Getting A Manuscript into Print Eight Practical Tips

Getting A Manuscript into Print: Eight Practical Tips for Prospective Authors Dr. John V. Richardson Jr. , Associate Dean, UCLA Graduate Division/Professor and Editor Emeritus, The Library Quarterly

Your Mission Statement n Obtaining a national, if not international, reputation for high quality work in your chosen field of specialization

Your Goal and Objective n Goal: get your work published in the best “best” journal possible where it will have the largest impact n Objective: gain influence in the academic discourse of your specialty; be part of the social network

To Achieve Your Goal n Assume you have an idea or topic… n Better yet, a manuscript in hand; perhaps a course paper or doctoral dissertation n Evaluate your paper’s “so-what? ” factor

Background Experience n A conference presentation at n n n A regional or national meeting Halo effect of having presented it Time investment is less n Less rigorous review n In many cases, less than a top ranked journal n Feedback from colleagues n Course paper

Publishing Options n Sole or Joint Authorship n Ulrich’s International Periodical Directory n Thousands of journal titles n ISI’s Journal Impact Factor n 58 LIS titles n Refereed n Single vs. Double Blind n National or International Journals

Author Considerations n Sole or Co-Authorship n n Role and effort of first-handed Co-authorship may increase your “citedness” n Put your authorship understandings in writing n Avoids misunderstandings later n Ethical conduct n n APA “Statement on Authorship” Dual Submissions and Plagiarisms

1. Match Mss. Topic to Journal n n n n Journals vary: Libraries & Cultural Record versus JASIST Read the journal’s website Browse recent issues for trends Read the inside front cover of a recent issue Look for statements of scope by the editor Look for calls for papers—special issues As a last resort, you can always query the editor

2. Make Mss Look Like It Belongs n Structure is good… n n n Introduction (problem, justification, theoretical framework, literature review, objectives, and research questions) Method (population, sample size, Findings (what you found) Implications (what you think it means and why it’s important) Conclusions (summarize 3 major points)

3. Make Mss. Look Like it Belongs n Length (short is good) n Write to the stated specifications n n Many journals have a stated limited Too long—think about a book contract then n House Style (is important) n Otherwise, it may look like it was written (and rejected) elsewhere

4. Where do Referees Come From? n Drawn from a variety of sources: n n n Editorial Board Associate Editors or Assistant Editors List of Referees Faculty Colleagues Friends and Acquaintances

5. Making the changes n Don’t follow the recommendations n Submit it elsewhere n Follow the referees’ recommendations n Unless you have a really good reason not to do so n Listen to the editor’s guidance n Final publishing decision

6. What do Editors Want? n New n n Original Knowledge Void or Resolves a Theoretical Conflict n True n n Secure Methodology Reproducible Methodology n Well-written n Sign up for another class Take a class Hire an Editor?

7. Congratulations! n Within 4 -6 months, you will have: n n An acknowledgement Objective referee feedback A set of recommended revisions Within another 3 months, you may have: n n n Revised and refined your manuscript Carefully chosen the best possible journal for its publication Received a letter of acceptance.

8. Copyrights: n. First Time n. North American n. Serial Rights

Further Reading n Cronin, Blaise and Gail Mc. Kenzie. "The Trajectory of Rejection, " Journal of Documentation 48 (September 1992): 310 -317. n Thyer, Bruce A. Successful Publishing in Scholarly Journals. Survival Skills for Scholars, Vol. 11. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994.

Further Reading n Mc. Callum, Chriss. Getting Published: the Writer's Guide to Getting into Print (Oxford: Essentials, 2001). n Richardson, John V. “Scholarly Communication: A Graphic Representation, ” with Charles Meier. The Library Quarterly 68 (January 1998): v-viii. n Richardson, John V. “The Peer Review Process: Acceptances, Revisions, and Outright Rejections, ” The Library Quarterly 72 (January 2002): x-xvi.