Advice on academic publishing to help academics understand and navigate this complicated but vital instrument of scholarly work. You will find guidance on how to pitch to academic publishers, write book proposals, work with editors, understand peer review and get to grips with open access and copyright. Ultimately, these resources aim to help you get your research and insights published, as books or journal articles.

Academic publishing tips

Science historians usually date the history of peer review back to 1665. Henry Oldenburg, the founding editor of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, is widely believed to have been the first editor to consult external reviewers. Fast-forward more than 300 years and the approach has become the bedrock of academic research.Significant advancements in science would not be possible without peer review. Having multiple experts in a field analyse a paper helps to identify errors, improve the rigour of the paper and demonstrate the value of the science. It&nbsp;enhances knowledge- and expertise-sharing between reviewers and authors, which in turn benefits the wider readership of the published article.How thought leadership can build your institution’s reputation onlineGet your research out there: 7 strategies for high-impact science communicationWe must confront the assumptions that have held back HE for centuriesFor the reviewer, it’s a way to see literature ahead of time while also getting an idea of what good or bad research looks like. It also helps forge relationships within the community. When we carried out a survey in 2020 about peer reviewer motivations, early career researchers indicated that building a relationship with the editor of a journal was important. Reviewing provides a great opportunity to interact with journal editors and fellow scientists in the field.What is peer review and how does the process work?When a manuscript is submitted to a journal, the editor will screen and assess it to see if it is right for the journal’s scope before deciding whether to send it for full peer review. Generally, editors try to obtain an evaluation from two reviewers, although some journals require more reports.Once the reviewers have agreed to work on the manuscript, the formal peer review begins. At IOP Publishing, reviewer reports are not shared between separate reviewers, and it is not unusual for there to be a range of responses from reviewers, sometimes with differing views. This is when it is down to the editor to make an informed call based on the reports received. Where reviewer reports are not in agreement, the manuscript and reports are sent to an independent adjudicator – who is often a member of the journal’s editorial board – and a decision is made based on the adjudicator’s recommendation.Where there is sufficient agreement between the reviewers, the manuscript may be accepted in its current form. Alternatively, it might be sent to the authors for revision based on their feedback, or it might be rejected.Editorial decisions and responsibilitiesWhen selecting a reviewer, an editor will look at the potential reviewer’s research interests and institutional profile to check that they have the correct expertise.The editor wouldn’t expect all reviewers to have published extensively in their field, but they would look for someone who has been a co-author on multiple papers. To avoid conflicts of interest, a reviewer who works at the same institution or who has co-authored a paper with any of the authors of the manuscript would not be invited to review.Ensuring that reviews are conducted fairly is built into every step of the process. As at most reputable publishers, at IOP Publishing, our peer review policies follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. Should an author wish to appeal against a rejection, they must provide evidence or new information that directly addresses a reviewer’s criticism. The journal’s editorial board will then consider the appeal, and if successful the article may re-enter the peer review process.Editorial teams also focus on getting important research out quickly and efficiently without compromising on service or quality. Peer review speeds can vary from journal to journal. But to give an idea, in 2021 our average time from submission of a manuscript to first decision was 21&nbsp;days and to acceptance was 88&nbsp;days.What reviewers look out for when reviewing a paperWhen they are reviewing a paper, a reviewer will be looking for:Scientific rigour: are the methods clear and robust? Are the conclusions supported by the results? Is the research reproducible?Originality: is the work relevant and novel? How likely is it to be cited by other researchers?Significance: what kind of impact will the research have on the field? Is it timely?A reviewer won’t typically correct grammatical or typographical errors. So long as the meaning is clear and comprehensible, these issues will be picked up at the post-acceptance stage.Eliminating peer review biasIn an ideal world, the scientific process would be entirely objective and rational. However, several studies have shown that bias exists in the peer review process. New practices have evolved to address these issues.Many journals use a model known as single-anonymous peer review. The reviewers know who the authors are, but the authors do not know who the reviewers are. This approach risks that reviewer bias against the author, whether conscious or unconscious, might creep in.Double-anonymous peer review, by contrast, means that the identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed. This approach gives all manuscripts a fairer chance as it is less prone to reviewer bias. At IOP Publishing, we complement this approach with transparent peer review as an option, which is when the identities of the reviewers and their reports are made public after the manuscript is published. This makes reviewers more accountable for their comments.The drawback, of course, is that reviewers could fear criticising senior researchers and receiving retribution. We believe that when combined with double-anonymous, the two processes complement each other, allowing for maximum objectivity during the review process, and maximum transparency after publication.How to become a peer reviewerProgress from author to reviewer can take many paths. One of the first steps is to take advantage of the many educational resources provided by academic publishers. At IOP Publishing, we offer a peer review training programme tailored for the physical sciences to help early career researchers increase their peer review competency.Another option to gain reviewer experience is by co-reviewing a paper with a colleague. When an established reviewer receives an invitation to review, they will sometimes invite a more junior colleague to work with them. The senior researcher would help guide the junior researcher through the reviewing process, commenting on drafts and so&nbsp;on. The review would in essence be “co-produced” by the two, with both researchers listed as reviewers and gaining credit.The role of publisher is to help maintain high-quality, timely, rigorous and ethical peer review, and we deeply value the reviewers who dedicate their time to providing essential, expert feedback that ensures scientific discovery continues to flourish.Marc Gillett is head of publishing operations at IOP Publishing.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

