1. INSIGHTS INTO ACADEMIC
WRITING AND PUBLISHING
RESEARCH
Dr. Muhammad Ramzan
PhD (University of Malaya), MLISc-Gold Medalist
Chairman, Foundation for Authentic Information and Research (FAIR)

2.  Session One: Writing for publishing
What and why to publish?
Where to publish?
Writing and presenting conference papers
 Session Two: Publishing in a scientific journals
Writing a quality manuscript
Finding publishing avenues & choosing the right journal
Publishing process
Review process and its handling
Impact factor and HEC accredited journals
 Session Three: Converting thesis into journal articles and books
Books publishing: online publishing and self publishing
Enhancing impact of your research

3.  Identify a problem
 Find out what others have done
 Develop a solution
 Show your solution: Hunting for facts or
 That works better and truth about a subject
sound & complete
An organized scientific
investigation to solve
problems, test
hypotheses, develop or invent
new theories, formulas and
products

4.  It is based on the work of others.
 It can be replicated (duplicated).
 It is generalizable to other settings.
 It is based on some logical rationale and tied to theory.
 It is doable!
 It generates new questions or is cyclical in nature.
 It is incremental.
 It is apolitical activity that should be undertaken for the
betterment of society.

5.  The opposites of what have been discussed.
 Looking for something when it simply is not to
be found.
 Plagiarizing other people’s work.
 Falsifying data to prove a point.
 Misrepresenting information and misleading
participants.

6.  To get PhDs, M. Phil., Masters and Bachelors??
 To provide solutions to complex problems
 To investigate laws of nature
 To make new discoveries
 To develop new products
 To save costs
 To improve our life
 Human desires

7.  Ideally
 to share research findings and discoveries
with the hope of improving the quality of life
 Practically
 To get funding
 to get promoted
 to get a job
 to retain job
 Being acknowledged

8.  Every research needs good and proper
documentation.
 To attend conferences.
 To share research results with other
researchers.
 To get views for improvement of your research.
 To obtain some form of degree.
 To get recognition and promotion

9. What to publish?
•Journals seek papers that advance knowledge and
understanding, by
•Presenting new, original methods or results
•Reviewing a field or summarizing a particular topic
in a way that rationalizes published results or creates
a new perspective on debates
•Applying best available methods to a particular
policy problem

10. They don’t want
They want
• Duplications
• Originality
• Advances in • Reports of no scientific
knowledge and interest
understanding
• Work out of date
• Appropriate methods
• Inappropriate methods
and conclusions
• Readability or conclusions
• Studies that meet • Studies with
ethical standards
insufficient data

11. • Have you done something new and interesting?
• Have you checked the latest results in the field?
• Have the findings been verified?
• Have the appropriate controls been performed?
• Do your findings tell a nice story or is the story
incomplete?
• Is the work directly related to a current hot topic?
• Have you provided solutions to any difficult
problems?
If all answers are “yes”, then start preparing your
manuscript.

12.  Theses: MS/MPhil /PhD
 Conference publications
 Focus on a piece of work with limited discussion
 Journal publications
 More complete (extensive) discussion
 Monographs / Book chapters / Text books
 Book review
 Working paper

13.  Conferences: 100 – 500 submissions with
a 10-25% acceptance rate
 Journals: 30% acceptance rate with long
lead times
 Publishers: publishing houses, online, self
publishing
 Subject: narrow, medium, broad
 Region: National, European, Americas, Asia
 The higher the level the more competitive
 For students it is most successful to focus on a
narrow focused workshop or conference

14. FAIR--RCTD

15. FAIR--RCTD

16. Credit:www.imageafter.com
FAIR--RCTD

17.  Create deadlines using short papers to kick-
start your publications
 Meet collaborators, friends, age cohort
 Plug into the wider profession and gain an
understanding of
fashions, trends, tribes, taboos, discourses -
and where the LSE sits
 Bring together oral wisdoms, gossip, tips
 Book exhibitions, meet with
publishers, network at
dinners, receptions, bars
FAIR--RCTD

18.  Key socializing venues – networking
 Spot potential examiners, meet key academics
and hear professional gossip
 Gain valuable critiques of your work –
determine what needs to be changed or
improved
 Meet others in your peer group involved in the
same areas of research (future collaboration
potential here)
 See how the job market works (early stages)
and enter it (later stages)
FAIR--RCTD

19.  Location
 Local institution - known audience
 International conference—first time ???
 Big cities, tourist places-Hotels
 Global conferences
 Huge attendance but often tiny audiences at individual
panels – real action in bars, book
fairs, receptions, attendance >1000, papers
>1000, sessions>50
 Audience
 Postgraduate conferences
 Specialist groups in your profession- wider audience
 Cost—Visa could be a factor, sponsorship, HEC
 Announcements on discussion
groups, newsletters, website, associations, universities
FAIR--RCTD

20.  Fast dissemination of research / ideas.
 Documenting progress of your research.
 Sequence of conference papers often will lead to a
journal paper.
 Great experience (even if rejected).
 In academia, your career depends upon them.
 Networking.
 There is a not-so-very-well-known benefit (a very
well-kept secret), which is …
 New ideas presented at conferences
 Ideas/work in progress
 Innovations requiring feedback
 Projects, works in progress
 Cutting edge ideas 20

