It has occurred to me that colleagues, particularly junior ones, might find useful some general guidance on how to deal with journals. This advice comes in part from my experience as a journal editor and in part from my experience (which is mixed!) as a submitter to journals. Some of it, perhaps all of it, may strike you as obvious; if so I apologise. Some of it may strike you as wrong- if so please let me know. Andrew Oswald, John Whalley and Jonathan Thomas have commented on the list and made numerous suggestions.
Mike Waterson
March 1997
1. Obviously, the first hurdle is to try not to get your paper rejected
first time. Do not send a paper to a journal before you are really
convinced you have done a good job on it and have tested it out
in presentations.
2.
Work especially on the abstract, introduction and conclusion.
Referees normally make up their mind in the first few minutes of reading.
Papers are commonly rejected not because they are wrong
but because they seem boring.
3.
Publishable papers usually have an idea or empirical evidence
that is important and new relative to current literature.
Your essential idea should be made very clear;
in the abstract, the introduction, the thematic development
in technical middle, and the conclusion.
Restate it repeatedly, even it if seems like overstatement.
Also, the departure from previous work needs restatement several times;
what have you done that it truly original? What is the big point?
4.
Choose journals carefully. Do not send your paper to an inappropriate journal-
check whatever is written in the journal about types of papers they like,
check whether there have been similar debates in the journal.
Consciously write to particular journals. Ask colleagues for advice.
Make clear that what you want is an opinion regarding the suitability
of a journal, not a detailed critique.
In such circumstances, it would not seem reasonable for a senior colleague
in a cognate field not to return the paper within a day or so.
Ask them to be frank- Are you aiming too high/low?
Do they have inside information about what particular journals like?
5.
References are an important part of a paper.
Your referees are quite likely to be selected by the editor
glancing at your references; you should have some recent references
to show you are on top of recent literature; go to ECONLIT
and make sure you have not missed a key paper (your referee may remind
you).
Despite the above, do not make your reference list too long (2 pages max).
6.
A good journal will reject the majority of papers sent to it
first time round, in addition to others it rejects at later stages;
a top journal will probably reject more than 3/4 of papers
first time round. To reiterate, do not submit too early.
7.
Individuals gain or lose reputation with journals according to
how their papers are viewed by referees and quality of
their referee reports. One might view the situation as a gamble
- you have a certain number of chips at a journal in any period
which you lose rapidly by getting papers rejected
and add to slightly by producing really insightful referee reports.
This is more true for domestic journals than others.
8.
One implication is that if you have had two rejections by a journal,
do not send anything else there for a few years,
except in the case of the top 3 or 4 US journals.
9.
Short papers may not be treated so seriously,
whilst longer papers experience longer response times from editors,
on average. There is probably an optimum of around 30 pages.
10.
Once you have had a paper rejected by one journal,
do not immediately send it off to another.
Check at least to see whether there are points common on
both referee reports: if there are, treat those points seriously
and do something about them before sending the paper off elsewhere.
It may simply be that you have not explained yourself well.
But do not delay too long.
11.
If you think the referee reports are wrong, do not hesitate
in sending the paper off to another journal without further ado.
Top US journals will quite often produce only short,
rude inaccurate reports to unknown British authors;
such reports are of little use and can largely be ignored.
Pause only to consider - why have they misunderstood my paper?
12.
Assume you have got a "revise and resubmit". Assess it.
Can you do what is asked, or do you have a good reason for not doing so?
If you have no real answer (and the editor's letter only just
leaves open the possibility of resubmission)
you may well be better sending the paper elsewhere.
At the Journal of Industrial Econokmics (J.I.E.) we have a strictly
unofficial "toughness index" we use regarding revise and resubmits.
The "tough" tend not to get published.
13.
In sending a revision, make sure you do answer all the points,
or have a good reason for not doing so.
If you have a reason, make this explicit in your accompanying letter.
Accompany your revision with a careful letter (say 2 pages) outlining
your response to the referees' point by point:
either one for each referee or a general one.
Focus the response on the major points, not the typos.
14.
If the referees have been at all insightful,
thank them in the introductory footnote and in the note to them.
A certain amount of guile may be needed if the referees comments
are meaningless or wrong.
Find a way of responding that does not indicate your evaluation
rather than challenging them directly, if at all possible.
If the referees give conflicting advise, explain to the editor
how you have resolved it.
Do not make your changes merely cosmetic -
a major critique is not best answered in footnote
15.
Make a real attempt to meet the proposals regarding shortening.
Given that you have made a considered response,
sending the paper back within a week may seem surprising to the editor.
Too lengthy a delay may mean the original referees cannot be used
or (worst of all) that the editor has changed: a year is too long.
16.
Make sure your revision is a better paper than the original,
in your eyes and in the eyes of the editor and referees,
so far as you can tell.
Nothing is more likely to lead to second stage rejection than
the feeling on the editor's part that the paper is not reaching equilibrium.
17. Repeat the above until the paper is published!
18.
You should get an acknowledgement of your paper very soon after submission.
If you do not hear any more from a journal with 6 months (say)
contact the editors politely asking about the status of your paper.
If there is no response to this inquiry within a month (say)
make a firmer (crosser) enquiry.
19.
A good rule is "No means no".
If you paper is rejected at any stage, unless there are manifest reasons
for going against this advise, do not challenge the editor.
It only annoys them.
20.
Always remember it took three journal rejection before Akerlof's
"Lemons" paper was taken up by the QJE, and most of Paul Krugman's
papers have been rejected somewhere - do not get disheartened.
Equally, it may occasionally be sensible to jettison a paper
which fails to find favour with journals. Sunk costs are sunk.
21.
Rejections are rarely personal, all referees (and editors)
make mistakes in their careers.
22. None of these rules is immutable.
Further Reading
D.S.
Hamermesh: "The Young economist's Guide to Professional Etiquette",
J.Ec.
Perspectives, 6, Winter 1992.
D.S.
Hamermesh, "Facts and Myths about Refereeing", J.Ec. Perspectives, 8,
Winter
1994
J.S.
Gans and G.B. Shepherd, "How are the Mmighty Fallen:
rejected
classic articles by leading economists",
J.Ec.
Perspectives, Winter 1994
回到 [論文寫作]網頁