A Discussion on Academic Publishing
Matthew Hepplewhite and Dr Stephanie Luke
As part of the Political Studies Association’s (‘PSA’) 2024 Conference, held in Glasgow at the University of Strathclyde, we at the PSA’s Early Career Network held a roundtable session with a number of leading figures in academic publishing. We organised this session as a result of the pressure – at all levels of academia – to publish (or else to ‘perish’).
We were incredibly fortunate to have the following people on our roundtable: Elizabeth Evans (editor of Politics), Justin Fisher (editor of Political Studies Review), Nick Allen (publications lead for the PSA), Peter Geoghegan (editor of Political Insight), Sarah Shair-Rosenfield (editor of Political Studies), Sophie Donnelly (senior publishing editor at Sage), and Richard Hayton (editor of the British Journal of Politics and International Relations (BJPIR)). We are indebted to the panellists for giving up their time and imparting their knowledge – the session could not have happened without them.
Publishing is an increasingly important aspect of an academic career, and it can be hard to navigate the process as an early career academic. In this piece, we provide a summary of the panellists’ answers to questions asked by an audience of early career academics. We have written up the panellists’ comments and advice so that early career academics who could not attend will benefit from the wisdom, advice, tips, and warnings imparted during the session.
1. Which journal should I submit to?
Given the number of political science journals, it can be difficult to decide which one is most appropriate for your article. Our panellists highlighted that they will ‘desk-reject’ papers that do not fit the aims and scope of their journal. A panellist advised that one way to decide which journal to submit to is to look at which journals are cited in your article. It was recognised that early career academics conducting interdisciplinary research faced extra difficulties when deciding which journal is the right fit, but that they should make sure that their work ‘contributes to the discipline of politics’ if they are submitting it to a politics journal. An editor added: ‘If you haven’t cited any journals of political science, don’t send it to a political science journal’.
2. To include a cover letter or not?
As part of the journal submission process, some journals include space or specifically ask for cover letters, while others do not. It was a particular concern of early career academics as to whether or not editors read cover letters. Our panellists relayed that they were ‘more interested in the abstract’ and that authors should not spend too much time on cover letters. With regard to the abstract, the editors stressed that it should not be a ‘potted summary’ of the article; rather, it should be used as way to highlight how the article challenges other approaches (assuming it does) and ‘is original, significant, and rigorous’ (assuming it is). While a cover letter may not be the most important part of the submission, early career academics should ensure that they include in their cover letter the words ‘this is not under review at any journal’ (and should make sure that this is true!).
3. The review process
If your paper is sent out to reviewers, this is an achievement in and of itself, but what comes next can be a daunting process, even for academics who have been through the process before. Early career academics at the event described receiving reviewer comments that the panellists agreed were unacceptable (there was no suggestion that PSA journals were involved in these unfortunate incidents). The editors confirmed that reviewers’ comments are reviewed and that if people believe reviewers’ comments are offensive or unprofessional then they should contact the editor of the journal. However, the editors also stressed that ‘there is a difference between comments that are offensive and ones that you disagree with’ i.e. only email the editors if the comments are offensive or unprofessional.
Finding reviewers
The editors described how difficult it is to find reviewers and that as a result the reviewing period can be longer than ideal. It was suggested that part of the reason for the difficulty in finding reviewers was the systemic pressure on academics to publish, with the result that there is a huge amount to be reviewed. It was proposed that ‘we should all write less and write better.’ The editors said that they aim for desk rejects to be completed within two weeks and for reviews to be completed within three months. They also said that authors should feel free to contact editors if they have not heard back after three months.
Responding to reviewers
It was suggested by the panel that upon receipt of reviewers’ comments, especially more critical ones, authors not respond straight away, rather ‘let the review sit in the drawer for a bit.’ Authors do not, of course, have to accept everything that reviewers say and you can challenge the comments that they provide. However, if your paper does get published, the reviewers will know who you are so bear this in mind when responding to comments. The editors suggested that authors outline, in an A4 document, what has been changed in response to reviewers’ comments and ensure that this is done in a respectful way (and make sure that you thank them for taking the time to review the article).
Being the reviewer
Some of our audience members raised the concern that they had not received the training that would allow them to properly review an article. Several editors reassured the audience that early career academics often make the best reviewers. Early career academics were advised that should they feel uncomfortable being asked to review an article, they should contact the editor in question and ask why they think they are a good fit. It was also pointed out that Sage has a range of online resources to help reviewers (which we are working with Sage to help publicise).
4. Representing the underrepresented in journals
An early career academic highlighted that scholars from the global south are underrepresented in publications. In response, our panellists highlighted that journals were taking steps to improve representation. For example, Politics has recently had a number of calls for papers for scholars from the global south and has been accepting pre-submissions, allowing the journal to work with authors before they formally submit articles. Further, Political Studies has introduced ‘reject and resubmit’, which provides feedback on rejections and gives the authors a year in which to resubmit. It was pointed out that for a generalist journal, a narrow empirical study focused on a single case would need to speak to larger debates in some way in order to be published, for example through highlighting its relevance to theoretical questions or through a comparative lens.
5. Beware predators
Early career academics should be wary of offers from ‘predatory journals’ i.e. journals that contact you asking if you wish to edit a special edition of their journal, only to find out later that you and the colleagues and friends you asked to write pieces have to pay sizeable open access publishing fees. The advice from the panel was to talk to your supervisor should you receive ‘offers’ like these; as a panellist warned the audience: ‘if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.’
6. An audience beyond academia?
It was asked if reaching out beyond academia is important to editors. The editors answered that it was both extremely important for them to reach out beyond academia (for example, using social media to publicise articles) and that at the same time it is okay for authors to submit papers which are theoretically focused and only really speak to academia. With regard to reaching beyond academia, Peter Geoghegan highlighted the efforts of Political Insight, which aims at as broad an audience as possible. The editors also pointed out that authors can help the visibility of their articles via blogs. It was pointed out that blogs also help increase citations of articles.