21.  Conferences have different submission requirements.
 Be sure to be familiar with requirements /
deadlines!
 General trend is towards requiring the submission of
full paper or “extended” summaries for review.
▪ Typical of the more “prestigious” conferences.
▪ Driven by the desire to have high-quality papers.
How can one fairly review a single page summary?
 Some conferences still require only one-page
summary or an abstract of paper.
21

22.  For conferences that require an abstract or paper
summary, there is limited space to state your case.
 Some simple rules:
 Use space efficiently, and don’t be modest,
 Don’t waste too much time with background and
review, but be sure to place work in context of other work,
 State, in positive terms, why your work is important, and
the impact it will have, or “may” have,
 Convince the reader/reviewer that they really must read
your paper, and …
 Author reputation (unfortunately) may influence decision.
22

23.  Clarity in presentation
 Are you trying to impress the reader?
 Or trying to explain something to the reader?
 Placing your work in proper context
 Relevance/Applications/Impact
 Grammar
 “That” and “Which”
 Efficient and effective use of
graphics, tables, illustrations.
 Structure, layout and presentation.
 Familiarize yourself with the conference and what is
expected in the papers!
 Also remember: You are probably too close to your
work! 23

24.  Fundamental Fact
In spite of what you believe, only a handful of people will
read your paper – make it have impact on those that do.
 How do you have an Impact?
 Not necessary to have the most earth-shaking
results (these are rare), but rather …
 One of the best conference papers I have
ever read.
24

25.  Title – Eye catcher
 Abstract – The teaser
 Introduction – Wow – important, cool, relevant
 Background – Related work by others
 The new stuff – High impact
 Experiments, tests, analysis –
Convincing/honest
 Summary/Conclusions – Assume only thing
read
 References – Careful balance: complete
sampling, not too many self-references
25

26.  Short - between 6,000 and 7,000 words
 Focus on one idea or argument, not on multiple
themes – so do not try to incorporate your entire PhD
into a paper
 Paper should be a good illustration of your work
(e.g., not on a topic peripheral to your PhD or
research expertise, in order to fit within a panel
theme)
 Paper should be designed for publication and meet
publication standards in terms of style of
presentation and methods
FAIR--RCTD

27.  A conference proposal/abstract should
be an accurate and concise summary
of what the paper delivers
 Check the ‗Call for Papers‘ carefully
 What are the key themes of the
conference?
 What kind of presentation will you do?
 How long should the abstract be?
 When is the deadline for submission?
FAIR--RCTD

28.  ‗Need to know‘ criterion should guide
abstract
 What do organisers need to know to
assess whether to accept the paper and
where to place it in a panel?
 Core argument/bottom-line findings
should form centre-piece of the abstract
 Don‘t waste words on literature review or
methodology
FAIR--RCTD

29.  Write a proposal/abstract for the
conference of your choice
 Follow the ‗Call for Papers‘ guidelines in
the example you brought in, EXCEPT
stick to a maximum of 200 words
 If you haven‘t brought a ‗Call for
Papers‘, then try using one of the spare
copies at the front of the room
FAIR--RCTD

30.  Sentence 1 – a hook, indication of
motivation (for you and reader)
 Sentences 2 –3 – formulation of research
problem/question
 Sentences 3 – 4 – outline of core finding
(maybe a sideways glance at method)
 Sentences 5 – 6 - implications
FAIR--RCTD

31.  Pass your abstract to the person on your
left
 Read the abstract you have in front of you
and think about what you might do to
improve it
 Feed back to the person who handed you
their abstract, and get feedback on your
own abstract
FAIR--RCTD

32.  Fitting our “ideas” and “results” into four pages.
 As beginners, we all think this is impossible.
 “How can I say all this STUFF in only four pages?”
 So, you try to cram everything you have to say into
the four pages using micro-fonts and mini-
margins. MISTAKE!
 Who are you trying to impress?
 How much are people going to remember?
 What is your purpose in writing the paper?
 A gazillion equations will impress no one.
32

33.  Importance of title: the eye-catcher
 Importance of abstract: the teaser
Abstract should be written and composed in a
way that reader is compelled to read the
whole paper
33

34.  Authorship.
 It is very easy for one to believe he/she has a
claim on a result.
 The lines around a person’s inspiration and
innovation are very thin, and typically the
result of many inputs from many sources.
 My advice.
34

35.  Reviewers are people too
 Reviewers are not atypical from your
readership, and are generally very
knowledgeable.
 The conference paper review process often
times is (unfortunately) pressing and less than
perfect.
 A reviewer may have to turn around 10-20
reviews within a matter of weeks.
 You should write your paper with this
understanding.
35

36.  Authors take negative reviews personally.
 ―Why don‘t they understand?‖
 ―Are they stupid?‖
 Use negative reviews to your benefit.
 Free advice on how to make your paper
better.
 Reviewers are usually correct.
36

37.  You are home free.
 Make sure you conform to the format and
length.
 Make sure you get your paper submitted on
time.
 Use a spell checker
▪ Do not stop here … this is only one check.
▪ Be careful of the proverbial ―the the‖ (not the rock
group)
37

