Publishing in high quality journals: perspectives from overworked and unpaid reviewers
Abstract
Our purpose for this article is to provide suggestions on how to get your high quality research published from the perspectives of reviewers. First, good writing is good thinking, and you are much more likely to succeed when you combine good writing with sound research. We then offer an eight-step method of reviewing that may help the author better understand how to present and understand the research. Next, we describe ways to identify high quality journals, including acceptance rates, impact factor, Eigenfactors, and Article Influence scores. In the following section, we address common criteria used to rate articles, possible decisions, and how to revise the manuscript in response to reviewers’ comments. We present an example table of responses to reviewers’ critiques. We conclude with further advice for more novice researchers. Become a reviewer to help you better understand the process and peers’ expectations. Highlight the caliber of your research by citing journal metrics when being considered for promotion or hiring. Finally, frame negative reviews as an opportunity to improve your work and keep trying to publish your research despite criticisms.
Keywords
Publishing research Journal quality Reviewing research Scholarly writingReferences
- American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Day, R. A. (2011). How to write and publish a scientific paper. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood.Google Scholar
- Fiske, D. W., & Fogg, L. F. (1990). But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. American Psychologist, 45, 591–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Furman, R., & Kinn, J. T. (2011). Practical tips for publishing scholarly articles (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.Google Scholar
- Kiewra, K. A. (2008). Advice for developing scholars. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mayer, R. E. (2008). Old advice for new researchers. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Robinson, D. H., Levin, J. R., Schraw, G., Patall, E. A., & Hunt, E. B. (2013). On going (way) beyond one’s data: A proposal to restrict recommendations for practice in primary educational research journals. Educational Psychology Review, 25, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ruskin, J. (1857). A joy forever, Note 6, (p. 57). Edinburgh: Ballantyne, Hanson & Co.Google Scholar
- Spruce, R., & Bol, L. (2013). Teacher beliefs, knowledge, and practice of self-regulated learning and metacognition (submitted).Google Scholar
- Sternberg, R. J. (2003). The psychologist’s companion: A guide to scientific writing for students and researchers (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar