoid the following:
Don’t just introduce your topic; that’s what your introduction is for.
Don’t have an abstract that reads like a plan. It shouldn’t include statements
like “we hope to prove” or “this article tries to analyse” or “this study seeks
to…” etc. These are acceptable in grant- or conference-paper- proposals but
not in a research article. An article abstract is a report on what you did, not
what you hope to do.
Don’t give a barrage of data without an argument or a conclusion; an abstract
should tell (or at least hint at) a story.
Don’t include footnotes or citations.
Don’t include quotations – paraphrase instead.
Don’t include abbreviations, symbols, or acronyms, instead spell out all terms
(some journals allow exceptions, but this is a general rule).
Include nothing in the abstract that cannot be understood (without explanation
in the article itself).
Be sure to include as many relevant keywords as possible, since many search
engines search by abstract and title alone.
12
Drafting the Abstract
Before attempting to draft your abstract, consider the below examples. Which
abstract is better? Why?
Abstract version A
A count of sentence connectors in 12 academic papers produced 70 different
connectors. These varied in frequency from 62 tokens to single occurrences.
Seventy-five percent of the 467 examples appeared in sentence-initial position.
However, individual connectors varied considerably in position reference. Some
always occurred initially; in other cases, they were placed after the subject more
than 50% of the time. These findings suggest that a search for general rules for
connector position may not be fruitful.
Abstract Version B
Although sentence connectors are a well-recognized feature of academic writing, little
research has been undertaken on their positioning. In this study, we analyze the
position of 467 connectors found in a sample of 12 research papers. Seventy-five
percent of the connectors occurred at the beginning of sentences. However, individual
connectors varied greatly in positional preference. Some only occurred initially; others
occurred in only 40% of the cases. These preliminary findings suggest that general
rules for connector position may prove elusive.
It was probably easy for you to identify version B as stronger. It is well organised,
announcing its topic and significance in the first sentence, its method in the second
sentence, its findings in the three following sentences, and concludes with the
argument (that ‘sentence connectors’ likely do not have general rules’). The first
abstract is not well organised – providing no context, unexplained data, and an
unconnected argument. It is a data-driven abstract. Unorganised data overwhelms
the argument. Both have arguments, but only one is argument driven.
13
Now attempt to draft your abstract, using your ‘thesis argument’ to create an
argument-driven, organized account of the article in no more than 300 words:
Abstract Draft
As you redraft this abstract (and you will), keep asking yourself:
Is my argument visible and clear?
Do I foreground any unnecessary (or unnecessarily complex) information?
Do I tell (the right) story?
Am I introducing my article (with the ‘research problem’)?
Am I concluding with an account of my research statement?
Do my sentences build upon each other in a logical progression?
14
Selecting a Journal
Though you may be surprised to learn this, many journals need you more than you
need them. Why? There are hundreds of academic journals in every discipline.
Worldwide, there are nearly 250,000 periodicals. Of those, over 38,000 are active
academic journals and over 22,000 are active peer-reviewed academic journals
(Belcher 2009, 101). With this array of choices, choosing the right journal for your
article can be a difficult and time-consuming process. And because you may only
publish your paper once, it is imperative that you select an outlet that will supplement
your professional development and impress potential employers/colleagues.
Consider the following guidelines before short-listing potential journals for your work:
Types of Academic Journals
Non-recommended Publishing Outlets:
Newspapers or magazines
Trade and professional journals
Society and conference proceedings
Questionable Publishing Outlets:
Chapters in edited volumes
Non-peer-reviewed academic journals
Graduate student journals
Note journals
Review journals
Local journals
New journals
Electronic journals
Non-US / UK journals
Preferred Publishing Outlets (always peer reviewed...)
Regional journals
Newer journals (3-7 years old)
Interdisciplinary journals
Field-/discipline-specific journals
Disciplinary journals
Correspond with your supervisor to draw up a range of relevant, peer-reviewed
academic journals as potential outlets for your work. Think about journals that
established authors have printed with in their early careers. Remember that aiming
‘too high’ can cause delay and disheartenment through repeated rejection.
15
Selecting and Evaluating Academic Journals
Spend some time in the library (in the relevant periodical section) and think about the
following questions in your bid to shortlist some potential avenues for publication:
Is the journal peer-reviewed?
Is the journal in the recommended publishing outlet category?
Does the journal have a solid reputation?
Does the journal have a reputable publisher?
Has the journal been around for a while?
