COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

GENERIC SKILLS TRAINING

PUBLISHING FROM A PhD

MAY 2012

PROFESSOR GIBSON BURRELL

Four areas we are asked to explore

1. The politics of academic publishing especially REF

2. Different disciplinary expectations in publishing

3. Key challenges in article preparation

4. Responding to referees

When and where to write?

When told to by your supervisor

When visited by the muse - ‘inspiration’

When you want an academic career

In an office

In a shared open plan office

In the privacy of your own home

In a ‘retreat’

The politics of publication are

You have to- if you want an academic career

You have to argue very hard if you want to publish outside peer refereed journals

You need therefore to think within the constraints of 8000 words for a target audience

Why publish in journals?

1. Academic careers are research based

2. Research work needs publication in order to be disseminated

3.Publication of work for the scrutiny of the profession is the mode of scientific progress

4. Peer reviewed scholarly journals allow up to date and critical evaluation of research

5. A quasi American invention the journal article now dominates the scientific landscape

The baleful influence of REF

The drive for ‘accountability’ to the Treasury

Resource allocation as complex and contested

The making simple of the complex - reductionism

The reduction of variety to a standard format – the 8k article

The reduction of our work to numbers

HOWEVER

The lack of resources to be decided upon

The question of whose rationalisation? – size and complexity in the hands of panel members

Americanisation of performance criteria

The rise of performativity

The decline in creativity?

Forms of Publishing your work

1. The Magnum Opus Book with a good publisher (10% royalty)

2. The magnum opus book through a vanity press (you pay them)

3. The PhD published as a book with a good publisher (7.5% royalty)

4. The PhD published as a book through a vanity press (you pay them a lot)

5. An article in an edited collection (£50)

6. An article in a good journal (nothing)

Q. What do we mean by a good publisher?

A. In soc sci, a University Press or eg

Routledge, Blackwell, Polity, Sage

Q What do we mean by a ‘good’ journal?

A. One that appears in your professional association’s RAE/REF list at the top

Note that the vehicle of choice is becoming the 8000 word journal article- the digestible nugget

The ABS list has been used and will be used in

Business and Management!!

If books are difficult to publish then what about placing an article in edited collections of papers?

“This is what you do for friends” A Vice Chancellor

If articles are the only way forward then, how many of them are necessary?

“Any reasonably capable scientist can produce 6 papers a year- easy” The same Vice Chancellor

How do you publish two papers a year in good journals?

Have two good ideas that are well worked through and target journals that will interested in your ideas

ideas are important -these always shine through

ideas that are well worked through BEFORE you send them off are crucial

target the journals carefully and see the debates they have fostered. Avoid epistemological enemity

In a PhD the dictum is

“Don’t get it right, get it written”

In an article you are about to send off to a good journal the dictum is

“Don’t get it written, get it right”

Never use journal reviewers, as you would doctoral colleagues, for testing out ideas. Your spit and polish is important for without it, the reviewers will give you all of the former and none of the latter

With a PhD already completed, it may be possible to have three papers on the go

1. One being polished and about ready to go BUT when you want to avoid the task of polishing sentences, digging out references and punctuation and nuance then move to-

2. One being worked on in a serious way where you can make good progress for an investment of serious time

3. One in rough draft form that you are still thinking through

In my own case I can only work on one at a time

Key Challenges to Getting Published I

Get to know your field well

Know who the editors of journals are and where they are placed

For example, Journals that are organs of the professional associations tend to change the editors regularly, have large numbers of sub-editors, move institutional locations, be more ‘electronified’ in handling papers and publication, and have professional support staff dealing with queries. Editorial change brings change in journal content and they follow fashions. Eg Organisation Studies

Key Challenges to Getting Published II

On the other hand, Journals owned by the publishers, with the academics as servile labourers, and without a professional base of subscribers are seen as requiring less support staff, are more fixed in university location and exhibit a longevity of senior editorial personnel. They are more paper based and less electronified. They are less likely to change direction or embrace fashions. Eg Organization

Key Challenges to Getting Published III

1. You send your paper out to two journals simultaneously and put the wrong covering letters in the wrong (electronic) ‘envelopes’

2.You have misunderstood the intellectual orientation of the journal

3. You do not ‘honor’ (sic) the work of others. The UK/European ‘critical’ approach to the work of others does not work well in the USA.

4. The appearance of the work is shoddy-using A4 size paper in the US journals counts as that

Key Challenges to Getting Published IV

You appear not to have read the helpful notes in the journal outlining what they welcome

Your favourite and key theoretician is anthema to the journal eg Foucault in Industrial Relations

You have missed key references that likely reviewers will know (and may have themselves authored)

TIP Many reviewers will look first for your references to see if they appear there!

MORE WHAT NOT TO DOs

Your argument is weak and not maintained

Your theory section and the empirical work do not hang together at all. The first is sophisticated whilst the other cannot show it has successfully operationalised the concepts used.