38.  The presentation of your conference paper.
 Writing journal papers
 Much more complex and involved.
 Huge variety of archival publications
 Structure, technical content, writing style, and
graphics.
 The review and revision process
 Citations, credit, and plagiarism.
38

39.  Substantial changes
 More data, deeper analysis and discussion of
findings
 Use of tables, charts, diagrams
 Clear findings and new directions
 Thorough review of recent literature
 Links to existing research
 Point to new areas of investigation

40.  Normal (written) form is:
 What do readers really need to know?
 Conference (presentation) form is:
 What does the audience really need to
see on screen?
 What do listeners really need to have
explained to them?
FAIR--RCTD

41.  However literary your normal style, plan
the talk as a sequence of exhibits
 Put all that you want to say/show on
screen, in a user-friendly manner
 Practice timings for your talk
 Aim for a fast, well-paced start – do not
‗warm up‘ the audience to your subject
 Sell the paper – don‘t be hesitant
FAIR--RCTD

42.  Organise your talk into 3 minute
chunks, planning for one display per
chunk
 Use PowerPoint (not Word) to compose
your displays
 Text should be free-standing and readily
understandable without you speaking
(audience will deconstruct it like that)
 Try to avoid a build-up of slides or too
many ‗flying bullets‘ – delays exposition
and too controlling
FAIR--RCTD

43.  Pick a font that is visible to someone in
the back row - like this one
 Put equations and quantitative tables into
separate image screens, magnified so
that the smallest subscript is visible
 Preferably use summary data
tables, rather than detailed ones
 Pick the best feasible fonts for display
FAIR--RCTD

44.  Seminars ... 30 to 40 minutes
 UK international conferences - 20 minutes
per paper, then questions; normally 2 or 3
papers per panel
 US and most international conferences - 10
to 15 minutes per paper, followed by
questions; often 4 or 5 papers per panel
 Workshops and intensive conferences –
20-30 minutes per paper, followed by one-
hour discussion time
FAIR--RCTD

45. FAIR--RCTD

46. SCARY CONFERENCE VISION
- real life is more prosaic
FAIR--RCTD

47.  Check the venue in advance for size and
features – may indicate audience size
 Conference slots respond to multiple
factors, including competition, timings etc
– so don‘t regard small
audiences, dribbling in late, in an over-
large room, as unusual or depressing
 Alternatively beware of an over-large
audience, cramped and uncomfortable in
too small a room
FAIR--RCTD

48.  Presentation facilities vary unpredictably -
you need to be adaptable
 Take Powerpoint slides in two storage
formats (e.g. USB stick and CD).
 Email slides to seminar hosts.
 Take an OHP copy of slides
 Print readable ‗handout‘ copies of slides
for a realistic audience (say 25)
 Take 10-15 full paper copies, for zealots
FAIR--RCTD

49. http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/McD/Seminar.jpg
FAIR--RCTD

50. FAIR--RCTD

51. FAIR--RCTD

52. RANDOM UNIVERSITY ROOM –
functional but depressing, no
daylight, blackboard!
Credit: http://www.finearts.uvic.ca/visualarts/facilities/images/seminar/seminar-1.jpg
FAIR--RCTD

53. SMALL ROOM HAZARDS – no
OHP, no screen, table dominating
the space,.. + dogs!
CREDFIT: http://www.eastwood.asn.au/images/hall15_b.jpg
FAIR--RCTD

54. LARGE ROOM HAZARDS – long thin
room, audience obstructs each others’
view, no equipment for visual displays
Credit: http://www.brc.ubc.ca/vtour/images/cell/L3_seminar1.jpg
FAIR--RCTD

55. SUBTLE HAZARDS - half the audience
can’t see the OHP, narrow tables, and
uncomfortable seating arrangment
http://www.ccc.ox.ac.uk/conference/images/semnarrm2.jpg
FAIR--RCTD

56. Things to aim for, ideally
Stand up, and use clear, varied slides
for best feasible delivery
Credit: http://www.ruwpa.st-and.ac.uk/workshop2002/seminar%2520room3.jpg
FAIR--RCTD

57. Things to aim for, cont’d
For large audiences (just in case)
– Think of the view from the back row
http://www.sunyit.edu/news/academic/pictures/main.jpg
FAIR--RCTD

58. Ideal seminar room – central display screen
+ OHP, wide tables, space for moving
around, good lighting, smallish group
FAIR--RCTD Credit: http://www.reidkerr.ac.uk/conference/images/ante2B.jpg