Is the journal carefully produced?
Are the authors published in its pages diverse?
Is the journal online or indexed electronically and where?
Does it take a long time to get published once you submit your manuscript?
Who reads the journal?
Sometimes questions like these can be difficult to answer. Talk to your supervisor(s)
and colleagues and try to gain as much knowledge as possible.
To help you navigate your search yield, the following questions can be helpful in
strategically matching your paper to suitable journals:
Does the journal have an upcoming theme or special issue on your topic?
Does the journal have word or page limits that you can’t meet?
Does the style of the article match the journal’s?
Do you (or your supervisors) know the journal’s editor(s)?
How does the journal require articles to be submitted?
If you require clarification on any of the above questions, you can contact the
journals editors with a query letter or email. Here are some questions that editors
often receive:
How many submissions does your journal receive annually?
What is your journal’s turnaround time?
What is your journal’s backlog (i.e. how long will it take to get my article in
print)?
16
Making a Final Decision
Knowing what journal you are going to send your work to makes a big difference – it
will help you shape the article when you know what conversation you are joining.
Which journal
is my ‘best
bet’ for
getting this
article
published?
Now you need to list the implications that this choice has for the further writing of
your article. The most important issue at this point is the journal’s word limits. If
your article doesn’t meet (or exceeds) those limits, you must start making changes or
aim for another publication.
What are the
journal’s
page or word
limits and
what length
is my article?
There are other implications that the journal has for your revision process. If the
journal requires that you list all documentation in the notes, not the text, and you’ve
done the opposite, you may have to switch your article over. If the journal has a
special issue that you are aiming for, you will have to take note of the date and work
toward it. If the journal favours a particular theoretical or methodological stance, you
may need to ‘beef up’ that part of your article.
What are the
other writing
implications
of choosing
this journal
for this
article?
17
Finding and Analysing a Model Article
Once you have identified a particular journal for your article, it is well worth exploring
some recent editions to find suitable ‘models’. By using an existing publication as a
template (in terms of structure and style), you can tailor your article to the journal’s
needs more efficiently. Survey some recent editions and look for examples of
structure, balance, argument, and linkage. Pay particular attention to the following:
How does the author frame their abstract?
How are keyterms integrated into the abstract and introduction?
How formal is the author’s approach?
Are subheadings used?
Are subsections consistent in length?
What scale of secondary research is evident?
Surveying a number of articles across several (recent) editions can give you a solid
sense of the journal’s general style expectations. List possible strategies that you
could replicate in your submission:
What can I…
Imitate?
Adapt?
Improve?
18
The General Structure of a Journal Article
Though all journals have different styles and preferences, there are certain
conventions that can bolster any article-length academic essay. Understanding and
applying these conventions can help you to restructure your chosen piece into a
publishable form.
The AIMRAD Structure (Silyn-Roberts 2000)
The classic structure for an experimental report is the A(bstract) I(ntroduction)
M(ethods) R(esults) and D(iscussion) model. Whilst this structure may seem specific
to science and engineering based subjects, the philosophy behind it can be applied
to any discipline. In the Humanities, for example, methods, results, and discussion
are rarely afforded separable sections – they are integrated into the body of
information that forms the mainstay of the article. Nonetheless, Humanities articles
do present methods, results, and discussion in identifiable ways.
It is helpful to think of the article document in the shape of a diamond:
Abstract
AIM
RAD
Body of information
Conclusions
If we think about the entire article as being ‘diamond shaped’, the following rules
apply: at the narrow ends, the information is brief, focused, and precise. The
abstract at the beginning and the conclusions at the end each give overview
information. The abstract prepares the reader for the whole document, the
conclusions confirms and reiterates the findings – and the significance of these
findings. Next, think of each sub-section within the body as diamond shaped; they
will also have narrow ends: a summary at the beginning, and a conclusion at the
end.
To get an undetailed understanding of the key information in the document the rule
of thumb is to read the title, abstract, and conclusions. These sections, together with
the section summaries, should form a navigational aid that orientates the reader and
guides them through the document. By using the ‘narrow’ sections efficiently, you
allow the non-expert reader access to your ideas – making your article far more
suited to the conventions of journal publishing practice.