You have been methodologically sloppy

You appear not to have a full grasp of the material

You claim too much for your work

You show too obviously that you are a novitiate into the profession

Polish is lacking from your command of written English

WHAT TO DO (a negative perspective)

You demonstrate that you have been ‘disciplined’ and are rule bound

You demonstrate your ‘command’ of the field

You submit to the ‘anatomising urge’ whereby opening up, revealing, brightness, insight, sharpness, incisiveness and dis-covery are all highly valued (surgical) attributes

You show willingness to become a paradigm worker, dealing with accepted issues in accepted ways exhibiting an incremental approach to knowledge

What gets lost in the 8,000 word journal article?

Indiscipline and Rule breaking

Interdisciplinary work outside of a command structure

Warps and wefts in sewing different fabrics together - nursing not surgery

Paradigm breakers and revolutionary thinking

The capacity to think through a more detailed argument on a broader canvas

Strategies for publication of your thesis

What to do - in a positive sense

Think about each chapter as an 8k word article

Ask yourself which journal might take this writing of mine before writing

Polish, polish, polish

Always integrate theory and empirical work in a close seamless way

Realistically three publications is the most you might extract

Go to conferences and present your work . Meet editorial board members

The journal article is

Maker of careers and marker of self discipline

The vehicle for knowledge production and the vassalage of the academic

The currency of academic debate and the production of ‘free goods’ for others, including publishers, to exploit

The ability to get ideas discussed and your name put forward

TINA - there is no alternative - or is there?

Nowotny et al 2001: Rethinking Science

Mode 1 to Mode 2 as a description AND a prescription

the ‘agora’ of national policy debate

universities as but one stakeholder

the national interest rather than ‘humanity’

Relevance rather than rigour

Secrecy rather than openness

‘wealth creation’ as basis of research

The Business of Publishing I

In 2000, Pearson offered a deal to Waterstones. It was said that Waterstones would make much more money by reducing the range of its stock and ridding itself of specialist books. By holding on its shelves a much smaller range of material but in very large numbers, and with the publisher heavily advertising this material, Waterstones would double its profits. This Fordist notion of ‘pile ‘em high and sell ‘em cheap’ was grudgingly adopted -after a Pearson removal of supply to Waterstones - and indeed profits rose dramatically.

This decision fundamentally shifted the academic publishing of books towards text books and away from monographs. Getting PhDs published as books virtually died in 2000.

The Business of Publishing II

OWNERSHIP OF PUBLISHING HOUSES

1. Dominated by US owned firms, German conglomerates and University Presses in that order

2. Sage Ltd and Sage Inc were part of the Sarah and Gerry philanthropic foundation until professional management was called in on the death of their daughter. Prices were raised in that year by 94%.

3. Macmillan name was split to Inc and Ltd. London offices were bought by a German firm and under them Ltd took name of Palgrave until it bought Inc name out.

As academics we do not know the ocean in which we swim!

Normal profitability rates for Supermarkets is 4% of revenue

In publishing, average rate for mega-houses is profit of 28% per annum

Tax avoidance means registered abroad - or in DelawareSource: Lightfoot 2011

We self-exploit ourselves in the worst traditions of indentured labour.

Profits from books

1. The rise of the Handbook.

750 guaranteed sales to the world’s libraries. Economics of production based on 750 X £75

2. The rise of the textbook

Morgan sold 450,000 copies of ‘Images of Organisation’ and had a separate division of Sage devoted to it.

Slack et al on ‘Operations Management’ sells 75000 per annum across the globe

3. The demise of the book

Sales of less than first print run (3000 copies) are most usual

4. The demise of the research monograph

Almost impossible to sell to publishers in the age of think tanks

5. The demise of the PhD published as a book

(half a dozen only since 2000 in my field)

Sage’s handling of the crisis in books

With the rise of its professional management and of the Fordist approach to book selling, a new strategy was developed: acquire journals

New journals were set up within the full control of Sage but journals controlled and owned by academic sub-professions (eg EGOS), or Research Centres (eg Tavistock Institute) were a particular target for deal making

So ‘Organisation Studies’ and ‘Human Relations’ entered the fold. 6m euros

Consequences for/of Journals

1. The rise of the number of journals, as book publishing diminished opportunities for academic output in the 80,000 word range

2. Market fragmentation with increasing competition not co-operation between academic colleagues over narrow areas within ‘fields’

3. The decline of broad, field-commanding journals

4. The structuring of academic thought into 8000 word sections rather than tomes

Consequences for academics

1. The price of journals went up by 50% at least

2. We got less for our money (6 issues instead of four but only 25% more content)

3. The professionalisation of editorial management and journal production, with more electronic support throughout

4. Access to large databases and publicity machines

5. The difficulty in seeing ways of launching one’s own journal in this professionalised market: the end of cottage industries

The separation of journals into fragmented sub areas

The standardisation of ‘approach’

The homogenisation of ‘product’

The homogenisation of ‘presentation’

The uniformity of thought

Any questions?