Ed Diener Smiley Professor of Psychology University of Illinois Submission Suggestions

Home , Animal studies, Psychological Bulletin

Getting Published

1. The right journal? 2. Persevere, be tough 3. Frame the intro with your study in mind 4. Get the paper to the right reviewers 5. Do reviews yourself 6. Expect long lags 7. Hooray for the chance to revise How to Publish

Nora S. Newcombe Temple University My Editorial Experience

 Invited Co-Editor, Special Issue on “Interactions among Scientists and Policy Makers; Challenges and Opportunities”, American Psychologist, March 2002.  Editor, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1996-2001.  Guest Editor, Special Issues on Early Memory, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1993-94.  Associate Editor, Psychological Bulletin, 1990-94.  Consulting Editor, Developmental Psychology, 1981- 87, Child Development, 1982-1996, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1983-2005, Psychological Bulletin, 2002-2004, Journal of Cognition and Development, 2002- , Psychological Science, 2004- , Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2005- , Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2005-  Reviewer for many other journals, e.g., Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Psychological Review, Science. Do You Have Something to Say?

 There is no substitute for a good idea  You also need compelling data and a clear take-home message  Bem (1995) wrote that an article:  “tells a straightforward tale of a circumscribed question in want of an answer. It is not a novel with subplots and flashbacks but a short story with a single, linear narrative line.” OK, I Have Something to Say—Now What?

 Get a pre-review  From yourself (learn to role play)  From colleagues (remember that they are almost always right)  Neatness counts  Did you check spelling and grammar?  Did you follow APA style? Sending Out the Article

 Pick the right journal  Remember that editors differ—they are people not machines.  American Psychologist has annual information on APA journals  ISI has citation counts  Write a good cover letter  Blind review?  Set your expectations for review appropriately Varieties of the Rejection Experience

 When is rejection not rejection?  Any time revision is invited.  Do not procrastinate about revision  What if you disagree with the reviewers?  Say so, but politely. Which is Right? (from Bem, 1995)

 I have left the section on the animal studies unchanged. If Reviewers A and C can’t even agree on whether the animal studies are relevant, I must be doing something right.  You will recall that Reviewer A thought the animal studies should be described more fully, whereas Reviewer C thought they should be omitted. A biopsychologist in my department agreed with reviewer C that the animal studies are not really valid analogs of the human studies. So I have dropped them from the text but cited Snarkle’s review of them in an explanatory footnote on page 26. Advice to young writers from an old editor

Robert V. Kail Purdue University Caveat emptor regarding my advice •Except for the past four months, my editorial experience is limited to developmental journals •Given the choice between stunning data and elegant theory, I’d always pick the former •My comments apply to empirical pieces that would be submitted to a specialty journal •My advice assumes that you have something worth publishing! Turning a thesis/dissertation into a manuscript suitable for publication •Dissertations and manuscripts meet different needs •Signs that a manuscript originated in a dissertation –Too long, particularly the introduction –Includes marginal experiments •Write clearly –Avoid jargon (J.Williams Style: Lessons in clarity and grace) –Have others read the manuscript •Framing a study effectively –What is unknown? –Why is it important to know it? –How does your study help us to know it better? Determining authorship

•APA Publication Manual: “Authorship encompasses…not only those who do the actual writing but also those who have made substantial scientific contributions [including] formulating the problem or hypothesis, structuring the experimental design, organizing and conducting the statistical analysis, interpreting the results, or writing a major portion of the paper.” •Blackwell Publishers--“Publication Ethics” •Some recommend that agreements be put in writing Strategies for submitting

•Selecting a journal –Where are articles on this topic published? –What are relevant professional societies? –Read “information for contributors” –Impact factor •Submitting –Follow guidelines in “information for contributors” –Follow APA guidelines regarding cover letter The “action”or decision letter

•It will not be accepted. •Read everything; the action letter is not a simple unweighted summary of reviews. •Revise and resubmit: Follow the instructions carefully. •Rejected: –Join the crowd—we all have manuscripts filed away that should be thrown away! –Appeal? Only when a review is factually incorrect and that error influenced the editorial decision –Submit elsewhere? Maybe. Why are manuscripts rejected?

•Topic is not timely or interesting •Flaws in method •Data are flawed or, at least, are not compelling (weak effects). Conclusion

•Being a successful scientist takes a thick skin—good journals reject the majority of submissions. •But hang in there—the rewards of discovery are immense. TellingTelling Your Your Story Story

SusanSusan Nolen Nolen--HoeksemaHoeksema,, Ph.D. Ph.D. DepartmentDepartment of of Psychology Psychology YaleYale University University YouYou’’veve Finished Finished Your Your Project! Project! NowNow It It’’ss Time Time to to Write Write Your Your Article Article WhichWhich Article Article Do Do You You Write? Write?

(a) The article you planned to write when you designed your study, or (b) The article that makes the most sense now that you know your results

Correct answer: b Bem, 2003; dbem.ws/WritingArticle.pdf ForFor Whom Whom Do Do You You Write? Write? ForFor Whom Whom Do Do You You Write? Write?