What is peer review and why it is important?

Peer review is the lifeblood of good science. But understanding the process can take time, and gaining review experience can be daunting. Marc Gillett explains the key elements of this critical component of science

A colleague recently told one of us that their university was pushing its professoriate into client-facing roles such as consultancy and knowledge-transfer partnerships. Presumably, this was to stimulate income generation (or simply a cruel punishment). The policy was short-lived. Unfortunately, having one of their esteemed professors turn up to a client meeting in shorts and a Hawaiian shirt was not what they had in mind. Point made.Unfortunately, the academics who are interested in external engagement don’t fare much better. We once interviewed the managing director of a construction company about their views on university-led industry collaboration. It was a long chat, but the following quote sums it up: “We try to work with universities, but all these academics do is talk about recruiting fucking PhD students!”Many academics see external engagement as a chore. Others are just unable to appreciate the industry professional’s perspective. But both these problems are stifling academic careers and the contribution of universities more generally. As a former managing director myself (Kumud), a certain ability to relate to people and build strong professional relationships underpins most of my achievements. After all, that’s how you survive in business. It’s also why academic colleagues frequently approach me (Kumud) for industry contacts. But it’s notable how these conversations only ever pertain to their own wants and needs, or at least that of their research. It’s very much one-way traffic.Dragon’s zen: how to handle the jump from HE to a commercial ventureWe must rethink PhDs to smash barriers and ensure bioscience successHow thought leadership can build your institution’s reputation online&nbsp;Nowadays, the pressure to deliver impact and funding is forcing academics to engage with the real world. This has inspired us to explain what many academics are getting wrong and outline advice for effective communication. But first, we need to understand the egomaniac that is the academic psyche.Academics are generally considered to be notoriously bad at communicating. It’s even a central premise in ITV’s Professor&nbsp;T television series. Admittedly, this is a dramatised take on academic life, but there’s no doubting that external engagement can be particularly daunting as it forces us to operate outside our comfort zones. Even if we can talk about our subject engagingly and recite the latest work published, the real-world utility of our specialist knowledge may be limited.Therefore, many scholars approach external engagement with a “get it out of the way quickly” mentality. Unfortunately, this impedes genuine connection and proper identification and valuation of opportunity. There is often little attempt to find common ground and make sacrifices on behalf of the common good. Instead, conversations remain superficial, usually recounting past incidents and comprising the same small talk academics have made with 10 other people that week. It’s like a salesperson who’s worked with the same organisation for years, flogging the same goods, sitting in front of a potential customer and never actually believing they’ll sell anything.There are typically two types of academic characteristics displayed in these situations: the hyper-organised professional and the disorganised, creative academic. The former should, on the surface, be very efficient at targeting and exploiting opportunities in network settings with industry leaders and professionals – who undoubtedly value their work ethic. But their need for control can stifle organic, two-way conversation. These academics are so focused on shoving their agenda down an industrial leader’s throat that they often fail to understand the point of the meeting in the first place.Conversely, the disorganised-but-creative academics tend not to engage at all. These people are more interested in their ideas and consider human interaction a chore. They can’t make decisions or pivot to exploit an opportunity within meetings. Nor are they even looking for opportunities. For these creatives, investing in relationship-building is time better spent writing the next paper. Of course, in their defence, the relentless pressure to publish does reinforce this perspective.Some adviceOften, improving one’s ability to speak to people and grow external networks simply requires the right mindset. Appreciate that you’re playing a long game in which the benefits aren’t always obvious or immediate. Yet, the value of external relationships can be surprising. We know colleagues who were awarded large research grants just for having a seat on the right board. We know another who generates substantial consultancy income via accrediting bodies. Both opportunities emerged from relationships that didn’t exist six months previously.Second: be humble. We’re all still learning; nobody has all the answers. You’d be surprised how generous complete strangers can be if you show a little vulnerability and make a human connection. Honestly, most of the time, people don’t want to participate in your study. They’re not that passionate about your results or your work. It’s often simply a favour or a quid pro&nbsp;quo.Therefore, be human, or dare we say, slightly vulnerable. Don’t be afraid to appeal to someone’s generosity or charity. This is usually more effective than pretending that participating in your latest “opportunity” benefits them. In reality, you might well need them to complete your study, get ahead in your career or even to help keep your job. Be brave enough to say that and drop the ego.Finally, it helps to be genuinely curious about other people. Understand their challenges, motivations and – importantly – the complicated lives of business leaders. Our academic bubble often insulates us from the daily challenges of running a business. Of course, some opportunities can be genuinely win-win, but identifying these requires understanding the person and their problem/s.So ask them how to add value through your research. Understand the person, not just the business. This is essential for building lasting relationships and establishing common ground. After all, it’s only once you understand them that you can begin to sell yourself.Kumud Wijayaratna is a senior lecturer in marketing at Northumbria University and the co-founder of the Newcastle Business School’s Business Clinic.Ed Cottam is an associate professor in entrepreneurship, innovation and strategy at Northumbria University.If you found this interesting and want advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the&nbsp;THE Campus&nbsp;newsletter.

Many academics see external engagement as a chore. Others are just unable to appreciate industry perspectives. Both are stifling the contribution of universities

