From the Editor—Publish, Don’t Perish! Strategies for Getting Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals

Over the past several years I have had the delightful opportunity to collaborate with other journal editors on presentations related to publishing at the Council on Social Work Education Annual Program Meetings and the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference. To disseminate what we hope is sage advice that we give in these presentations to a wider audience, I have invited them to collaborate with me on this editorial on writing for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

We know that writing is work and is often hard. In fact, Thomas Hood is credited for lamenting, “easy reading is d–d [damned] hard writing” (1837, p. 287). Scholars strive for accurate, informative, interesting, stimulating, and readable text. Writing as a process and pursuit is time consuming and often simultaneously satisfying and daunting. Academics, in particular, face the persistent certainty of and demand to produce a variety of written work. However, manuscripts bound for peer review likely make up a bulk of our writing endeavors.

By now, most of us know when we like to write, perhaps in the morning with a cup of coffee, at the end of the workday, or when all other chores are completed. Needless to say, we may know when we feel it is our best time to write, yet the reality is that we often can’t find the time to write when we feel like it. Writing is an emotional process for many of us because written words represent our thoughts, logic, and position. Once published, they are like immovable billboards over highways. And if you are writing an academic manuscript, you know that your written work will be judged and reviewed by unknown peers. It is not surprising that the thought of writing can induce panic, anxiety, and a severe case of procrastination. Yet, writing for publication is a key metric used to evaluate and promote your professional career.

There is no set rule or schedule for writing. Some authors will advise writing for an hour or two every day or writing a page each day. Others may suggest setting aside specific days or time periods for writing. Some insist that writing in the early morning can be the most productive, whereas late-night writing works better for others. Rather than relying on another author’s writing schedule, it is important to find the days and times that are most productive for you. And this is the starting point—you must write! We all likely have experienced looking at a blank page realizing that it represents exactly what is in our minds at that time. However, if you put your fingers on the keyboard, more often than not, some words will flow. Face the blank page! It is not a mirror, it’s just a blank page. Type your name, type your draft title, and type the date; you have started writing.

Equally important as starting to write, however, is to have something to write about. An important distinction between just writing and writing for publication is that the latter must have relevance for the professional field, whether it is advancing social work practice, disseminating research findings, promoting advocacy efforts, or informing social work education. Fortunately, a variety of manuscript types are publishable. Some may be based on research, others may be a theoretical or conceptual piece, possibly a case study for student edification, or even a reflective piece based on your practice. Although these are just a few of the various types of manuscripts you may be thinking about writing, you must decide if the work you want to write about is publishable. You might ask yourself the following: Does it bring new knowledge to the field? Is it about a new and emerging area? Can you offer a new or unique way to address an educational situation or think about a social problem or policy? Will your research findings or ideas generate new promises for practice? If you think your work will do any of this, it most likely will have relevance to the field, which will increase the likelihood of having it published.

When beginning to write, it is also important to remember that your first page is a draft of what you will submit for publication. It’s really OK if it is lousy. Don’t get stuck on creating the perfect opening sentence; in fact, don’t even get stuck on writing full paragraphs if that inhibits you. Some find it helpful to first create an outline (this still counts as writing), while others prefer to type quotes or reference lists they will use in the manuscript (this also counts as writing), and some use a combination of both (yes, this still counts as writing). Think of every page you write as a draft of what you will submit. You can have fun with your drafts, and during this initial stage of writing, it is fine to simply write. Edits will come later as you tailor your draft work for a specific journal.

Once you find your voice and have started writing, it is particularly important to be clear about the expectations of the journal that will eventually receive your manuscript. All journals have specific page lengths, font and margin sizes, and style criteria. It is critical to follow the rules because yes these rules do matter, and reviewers will comment on these points. They will also comment on spelling, grammar, sentence structure, organizational flow, and other elements in your manuscript you may not even notice. Some journals may also use rating scales and specific criteria for reviewers. For example, reviewers may be asked to judge clarity of presentation, the manuscript’s relevance to the field, and whether the paper makes a significant contribution to existing knowledge. Most journal editors will ask reviewers to judge whether the paper is conceptually sound, and for research articles, whether they are empirically sound and rigorous. It is always good practice ask at least one or two colleagues who have been successful at publishing to review your manuscript to give you feedback prior to submitting it to a journal. Then, take any feedback with gratitude, and fix any issues brought to your attention.

