Everybody Struggles with Writing, Everybody Gets Rejected is an ongoing project curated by ECHER. With this project we wish to engage scholars, in the field of higher education studies and beyond, in a conversation on academic writing.
How does it work?
It’s fairly straightforward. We ask each participant to address any or all of the following open questions:
- What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
- If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
- Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
- Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
We also have a few “rules” we follow:
- We do not disclose the identities of the colleagues who have contributed, in part because we would like to accentuate the community dimension of the exercise. Instead, we assign each contributor a name of a widely known literary character. (We would, however, like to point out that any similarity with the fictional character attached to individual responses is accidental. The only exception so far is gender.)
- All the answers we collect are published on this page. We also have a Gallery of Quotes made from parts of the answers.
- We publish the names of all the contributors as a way to say Thank You. This is, of course, optional.
Who can participate?
Anyone who considers themselves sufficiently experienced in peer review, editorial work, supervision, and in guiding early-career scholars with respect to academic writing and academic work in general, is a welcome contributor.
If you wish to take part, please send us an email, or simply send your responses to the four questions. Our email is: echernetwork@gmail.com.
We are grateful to all the scholars who have taken part in this initiative so far. Their time and generosity are much appreciated!
Responses collected so far
Anna Karenina
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
My experience suggests that the most important mistake is the clarity of the research question and its articulation in sub-questions. A further mistake is to declare a research question and then develop empirical work that does not address the main question, thus undermining the consistency of the paper and its relevance for the purpose it is supposed to address.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
Think a lot before starting the writing in order to have a precise idea of the argument you want to put forward and definition of the perimeter of your investigation.
Start preparing a skeleton of the paper and put remarks of all items to address: in this way you can then move over the writing without forgetting initial purposes and goals of the paper.
Check carefully what kind of evidence you have in your hands and what it can effectively demonstrate.
Be accurate: having good English, avoiding typos and formal mistakes, completeness and precision of the references are important elements in demonstrating that you take your work seriously.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Musselin, C. (2013). How peer review empowers the academic profession and university managers: Changes in relationships between the state, universities and the professoriate. Research Policy, 42(5), 1165–1173.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Being open to receive criticism to your work, including strong criticism. Look for people who criticize your work by putting into evidence inconsistencies, and wrong assumptions. It is extremely helpful to face hard comments: if you are in the right direction, it is a way to enforce your arguments against different approaches and points of view. If your work is weak, you have the opportunity to face weaknesses in time, and a great occasion to learn about how to make good research.
Anne Shirley
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
Sometimes people start off writing a generic article rather than an article with a specific target journal in mind. I would always recommend identifying the target journal early on, because that will affect how you structure the article, what referencing style you use, etc., but more importantly it will affect how you frame your engagement with and contribution to the wider debate. If you are not sure what journal to target, your references list can be a good guide – which journal(s) have you cited from most significantly or most extensively? Alternatively, identify several possibilities and read the “About this journal” blurb on their websites and browse recent back issues to see if what your paper is about connects with debates that are being had in those journals.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
1. Only submitted articles get published, so don’t let your perfectionism hold you back, submit as soon as you have a good-enough first draft.
2. Articles get rejected all the time, and rejection hurts! Try not to let the hurt of rejection stop you from resubmitting your work elsewhere. It will get published eventually.
3. When you get a revise and resubmit, celebrate! And don’t feel as though you have to do everything the reviewers ask you to do. If there is a point you disagree with, you can explain why you haven’t followed the reviewer’s recommendation in the letter that accompanies your resubmission.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Present at conferences at every opportunity, because a set of PowerPoint slides can be the springboard for an article.
Look for opportunities to co-write with others, including with those with a publishing track record already who you can learn from as you go (but obviously choose these people carefully, you need to feel you can trust them to support you in the writing process!).
Arturo Bandini
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
They tend to make the story too complex and try to fit a book into an 8.000 word article. Keep the message to the point, focus your conceptual framework on what you need for your “story” and don’t oversell your argument.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
– Make sure not to oversell your point.
– Keep the story focused on your main contribution, don’t get side-tracked.
– Get internal, friendly peer-review before submitting your manuscript.
– Pick the right journal and pay attention to the guidelines for authors.
– Make sure that your formalities (e.g. list of references) are in order.
– Explain the reader why they should care about your work and for whom this could be of interest.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Not of the top of my head.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Also have a look outside of the research field of HE studies and follow disciplinary journals to stay up to date with methods and theory development.
If you have the chance contribute to debates in these disciplinary journals to anchor your work better in other fields.
Atticus Finch
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing? If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
What does my article in a scholarly journal do? I think that is the fundamental question authors often forget to ask themselves. My theme here if focus.
First, an article is a short text, so you can only give a single message to your readers. Do not try to summarise your whole PhD thesis into a single article. Think of what you want them to take home. Apply communication theory and precepts:
– If you want readers to be persuaded to change something, then choose one recommendation from your final chapter (in your PhD thesis or research report), and work your way back from that. What do readers need to know to get convinced of that recommendation? Include the research results that talk to the conclusion(s) underpinning that one recommendation—of course, remain open and sincere and do not hide doubts or contrary evidence—we still are scientists!
– If you want readers to understand a major finding or conclusion of your research, again work backwards: which major finding/conclusion? Which research results are needed for that one finding/conclusion? Which crucial choices did you make in your research (design, methodology, operationalisation, sampling, etc.).
Research publications operate in the “context of justification” as Karl Popper called it: you should justify choices made, but do not have to tire readers with the arduous way that made you finally make the correct choices in the end.
The other side of this first warning is that it may seem you are trying to play a “salami tactic”: get as many publications out of a single research project as possible by spreading findings thinly. That’s not what I want to advise, but the opposite of trying to cram in everything to me seems a more common error. You do not have to spend precious pages on a full account of all the literature you read and the full methodology with all the tables of the study; just include what is needed for the conclusion of your article. Keep focus.
Second, a minor but sometimes annoying aspect of not focusing on your readers is boring language. Again there are two sides to the issue. On the one hand, style handbooks such as … MS-Word (and probably Grammarly and similar apps) have functions to filter out wordy constructions, passive voice (which hides who does things!), jargon, etc. Use them. Your readers are either mature scientists who are not really impressed that you can write “it is important to be considered”—if it wasn’t important it should not be in the article—or people who may struggle to understand the complex issues you must treat even without wordiness, so make your language as simple as you can.
On the other hand, a text that reads like pure concrete is also boring. I once, by accident, wrote “sinplicity” where I wanted to write “simplicity”. But I think it was a lucky typo: you want to sin against the (boring) rules of simplicity every once in a while to keep your readers awake. Invest some effort to “put a needle in the haystack” for your readers: a little wordplay in the title of your article helps to draw attention (hey, you need their attention to get quoted!), and it is a truth universally acknowledged that a (hidden) reference to Jane Austen, William Shakespeare or your favourite novelist—especially if the little sin applies to your topic—creates a bond with your readers and keeps them reading on to find the next needle.
Second element of advice: be explicitly logical, be honest. My epistemological point of view is that social science is about empirical knowledge and understanding of human behaviour, that there is an objective outside world, and we can know it only through theoretically-imbued means. Yes, this is old Karl Popper and no, it isn’t positivism. It means that as researchers we should be conscious of a couple of things. First, the difference between what we observe “out there” and absolute reality or truth. All our observations are based on theories (“measurement theories”). For instance, a survey answer to the question “did you cheat in exam?” is not automatically a valid measurement of cheating in exams. But even observations of university life with your own eyes are incorporated theories: bees’ eyes see the world quite differently; bees’ brains create very different information out of the photons hitting their eyes than humans would from the same photons. So as a reviewer of articles I require awareness in authors of the potential limitations of their findings.