External engagement in academia: lessons from the business world

The advent of social media, from Facebook and WeChat to podcasts and YouTube, and the proliferation of influencers, means that the activities of universities are reaching much larger audiences at breakneck speeds. Your institution’s reputation online will only become more important as more “digital natives” enter higher education.The views of many stakeholders build the reputation of your institution:students, in relation to their studiesacademics, for research and collaborationbusinesses, as potential employerspolicymakers, to whom the institution provides evidence-based insightother universities, for research and education partnershipsphilanthropists, for investmentfunding bodies, who decide how to allocate public resources.Their perceptions are informed by their evaluation of your institution’s past capabilities and character. Capabilities could be perceived as quality of education or the publication and grant record among faculty. Character could be the approach your institution takes to social mobility and environmental issues or how it treats its staff and students.Reputation is not only about stakeholders looking at your institution’s record but also its future contributions, such as whether it will offer students an outstanding learning experience or labour market preparation, or excellent research outcomes for funders. It is also about your distinct excellence in areas that are important to your stakeholders.Factors that your institution can use to enhance its reputation include thought leadership, rankings performance and communication through channels such as social media.How is your online reputation changing?A proliferation of national and international rankings affect how stakeholders perceive your institution. Accreditations and government evaluation exercises also help people make more informed judgements about university quality. But with so many sources of data, institutions can claim to be winners or be perceived as losers depending on which table or metric they are judged against.Traditional mass media are quick to report on the best and the worst in class because stories about institutions that have climbed or fallen down the slippery rankings ladder receive more sales and clicks than those holding on in the middle. Social media serve to amplify the effect of such stories on your reputation.Given the number of potential reputation markers there are, it is important to be proactive about how you project your institution externally. Memorable stories about universities, which capture wider public attention, tend to be the ones that are distinctive and surprising. For example, over the summer, my colleagues at the University of Exeter shared a press release on a new tool that can measure the carbon footprint of Cornish pasties.This was timely for three reasons. First, the summer is when most of the 120 million Cornish pasties are consumed and people don’t necessarily associate Cornish pasties with a carbon footprint. Second, it was released a few days before the 47th G7 summit, hosted by the UK in Carbis Bay, Cornwall. Third, it built on the university’s research expertise in environmental sustainability.Some ways to share surprising or memorable information proactively is through presentations, social networks and marketing. Another route is thought leadership based on your research, through traditional media, podcasts, webinars and outreach programmes.Sharing your research and academic expertise with wider audiencesUniversities have a golden opportunity to share their research to both inform the public and to provide practical solutions to issues facing business and government. While universities do produce press releases on selected research, they could do much more to empower academics to reach wider audiences through media such as blogs, videos, infographics and interviews. Universities can help in several ways:Build relationships with journalists. For example, the University of Exeter Business School has a contract with a communications consultancy, which has helped me speak directly to journalists about my research, leading to features in high-quality and relevant business media such as the Financial Times and Bloomberg.Showcase research on the institution’s website and social media platforms. This helps make research that is either hidden behind paywalls or written in an academic style accessible to wider audiences. Exeter Expertise, for example, is a dedicated page where we share stories about our business school’s research. We focus on our strengths: environmental sustainability, responsible leadership and technological transformation.Craft content for alumni, faculty and professional learners. We developed a business podcast, a free webinar series of world-leading speakers for our MBA students, alumni and faculty, and a live event on sustainable jobs for our alumni at the Institute of Directors.Think beyond the institution. Recently, I gave a talk on thought leadership for a major business school accreditation body, a mini lecture for a high school in Myanmar and an online talk for the British Council in China.Success can be measured by the number and quality of engagements we have, the feedback we receive around the quality of our thought leadership, and whether over time there is alignment between what we want others to think about our business school and what they actually think about our business school, in other words, our reputation. We gauge this through feedback from surveys, face-to-face and online connections, and through alumni and advisory boards.It is vital that your content is high quality because, while we do not have a shortage of information online, we do have a lack of evidence-based content. This is where your university can build its reputation as well as help enhance the legitimacy and status of the higher education sector.These are a few ways your institution and staff can build on their research and networks to engage with stakeholders. Remember that many institutions can cherry-pick a ranking, survey or endorsement that shows them to be world-leading in something. This is why finding something that is both distinctive and credible, and can be evidenced through high-quality thought leadership, will help your institution stand out for your stakeholders.Will Harvey is associate dean of global at the University of Exeter Business School.He has been shortlisted for Outstanding Research Supervisor of the Year at&nbsp;the THE Awards 2021. A full list of shortlisted candidates can be found here&nbsp;with the winners due to be announced at a ceremony on 25th November.

Will Harvey explains how institutions can use research proactively to enhance the perception of their capabilities and character

How thought leadership can build your institution’s reputation online

Helen Wolfenden from Macquarie University presents a podcast offering advice on publishing or communicating research in new formats beyond the scope of traditional academic journals

Making practice publishable: a journal article-cum-podcast

Academics offer insight and advice on issues including grant applications, building reputation, peer review, open access, the ‘push to publish’ and intellectual property

Academic publishing tips

What is peer review and why it is important?

External engagement in academia: lessons from the business world

How thought leadership can build your institution’s reputation online

Making practice publishable: a journal article-cum-podcast

Discover

More from THE

Sign up

Collaborate with THE

About

Legal stuff