Fortunately, a vast array of journals will possibly publish your work. Leung and Cheung (2011) have compiled a useful list of 200 journals in social work and related disciplines that you may want to consider. It should be noted that this list is not complete, partially because new journals are always coming into the market and other regional journals have not yet been added. This list does, however, provide a very useful place to start to consider your journal selection. Ideally, you should choose your journal before you start writing, as this will allow you to review other articles the journal has published in your content area. It is always wise to consider whether you should cite these articles, which is particularly important if they contribute something new to your argument. Not surprisingly, editors want potential authors to review the previous work published in their journals. As noted earlier, it is also important to check the journal’s specific focus and publishing requirements when you first begin writing your manuscript rather than having to address these issues once the article is completed.

In choosing a journal, you should decide early on whether you wish to write for a specialist or generalist audience, and choose the journal accordingly. Another factor that may affect your choice is the primary audience for your article. Is it meant for those who work primarily in the field of your research, or are you trying to reach a wider audience either in or outside social work? It is also important to consider whether the journal has a citation index or impact factor. The Thomson Reuters (2016) bibliometrics (counts of journal articles and citations) claims to offer “a systematic, objective means to evaluate the world’s leading journals.” Increasingly, this citation index is commonly used to measure the research influence and impact of a journal; the higher the index score, the more prestigious the journal. However, a higher index score may also mean it is more difficult to get a paper accepted because the journal is likely to attract more articles and have a higher rejection rate. In their examination and critique of the Thompson Reuters system, Blyth et al. (2010) lament that bibliometrics has become a proxy for quality, and they urge caution in its use. Just because a journal does not have an impact factor does not mean it will not reach your target audience or make an impact. Nonetheless, in many academic programs, citations and impact factors have become extremely important for those who are seeking tenure and promotion or applying for an alternative position that places value on these metrics. A final factor to consider is the speed with which the journal editors review articles. Again, this can be important if you need to publish quickly or if you are able to wait for your publication to appear in your journal of choice. It is often quite difficult to know the average length of time from submission to publication, but an e-mail to an editor can usually help determine the lag time. However, another important consideration is that some journals offer publication online, which means that the lag time to publication is less important because accepted articles are published online first, complete with a DOI, often long before they appear in the final print publication.

Despite some variation, journals use fairly standard categories when assessing articles for publication, ranging from accept, accept with minor revisions (also called conditionally accept), accept with major revisions, revise and resubmit (also called reject unless revised) and reject. The decision we all want to see is accepted for publication, but this is very rare on initial submission and generally occurs after two or three iterations of the same article. A decision of acceptance with minor revisions or conditionally accept can occur following the initial submission or after a resubmission. This indicates that the article is very close to being suitable for publication but still needs some very minor changes or additions to be publishable. The amount of work needed for a minor revision can usually be completed in an evening. In contrast, major revisions are more substantive and may include requests to provide clarification of the author’s arguments, analysis of the data, missing areas of the debate, changes in the structure, or correction of grammatical errors. It is important for authors to address each area of concern in their response to the reviewers, which we discuss in more detail later.

Revise and resubmit is probably the most common response and implies that the article is within the focus of the journal but needs major work to bring it up to a publishable standard. It also implies that it cannot be done quickly because a major reworking of the text is required before the author should resubmit. Although this can be ego deflating, it is important to remember that revise and resubmit is not a rejection, and the author is being given the opportunity to improve the article. In contrast, a rejected manuscript indicates that the editor believes your article is not well suited for that particular journal.

If your manuscript receives a revise and resubmit response from peer reviewers, it is important to first read and consider the reviewers’ comments carefully. In most cases, the reviewers are trying to help the author improve the manuscript, and the comments should be taken as helpful recommendations for making it a stronger and more meaningful article. Pay attention to the fine details. Second, after considering all the reviewers’ comments, keep a list of changes you make based on the recommendations of each reviewer’s feedback starting with the first reviewer. Clearly outline each reviewer’s comment, the change that was made, and the location of that change (i.e., page number and paragraph) so that the reviewer and editor can easily find the revision in the manuscript. In addition, some journals request the author to highlight the changes that were made. Third, list any additional changes that you make beyond what is requested. Sometimes contextual changes requested by reviewers lead to additional changes that you ascertain are necessary to make the manuscript more coherent. Fourth, if a reviewer makes a request that may be beyond the scope of the manuscript or would require several additional pages that would exceed the page limit requirement set by the journal, it may be appropriate to respectfully explain this dilemma in the outline of changes. In other words, you don’t have to make changes you firmly believe would detract from the purpose of the manuscript, but you do have to provide a rationale for not making the changes. Finally, after you have made all the changes and noted them on a separate page, carefully read the revised manuscript for any other changes (grammatical or contextual) that should be made before resubmitting the article to the journal. In most cases, you will have at least one opportunity to resubmit an article for review; therefore make it the best manuscript possible. Including a cover letter with the resubmitted article and outline of changes is advisable.