59. FAIR--RCTD

60. INDIVIDUAL AND BLOC INCENTIVES UNDER
WEIGHTED VOTING *
START
BADLY – Patrick Dunleavy and Rolf Hoijer
I’ve printed LSE Public Policy Group,
London School of Economics and Political Science,
my cover Houghton Street,
London, WC2A 2AE
page in tiny
font and Abstract: Pioneering work by Laver and Benoit (LB) argues that a drive by individual
legislator’s to maximize their per capita Shapley-Shubik power scores could explain the
evolution of party systems in legislatures. But LB’s analysis exhibits several problems.
slapped it Theoretically their utility premises are incompletely specified and would lead to
systematically irrational and short-termist behaviour by members of vote blocs.
Methodologically LB focus on a complex ratio variable, whose patterning essentially depends
on the OHP on another largely unanalysed variable, the power index scores of whole vote blocs. LB have
no framework for economically analysing variations in power index scores across very
numerous and diverse voting situations. Empirically LB’s account radically mis-specifies the
slide factors conditioning blocs’ incentives or actors’ incentives. We show that: (i) they offer an
exaggerated picture of the scope for defection; and (ii) their emphasis on the importance of
‘dominant bloc’ status for the largest bloc is incorrect - dominance is often empirically trivial
in shaping bloc scores when there are more than five blocs. Instead, the factors that do
influence blocs’ scores are predictable, (if complex), patterns, which repeat in recognizable
ways across weighted voting situations, for any given threshold level. We demonstrate a
method for mapping these scores comprehensively and economically, and for analysing
influences on the scores precisely.
FAIR--RCTD

61. analysis, and his lonely faith in the value of other effective number indices, for which there
has been little or no take-up in the existing literature. By contrast we believe that the wider
effective number family has little to offer, and that continuing to use unmodified N 2 in
particular in quantitative applications cannot be defended because of the defects set out
MAINTAIN here.
In our view averaging N2 scores with the 1/V1 score creates a simple but useful
CONSIS- variant of the effective number index, Nb:
TENCY: (3)
‘Some of
you may The data demands of equation (3) are no greater than for the N2 index, and Nb and N2 are
not be able highly correlated with each other. Yet this straightforward modification has useful effects.
Figure 6 shows the minimum and maximum fragmentation lines for Nb with between 2 and
to see the 8 parties, and also includes the 1/V1 line and the overall maximum fragmentation line for
Nb (with a 1 per cent floor for party sizes, as before). The averaging of N2 and 1/V1
subscripts creates much less curved minimum fragmentation lines. And although there are still
transitions in their slopes around the anchor points, they are much less sharp than with N 2.
here too The maximum fragmentation lines for different relevant numbers of parties are also
well’
considerably straightened out under Nb, without strongly visible curves close to their
terminal anchor points. The overall maximum fragmentation line for Nb is appreciably
lower than the 1/V12 line under N2. In fact the Nb maximum fragmentation line runs quite
close to but slightly above the N3 maximum line shown in Figure 1. For instance, with V1
at 60 per cent, the maximum Nb score is more than half a party less than with N2 ; and at
50 per cent support the Nb upper limit is 3 parties, instead of 4 for N2. Thus the Nb index
delivers many of the same benefits in terms of more realistically denominated scores as N 3,
but it avoids N3’s severe kinks around anchor points (which is evident in Figure 4).
Table 2 shows how the N2, Nb and Molinar measures behave empirically across the
FAIR--RCTD

62. Figure 7.1: How health boards compare
TABLES –
Trtmnt rates/pop
Argyll & Clyde 33212.42
complex, diffic Ayrshire &
Arran
33200.32
ult to Border
Dumfries &
72331.011
31699.21
read, weak Galloway
heading/title, Fife
Forth Valley
22876.55
29748.33
unnecessary Grampian 27681.49
31827.222
abbreviations,
Greater
Glasgow
space wasted Highland
Lanarkshire
33855.18
23909.83
between data Lothian 31768.41
points
Orkney 21727.37
Shetland 28233.25
Tayside 50259.21
Western Isles 30840.19
1 . 2. .
Includes Berwick in 1997-98 only Estimates only due to data problems
FAIR--RCTD

63. CHARTS –
3D FIGURE 7.4: HOW HEALTH BOARDS COMPARE
80000
design, small 70000
and thin, weak
60000
50000
40000
heading, no 30000
20000
logic to 10000
0
arrangement
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
of bars, labels T rtm nt ra te s /po p
in a legend,
key details in Key: The health boards are as follows: 1 Ayre & Clyde; 2 Ayrshire & Arran; 3 Border; 4 Dumfries &
Galloway; 5 Fife; 6 Forth Valley; 7 Grampian; 8 Greater Glasgow; 9 Highland; 10 Lanarkshire; 11 Lothian;
12 Orkney; 13 Shetland; 14 Tayside; 15 Western Isles.
micro font
FAIR--RCTD

