Publication without tearsTips for aspiring authors

EMMA COONANJOURNAL OF INFORMATION

LITERACY

• Down the rabbit hole? • Framing your article• On writing

Have you submitted an article for publication?

Do you edit or peer review already?

You might enjoy this Scholarly Kitchen article if so.

Down the rabbit hole

Managing editor: Cathie Jackson

Book review editor: Ian Hunter

Articles should be …• Research-informed and evidence-based• Designed around an arguable research question• Contextualised with reference to previous and current

advances in IL thinking• Methodologically robust with a demonstrable research

design

Publication requirements

Articles should be …• Research-informed and evidence-based• Designed around an arguable research question• Contextualised with reference to previous and current

advances in IL thinking• Methodologically robust with a demonstrable research

design – more about this later!

Publication requirements

• Relevance to the journal’s remit• Originality and interest to our audience • Title and abstract• Method• Use of literature and referencing • Clarity of expression and structure

Peer review criteria

• Relevance to the journal’s remit – research- or practice-based investigations into information literacy• Originality and interest to our audience - useful contribution to

knowledge or good practice?• Title and abstract – appropriate wording and length and

informative?• Approach and method – appropriate? rigorous?• Use of literature and referencing – good analysis of literature?

Good referencing or signs of plagiarism?• Clarity of expression and structure – clear exposition of

argument? Logical structure? Spell out acronyms, avoid jargon!

Peer review criteria

Accept for publication without amendment - almost never!

Revisions requiredMajor revisions required followed by peer reviewDecline submission – submit elsewhere

Reviewer recommendations

Editor-in-ChiefEmma Coonan

• Make a list of all the changes requested

• If you can’t or don’t want to meet them, discuss this with Emma

• Revise the paper (using Track Changes) and resubmit it

• Include cover email describing your changes

What to do with reviewer comments

Addressing these changes may unearth other suggested amendments -several rounds of revisions may be required

What to do with reviewer comments

You might also like this Storify on dealing with the “Ow” factor

• ‘Resubmit’ doesn’t mean ‘Reject’It’s been known for authors to react as though they’re the same thing• Journals have a specific scope and remit

If your article doesn’t fit, our container is the wrong shape!• We are writers too

… and we know it sucks to have your writing criticised

Remember …

Feedback should be constructive, comprehensive and courteous ... The role of peer reviewer is a privileged one and must be undertaken with empathy and integrity.

JIL Author Guidelines

“help[ed] to make a potentially very scary process a lot more manageable.”

“The author would like to thank …the reviewers, whose comments were invaluable.”

Reviewing the reviewers

JIL copyeditors

Lizzie Seals

Sharon Lawler

Helen Bader

Lisa Hutchins

JIL Copyeditors’ advice

• Use the publication template• Define acronyms and abbreviations on first use• Format your references using the journal’s house style• Ensure all in-text citations are given a full reference at

the end, and that all references are cited in the text• Ensure diagrams and images are copyright-cleared

and/or attributed

Framing YOUR article

Author:You

What is a journal article?

Presentation vs. paper

• Length!• Structure – conventional divisions• Tone and register – more formal• Use of evidence – more overt, interwoven throughout• Purpose – original contribution; an investigation, not a

description

Light green Lego brick by Stilfehler, CC BY-SA 3.0

You might find this blog post useful too.

What could you publish?

• Literature review – e.g. Tewell (2015), CIL 9(1)• Action research – e.g. Rothera (2015), JIL 9(2)• Measurable impact of practice – e.g. Hicks (forthcoming), JIL

10(1)

Not about what you do but what your students do

Framing YOUR article

Tell your reader …

• Context - you’re contributing to a dialogue• Approach and method that underpin the

research• Rigour - the validity of your approach and

findings• What/why/how of your research

What/why/how

• What is your research?

• Why are you doing it?

• How are you doing it?

What/why/how• What is your research?What questions does it address (or ask)?

• Why are you doing it?Why does it matter? What will it change?What interests/frustrates/niggles you about the topic?

• How are you doing it?What’s your approach or method? How does it frame your findings?How does it help you mitigate bias?

Pinc

tada

mar

garit

ifera

MHN

T.CON

.200

2.89

3 by

Di

dier

Des

coue

ns, W

ikip

edia

. CC

BY-S

A 4.

0

On writing

• Keep focused Pin your hypothesis or question and your what/why/how analysis by your desk. Everything you write is directed towards answering the question.

• Flatpack itDive in wherever you feel you have something to say. Write up the section which comes most naturally and compile the sections later.

• Free-writingDon’t wait until you know what you want to say – get ideas out of your head so you can reflect on and develop them

• Join (or start) a writers’ groupYou can read why I love them in this blog post.

• Break it down It’s like eating an elephant!

• It’s iterativeDraft, redraft, draft again (and see Lamott on first drafts!)

• Find (or bribe) a proofreader This could be a colleague, friend or family member, but always get someone else to read it through!

• Read critically to help you write critically Become a reviewer – or ‘buddy up’ with another aspiring author and support each other

http://patthomson.net/

http://explorationsofstyle.com/

Emma Coonan, Editor-in-Chief

Journal of Information Literacy

e.coonan@uea.ac.uk

Twitter: LibGoddess

Alice images by John Tenniel (public domain)