Perhaps the most difficult situation to face as an author occurs when a manuscript is rejected by a journal. In these instances, it is important to realize that it happens to all authors at some point in their careers. If a manuscript is rejected outright by a journal, it cannot be resubmitted to the same journal. However, do not despair! When rejected, the manuscript should be returned to you with the peer review attached so that you can make substantial changes and improvements. Carefully read the reviewers’ comments because this feedback can be invaluable in improving the manuscript for submission to another journal. A manuscript can be rejected for a variety of reasons. The article may not have been a good fit with the type of articles the journal publishes. Numerous grammatical errors may have clouded the intent of the manuscript and ultimately affected its readability and the outcome of the decision. It may need some major revisions, and, in some cases, a reviewer may indicate that he or she just felt the manuscript did not add to the body of knowledge in social work. At these times, it can be helpful to ask a trusted colleague to read the manuscript and peer reviewers’ comments to obtain an objective perspective. Whatever the reasons for the manuscript’s rejection, you have the option of revising it and submitting it to another journal. On the other hand, it may be beneficial to put the manuscript aside for a period of time before tackling the changes that need to be made. Given some time, you may gain a fresh perspective on how to improve the manuscript so that it is publishable.

When submitting an empirical article, it is important to follow accepted standards for presenting the required details of your study. As Wu, Wyant, and Fraser (2016) have noted, there are a number of clear guidelines (e.g., CONSORT-SPI, PRISMA, and TREND) for submitting quantitative articles, but few guidelines exist for qualitative studies. A particular problem is that qualitative studies often lack the details necessary for reviewers to make sound assessments of the research. For that reason, we include a more detailed discussion on qualitative articles here. It is critical to remember that qualitative research is an umbrella term for a variety of different methodological approaches that rely on nonnumeric data, and there is a great deal of heterogeneity between and among these different approaches. Too often conversations about qualitative research are reduced to simple discussions over distinguishing it from quantitative research.

Authors can consult a number of sources for guidelines including books and articles, checklists, and editorials. Hundreds of books and articles have been published on basic qualitative research, for example, Padgett’s (2016) Qualitative Methods in Social Work Research and Shaw and Holland’s (2014) Doing Qualitative Research in Social Work. Both books tackle qualitative inquiry writ large. In addition, some books and articles take a comparative approach, such as Creswell’s (2013), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (which examines narrative inquiry, grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography, and case study) and Starks and Trinidad’s (2007) article comparing phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory.

Another source of advice comes in the form of checklists or guidelines developed by book authors, journal editors, and consulting boards. For example, the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research published “Author Guidelines for Manuscripts Reporting Qualitative Research” (Wu et al., 2016), an article about the process of developing these guidelines. Finally, journal editors offer advice in their editorial essays, and those found in journals specializing in qualitative research are particularly useful, for example, Qualitative Health Research and Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice. The editors of both these journals have addressed frequent problems or specific issues facing qualitative researchers (Morse, 2015; Staller, 2015a, 2015b; Staller & Krumer-Nevo, 2013).

It is difficult for any researcher, particularly individuals just beginning a research career, to sort through all these helpful proferrings without ending up dazed and confused. Because qualitative research is a generic label that encompasses a variety of different approaches that spring from different epistemological orientations, such studies require methodological designs that are in keeping with their philosophical underpinnings and assumptions. Thus, it is impossible to make sense of generic advice when it is unmoored from specifics.

For example, grounded theory (GT) can be conducted from a positivistic epistemology with an objectivist perspective, such as in Glaser and Strauss (1967), or from a social constructionist epistemology such as in Charmaz (2014). It is critical to remember that true GT studies result in the development of a theory, not just a thematic or content analysis. Conversely, GT methods may be used for content analysis, but that does not make it a GT study. Researchers interested in content analysis might consult Drisko and Maschi (2015)and discover three different kinds: basic content analysis (which uses statistical approaches), interpretive, and qualitative content analysis. Or they might consult Hsieh and Shannon (2005) who discuss conventional, directed, and summative content analysis while warning researchers that the threat to trustworthiness depends on the strategy used. In short, the solution to qualitative quandaries is to pay attention to the overall integrity of the project from start to finish. Good-quality qualitative research starts with a deep understanding of the epistemological underpinnings and methodological requirements of the particular approach taken.

So what is necessary when submitting qualitative articles? The following are a few suggestions for maintaining the integrity of your submission.

1. Know your methodological literature and its epistemological traditions. Some scholars specialize in writing about specific kinds of qualitative inquiry. Use them, cite them, and avoid relying exclusively on generic textbooks.