64. Table 5: The extreme bloc sizes and per capita SS values in the triads, quinns and sevens
areas
i. Triads area
Bloc sizes Per capita SS scores
Description Blocs V1 V2 V3 V1 V2 V3 Diff
VERY Bottom left cell
Bottom right cell
All
4
8
26
48
44
26 25 1.28
0.69
0.76
1.28 1.33 0.05
0.64
0.57
LARGE 14
20
24
38
32
28
26 25 0.88
1.0
1.2
1.28 1.22 0.45
0.33
0.13
TABLES –
26 26 26 25 1.28 1.28 1.33 0.05
Top right cell 4 48 48 3 0.69 0.69 11.11 10.42
8 44 44 7 0.76 0.76 4.76 4.0
14 38 38 13 0.88 0.88 2.38 1.4
multiple 20
24
26
32
28
26
32
28
26
19
23
25
1.0
1.2
1.28
1.0
1.2
1.28
1.67
1.39
1.33
0.67
0.19
0.05
smudges of ii. Quinns area
Bloc sizes Per capita SS scores
micro font are Description
Bottom left cell
Blocs
All
V1
17
V2-V4
17
V5
17
V1
1.18
V2-V4
1.18
V5
1.18 0
Diff
not ideal for Bottom right cell 6
8
14
31
29
23
17 17
0.65
0.69
0.87
1.18 1.18
0.53
0.49
0.45
presenting full Top cell
20
6
8
17
24
23
17
24
23
17
3
5
1.18
0.69
0.76
1.18
0.69
0.76
1.18
6.67
4.0
0
5.98
3.24
regression iii. Sevens area
14
20
20
17
20
17
11
17
1.0
1.18
1.0
1.18
1.82
1.18 0
0.18
results to a Description Blocs V1
Bloc sizes
V2-V4 V5-V6 V7 V1
Per capita SS scores
V2-V4 V5-V6 V7 Diff.
crowded room Bottom left cell
Bottom right cell
All
6
8
14
13
21
15
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
1.10
0.68
0.95
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
0
0.42
0.15
0
Top cell 6 16 16 13 9 0.89 0.89 1.10 1.59 0.70
8 14 14 13 11 1.02 1.02 1.10 1.30 0.28
14 13 13 13 13 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 0
FAIR--RCTD

65. FAIR--RCTD

66. Strong exposition – proper
display, visible fonts, speaker visible…
and using pointer for details
Credit: http://www.pi1.physik.uni-stuttgart.de/Soellerhaus2002/Bilder/Soellerhaus2002-12.jpg
FAIR--RCTD

67. FAIR--RCTD

68. Treatment rates
Health boards per 100,000
people
Upper outlier
Figure 7.2: How
Border 723
Tayside 503 Upper outlier Scotland’s health
Highland 339 boards compared
Ayrshire and
Arran
332 Upper quartile
in treating
Argyll and Clyde 332 cataracts, 1998-9
Lothian 318 financial year
Greater Glasgow 318
Dumfries and 317 Median
Galloway
Western Isles 308
Notes:Treatment rates per
Forth Valley 297
100,000 people
Shetland 282
The range is 506, and the
Grampian 277 Lower quartile
midspread (dQ) is 55.
Lanarkshire 239 Source: National Audit
Fife 229 Office, 1999.
Orkney 217
Mean treatment rate 335
FAIR--RCTD

69.  Get membership of professional societies
 Subscribe conference announcements
 Visit university websites
 Explore Google
 Study conference themes carefully
 Prepare paper for target theme
 Select conferences that publish proceedings
 Invite comments Q&A for you conference paper
 Improve and aim for publication in a reputed
journal

70.  Fast publication
 Usually need a smaller idea
 Smaller trick can be acceptable
 Depends on conference
 Just accept or reject; no rewrite
 It may be incomplete
 It may lack key references
 Good for networking and Q&A

72.  Academic reputation
 Journals have 4xtime more status than conferences
 Gives a quality stamp
 Reviewers demand corrections & clarifications
 Archive your work
 Wider scope
 More theory and technical information
 More references
 Highly competitive
 Accept 36%
 Reject 58%
 Refer to other Journal 3%
 Withdrawn 3%

73.  1.Time to write the paper?
 - has a significant advancement been made?
 - is the hypothesis straightforward?
 - did the experiments test the hypothesis?
 - are the controls appropriate and sufficient?
 - can you describe the study in 1 or 2 minutes?
 - can the key message be written in 1 or 2
sentences?
 2. Tables and figures
 - must be clear and concise
 - should be self-explanatory

74. 3. Read references
 - will help in choosing journal
 - better insight into possible reviewers
4. Choose journal
 - study ―instructions to authors‖
 - think about possible reviewers
 - quality of journal ―impact factor‖
5. Tentative title and summary
6. Choose authors

75. Writing a quality article

76. Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Data
Results
Policy Discussion

77. It should be clear from the introduction:
•What is the policy issue that the paper will address?
•Why is this issue important (across countries)?
•What is the new understanding that the paper will bring to
this issue?
•How will it do this?
•Why is the chosen country case(s) or method appropriate for
this purpose?
•Also, define any key or non-standard terms

78. The main purposes are to locate your study within existing
knowledge and to show the gap(s) that your study aims to fill:
•Don’t write an extensive review of the field
•Do ensure that the literature cited is balanced, up to date and
relevant
•Don’t cite disproportionately your own work or work that
supports your findings while ignoring contradictory studies
•Do highlight the gaps in knowledge that you will seek to fill
•Don’t describe methods, results or conclusions

79. You should provide enough information for reviewers and readers to
be able to know:
•Which model or methods you used
•Possible weaknesses or limitations in your analysis. Don’t explain an
established methodology from scratch, simply supply a seminal or
recent reference
•Do explain aspects that are critical in your context, e.g. where there
might be an inevitable problem and how you tackled that

80. • What data were collected / used?
• How were they collected?
– Methodology
– Sampling (+ response rate)
• Critical assessment
– Representativeness
– Possible sources of bias
• Include survey instrument as an appendix to assist
reviewers

81. Present the main findings that address the question
outlined in the introduction
•Use figures and tables to summarize data
•Show the results of statistical analysis
•Compare “like with like”
•Don’t duplicate data among tables, figures and text
•Don’t use graphics to illustrate data that can easily
be summarized with text