ColleaguesColleagues who who know know a a fair fair amount amount about about your your subject subject matter,matter, but but often often not not as as much much as as you you know know

ReaderReader--basedbased prose: prose: -- thinkthink about about what what the the reader reader needs needs to to knowknow to to understand understand your your argument argument andand your your study study -- whatwhat will will capture capture the the reader reader’’ss interest interest -- organizeorganize conceptually conceptually WhereWhere Do Do You You Start? Start? InIn the the Middle. Middle. TheThe Methods Methods Section Section

 LeadLead the the reader reader through through the the procedures procedures as as if if he/shehe/she was was a a participant. participant.  ProvideProvide enough enough detail detail for for replication. replication.  AvoidAvoid multiple multiple abbreviations. abbreviations.  DescribeDescribe your your participants participants thoroughly. thoroughly.  DiscussDiscuss technical technical details details as as necessary. necessary.  DiscussDiscuss problems problems as as necessary. necessary. TheThe Results Results Section Section

 MakeMake clear clear what what type type of of analyses analyses you you conducted. conducted.  BeginBegin with with the the central central findings findings then then move move on on to to the the moremore peripheral peripheral findings. findings.  RemindRemind readers readers of of the the hypotheses hypotheses motivating motivating your your analyses.analyses.  InterpretInterpret results results in in clear clear prose. prose.  SummarizeSummarize at at the the end end of of major major sections. sections.  UseUse figures figures and and tables tables as as necessary. necessary. TheThe Introduction: Introduction: AnAn Inverted Inverted Triangle Triangle

The Big Picture

Supporting Detail

Your Study TheThe Introduction Introduction

 TalkTalk about about people, people, processes, processes, and and problems problems……notnot researchersresearchers and and chronology. chronology.  UseUse examples. examples.  AvoidAvoid jargon. jargon.  DiscussDiscuss and and cite cite only only previous previous work work directly directly relevant relevant to to youryour study. study.  DonDon’’tt list list studies. studies.  AvoidAvoid being being unnecessarily unnecessarily critical critical of of other other researchers researchers (who(who will will likely likely be be your your reviewers). reviewers). TheThe Introduction Introduction

 ProvideProvide a a clear clear rationale rationale for for all all your your major major hypotheses.hypotheses.  StateState your your hypotheses hypotheses clearly clearly as as you you move move throughthrough the the introduction. introduction.  UseUse sections sections with with headers headers to to divide divide up up the the intro intro conceptually.conceptually.  EndEnd with with a a summary summary of of your your main main hypotheses. hypotheses. TheThe Discussion: Discussion: AnotherAnother Triangle Triangle

Your Results

Connection to Literature

Conclusions and Implications MoreMore on on Discussion Discussion Organization Organization

1. IntroductoryIntroductory paragraph paragraph summarizing summarizing main main resultsresults 2. MainMain results results grouped grouped conceptually conceptually and and integrationintegration with with the the literature literature 3. LimitationsLimitations 4. ConclusionsConclusions and and implications implications 1010 Common Common Discussion Discussion Section Section MistakesMistakes 1. StartingStarting with with limitations limitations 2. GoingGoing overboard overboard with with limitations limitations 3. NotNot acknowledging acknowledging limitations limitations 4. SimplySimply restating restating the the results results without without interpretationinterpretation or or integration integration with with literature literature 5. PresentingPresenting new new results results 1010 Common Common Mistakes Mistakes……contcont’’dd

6. MakingMaking strong strong claims claims about about weak weak results results 7. NotNot differentiating differentiating strong strong and and weak weak results results in in conclusionsconclusions 8. LapsingLapsing into into causal causal language language about about correlationalcorrelational datadata 9. RepeatingRepeating the the introduction introduction 10. NoNo concluding concluding statements; statements; end end with with limitationslimitations KeepingKeeping Yourself Yourself Motivated Motivated

SocialSocial learning learning theory theory ((BanduraBandura)) has has taught taught us: us: BreakBreak the the tasks tasks of of writing writing intointo proximal proximal goals goals -- 55 minute minute tasks tasks -- 11 hour hour tasks tasks -- 11 afternoon afternoon tasks tasks IfIf You You Get Get Overwhelmed Overwhelmed or or StuckStuck…… ……TakeTake a a Break Break AskAsk for for Help Help When When You You Need Need It It ResourcesResources

Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1, 311-320. Bem, D.J. (2004). Writing the empirical journal article. In J.M. Darley, M.P. Zanna, H.L. Roediger III (Eds.), The compleat academic: A guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed.). (pp. 185-220). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (dbem.ws/online_pubs.html#writing) Bem, D.J. (1995). Writing a review article for Psychological Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 172-177. Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183-192. (dbem.ws/online_pubs.html#writing) Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.). (2000). Guide to publishing in psychology journals. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Strunk, Jr., W., & White, E.B. (2000). The elements of style, 4th edition. New York: Longman Publishers.