19
Structural Strategies: Some Tips for Structuring the Article
The Importance of Overview Information: Building a Navigational Pathway
Even though journal articles often have sub-/side-headings, they are often very
difficult to assess and extract information from. This can be because the reader
can’t see a pathway through it, something to help them to navigate their way. For
technical documents, you can use the basic AIMRAD skeleton and build upon it to
construct a navigational guide. Non-technical documents, however, must address
this more subtly, through direction, repetition, and signposting. In your introduction,
give your reader a detailed map of the direction of the article. Detail the waypoints
that they will visit en route to your conclusions. Your readers should be able to use
this information to gain a much readier understanding of your material.
One Useful Strategy: Deliberate Repetition of Information in a Document
Writers are sometimes concerned because they see information repeated throughout
a document. But it has to be remembered that this repetition is deliberate and
controlled – the basic skeleton demands it. The repeated information forms part of
the navigational pathway and guides the reader through the document. Overviews
of the central thesis-argument must be returned to regularly, at the beginning and
ends of sections, to keep your reader on the right track. This deliberate restatement
of information is a key feature of the professional document. But information that is
repeated because the document has been sloppily assembled is another matter!
Checklist for the Structuring of a Document
Are you using the necessary headings of the basic skeleton?
Are the headings appropriate to your target-journal?
Are your headings in a logical order?
Have you built a navigational pathway for the reader by giving overview
information throughout your document: an abstract or summary and
conclusions, and in a long paper, section summaries?
Have you deliberately controlled the repetition of information throughout the
document?
20
Finishing Your Article: The Perils of Perfection
According to Belcher (2009), when you are finishing your article your biggest enemy
is the fear of finishing. Demotivating feelings often accompany the completion of
projects, and authors often start to slow down the process to delay completion.
Authors become aware of the huge gap between what they imagined their article
would be and what it ended up being. But, you must learn to send your imperfect
work out into the world. (It helps to realise that no text is perfect.) You are on a
journey and your articles are way-stations, not the destination.
Finalising Your Argument: Print out a hard copy of your article. Read through
it and mark up what needs to be improved. Ask yourself if each change is
essential to the article or a barrier to completing it.
Finalising Your Related Literature Review: Reread your article with an eye to
wrapping up your literature review and any other citations. Refer back to your
notes and ensure that you haven’t neglected any key texts. Is your
bibliography clean, accurate, and presented appropriately? Have you cited
what you need to?
Finalising Your Introduction: Consider the strength of your opening section.
Is your argument prominent enough? Do you clearly address the article title
and the scope of the piece? Is your contextual information concise and to the
point? Are you signposting your arguments effectively?
Finalising Your Evidence and Structure: Reread your article with an eye for
finalizing the body-paragraphs. Do they have singular foci? Do they link
together fluidly and build a logical argument? At this stage you must focus on
improving, not overhauling. And don’t forget your journal’s word-limit, but if
you are slightly over don’t agonize. Most editors don’t expect you to hit the
mark exactly. Devoting a 3-4 hour stretch to this stage may be helpful as you
get close to sending.
Finalising your Conclusion: The best conclusions are short and clear. Are
you revisiting your central points and building a reflective, logic-driven,
conclusive statement. Do you gesture towards future research that could
build upon what you have argued? Do you end positively and forcefully?
21
Journal Reactions
Unpublishable: The Non-Argument
Understanding the factors that make an article unpublishable is arguably as
important as appreciating what makes a paper desirable to a potential editor. Here
are some common reasons why journals reject articles:
“Too Narrow” or “Too Broad” (do you situate your argument within a
broader context? Is it directed to a broad, but yet specialised, academic
audience?)
“Off Topic” (is your subject matter ‘appropriate’? Is it within the scope of the
journal?)
“Not Scholarly” (are your references meticulous? Is your tone formal and
respectful? Does your evidence support your claims?)
“Too Defensive” (are you overemphasising points and losing credibility?)
“Not Sufficiently Original” (what is new about your paper?)
“Poor Structure” (are your points made clearly and governed by a logical
order? Are your introduction and conclusion functioning effectively?)
“Not Significant” (what difference does your article actually make?)
If you do suffer rejection from your chosen journal, you have some important
decisions to make. Can this piece be revised and resubmitted? Would another
journal be better suited to your article? Should you move on and work on something
else? These are significant decisions, but leaving a piece of work behind that you
have laboured over has to be the last consideration. All rejections (and for that
matter, most conditional acceptances) will come with feedback, and how you employ
this feedback can define your ability to receive constructive criticisms throughout
your career. Take all the positives you can and never see readers’ comments as
reflections of you. You are not your research, but your professional status (in
academia) depends upon your ability to react positively to all forms of feedback.