2. Integrity of design. Design and implement your qualitative research according to the assumptions and rules relating to your epistemological perspective and chosen methodology. Place yourself in a philosophical tradition, and stay there. Don’t pick and choose bits and pieces of unrelated traditions without an intelligent plan.

3. Be consistent. The more consistent you are, the clearer your perspective will be to the readers, reviewers, and editors, and the more rigorous your final product will be. The article will hang together because of the integrity of the research.

4. Align the pieces. Assemble the pieces of your article into a coherent and well-synthesized whole. This means there must be complete alignment in framing your question, using theory, collecting data, analyzing data, drawing conclusions, and reporting implications and limitations. However, how these pieces are assembled, how they are framed, and where they are placed in the article will depend on your methodology. Nonetheless, the end product must be synthesized into a single, elegant, whole.

5. A word of caution: Be wary of generic advice that is not tethered to explicit epistemological and methodological frameworks. If you pick and choose advice from a checklist, you may unknowingly be mixing methods from different traditions. In doing so you run the risk of weakening rather than strengthening your final product. Rigor is not constructed from items checked off a list, it is generated from the integrity of the overall design.

Ultimately, increasing the likelihood of publishing qualitative research starts with well-designed and internally consistent projects. Only then can you write about the study in a convincing, publishable form.

In addition to following accepted formats and all journal guidelines, perhaps the most important thing you can do to increase the likelihood of your article being accepted is to pay particular attention to doing the heavy lifting (i.e., focus, infuse, and muse) in writing pieces that your peers will evaluate. Heavy lifting has numerous benefits that will make your article easy to read for its intended audience. We recommend the following three major heavy-lifting steps for authors.

Focus. Focusing a review of the literature takes skill and thoughtfulness. In describing the literature review for research projects, Locke, Spirduso, and Silverman (2014) refer to the literature as “writing the right stuff” (p. 68). According to them, a poor literature review process is:

written as pro forma responses to a purely ceremonial obligation. … Even when carefully crafted with regard to basic mechanics, they make for dull reading, and when not so prepared they are excruciating torture for most readers. Much of this problem arises from a misunderstanding of the task served by reviewing the literature. (p. 68)

On the contrary, a distinguished and useful review of the literature provides the manuscript with a tether to context about its purpose, queries, and findings. Locke et al. (2014) state that “the writer’s task is to employ the research literature artfully to support and explain the choices made for [their] study, not to educate the research concerning the state of the science in the problem area” (p. 69).

Infuse. Manuscripts that infuse theory are more readable and interesting. When writers do this well, they provide their readers with new, provocative, and meaningful ways to examine the complexities and perhaps controversies of lived experiences and context (Busch-Armendariz, Nsonwu, & Cook Heffron, in press). Editors, reviewers, and end users are attentive to and appreciate the difficult work involved or the critical analysis about the findings that in the beginning may have been descriptive in nature (Gilgun, 2015). Theory infusion generates curiosity, questions, and further discussion as well as application of the findings to the real world. In an editorial in the Journal of Social Work Education, Robbins et al. (2015) write, “Year after year we see that the articles that are theoretically strong receive the most citations… . authors [should be encouraged] to develop their theoretical orientation” (p. 202).

Muse. Closely related to the infusion of theory, authors must make interesting and useful connections to practice, policy, and lived experiences. Authors’ heavy lifting includes providing thoughtful, insightful, and reflexive arguments and conclusions that may untangle complex and undefined situations (Wolfer, 2006) or provide an intersectional, ecological perspective (Robbins et al., 2015). Greener (2011) provides useful definitions of these elements: “An argument is an attempt to support a particular view with reasons why it should be believed by others… . a conclusion is, as the name implies, the statement which you are attempting to convey, and for which you are doing to give the reader reasons to believe” (p. 161).

In sum, heavy lifting means that authors take stands and speak with authority to move thinking forward and build on the knowledge platform. Manuscripts that convey enthusiasm and compassion but are devoid of hyperbole are interesting reads, and heavy lifting through focusing, infusion, and musing occurs when authors make inferences otherwise neglected in the literature or unsaid in their findings.

Finally, if your university allows it, you should give some thought to placing a personal copyright on any diagrams, figures, tables, or flowcharts intended for use in future publications. This preserves your right to use the copyrighted material in any future works you publish without having to request permission and pay fees to do so. When your article is accepted for publication, the journal will ask you to sign a form that gives it permission to use your copyrighted material for no charge.

So take the plunge and start writing! There are no shortcuts or magic formulas to follow, and writing takes time and effort. But the more you write, the easier it becomes. A colleague once noted that every manuscript has a home, and it’s just a matter of finding the right one.