FAQ: Publishing

The following is drawn from workshops led by David Kahane 1998-2000. Make of it what you will; one fun thing about the workshops was the widely varying opinions offered by faculty in attendance!
What place should publishing have in your priorities as a grad student?
What’s publishable? When is something ready to publish? 
Where to submit it? 
How to submit it
Dealing with rejection
Dealing with acceptance
Other kinds of publishing





Taken from: http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/philosophy/nav04.cfm?nav04=12380&nav03=15302&nav02=12361&nav01=12323

What place should publishing have in your priorities as a grad student?

There is lots of disagreement about this; those who feel grad students should try to publish stress publications as a consideration in fellowship and job applications, and urge grads to keep publishing in mind as they work on things for other purposes (e.g. seminar papers, a dissertation.) If you want to go this route, you could consider formulating seminar papers to be contained contributions to knowledge. And in designing your doctoral dissertation, you could think about how it might break down into self-contained articles.

Others say that grad school is full of hurdles as it is, and that the most important thing is just getting through in a reasonable amount of time, with good results.

What’s publishable? When is something ready to publish? 

“Your manuscript is good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good.” — Samuel Johnston.

There are differences between a seminar paper and a publishable piece: while the former can be good if it shows a grasp of some piece of existing work, or elaborates some detail or contrast, a publishable piece should have a claim to being a contribution to knowledge. A publishable piece tends to situate itself in terms of the state of the field and what's still new, rather than doing a creditable job with some issue that's already been done to death. A publishable piece doesn't plod through exposition to show you know your stuff. Nor is it likely to be grand and programmatic. It's a model of focus, clarity, and conciseness.

Seek advice on particular pieces of your writing from peers and faculty. Ask for critical reactions when you think the piece is ready to be submitted for publication.

Where to submit it? 

Know the difference between journals, proceedings, and edited volumes: while it's nice to see your work in print, it has a great deal more credibility if it's refereed, preferably blind refereed, instead of being selected by a single reader. 

In deciding which journal is the right one, don't be insanely ambitious, but keep in mind the association between rejection rates of a journal and its credibility; consider turn-around times for manuscripts, and think carefully about where related work appears. Does the journal use blind peer review?

Small and/or specialized journals are fine, but avoid the obscure....

The convention is that you should only have an article considered by one journal at a time (though you can check the rules for particular journals).

How to submit it

Include a brief cover letter, being sure to give your full contact info.

Polish, polish, and polish the work, following journal guidelines. Send the correct number of copies. 

Make sure the manuscript is ready for blind review: your name and details should appear on a cover page, but should not be revealed anywhere else in the essay, or be given away by your endnotes.

Dealing with rejection

Whether your manuscript is accepted or rejected, you'll typically get feedback from readers. In case of rejection, 
take this feedback seriously, but consider submitting elsewhere immediately, without revision. Or if the criticisms are warranted, revise and resubmit elsewhere.

Try to be thick-skinned; publishing is something of a crap-shoot. Indeed, most articles you read in scholarly journals have likely been rejected elsewhere.

But on the other hand, you might just want to dump the manuscript. If you're not sure, seek advice from profs or peers.

Dealing with acceptance

First, act quickly. It's all too easy to let a piece sit around for months while you dither; better to dig into any necessary revisions and get the final draft to the journal.

Referees will often suggest or demand revisions; you can argue with them, but be sure to take them seriously. The revised article should go back to the journal with a cover letter explaining revisions — what you’ve taken on board and what you’ve declined to change.

On final acceptance

You'll have to sign some kind of copyright agreement with the publisher; these tend to be pretty standard, but you could ask for clarification, and seek advice from a prof if anything seems fishy.

They don’t pay you!

The publisher may be willing to commit to publishing the article in some particular issue, or by a particular time; ask.

At some point in the process, you'll get 'galleys' -- final versions of the article for proofing. Proof carefully, and turn it around quickly. Keep in mind that publishers may charge for any changes other corrections of typesetting mistakes (they'll tell you).

Other kinds of publishing

There are other outlets for your sholarship if you want to get your feet wet: responses to others' articles, for example, or book reviews (Philosophy in Review is published out of our department), or newsletters on the discipline.

Don't worry too much about the imperative to publish, but don't be terrified to try....


Taken from: http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/philosophy/nav04.cfm?nav04=12380&nav03=15302&nav02=12361&nav01=12323