At the same time, that insight does not warrant the consequence that all knowledge is socially constructed and that there is no universal truth. Truth is there, I contend, even if we’ll never know we find it. Therefore, I also require of authors that they draw a sharp distinction between their (as pure as possible) findings and their (higher-level) interpretations. Be honest about the theoretical hypotheses, assumptions and concepts that you use to make interpretations (beyond measurement theories). What I especially dislike is when authors disguise their political likes and dislikes as scientific theories—as a rule, they are not explicit about those scientific theories, and they pose “conclusions” that are not really based on their research. I get suspicious when authors start a sentence with “therefore” or other words that suggest logic but often hide a number of assumptions or even political preferences. I hate it, for instance, when authors insert adjectives betraying their political dislikes or suggestions of unproven conspiracies—the EU is often an object of such hate among some authors (“the EU’s creeping competences” when the study is not about creeping of competences at all), and epistemologies that link knowledge and political action are prone to such tricks as well: critical theory, feminism, Marxism. I hesitate to mention these examples, because there are many scholars in those schools who very honestly and reflexively, explicitly connect their research results to—also in my eyes as a citizen of the world—very valuable (recommendations for) action. Their points of view help to uncover blind spots in other research approaches: forgotten research questions, forgotten consequences of policies for underrepresented people, etc. All fine and necessary; I only argue against dissimulation!
My third piece of advice: adjust your paper to the journal to which you submit it. First, this has to do with finding out who the readers are: highly-theoretically interested academics, or professionals of the higher education field? See above on focus. Second, read and apply the journal’s requirements about length, quotation rules, inclusion of figures, etc. Third, choosing a journal that has the same interest, area or focus as you had in your study increases your chances of getting published in it. Getting published in a fitting journal is more important than taking a long shot at a so-called top-journal in the field. Fourth, more tactically: editors like to see that an article plays a role in the debate in the journal. So refer to previous articles from the same journal to increase your chances of getting accepted—which you can only seriously do if you really take part in that discussion e.g. in the literature review in your article, or in the discussion of its relevance. (The ugly side to the latter argument is that the more articles from journal X are quoted, the higher the impact factor of journal X, so the editor of X has a business interest in new publications in journal X quoting earlier pieces in the same journal X.)
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Can’t think of any at this moment (not even my own 😉).
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
“You? Preach a sermon?”
Bernardo Soares
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
1. Be confident in your own academic training, but you should not stick to this.
I received my academic training and developed my academic career in Japan, a non-English speaking country with its own academic tradition. From around thirty years old, I gradually started writing articles in English, through the support and collaboration of co-authors, English editors, etc., even now. I am confident that I can make some knowledge contribution based on my own academic background that is sometime new and unknown with others. However, I also always keep in mind that I have not received a systematic training to write an article and a thesis in English through my graduate studies. Thus, I have always been trying to get any advice and suggestions from others on my writing as a flexible mind, adding to my own efforts to read many books on academic writing in English.
2. Do not be afraid of getting straightforward review comments, and respond with confidence in a sincere and polite manner.
When you write a term report or thesis at your university, the review comments you are from your supervisors and external advisors invited by your supervisors. Thus, they are familiar on your academic training, and try to understand what you are trying to write. When you write an international journal article, the reviewers are anonymous, and invited from all over the world. Sometimes, the comments are so straightforward, and based on the perspectives of quite different academic culture. In my case, it took a long time to get used to this type of very straight comments based on the communication style quite different from my own national/local academic community. Some reviewers may feel the same feeling when they receive responses with the revision without clear notice of the respect and thank to the reviewers’ comments. Thus, do not get shocked by the brutal comments, but you yourself should be polite and sincere when you reply to these comments.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43), 281-309.
I recommend this article although it is not a direct model for the beginners to imitate. I think it is always good to aim higher and tackle with a challenging topic.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
To meet and discuss with many different types of people at an international conference like CHER is very important for widening your options. You do not have to stick to one model, but be creative for making new styles (with good preparation and collaboration with others).
Clara del Valle Trueba
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
Not having a clear argument, not being clear to yourself (let alone to others) what it is that you want to argue. I will use myself as an example, as this has happened to me when I have jumped into a research “data first”: I have tons of data, which I may be analysing and may have some “results”, but then I am faced with a situation where I don’t know what to make of the results. What conceptual framework makes sense of them? I may try one approach and be underwhelmed by the results, then try another and another, because I find something that seems to say something meaningful. This is not very cost-effective way of approaching an article. So it is worth investing some thinking into the general framework of what you want to say before you collect and analyse your data.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
Be clear with your argument. If you don’t know what you are arguing, nobody else will either. Elaborate sentences are not a substitute for having something to say.
Check the scope of the journal; the journal you thought about may not be the best fit for what you have to say.
Don’t use an excessive amount of direct quotes from other authors. They can be a powerful too when used sparingly, but overusing them leads one to think you cannot paraphrase or distil the essence of what the other authors have to say and to adapt it to your own context.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
If you are interested in pursuing an academic career, think about articulating your own research agenda early on. Your research agenda is wider than your dissertation project, and it is also not merely a collection of (other people’s) projects you are working on. It ay comprise those projects, and is probably based on your dissertation, but try to think of it in terms of a wider phenomenon/set of phenomena that you are interested in.
Colonel Aureliano Buendía
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
1. Not reading and referencing the journal they’re submitting to;
2. Ignoring the guidance on article length;
3. Over-claiming what they have achieved (plus excessive self-referencing).
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
1. Read the journal before you send an article to it, and make sure you reference it;
2. It is often possible to email the editor before you send the article for advice on suitability – some respond, which tells you something;
3. Journals vary in how popular they are. One way of checking is to look online at how many articles have been accepted for publication but not yet assigned to an issue – if they aren’t many, the journal might be more open to your article.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Good articles: jeez, that’s a toughie! I read so many of the goddam things, and most of them aren’t that great (that’s a piece of advice too – realise you can do as well or better). I think this is best left to you: why don’t you get each of the attendees to nominate an article?
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
1. Put yourself about and network (something I’m rubbish at);
Offer help to editors (as a referee or editor of a special issue);
2. Never say “no” when someone makes you an offer;
3. Never give up; I’ve never written anything that wasn’t publishable somewhere.
Commissario Montalbano
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing? If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
I chose to answer them by means of the table attached (= a set of Q&As).
I think this answers your questions about mistakes and advice.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Asking about key articles is like asking for my favourite music. That changes constantly; it depends on your mood and other things going on at the time. But I like:
Barr, N. (2004). Higher Education Funding. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20(2), 264–283.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Understanding Strategic Change: The Contribution of Archetypes. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 1052–1081.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Do a course on Academic Writing. (There are online courses too.)
Have a look at websites such as: https://patthomson.net/
David Copperfield
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
Improve your command of English, even if you think you are a native-speaker and supposedly already fluent: I end up reviewing/referring far too many badly written submissions to journals!
Proof-read it several times before it reaches somebody like me!
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
No, other than – of course – my own!
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Try always to break away from the constraining orthodoxy in terms of what questions are asked about HE efficiency, while having (sadly) to be mindful of the fact that examining issues too close to home (as opposed to studying, say, schools, health-care, transport) is not easy and can destroy career prospects!
Daenerys Targaryen
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
Trying to put too much into one paper – be selective;
Not making clear why and how their work contributes to knowledge in the field;
Not having or not fully utilizing throughout, a coherent theoretical framework;
Writing for an “insider” audience; taking reader’s knowledge for granted;
Not properly explaining the context for the benefit of an international audience;
Not making the most of their data – lack of summary tables/diagrams for quantitative work and failing to include any or only a couple of quotes or note extracts from qualitative data gathering;
Not knowing the journal they submit to and hence not referring to recent relevant work the journal has already published;
Having a title which the paper does not properly address or attempt to answer;
Failing to fully explain important aspects of methodology – reasons for choosing a particular method, logic of sample selection, how the data analysis was done (not just “I used NVivo” or “I used SPSS”).
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
Give the paper at a conference first (ideally two conferences) and use the feedback you get to revise the paper prior to submission;
Read the intended journal’s website carefully – have you heard of any of the editors or editorial board members, is it a reputable journal (there are many fake “we include every topic” journals out there), does it seem suitable for the theme of the paper you are submitting, what is the maximum length permitted?
Let a trusted person read through your final draft before submitting.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Budd, R. (2017). Undergraduate orientations towards higher education in Germany and England: Problematizing the notion of ‘student as customer’. Higher Education, 73(1), 23–37.