22
Dealing with Journal Decisions and Feedback (Belcher 2009: 287-298)
Typically, there are a set range of responses likely to result from submission to a
peer-reviewed academic journal. Here is a run-down of the types of responses that
you may encounter.
1. Unconditional acceptance: This almost never happens. For example, according
to Holshuch (1998) – a journal editor – “for more than 250 manuscripts received
while I have been assisting with JLR, not one first draft has been accepted
unconditionally, and very few have been conditionally accepted pending minor
revisions”. In other words, don’t accept any journal to “accept” your initial
submission; this is not the reality of how academic journals work.
2. Revise minor problems and resubmit: Receiving a decision like this is cause for
celebration. Articles in this category have been accepted on the condition that the
changes specified by the reviewers in their attached reports. Though some
inexperienced authors believe that any criticism is a bad sign, it’s not. You can only
get this kind of decision if all of reviewers and editors liked your article. The journal
has taken your work seriously, given you a few recommendations for improvement,
and asked you to resubmit it with revisions. If you receive this kind of decision, make
the changes as soon as possible and resubmit. Usually, the article will not go back
to the original readers, but will go straight to the editors, who simply check that you
have made the suggested corrections. If you have, the journal will publish your
article!
3. Revise major problems and resubmit: Articles in this category have been
conditionally accepted, pending major revisions specified by the reviewers. You
usually get this kind of decision when the reviewers and editors liked the piece but at
least one had substantial suggestions for improvement. The main difference
between this and the above (‘minor’) decision is that your article will likely go back to
the original reviewers for vetting. If the reviewers believe that you have adequately
addressed their original suggestions, your article will be published. Be aware,
however, that some articles will reject your piece if you do not address the
corrections to the expected level when you resubmit.
4. Rejected but will entertain a resubmission: Whilst this is not a great decision to
receive, it is far from the worst response. This means that you still have a chance of
getting your article published with the journal. Here the editor indicates a willingness
to see a revision, thus the decision is still a form of “revise and resubmit”. Brace
yourself for your reviewers’ suggestions, as they will have substantial suggestions for
improving the essay. Phrases in the editor’s letter such as “not publishable in its
current form” or “not yet ready” suggest that they may welcome it in a different form.
A key difference here is the editor and readers’ doubt that you can make the
23
specified changes. Most of the time, editors give this decision because they thought
that the article was strong, but fatally flawed in some way.
5. Rejected and Dismissed: This is an absolute rejection with reviewers’ reports
attached to back up the editor’s claim that the article is “not publishable” or “is not
ready for publication” or “does not meet our standards for publication”. In this case,
the editor of the journal has closed off the chance of resubmission, and sees little of
value in your article. If you can use the reports to revise the article for another
journal, good for you. Sometimes the editors will even suggest that you think about
submitting the article to another journal that better suits your topic or argument.
6. Rejected by Editor: This is an absolute rejection without any reports. In this
case, the editor has rejected your article outright and has not passed it on any further
for peer review. Such a rejection is to do with the article’s quality as editors do not
wish to burden the journal readers with poor quality work. However, it may be the
case that your article is simply at odds with the journal’s desired topics, or perhaps
the journal has recently published work on a similar subject. Lots of scholars get this
kind of rejection; just move on to your second choice journal.
24
Further Reading
Belcher, Wendy Laura. 2009. Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to
Academic Publishing Success. Los Angeles and London: Sage.
Boice, Robert. 1982. “Increasing the Writing Productivity of ‘Blocked’ Academicans.”
Behaviour Research & Therapy 20, no.3: 197-207.
Bolker, Joan. 1998. Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day: A Guide to
Starting, Revising, and Finishing Your Doctoral Thesis. New York: Henry Holt & Co.
Day, Robert A. And Barbara Gastel. 2006. How to Write and Publish a Scientific
Paper, 6th ed. Cambridge University Press.
Harman, Eleanor et al. (eds). 2003. The Thesis and The Book: A Guide for FirstTime Academic Authors. University of Toronto Press.
Holshuch, Jodi. 1998. “Editorial: Why Manuscripts Get Rejected and What Can Be
Done about It: Understanding the Editorial Process from an Insider’s Perspective.”
Journal of Literary Research 30, no.1, (1998): 1-7).
Silyn-Roberts, Heather. 2000. Writing for Science and Engineering: Papers,
Presentations and Reports. Butterworth Heinemann.
25