82. •How the results relate to the study’s aims and hypotheses
•How the findings relate to those of other studies
•All possible interpretations of your findings
•Limitations of the study
•Important questions that remain unanswered by the study
•What lessons policy makers should derive from the
findings

83. •Making “grand claims” that are not supported by the
data
Example: “This novel treatment will massively reduce
the prevalence of malaria in developing countries”
•Introducing new results or terms
•Straying into policy discussions that the study sheds
no direct light on

84. The quality of an abstract will strongly influence the
willingness of reviewers to review the paper and
ultimately the interest of readers to read it
A good abstract:
•Is brief and specific
•Accurately conveys what readers can expect from the
paper
•Uses no technical jargon and cites no references
•Is written in good English
Use the abstract to “sell” your article

85. • Consult and apply the list of guidelines in the
“Guide for Authors”
– This will save time for you, the editor and the
production team
• Ensure that you adhere to the correct:
– Word limits
– Reference format
– Presentation of figures and tables
– Layout (e.g. line spacing, section headings)
• Failure to do so shows a lack of respect

86. Poor English annoys reviewers. It wastes their time, the
time of editors and of the production team – if the paper
gets that far!
•Always read your paper through in full before you
submit
•If English is not your first language, get a colleague or
friend to edit your manuscript before you submit it
•Specialist scientific editing services are commercially
available at different rates

88.  Periodical directories
 Ulrich’s International Periodical Directory, AuthorAid, Emerald
Literary Network, DOA Journals
 Indexing/citation databases
 Perish or publish, ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar
 Science citation index, Social sciences citation index
 Online databases
 Business Source Premier, Emerald Insights, Science
Direct, Sage
 Professional association websites
 AMA, Academy of Management
 HEC website: list of accredited journals
 Publishers association websites

89. 89

90. 90

91. 91

92. 92

93. 93

94. 94

96. Publication Process
Completion of research
Preparation of manuscript
Submission of manuscript
Assignment and review
Decision
Rejection Revision
Resubmission
Re-review
Acceptance
Rejection
Publication

97.  Look at your reference list
 Ask your colleagues for advice
 Think about who will want to read your
paper
 Read papers from short-listed journals
 Put your shortlist of journals in rank
order, from first choice to last choice
 Discuss your choice with your co-authors
97

98.  Referring system
 Citation scores
 Circulation
 Journal type
 Time lag
 Reputation of editors
 Professional vs. commercial ownership
 Quality of production
98

99.  Impact factor: average number of times published
papers are cited up to two years after publication.
 Immediacy Index : average number of times
published papers are cited during year of
publication.
 The h-index reflects both the number of
publications and the number of citations per
publication. It serves as an alternative to journal
impact factor in evaluation of the impact of the
work of a particular researcher. Because only the
most highly cited articles contribute to the h-
index.

100.  Format of the paper is determined by the
journal
 Check their web site for information
 Differences from one journal to another:
 Style of references
 Tables and figures
 Line spacing
 Font
 Word limit
 Writing style
 File type
100

101.  Guidelines for authors
 Process of submission
 Acknowledgement by editor
101

102.  Paying for publication
 Copyright agreement by author
 Decision of issue to include paper
 Copy editing
 Proof reading
 Printing
 Notification of publishing to author
 Delivery of printed issue and off-prints
102

103. The Review Process

104. Don’t submit your first draft to a journal!
•Get “friendly” comments from colleagues (and
coauthors!) before you submit
•Test the paper out at workshops or in a
conference to see hat response it gets there

105.  First scanning by editor
 Selection of reviewers
 Double blind review
 Time for review
 Decision of reviewers
 Communication of decision to author
 Acceptance, rejection or revision
 Submission and review of revised version
 Final decision
105

106.  Does the article add to what is already known?
 Is the article demonstrably related to what has
been previously written?
 Are the arguments employed valid in terms of
the body of knowledge?
 Is the article easy to read?
 Do the arguments flow logically?
 Are the conclusions strong?
106

107. Send for review Reject without
formal review
• Accept as is
• Minor revisions
• Major revisions
• Submit a shorter paper
• Reject

108. 108

109. Carefully study the reviewers’ comments and
prepare a detailed letter of response
•Respond to all points
•If you disagree with a reviewer, provide a polite
rebuttal, explaining your reasons
Perform additional calculations, re-run models or
consult additional references if requested
– these usually serve to make the final paper
stronger

110. Make adjustments and attach
explanation
Don’t feel obligated to make all
recommended changes
Don’t take comments personally
Be polite in all correspondence
110

111.  The topic does not relate to the journal’s aims
 The paper does not appear to have engaged with the
work of others in the same area and may therefore be
repetitious
 The paper’s purpose is unclear
 The argument in the paper is under-developed
 The claims made by the paper are not justified
 The style/length/format is not what’s requested by the
journal

112.  The paper is poorly presented with missing
references, typos, poor grammar etc.
 Confirmatory (not novel), no new ideas or discovery
 Poor experimental design
 - Poor controls
 - Hypothesis not adequately tested
 Data in not current
 Inappropriate for journal
 Poorly written

113. • No public policy story
– Business marketing
– Technical papers (e.g. testing new technologies)
– “pre-policy” work
• No clear link or contribution to international debates
– “not done here before”
– Local worldview
These papers are appropriate for national journals

114. Don’t take it personally!
•Only 25% of papers are accepted
•Try to understand why the paper has been rejected
•Evaluate honestly – will your paper meet the
requirements of another journal with the addition of
more data or other changes as suggested by the
referees?
•There can occasionally be an element of bad luck!