Swartz, R., Ivancheva, M., Czerniewicz, L., & Morris, N. P. (2019). Between a rock and a hard place: Dilemmas regarding the purpose of public universities in South Africa. Higher Education, 77(4), 567–583.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Be persistent, don’t give up at the first or second rejection, everyone gets rejected sometimes; ask others whose academic judgment you trust to read both harsh feedback and revised submissions (and ask them for examples of bad feedback they’ve received); become a reviewer yourself and see the other side of the fence.
Dean Moriarty
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
Too much for one article. Too little focus. Not specifically geared at the journal to which it should be submitted.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
In addition to 1: Learn from others, from yourself. Take advice seriously. Do not complain: learn!
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
March, J. G. (1966). The power of power. In D. Easton (Ed.), Varieties of Political Theory. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Get well acquainted with the field and its journals.
Don Quixote
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
1. Not to have a clear and compelling argument. An academic article, like any piece of writing, should be distinctive and have something new to add;
2. To have your article read too much like a review of all the academic literature on your chosen topic. Always remember an article is not a scaled-down PhD thesis in which you have to cover everything. You should only quote the literature that is relevant to your argument. To feel you have to include a reference to someone else’s work for every statement you make tends to suggest a lack of confidence in your own ideas;
3. Not to have a clear connection between the discussion of your conceptual framework and your reporting of any empirical findings. Personally I find it annoying that an article includes a gran conceptual structure, with lots of “theory” being quoted, and is based on a small-scale qualitative study;
4. Don’t “name drop” Bourdieu, Foucault, etc. (or, in the case of HE Clark, Trow, etc.) just for the sake of it. Too often I have read articles that are simply “name checking” eminent scholars/writers without really understanding their ideas.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
My advice is to try to avoid these mistakes…
Pay attention to how you write. Use plain English (or whatever language you are writing in). Avoid jargon and obfuscation. Over-fussy writing often betrays fuzzy thinking.
Don’t make grand theoretical claims on a flimsy empirical base. There is nothing wrong with adding to the existing stock of empirical findings provided the context in which these new findings first is made clear. Very few of us can be grand theoreticians!
Make sure any statistics you report are interpreted correctly. Sometimes I read articles which include lots of statistical paraphernalia (maybe derived from some statistical package), but still make unsustainable claims based on very small samples.
If the article is based on an interviews it is – of course – essential to briefly explain the methodology (the basis of selecting interviews, the interview schedule, how the data is analysed). But it is also essential to include some of the data in terms of summaries of the data, direct quotes etc.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
There are lots to choose from – but good examples include:
Marginson, S. (2016). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education, 72(4), 413–434.
Kim, T. (2017). Academic mobility, transnational identity capital, and stratification under conditions of academic capitalism. Higher Education, 73(6), 981–997.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
I would emphasise two points I have already made:
1. Never see an article as a scaled-down PhD thesis. It needs to be focused rather than wide-ranging, with a clear and easy-to-follow argument;
2. Try to use plain English and avoid academic “jargon” as much as possible. Remember an academic article is an act of communication above all, not just something to add to your CV.
Effie Briest
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
FOLLOW THE JOURNAL GUIDELINES METICULOUSLY. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, ASK THE EDITOR.
Sloppy/careless editing is a big problem among both junior and senior researchers. Before submitting your article, study the journal’s submission guidelines very carefully and adhere to them (artificial and conventional as these guidelines may seem!), paying attention to the smallest details. Each journal has its own style, and each journal must consistently follow its own guidelines. I often have to engage in lengthy exchanges with authors who defend, for instance, their own comma/period placements based on the fact that “in their country” another convention is followed (thus implying that the editor is asking them to change into an erroneous usage). This wastes a lot of time and prolongs the publication process. Also, often the authors/researchers (and even guest editors) think that editing the articles for style is the task of the journal editors; however, many (at least small) academic journals function completely based on volunteer, non-paid staff (often the editor alone, with perhaps some help from an assistant editor). The journal staff work for the journal without any compensation and “on the side” of their professorships, during evenings, weekends, and holidays, so the more finished your submission is in form, the smoother the process. The authors sometimes seem to think that their ideas and the content of the article are more important than the format; however, this attitude causes long delays in publishing because the editors need to spend a lot of time correcting the style (and often the language–even by native speakers–see below).
REVISE FOR IDIOMATIC LANGUAGE. AVOID UNNECESSARY JARGON.
Check language and clarity before submissions, especially if you are a non-native speaker. However, all authors (even native speakers), benefit for having another native speaker/colleague/friend read the manuscript before submission, with a very critical eye to HOW the content is expressed. Is the line of argument clear? Is the content expressed succinctly (not too much repetition)? Are the footnotes absolutely necessary? Has the author avoided jargon (this is a big problem: some authors think that if they can veil their idea in incomprehensible, in-group words, that idea gets somehow elevated; this is wrong, because few are impressed by empty “sociologese”–or whatever discipline the inside jargon may represent).
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
–See above (point 1).
RESPECT THE JOURNAL’S SCHEDULE/DON’T TRY TO PRESSURE THE EDITOR TO RUSH YOUR PUBLICATION.
Respectable academic publication takes time, often years from the initial submission, depending on the publication schedule (and how much work the initial manuscript requires before being publishable). Online (often non-peer-reviewed) open access and vanity publication is quick, but your reputation may suffer forever for your being associated with hasty publications where your writing has not been carefully edited and the peer-review process has been ignored or rushed. Do not write the editor asking for the publication decision (unless more than six-to-eight months have passed from the acknowledgment of your submission and you have not heard back). Do not tell (!) the editor that your publication “needs to come out” because it’ll be part of your dissertation or because you are applying for a grant and “need” this publication. These are not the journal’s problems! –It is okay, however, to ask for a letter stating that your article has been accepted for publication in such-and-such a journal.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Most articles in the Journal of Finnish Studies are exemplary because they have gone through a meticulous, multi-layered editing process.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
DO NOT EXPECT TO RECEIVE ALL INFORMATION FOR FREE, even though open access is a big thing in Europe. There is no “free lunch,” and somebody (ultimately the EU taxpayer) is paying for “open access” if OA fees are, for instance, paid by grant moneys. OA may also lead to so-called vanity publishing, where journals become willing to publish any garbage if they receive the publication fees from governments/institutions/grant organizations. OA has eliminated a lot of individual subscriptions to journals and has thus led to the deaths of small, high-quality journals and publishers.
SUPPORT the high-quality journal(s) in which you wish to publish by recommending that your library buy a subscription to the journal. Consider sometimes becoming a subscriber yourself. Subscriptions keep the high-quality journal alive, and their existence gives you more choice among your potential publications channels.
REFER to other articles in the journal to which you are sending your manuscript. That shows that you are familiar with the journal’s content.
AVOID too much self-referencing. Sometimes young scholars include most of their previous publications in their reference lists, and that looks simply silly. However, if referring to your own work is necessary (e.g., “I have elaborated on this area/topic/question in my previous work…”) there is nothing wrong about, but make sure your own previous articles do not stand out too heavily within the reference list.
DO NOT RUSH into publication if your contribution to knowledge is not yet significant. On the other hand, DO NOT PROCRASTINATE too much because publications are needed for jobs. A large number of empty publications should not be the goal, however, and will not help you in your long-term goals.
Eliza Doolittle
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
STYLE: Avoid jargon, use simple language, and don’t saturate a sentence with too many messages.
STRUCTURE: keep to conventions: introduction, context, methods, data analysis/findings, and conclusion. Vignettes and similar are not well received by reviewers since taking space from already rather short word length.
FORMAT: Send the article in the prescribed format; use journal’s word template or follow meticulously the format of published articles.
UNSPOKEN NORM: Cite previous works published in the journal to show familiarity with the publications in that journal.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Tight, M. (2016). Examining the research/teaching nexus. European Journal of Higher Education, 6(4), 293–311.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Special issues are a good way to publish because you get extra editorial support from guest editors of a special issue which increases the likelihood of publication and need for major revision.
