Samples from Special Report: How to Get Published

III. How to Get a Sufficient Number of Your Papers Accepted, Despite Journals� High Rejection Rates

Research shows that the majority of rejected papers do not contain major flaws; they are rejected arbitrarily. Because acceptance is only somewhat dependent on the content of your paper, a number of other factors should be considered to increase your acceptance rate. The following strategies show you how to reduce the element of chance in the publication process:

A. Have a Critical Number of Papers Under Review at All Times

The best way to overcome the arbitrary element of the acceptance process is by turning it into a numbers game. First, if you can, determine what your personal acceptance rate is. If you do not yet have enough experience to calculate this number, estimate it from the average acceptance rate for your field and for the specific journals to which you will be submitting. We strongly recommend that you take the time to research these rates. This information is available for most disciplines and many individual journals. Remember, however, that these average acceptance rates are only estimates; it is imperative that you calculate your own personal acceptance rate on an ongoing basis and apply it to the strategies below.

NOTE: since the response time for journals can last anywhere from six months to a year, you must have several papers under consideration simultaneously. Also, the more you submit, the more experienced you will become with the publication process, which will improve your chances of publication, increase your speed, and toughen your skin.

Once you have estimated your personal acceptance rate, consider how many articles your career goals require that you to publish per year. Finally, determine how many papers you must submit to reach the critical number of publications. Constantly maintaining your personal submission quota will ensure your academic survival. Below, you will find an overview of submission quotas based on various acceptance rates.

Your Estimated Personal Acceptance Rate	Goal: 1 Publication Per Year	Goal: 2 Publications Per Year	Goal: 3 Publications Per Year	Goal: 4 Publications Per Year	Goal: 5 Publications Per Year
	Number of Papers You Need to Have Under Review (Per Year)
20%	5	10	15	20	25
30%	3-4	6-7	10	13-14	16-17
40%	2-3	5	7-8	10	12-13
50%	2	4	6	8	10
60%	1-2	3-4	5	6-7	8-9
70%	1-2	3	4-5	5-6	7
80%	1-2	2-3	4	5	6-7
90%	1	2	3-4	4-5	5-6

As this table shows, for low acceptance rates an impractical number of articles would need to be under review. If you fall into this category, you should focus on improving your personal acceptance rate.

D. Maximize Ideas, Minimize Length

Rather than try to cover two or more topics in one long paper, give each idea its own paper. This will help you keep each paper concise and focused. Furthermore, having a higher number of papers under review at the same time will increase your chances of publication. Short papers, particularly in the sciences, are more likely to be published (although in certain specific cases longer papers are preferred). We strongly recommend that you take the time to research which format is more suitable to your field. Editors require less time to consider shorter papers and are also less likely to misunderstand them.

NOTE : Verbosity

Researchers have a tendency to use too many words to describe their findings. Journal editors dislike excess words: journals have limited room and extra words mean extra printing costs. Determine, line-by-line, what can be cut without detracting from your paper's clarity.

E. Collaboration

a. Less-Experienced Researchers�Collaborate with More-Senior Coauthors

Although you must eventually learn to be self-sufficient, you should collaborate with more-experienced coauthors at the outset. This may double your chances of publication. Also, more-accomplished coauthors can help you to build up a list of important contacts within your field. Watching others conduct research and compose a paper will give you invaluable insight into the process.

V. Practical advice from a seasoned journal editor

Jonathan M. Samet, former editor of the American Journal of Epidemiology , provided the following advice in an article entitled �Dear Author�Advice from a Retiring Editor,� which appeared in that journal in 1999.

I. Manuscript Preparation

A. What to Do

i. Review the manuscript compulsively before sending it to the journal; make sure that it fits journal specifications and that there are no embarrassing problems�forgotten tables or figures, for example.

ii. Run a spell-checking program; it takes minutes and avoids embarrassing sloppiness.

iii. Write an informative�but not grandiose�cover letter.

iv. It may be useful to suggest reviewers, but it is distracting to indicate persons who should not review, unless truly warranted.

B. What Not to Do

i. Write a lengthy introduction that compulsively reviews all studies previously published. For example, a remembered manuscript cited 100 references by the end of the introduction!

ii. Make priority comments�almost no study is �the first;� the priority claim is more likely to indicate failure to review the literature.

iii. Repetitively describe results in the text that are already in tables and figures.

iv. Offer tables that may consume an entire issue of the journal through their length.

v. Provide only model results without at least a peek at the data.

vi. Repeat findings in the Discussion. Use the Discussion to integrate new findings, to draw out implications, and to address limitations.

vii. Write a weak last paragraph. This is where authors often lose control, offering sometimes naive policy recommendations or generic calls for more research (possibly in support of their next grant). Manuscripts need an ending, but must go out with restraint.

If you would like to receive this special report, please fill out the form below.  It will be sent to you promptly.