116.  Decide how many articles can be published
 Cut-paste-edit
 Look into your hypotheses
 Systematic study of the subject area
 Re-write some parts
 Each article should be independent with all required
contents
 Supervisor as co-author
116

117.  Seek permission from university
 Improve contents
 Improve language
 Re-format
 Catchy book title and chapter headings
 Prepare end book index
 Find publisher
117

118. Don’t assume that even an award-winning
thesis is already a book – it’s probably not!

119.  Insecure document  Confident piece of work
 Audience: small viva panel  Audience: targeted wider
 Academic requirement – public
establishing expertise  Communication tool –
 Length: 80k-100k words establishing storyline
 Didn’t know where you were  Length: up to 80k words
going when you started  Need to know exactly where
 Often not an integrated whole you’re going from the start
 Generally contains  Must be an integrated whole
weak/boring chapters;  Contains only strong/‘thesis-
frequent references to other building’ chapters highlighting
authors’ work as evidence of your argument; others quoted
knowledge of the field where necessary/compelling
 Numerous examples designed  Well-chosen examples
to back up ideas designed to move the story
 Few long or many short forward
chapters, often self-standing  Several chapters of readable
length, clearly linked

120.  Publish the one strong chapter as an article
 Publish two or three chapters as articles
 Send the thesis off as is and hope it gets published
 Revise the thesis lightly (if it was written as a
book, rather than a thesis, from the start)
 Revise the thesis thoroughly to clarify main argument
 Slice the thesis to separate out and develop self-
standing arguments, which may result in two books

121.  Identify what parts within the thesis are of value to a
broader readership and to you
 Cut out any boring sections you wrote to show how well
you know your subject
 Assess the usefulness of all the different examples you use
to apply your theory/theories
 Take the interesting material you wrote and shape it into a
compelling story
 This may result in previously unseen insights

122. Thesis Rethink Rewrite See larger
issues
Write more
Rethink more Reshape
Rewrite Repeat the
further entire process Book
as necessary

123.  Audience: Who will want to read this book?
 Length: Is it the right length, or too long?
 Shape: Are the chapters of even, readable length? Do I have
enough examples, or too many?
 Narrative line: Does the book tell a coherent and compelling
story?
 Voice: Am I the one telling the story, or am I relying too much
on others’ works to forward my proposition?
 Density: Is the research up-to-date? Does it show that I know
the long intellectual history of my subject?

124.  The best, most saleable book they can find
 They want to make a profit – or at least not
incur a loss – in the process of publishing
 They expect a book to be clear – in writing
style, in purpose and in argumentation
 They expect a good story - how you write
matters as much as what you have to say

125.  The subject is timely, unique, interesting and appeals to
a wide audience.
 The title is descriptive, invites inquiry or in some way
attracts attention.
 It is well-written and carefully edited, with attention to
spelling, grammar and sentence structure.
 It avoids scientific or technical terminology unfamiliar to
the layperson. It is easy to read.

126.  The author is a professional in the field about
which he/she is writing, and is considered an
expert on the subject or has done extensive
research on it.
 The material is well-organized.
 The presentation is attractive, appealing and
professional-looking.
 It has been diligently promoted and
marketed.

127.  The first things an editor looks at – and what
you look at in choosing a book for purchase -
are a book’s title and table of contents
 Title should be intriguing – but best if it’s not
too general, or terminological, or long, or cute
 Ensure that there are no colons in your chapter
headings and no repetition of what’s in the title

128.  Different publishers have different ideas about
what is appropriate in terms of titles and
headings
 Think about what books you like best that are
similar to your own project and copy their style.
It is likely you will want your book published by
the same publishing house

129.  These add to the length/cost of the book so should be used
sparingly
 This is especially true if colour is required
 There is also the issue of permissions if you are using others’
photos/illustrations
 Look at books which are similar to yours and see how many
graphs, tables and illustrations they use
 Make sure that all graphs/tables are accurate and correctly
labelled with source material cited

130.  A scholarly book, like an other book, has to be written with
an audience in mind
 Your publisher wants to know the audience is large
enough to warrant publication
 Whomever your audience (strictly academic or wider
base), get an estimate of how many people there are
through marketing data firms professional bodies, etc.
 Be realistic: monograph audiences est. 400-500

131.  Do not allow revisions to take more than a year
 Even a deep revision can be finished in less than
twelve months
 Estimate one month for each chapter requiring
more homework prior to revision
 One month for each chapter than must be
rewritten in light of new research
 One month to revise introduction and prepare
conclusion
 One to three months for cosmetic revision