Eliza Sommers
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
Too many points in an article (an article is like a short story – one scene, two characters…).
Missing focus, missing purpose.
Obscure detective story writing (revealing the murderer on the last page).
Not taking into account the journal instructions (particularly annoying from the perspective of a journal editor. The instructions are there for a reason, folks!)
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
You may want to publish in “high quality” journals, but that should be your second concern. The first one is to pick a journal whose profile fits your study. And seriously, read the journal instructions!
Don’t try to be too fancy. Write clearly, guide the reader through your thinking.
Write stuff that you’re interested in, but you should not be afraid of showing (for instance in the literature review, but also in your analysis and discussion) that not everyone agrees with your starting point. Don’t polish the edges too much, but give space for crack that challenge your stuff too. Sometimes difficult to combine with the “write clearly and concisely” advice, I know. None of this is linear.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Hmm. Difficult to say. I tend to forget immediately what I have read… But a couple of recent favourites (not sure if the structure of argument, etc. is the reason, but these have hit a permanent nerve):
Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3), 381–409.
Hultgren, A. K. (2014). Whose parallellingualism? Overt and covert ideologies in Danish university language policies. Multilingua, 33(1–2), 61–87.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Take up reviews of manuscripts if you’re asked – gives you a glimpse of what’s cooking, but also helps you explicitly understand what kind of writing you find good.
Write all kinds of texts for all kinds of audiences – helps you develop your ideas and refine your arguments.
Write with different kinds of people – helps you develop an understanding of generalities and peculiarities of your own writing and that of others.
Never throw anything away! Something might bounce because it sucks, or because this was not its time or place. I tried to write a theoretical piece on my PhD topic as my FIRST article on the topic. Didn’t work because I lacked the empirical understanding that only comes with hands on analysis. I submitted a developed version after my PhD, got it published in 2008 in a reputable journal, and it keeps picking up in citations. Just tried it too early the first time.
Elizabeth Bennet
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
The more frequent mistake is to address too many issues in one paper. I always repeat: one paper = one idea. The worse being when new doctorates try to put all their PhD in a paper. It never works. Presenting one idea, and demonstrating it in one single paper is already not easy, so one is really enough. This also means that the paper should enclose what is needed to demonstrate this idea and not more: authors (and I include myself!) too often try to provide too many nuances, to diverge too much from their topic because they do not want to sacrifice this or that information. But it weakens the argument. Finally, for each paragraph one should ask oneself whether this paragraph is well articulated to the former and to the next one, and also whether it really add something to the demonstration.
Another frequent mistake is to raise questions in the introduction and not to come back to them in the conclusion. It is nevertheless less frequent now, especially with the standardized way of writing papers (introduction, state of the art, methods and data, findings, discussions, conclusions) where authors are unfortunately expected to expose what they will find in the introduction, in the state of the art, in the discussion and again in the conclusion! But in less standardized publications (thanks god they still exist!), it is important to be sure that what has been addressed at the beginning finds an answer at the end.
Last, too many papers are written for their own sake and not for a specific journal. I think it is very important to choose for which journal a paper is written before you write it, instead of writing it first and then choose a journal. The style of the journals, the literature their authors refer to, and their recommendations to authors might be rather different. It is therefore worthy to decide in advance for whom the paper will be written for and to read different papers of the chosen journal to see whether your article could fit into it and what kind of papers are published in it. To make it clear (and very simple) trying to publish an ethnographic paper in a purely quantitative journal, or in a journal whose authors refer to a literature you do not know at all, does not make sense.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
I am afraid that the time when it was possible to publish indifferently of the publication support, is over. For that reason, and because time is scarce, my first advice would be to be rather selective in the choice of the journal, i.e. give priority to publishing where and what can be considered as valuable for future positions, but also prefer quality to quantity. I always recommend not to publish in journals aiming at publishing early-career researchers’ work. Nobody reads them. None of them are well-known. For bad reasons probably but I can’t change it. I therefore suggest to be quite ambitious in terms of journal but realistic too. In my discipline (sociology), I know that publishing in American Journal of Sociology or Annual Review of Sociology would be wonderful but some years ago I look at the affiliation of the authors in these two journals between 2000 and 2010 and observed that more than 90% of the papers have at least one author located in US institutions. The chance of a French PhD to be published in these journals is minimal and the time between the paper is sent and the paper is published is too long. So it is important to be realistic and ambitious. Don’t go for these journals if you are not in a US institutions but they are many other excellent ones and more opened (look at the institutions of the published authors to get an idea).
Do not hesitate to solicit senior colleagues and ask them to read your piece before sending it. I think that departments should be more concerned about mentoring early-career researchers and that they should organize reading seminars especially for younger scholars, and invite colleagues engage in reviewing for journals to present what they know about publications. It is the responsibility of the seniors to do so.
For early-career researchers coming from countries in which there is a long tradition of publication in a native language which is not English, I would also recommend to publish in the best journals of the their native language and to publish papers in English in top-field journals. When you do not publish in your own language, write directly in English and have it edited by a native speaker: translating a paper in English does not transform your paper into an Anglo-Saxon paper, i.e. a paper for an Anglo-Saxon journal.
Final advice: read the special issue of Sociologica, Vol 13, No 1 (2019), on publication strategies. It is very instructive.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
This is a very difficult question!
As theoretical paper, I would quote:
Fligstein, N. (2001). Social Skill and the Theory of Fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2), 105–125.
As a more empirical paper:
Castel, P., & Friedberg, E. (2009). Institutional Change as an Interactive Process: The Case of the Modernization of the French Cancer Centers. Organization Science, 21(2), 311–330.
I voluntarily did not choose paper on higher education.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
I know that some people do not share this view but I think higher education is not a discipline. It is a field of research. You may investigate it as a historian, a sociologist, an economist, a social scientist etc. or with interdisciplinary perspectives, but what is produced can be rigorous and grounded if and only if it is (multi-)discipline-based.
I would therefore suggest not to forget the relationships with the major one or two disciplines that inspire your work and found your empirical and epistemological approach. Attend higher education conferences, read books and articles in higher education studies, involve yourself in higher education journals and higher education associations but also attend conferences, read books and articles, involve yourself in journals and associations of your main discipline. This is more work but this interface is highly fruitful, stimulating and challenging.
Erast Petrovich Fandorin
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
Salami slicing that turns a good piece of research into a more limited one.
Attempts to summarise down all sides of a complex monograph-length argument rather than respecting the journal format and developed a single-theme argument.
Small scale empirical research (whether quantitative or qualitative) drawn from a local context that is presented in universal terms as applying to all times and all places.
Small scale empirical research that merely confirms previous – often larger scale studies without adding new knowledge.
Writing within the framework of one national system without acknowledging the international readership.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
Don’t select your target journal and then write the article tailored for that journal – maintain creative control and the distinctiveness of your work, do the best paper you can and then find the journal most appropriate to it.
Expect to receive awkward and possibly wounding feedback, we all do, grit your teeth and remain uniformly cheerful, adaptive and constructive in your response to reviewers, while sticking to what you really need to say. NEVER give up, it’s your work and you have a distinctive contribution to make.
When you are rejected (happens to all of us, and the peer reviewers are sometimes right, sometimes half right and sometimes utterly wrong-headed) use the advice to amend and improve the paper, and then submit to another journal. Many of the best, most innovative and interesting papers are rejected before they are accepted, and may be rejected by more than one journal.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
I like this in Comparative Education Review as an exemplary paper that combines quantitative and qualitative methods:
Chankseliani, M. (2013). Rural Disadvantage in Georgian Higher Education Admissions: A Mixed-Methods Study. Comparative Education Review, 57(3), 424–456.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Choose your theories and methods according to the needs of your inquiry, your research questions.
Give us much time to reading and writing as you possible can and remember that what you read is often more generative of new insights than is data collection.
Conceptual advance is at least as important in social science as is new observation (and has a larger resonance), and the primary source of new ideas is theorisation and not research methodology. Treat methodology as your servant and not your master.
Eugene Onegin
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
The most common mistake is not building articles around your original contribution to knowledge. This is essential for any article to be published and is the primary purpose of journal articles. Too many submissions simply discuss the meaning of the findings, how they are similar to those reported in other articles or the implications for practice. Articles need a sustained and convincing argument as to how the submission makes a new and significant contribution to the international higher education literature. I reject many articles from junior and very senior scholars because they do not do this.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
1. Build it around your original contribution to knowledge.
2. Make sure your literature is up-to-date and includes references to articles published in the journal you are submitting to (this tells them they have published papers on this topic before).
3. In your literature review, focus on arguing for the gap in the literature that your submission addresses rather than describing the literature.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Christie, H., Tett, L., Cree, V. E., Hounsell, J., & McCune, V. (2008). ‘A real rollercoaster of confidence and emotions’: Learning to be a university student. Studies in Higher Education, 33(5), 567–581.
Hay, D. B., Williams, D., Stahl, D., & Wingate, R. J. (2013). Using Drawings of the Brain Cell to Exhibit Expertise in Neuroscience: Exploring the Boundaries of Experimental Culture. Science Education, 97(3), 468–491.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Follow the topics you think are important and interesting. In the end, we are all wrong, dead and forgotten so do the research that you think is important rather than the research you think that others want you to do. Even if you are working on other people’s projects keep coming back to the questions that interest you. This focus will help you to develop a distinctive voice.
Hans Castorp
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
This is an issue that can be heavily dependent on a disciplinary or thematic perspective. “Quantitative” research circles certainly see this issue differently from “theoretical” research circles. Nevertheless, at a general level, it might be possible to answer in the following way: The most common weak side of a paper is that it tries to tell far too much in the limited space of 6.000 to 8.000 words. Focus is important! And this is not so easy to achieve.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
Academic space is defined by various – and to some extent contradictory – academic (sub)cultures. When deciding to submit an article, you have to consider, among other issues, which specific standards/values/paradigms define the journal in which you want to publish, or the conference on which you want to present your findings. In doing so, you must not ignore which (sub)culture you belong to (or want to belong to). This is particularly important in interdisciplinary areas such as, for example, higher education studies.
When you receive peer reviewers’ views on your draft paper, treat them as their opinions, rather than as authoritative and absolute statements. In some points, these opinions can importantly help you to improve the text, but at some points they can also be completely misplaced/misunderstood. In such cases, reject them with your clearly explained arguments, but also consider whether your vague formulations may have contributed to such a misunderstanding.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Again, this depends heavily on the disciplinary and thematic orientation of an individual, from the academic (sub) culture in which s/he works. Starting from my subjective horizon I quote the following two articles:
Neave, G. (2003). The Bologna Declaration: Some of the Historic Dilemmas Posed by the Reconstruction of the Community in Europe’s Systems of Higher Education. Educational Policy, 17(1); 141-164.
Kehm, B. M., & Teichler, U. (2007). Research on Internationalisation in Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 260–273.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Follow the curiosity call, not the desire for success!
Hercule Poirot
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
– Write in a way that the reader understands what you’re doing, how you’re doing it, and why you’re doing it.
– Read enough, so that you know what’s talked about and what is not. This is how you can place your research in the international discussion.
– Check that theories, methods, and the empirical part are in line with each other.
– Read different types of studies with care and analyse their structure, argumentation and language. Learn from what you read.
– Do not choose “sexy” topics but instead study what interests you.
– Take your research seriously but not TOO seriously. Remember to sleep and have fun occasionally.
– If you have something better to do than research, do that. A research career is long and uncertain. It’s not for everybody but it gives a lot to those who decide to go along.
Note: our translation.
Hermione Granger
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
I made several mistakes when I started writing academic papers (and I’m sure that, currently, I make other mistakes!):
– Trying to say too much in one paper. After finishing my thesis, I tried to submit a couple of papers and they were all rejected. I received much support from a senior colleague who pointed out that I was being too ambitious, and I was trying to address many issues in one paper.
– I used to take for granted some “big” concepts (both theoretically and methodologically) and I thought that everybody in the academia could follow them. I learnt that I need to read my texts from a reader’s point of view.
– I used to use very long sentences (probably because, in my mother tongue, long phrases are allowed).
– I used adjectives such as “very”, “strong” and the like… (I have learnt to write in a neutral way although that doesn’t mean that I am not positioning myself).
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
Try to devote time to write at least two times a week. Some may say that you should write one page a day. However, this did not work for me since I need to spend at least 2-3 hours in writing a couple of pages. So what I do is trying to be systematic and I try to write two days every week. Sometimes, when I am finishing a paper, I could spend 5-6 hours in each of two or three days.
Get feedback from your colleagues (both junior and senior). If possible, try to be part of an academic writing group. Feedback is key in improving writing.
If your mother tongue is not English and you want to publish in English, my recommendation is that you write in English first, and afterwards, you could get some help with the edition. In the past, I wrote papers in my mother tongue and then I paid for translation… and it was an absolute disaster (each language has its own rules and this is beyond grammar issues).
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Rather than recommending a paper, I attach a paper by Professor Ronald Barnett that might be helpful.
Leibowitz, B., & Barnett, R. (2014). A will to write. South African Journal of Higher Education, 28(1).
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Read papers and books systematically. While reading, you can learn not only about theories and methodologies but also you can develop your creativity as well as learning the tacit rules of academic writing.
Keep the length of your sentences under tight control. Don’t fall into the trap of adding clause after clause since the syntax will break down and the logic of the sentence will falter.
Don’t use a long word if you can find an accessible short word.
Keep the length of your paragraphs under tight control. Do not let your paragraphs exceed, say, 12 lines and don’t be afraid of having some very short paragraphs.
Think of your audience. Even if you are writing just for a journal, each journal has its own position, its own favoured style, and its own audience.
When you start a paper, try to build up a story or a narrative that can captivate the reader. For example, you could build up an introduction in which you disagree with an author or theory and then you develop your own thesis.
I have been taught that building a clear argument is important. It needs to be precise from the very beginning and, in the conclusion, you can come back to it.
Keep your eye on the word limit. Fall short of the word limit in your first draft. Give yourself time to rework your paper and build it up and polish it, perhaps over 3-5 drafts.
Think hard about your title. Choose words that intrigue the potential reader and have an inviting angle. Be provocative.
Learn from the reviewers’ comments. Even though they may initially appear challenging, when you work through them, you will almost always find ways of improving your paper to your own satisfaction.
Holden Caulfield
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
It really depends on the ontological perspective. I can talk by having in mind a typical quantitative paper. A major important issue is that you have to identify a clear question/gap, and to be extremely consistent between what you promise and what you truly do.
Many papers do not have a clear goal, or they promise X and deliver something else.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
Always – not only fort the first paper – ask for advice, accept criticisms – seek criticism, don’t be (too) defensive, try to really understand what the other is saying, don’t simply take your first interpretation of the criticism.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
I usually do not focus on argument, language, style, but on the beauty of the question and the strength of the conceptual-empirical exploration.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Focus on something you care/like – but also try to position your interest in what has been done before.
Huckleberry Finn
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
The biggest mistake is not to think properly through what the main message of the article is, and how it can be highlighted in the most effective way: through title, abstract, and conclusion. My experience is that people are trying to say too much in their contributions, and that their enthusiasm for the research conducted has not enabled them with enough distance to their own work.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
I would say that you should critically assess what sort of article you have written: Is it a theoretical or an empirical contribution, and dependent of the assessment, carefully select the relevant journal. There is a large number of possible journals, but they do have different profiles. I would also say that you need to think of the audience: Why should an “outsider” want to read your work? What is the relevance of your contribution to other settings, countries, regions, fields? The final thing is to find partners sharing your interest. My experience is that partnering up normally results in better articles – although they may take more time to write… I would decide on the journal before starting writing up the article.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Patricia Gumport’s (2000) “Academic restructuring” is a nice one:
Gumport, P. J. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39(1), 67–91.