132.  Don’t assume that even an award-winning thesis is already a
book
 Don’t assume that a publisher or a reviewer will treat a first book
as a practice exercise; it will be judged against other similar
books
 Don’t submit a manuscript to more than one publisher without
telling them you’re doing so
 Don’t conceal arrangements you’ve already made to publish
chapters in journals or edited volumes
 Don’t send a manuscript to a publisher unless asked

133.  Better chances of acceptance
 More control over the process
 Higher royalties
 Author-friendly contracts
 Shorter response times
 Faster publication
 Multimedia and format options
 Mass market place
133

134.  E-publishing company
 www.lulu.com lets you make, self-publish, print & sell print-on-
demand books, eBooks. Free eBook publishing and book
publishing with ...
 VDM Verlag www.vdm-publishing.com a German online
publishers
 American Booksellers' Association (www.bookweb.org)
 UK Booksellers' Association (www.booksellers.org.uk)
 ww.xlibris.com self publishing print on demand company
 www.authorsonline.co.uk/ self publishing print on demand
company
 www.onlinepub.com/ A multi-title publishing company
 www.acabooks.net/ Publishers of academic books
 Institutional website
134

135.  Develop your idea
 Write your manuscript
 Proofread and market test your manuscript
 Prepare your business plan
 Who will buy your book?
 How will you market and sell it?
 Decide how many books you will print and the format
of book you want 135

136.  Get quotes for typesetting and printing
 Get manuscript 'print ready' (typeset)
 Design the book cover
 Print the book
 Market and advertise the book
 Fulfill orders
 Collect payment and record sales
136

137. 137

138. 1. A research impact is recorded/auditable occasion of influence
from academic research on another actor or organization
• Academic impact from research are influences upon actors
in academia or universities as measured by citations in other
academic author‘s work.
• External impact are influences on actors outside higher
education, that is in business, government or civil society as
measured by references in trade press, government
documents or by coverage in media.

139. 2. A research impact is an occasion of influence and hence
it is not the same thing as a change in outputs or
activities as a results of its influence.
3. A research impact is also empathetically not a claim for
a clear cut social welfare gain.
4. However, secondary impacts from research can be
traced at a much more aggregate level and some
macro-evaluation of net benefits of university research
can be gauged.

140. •Citation rates are used as a basis for tracking academic impacts.
The shape of citation rates vary widely across academic
disciplines
•There are substantial difference in the general rate of citing
across disciplines with more cites (including self-cites) being
found in the science that the social sciences.
•The type of output chosen affects citation rates as on average a
book will take longer to be referred to but will be cited for longer

141. •Use Publish or Perish, Google scholar & book search and ISI
web of Knowledge to track your citation records
•Try to have a distinctive author name to be easily found
•ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus have limited coverage in
the social sciences and have an American-based
geographical bias, as well as capturing relatively few
citations in other than English language.
•Publish or Perish, Google and Scirus cover a wide range of
academic outputs and now provide a more reliable analysis

142. •Calculating a researchers h-score and g-score provides a
more robust picture of how much an authors work is
valued by peers
•Journal articles account for majority of citations, books
only account for 8-30 percent of citations. Books do
impact much h and g-scores of authors.
•Simple indicators of judging citation rates, such as total
number of publications, total number of citations and
age-weighted citation rate do not accurately capture an
academics citation success.

143. •Ensure that title names are informative and memorable and
that their abstract contains key bottom line or take away
points
•Book authors should ensure that their titles, sub-titles are
distinctive yet appear in general Google Book searches
around the given theme
•There are difference in self-citation. However, it is may a
time important to cite you own work to build further on it. A
balance approach is important.

144. •Co-authored outputs tend to generate more citations
due to networking effect between authors in a given
research team
•Co-authors from different universities or countries.
•Go across disciplines
•Use social media and web to promote your contributions
•Find authors of common interest and share your papers
with them

145. •Establish academic credibility
•Networking across disciplines
•Personal communication skills and capacity
•External reputation
•Experience
•Track record of successful work
•Organize and participate in seminars and workshops at
national and international level
•Use of web and social media

146.  Book review
 Flyer
 Book launching ceremony
 Email discussion groups
 Sending off-prints to experts/writers
 Newsletters/newspapers
 Entry in search engines
 Pay-per-click advertising
 Entry in databases
 Online bookstores
 Continued work of your students/research team
146

147.  Be continuous trained
 Be updated with publishing trends
 Are you in the book of peers
 Are you in the good book of editors?
 Are you most liked supervisor?
 Are you favorite co-author?
 Do you have unmatched skills to be liked
by active researchers
 Do you have art to produce research
from ongoing context
147

148.  Your subject has capacity to be co-
researched with other disciplines
 Your subject has ability to integrate new
context
 You have analytical ability to draw very
unique inferences and apply over diversified
context
 Your subject is in the interest of authors of
other regions – like emerging economies
case
 You address upcoming problems rather
obsolete concepts
148

149. •Multiple submissions
•Redundant publications
•Plagiarism
•Data fabrication and falsification
•Improper use of human subjects and animals in
research
•Improper author contribution

150.  Writing for publishing is distinctive
 Publishing is an art
 It needs mastery
 Be systematic, no short cut
 Use tools and techniques to write
 Peers are important
 Collaboration is key in publishing
 Write good quality manuscript to sell
 Keep going

151. 151

152. Thank you