Morphew and Hartley (2006) on “Mission statements” is also well delivered, regarding style, and Message:
Morphew, C. C., & Hartley, M. (2006). Mission Statements: A Thematic Analysis of Rhetoric across Institutional Type. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 456–471.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
The best way to improve is to write and produce. Producing articles is a craft, not magic. You learn more by actually doing it than reading and thinking about it. Hard work usually pays off…
Jean Valjean
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
Talented juniors try to be too perfect with everything with the manuscript when writing it, and especially the final moments before submitting it. Of course it is important that the article meets certain quality criteria. But sometimes it seems that juniors cannot move on because they are too scrupulous with everything which is at the end of secondary importance. One very important and practical tip is this: Don’t edit and polish your text while writing it first time. In the end, you will do it anyway, also for those sections which were already edited while writing.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
– Co-author with someone. Workload is shared, and that’s the standard way of writing anyway in academia nowadays (for instance, see any HE journal, and count how many are single authored articles you can find).
– When writing the text, be concise, logical and clear. If it is not clear to the reader, it is not clear to you. There should be no empty sentences.
– If it gets rejected, don’t worry. You will find eventually another journal to publish it.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
I would recommend any article authored in 1970-1980s in good/top journals. That’s the time before quantity became more important than quality. For instance, have look at:
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
– Get used to competition, it’s normal, and it pushes you ahead. You don’t have to like it, but you have to cope with it.
– Get use to rejections, in journals, grants, and academic positions. Try harder, but not too hard.
– If you don’t find true enjoyment in academic work while coping with rejections and competition, change your career to non-academic before it’s too late. That’s OK too!
Jozef K.
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
Trying to tell too much in one paper, vehemently defending the choice of a particular theory or method as the “best” approach (instead of fitness-for-purpose), too limited information on methods, slipping into normative claims and conclusions, not sufficiently explaining what the paper adds to our understanding.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
1. Start small (either with exploring an idea, a first “test” or case study);
2. Try to aim at a journal that matches the quality (in the broadest sense) of your paper (i.e. do not start by default with a journal with the highest impact factor);
3. Ask others for comments on your paper before you submit.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
I thought a bit about this, but hesitated… There are so many elements that can/should be taken into account and obviously native speakers often (but not always!) have a head-start when it comes to language and style. If I can stay close to my own area of interest, I very much like Jaquette’s 2013 paper in Research in Higher Education. It is – in my view – crystal-clear in terms of its structure and contribution our understanding of mission drift and sticks to presenting the essentials.
Jaquette, O. (2013). Why Do Colleges Become Universities? Mission Drift and the Enrollment Economy. Research in Higher Education, 54(5), 514–544.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Do what you think is important, but obviously be guided by seasoned scholars/supervisors. Try to resist the temptation of writing as many papers as possible: parcel out clear research questions without thin-slicing your materials.
Katniss Everdeen
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
One of the common mistakes concerns framing of the article. Each piece of research can be presented from several angles and different aspects of it can be highlighted. This also includes whether an article is framed as a contribution to the higher education research field or more generally to social sciences (e.g. sociology, political science, economics etc.). In case the aim is to contribute to social sciences, then higher education should be presented in relation to the key concepts and theories in these disciplines.
For example, if the aim is to contribute to public policy analysis, higher education policy should be presented as a specific case, highlighting both how policy in this sector is similar to policy in other sectors, as well as how it is different. This should be reflected in various ways in the article, including its structure, formulation of the title, content of the abstract, how the rationale and focus of the study are presented in the introduction (in particular the opening paragraph), how the theoretical framework is built, how the choice of focusing on higher education is presented in the methods section, as well as how the findings are discussed in the conclusions. In all of these parts, the focus should be on how a particular study relates to more general social science phenomena (and how it contributes to our knowledge of these phenomena), while the specificities of higher education should be more in the background.
This is often hard for those researchers who have been trained and/or spent most of their careers in the higher education field. However, one should still consider writing such articles, because higher education research, precisely because of the specificities of higher education, can provide exceptional contributions to the social sciences more generally. Just think of the concepts of loose coupling, myth & ceremony, organisational saga, organizational anarchy and garbage can decision-making model – they all originated from higher education research.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
a. Have one big idea per article.* When writing an article, in particular if it is the first one, we often feel compelled to cram too much into one piece of text. We might want to show the richness of the data, all of the theoretical insights that we have and all kinds of implications our research may have for theoretical and methodological advancements in the field, and/or for practice. In doing all of this, we run the risk of our article appearing unfocused, without a clear message. Moreover, we may not have the space to adequately elaborate on all the points we are trying to make and thus risk appearing sloppy and/or having ad hoc arguments. Remember, there is always the next article. 🙂
Also, some of us have also felt (and still feel) the urge to show that we “did our homework” and reviewed the literature extensively, and tend to use too many references that make more or less the same claims. While doing a thorough literature review is important and every study needs to be well positioned in relation to existing research, being too extensive and detailed in the literature review can also blur the focus of the study. In addition, it also leads to practical problems of remaining within word count limits, in particular in journals that also include list of references in the total word count limit (and most of the journals do).
* Focusing on one big idea per article does not equal “salami slicing”. “Salami slicing” is when we try to “sell” the same small idea over and over again, with only minor changes in the research questions, empirical focus etc.
b. In light of the above, do not delete text that you will not use in article. Have a “leftovers” file for each article you are writing and review these files from time to time. This may give you fresh ideas for new lines of research and new articles. Also, this text can always be used in a new article.
c. Do not oversell your contribution and overstretch your data, but also do not be overly critical to your own research in your own writing. The latter is the job of the reviewers.🙂 Be aware and transparent about limitations of your data, but do not apologize for them. For example, some of the best and most useful research is (a) done on the basis of single cases or (b) openly discusses methodological challenges that come from using specific sets of data or research designs (see point 3 below).
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
I am recommending the articles below because of the contributions they are making and how these contributions are framed. Issues concerning language and style are a bit tricky, since this may vary across journals and authors (and we as readers also have some preferences concerning language and style).
Colyvas and Powell (2006) – it provides an important conceptual contribution concerning how to assess institutionalization by using a single case study. Here, the framing is particularly exemplary, including how the authors present the rationale for choosing their case and its relevance for analysis. A good exercise is to analyse the title, abstract, introduction (in particular the first paragraph), the research design, and the conclusions. Nowhere in the text are they apologising for doing a single case study. They are, nevertheless, making a very strong theoretical contribution.
Colyvas, J. A., & Powell, W. W. (2006). Roads to Institutionalization: The Remaking of Boundaries between Public and Private Science. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behaviour: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews (Vol. 27, pp. 305-353). Oxford: Elsevier.
Bunea and Ibenskas (2015, 2016); Klüver (2009, 2015) – this is a debate between Klüver, on one side, and Bunea and Ibenskas on the other, concerning various methods of quantitative text analysis. While it may not seem immediately relevant for higher education researchers (even though their methodological points are important and useful for document analysis), the way in which they are identifying and discussing strengths and weaknesses of these methods, as well as how they are presenting their disagreement with each other is commendable. We need more methodological discussions such as this one.
Bunea, A., & Ibenskas, R. (2015). Quantitative text analysis and the study of EU lobbying and interest groups. European Union Politics, 16(3), 429-455.
Bunea, A., & Ibenskas, R. (2016). Estimating interest groups’ policy positions through content analysis: A discussion of automated and human-coding text analysis techniques applied to studies of EU lobbying. European Political Science, 16(3), 337-351.
Klüver, H. (2009). Measuring Interest Group Influence Using Quantitative Text Analysis. European Union Politics, 10(4), 535-549.
Klüver, H. (2015). The promises of quantitative text analysis in interest group research: A reply to Bunea and Ibenskas. European Union Politics, 16(3), 456-466.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Everybody struggles with writing. Everybody gets rejected. Including the superstars (or those we see as superstars). We just do not talk about these things, at least not often enough. Talking about it helps, not only for overall motivation, but also because it provides the opportunity to share tips and experiences. So, share your struggles and rejections and demand that the others (especially your supervisors) share them with you.
Leopold Bloom
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
– Unclear or missing research questions.
– Lack of focus and coherence.
– Missing theorisation/conceptualisation of descriptive findings.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
– Think about the body of knowledge/academic debate your article is going to make a contribution to. Do a related literature review and writing, and identify the gap in the literature your article helps to fill.
– Identify the journal you would like your article to be published. This would/should be a journal that you find in your list of references for your article. Write the introduction/conceptual section in such a way that a journal editor can easily see why your article would be interesting for the journal.
– Point at the contribution(s) of your article already briefly in the introductory section.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Hoggett, P. (1996). New Modes of Control in the Public Service. Public Administration, 74(1), 9–32.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
– Higher education research is a multi-disciplinary field of scholarship. The field has its own specialised journals while research on higher education can also be of interest to other journals in the social sciences and humanities.
– Try to present and “test” the draft of your article at a conference, workshop, or seminar.
Lisbeth Salander
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
The most common issues with manuscripts (the ones we give feedback on the most) are the following:
– Motivating the reader: Why is this topic important to study and which field does it want to address? Just presenting a study and its results aren’t enough to make an article.
– The theoretical background is missing or it’s too light.
– The aim of the research and the central results aren’t clarified enough.
– The manuscripts doesn’t answer to the mentioned research questions (e.g. because the article has too many research questions).
– The analysis and discussion are too descriptive: the analysis isn’t deep enough, the discussion doesn’t include the author’s own voice, and the discussion isn’t in line with the theoretical background.
– Language and grammar. Unclear or missing research questions.
– Lack of focus and coherence.
– Missing theorisation/conceptualisation of descriptive findings.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
Familiarise yourself with the journals in your field and choose a journal that is relevant for your article. Read the instructions for author with care and obey those rules. What is so interesting or significant about your results that this journal should publish its results? Pay attention to the theoretical background and discussion (don’t just simply repeat what you said in the analysis). Don’t send anything that is half-finished. Rather let the text “rest” and go back to it again later. Pay attention to the aforementioned issues. Remember the structure of a research article!
Note: our translation.
Moll Flanders
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
The most common problem is that different parts of an article don’t match with the central aim and research questions stated in the article.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
In introduction, write the aim and central question of the article clearly. Keep this in mind when you write the theory, results, and discussion.
If it’s a qualitative article, think carefully how you organise your data in the results and how you can show to the reader that the views emerge from the data and not from your own ideas you had before the study.
In discussion: DISCUSS. Don’t just repeat what you just showed in the results. What can be deducted based on the results? What things impacted the results? How should we act now, if we want change?
Note: our translation.
Natasha Rostova
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
a) A presumption of more background knowledge in the readers than they actually have. Hence setting the context in as succinct a way as possible is important.
b) Writing too much. It is important to keep the article to the specified number of words.
c) Using language and sentences that are difficult to follow. Always be clear, and as concise as possible, and avoid very long sentences.
d) Not sticking to your own title. Make sure each section relates to your title topic. Avoid wandering.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
a) Be clear and concise.
b) Use evidence-based arguments wherever possible.
c) Check that each section relates to the overall title.
d) Have a clear outline in your head of each section before you begin to write.
e) Remember it is NOT a thesis.
Onufry Zagłoba
Avoid jargon and tell the truth. Oh yes, read Edward Gibbon and see what writing is all about.
Philip Pirrip
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
One of the most common mistakes is the generalization of the findings when the analysis provides no grounds or support to do so.
Associated to this is using methods that do not aim at generalization (considering here the different facets of generalization for quantitative and qualitative studies) and still trying to generalize the findings.
A further common mistake relates to some lack of rigor concerning the use of theories and methods, for which sometimes the motivation and rationale are not sufficiently explained and sometimes are brought in erroneously.
There is a multitude of different mistakes but these vary according to the venues where one is publishing.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
First advice: the paper needs to be focused and flow. It needs to be a story and the sections need to connect with one another in a way that the latter sections are built in a sustainable manner on top of the previous sections which provide the foundation for the paper (think of it as building a house, the objective, which needs to start with well construed foundations that can support the rest of the structure, including the roof). Often one sees submitted papers that are a set of disjointed parts that feel disconnected and this is to be avoided at all costs.
Second, the papers need to be supported heavily on a substantial body of literature AND literature that is part of the journal intellectual debate. I have seen papers submitted with less than 20 references, which for an 8.000 word paper is manifestly little. Submitting papers for higher education journals without a single reference from the higher education literature is odd at best (except if a topic is really, really recent but this is an exception). The worst thing that can happen is to submit a paper to a HE journal say on university governance and there is not a single reference to previous work on that topic drawn from HE journals. If this occurs, it means two things: the authors(s) do not know the debate on the topic in HE journals or they know but decided to ignore these works, which is disrespectful to say the least. Third, play close attention to the significance and rigor of the paper, and this means knowing the literature well, and then set the research based on strong theoretical and methodological grounds, and this means the need to justify the use of theories and methods with the help of the appropriate literature (including the methodological literature).
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
I have a bit of difficulty in responding to this question because I publish in and read literature’s from different fields. There are also really great papers using all kinds of methods that may make more sense to some people, not so inspiring to others. However, and besides the usual classics from the HE literature, a paper that immediately comes to mind and that I really liked to read is the “Culture of mediocrity” by Joseph Hermanowicz published in Minerva:
Hermanowicz, J. C. (2013). The Culture of Mediocrity. Minerva, 51(3), 363–387.
It is conceptually very well written, supported, motivated, and debated.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Try to set a clear research agenda. It does not have to be limited to one topic, but focus on maybe two main and one ancillary. Something that is important, make sure that there is a space to grow in those topics, and by this I mean, space for novelty. If you pick an established topic such as internationalization of universities, you’d better come with a new amazing spin and perspective, otherwise the investment will be safe, but the reward somewhat bleak. I think it is worthwhile to be a bit more adventurous and pick topics where there is a balance between “some research done so far” and “there are still plenty of different angles that have yet to be picked”. In this process two things are critical: 1) creativity and 2) work, a lot of work. Finally, do engage in collaborations, but with people you trust and with people that can add something that you lack. There is little to gain in collaborating with people that have the same/similar skill-set and knowledge that you have. Besides, the commonalities in the skill-set will prevent you and your collaborators to explore the borderlines of the research frontier because the thinking will be too similar.
Rick Deckard
One should say first that global journal situation is undergoing a lot of change and uncertainty. The “open access” movement and new guidelines from the EU and others relating to how knowledge should be communicated are all reshaping journal publishing. The rise of predatory and fake journals are also problematical. And the traditional journals with high impact factors are ever more competitive with very low acceptance rates. One interesting development is the growth of English-language journals in China, providing publishing opportunities but also problems in terms of their quality and impact.
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
Poor quality of writing is always a problem and much care needs to be taken. Academic writing is often “too academic” and thus not interesting nor often very original. On the other hand, journal editors often demand such traditional writing. This is a dilemma. My best advice is to be original and write on themes that advance knowledge and provide relevance. Of the quality of the research, whatever the methodology, should be sound. And do not spend too much space on methodology–what is interesting is the result.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
1. Originality and relevance.
2. Sound scholarship – but do not focus on the methods.
3. Good writing.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
No.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Pay careful attention to the journal you are submitting to so that there is a good connection between the article and the journal focus. Watch out for fake and other bad journals.
Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
Often scholars are so excited about their research findings or conceptual ideas that they don’t think enough about how they fit into the broader field. Most of us don’t revolutionize a topic with one article, so it is essential to demonstrate how your work fits into the literature. Because few papers are stand-alone exemplars, writing for publication means demonstrating how what you have done is new and meaningful, but also showing that builds upon and is a part of an ongoing discussion in the field.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
When and where to submit are two questions early-career researchers ought to give serious consideration. It’s not easy to determine when a piece is ready for review (and the editor will ultimately decide). Underdeveloped and unpolished papers will be rejected and probably will not even get a review. On the other hand, I have seen scholars become paralyzed by the quest for perfection (most manuscripts will never be perfect). When you feel confident that a manuscript says and does what you intended it to do, and that substantial additional work would only make small improvements, then it is probably time to submit.
Where to submit is another question. I am not sure there’s a magic formula for identifying an outlet but you want to submit where you cite, and you want to make sure that your manuscript scope and the journal scope are aligned.
Finally, be patient and persistent. The review process can take a long time, so don’t sit around twiddling your thumbs while you wait for a decision. Keep working on your next project.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
I’d prefer not to because so many different forms make good articles.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
First, rejection is painful but all but inevitable. We tend to dismiss negative reviews as wrong or just plain mean, and of course, they can be both. But most often negative review reports – some better than others – are guides for making our work better. Take reviews seriously even (especially?) when they sting. If you are in the habit of taking feedback seriously, you will get better at determining which comments are helpful and which are not.
Second, think about problems – the big picture – in addition to specific research questions and studies. Articles by authors that have cultivated a sense about what they want to know, why it matters, and why they are well suited to find and report answers are able, on average, to make more profound contributions to the literature than one-off topic papers.
Scarlett O’Hara
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
a) Not keeping to the expected structure of a journal article and presenting the results in a way that is too schematic, i.e. more like ticking boxes.
b) Drawing conclusions that are not properly substantiated by the arguments.
c) Not properly grounding the piece in a theoretical framework.
d) Not getting the facts right. Most reviewers are selected for a particular article because they are experts. Authors can assume that the reviewer might know more about the field than they themselves. So the literature review or account of the state of the art should be solid. Selectivity is allowed but should be pointed out.
e) Never submit an article consisting of a single case study that uses your own institution as a case.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
a) Tell a story that is also interesting for people who are not experts in the field. That means to find the right balance between explanatory detail (context) and addressing only experts in your own field.
b) Present something surprising but well-argued that challenges people to re-think (e.g. a re-conceptualisation, a new aspect, something that adds to the existing body of knowledge).
c) Carefully proof-read and make sure your bibliography is correct. Often articles will be rejected because there is too much language editing to do and too many corrections. Most journals don’t have a language editor anymore.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Most articles by Guy Neave (although some people never liked his somewhat idiosyncratic style).
Ferlie, E., Musselin, C., & Andresani, G. (2008). The Steering of Higher Education Systems: A Public Management Perspective. Higher Education, 56(3), 325–348.
Teichler, U. (2005). Research on Higher Education in Europe. European Journal of Education, 40(4), 447–469.
Sherlock Holmes
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
They do not make a clear distinction between the Results and Discussion sections. The former should be a purely presentation/description of the data collected with minimal personal commentary, which should be reserved for the discussion section. The results section should allow the reader to form their own opinions before you as the author(s) present your take on the results/findings.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
a) Try to form a plan for publishing. Have a thread of themes you are going to explore that are interconnected and identify the journals that will be the best fit for them, especially if your research is interdisciplinary and you need to take into account of the audience that would be most interested in reading those pieces of writing.
b) Something that I struggled a lot with in my early publishing attempts was writing in a way that lacked flow and continuity. Try to connect paragraphs and sections.
c) On the same topic area, I personally think that it is easier to read an article if there is a story line, if it feels like the author(s) is/are in a conversation with the reader.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
We have many different writing styles as academics, which are informed and influenced by our teachers and disciplinary backgrounds. One size does not fit all, therefore I don’t see the benefit of suggesting an article that resonates with me.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Having good writing partners, collaborators and/or mentors/advisors/supervisors is really important. You need to have someone to turn to for advice and feedback that you feel understands you and your research and who will be constructive and helpful.
Tom Jones
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
– The extremes regarding previous research – either being a bit arrogant by assuming that they know better than their predecessors and shunning most of the previous research, or being too subservient to senior researchers and struggling to develop an autonomous thinking about a specific topic;
– Spending a lot of time reading, which is very rewarding intellectually and gives you a sense of accomplishment, though it may not take you too far in writing your articles;
– Struggling to be focused and trying to cover too many issues in one piece, disregarding the fact that you need to restrict your scope if you want to go deeper in the analysis;
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
– State very clearly in one page what you want to do, how and why;
– See if there are no logical jumps or holes between paragraphs and sections;
– See if you can explain orally in a convincing manner the main argument (there is work to be done when we cannot explain well orally what we are doing and we detect that much better orally then in writing).
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Williams, G. (1996). The Many Faces of Privatisation. Higher Education Management, 8(3), 39–57.
It is a simple, yet clear and very profound analysis. You could do a research project or a thesis (or even more than one) just by using it as a departure point. It is the result of many years of reflection and research done with wisdom and humility.
I would choose one article by Guy Neave or Sheldon Rothblatt, because they are extremely well written and because they are examples of some aspects that being lost with our pressure to publish – the carefulness with style, with rigour, and the need to say something meaningful. They are not written to please editors or referees.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
– Be pragmatic and effective in the management of your tasks;
– Avoid procrastination;
– Avoid both too much dispersion (especially in the early years, since you need to establish yourself) and too much specialisation (breadth pays-off in the long-term, both professionally and especially intellectually).
Toru Watanabe
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
From an editorial & peer-review perspective, I see two major classes of mistakes in manuscript submissions:
The first concerns papers that should not have been written, because they do not really make any meaningful contribution. They may be the product of slicing and dicing data from a bigger project – the excessive pursuit of Least Publishable Units; or they may arise out of pilot studies that enlighten the author but do not advance knowledge; sometimes they come out of poorly designed studies. The lesson that these kinds of manuscripts give us are more about where to put our thinking and writing energy as scholars. They take up the author’s time, which could be better used maturing ideas a bit further and in consistent data collection/analysis. They also take up the time of editors and occasionally referees, if they make it past a desk review.
The second class of mistakes refers to papers reporting on studies that have merit. Here the problems usually refer to communication:
– Some difficulty articulating the main argument of the paper clearly and forcefully are usual, for example. These manuscripts tend to have meandering discussions that fail to position the paper’s findings clearly within the extant literature, or they have underwhelming conclusions.
– Limited consideration of limitations of the research design/data; they are intrinsic to any study and should be take up seriously rather than swept under the rug.
– Disciplinary jargon, overuse of abbreviations, opaque text – never enough to emphasize that clarity of writing should be a priority.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
– Find your own voice as an author; don’t try to ape others.
– Seek feedback prior to submitting your manuscripts, whether in conferences or by asking peers.
– Feedback from colleagues, peer-reviewers and editors will almost always help you improve your work, as unpleasant or demoralizing as it may sometimes be; learn how to deal with it objectively, even if the feedback on occasion is not.
– Perseverance is important as rejections are normal; learn, improve the work and move on.
– That being said, know when to cut your losses and leave behind writing projects/manuscripts that are not working out as you had hoped; you will never get the time you sink into them back.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Define a research agenda you have an intrinsic intellectual interest in. External incentives and rewards obviously matter, but it is hard to sustain interest and creativity in research over the long haul if what drives your work is what other people think matters.
Tyler Durden
What in your experience are the most common mistakes scholars (junior and senior alike) make when it comes to article writing?
In my experience, the error is forgetting that writing is a form of pedagogy, involving telling another intelligent person who has not shared your experience and research what you have learned, why it matters, and what more needs to be done? Treating the reader as a person who needs to be taught rather than as a judge against whom you must defend yourself is critical to good communication.
If you were asked to give one to three short pieces of advice to an early-career researcher submitting their first article to a journal, what would it be?
Journal selection matters a great deal. Some journals are just selection mills for the audit culture. Others are actually about communicating among scholars. Some vote you up or down and others advise you on how to improve your work. Look at what the journals have published in the past 5 years and see if you want to be in that crowd or not. Don’t be blinded by impact factors into ignoring the communicative importance of articles.
Could you recommend one or two journal articles which you believe are exceptionally well written (taking into account the structure of the argument, language, and style)?
Geertz, C. (1957). Ethos, World-View and the Analysis of Sacred Symbols. The Antioch Review, 17(4), 421–437.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.
Is there any more general piece of advice you would like to give to higher education scholars at the beginning of their career?
Other than winning the lottery, I don’t have much to offer. I believe that, if the academy were like it is now when I started my career, I would have gone into something else. Working for a bunch of neoliberal thugs and competing with a bunch of neoliberal Rockstar wannabes would not have appealed to me. So I outlived a good period. My advice is to found your own higher education institutions and operate them as democratic cooperatives.