This document provides guidance on various aspects of publishing academic research. It discusses developing an elevator pitch for one's research, focusing on presenting an argument supported by data, considering the intended audience, preparing figures and focusing the argument early in the writing process. It also covers conducting a literature review to situate one's findings in existing research, selecting an appropriate journal, general writing and formatting guidelines, surviving peer review, and the publication process.

1. Nuts and Bolts of
Publishing
RWJF | GRC | CAPS

2. 1. Elevator Pitch
This is true for
everything in academia.
Can you make a 1-2
minute pitch of your
research that is
accurate and
interesting?

3. 2. Argument
You don’t publish data - you publish an argument.
What problem do you address? Why is it relevant? Will
anything change?

4. 3. Audience
Who is your audience? What do they know? What
don’t they know?
Different journals are read by different specialists.

5. First steps
If you have data, try to create your figures early in the
process. Make sure your charts are clear and readable -
at least as good as they can be.

6. First steps
Hone in on your argument. Why should people listen
to you? How will your findings impact the field? Is
there anyone in particular who will be affected?

7. Literature Review
You may be citing anywhere from 15 - 60 papers in
your article (and occasionally more). You will need to
have read much more than that to properly place your
article.

8. Literature Review
The idea with a literature review is to present a context
from which to interpret your findings. Whose work
does yours resemble? Are you agreeing with anyone
else’s findings? Are you disagreeing with them?

9. Literature Review
Many comments you will receive from peer reviewers
will mention studies that you should have studied. A
more comprehensive search will improve your study’s
chances of getting into a journal.

10. Journal Selection
What academic journal is most appropriate for your
work? In what journals have similar studies/works been
published?

11. Journal Selection
Each journal has a different organization and a
different format for citations. When you write the
paper, it will help if you write it with a specific journal
(or journals) in mind.

12. Focus
Are you communicating the same thing people are
reading? Have a friend read the paper and list the 4-5
main points. Are they the same as the 4-5 points you
are trying to make?

13. Ethics
Are there ethical considerations in publishing the
work? Are there specific guidelines for the journal?
Can individuals be identified?
Has part of the research been published before?
Is their a disclosure needed regarding funding?
How do you state the use of commercial products?

14. Tables & Figures
What tables and figures are absolutely necessary to
express your argument? Which ones are not necessary?

15. References
Different journals have different guidelines for
citations. Follow your journal of choice’s guidelines to
the letter.

16. Broad Steps to Start
First, get your thoughts down.
Second, get them down right.

17. General Format
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

18. Writing
In trying to express your ideas, there will undoubtedly
be simpler phrases that if shortened will make your
manuscript easier to understand.
Simply put, write simply.

19. Writing
Many commas, are unnecessary

20. Writing
Two levels of structure
Is the broad outline of the paper structured, with a
clear argument?
Are the mechanics of the paper ok? Is each sentence/
paragraph flowing well?

21. Surviving Peer Review
Identify weaknesses in your argument. Be your own
enemy. But try to find one among your friends.

22. Use Your Own Peers
Try to start a proofreading circle among your friends.
Offer to proofread your friend’s papers. Be critical, use
lots of red ink. Make them mad. That way, they’ll be
happy to return the favor.

23. Submitting the Manuscript
Make sure all your figures are saved as high-
resolution .tiff files.
Follow detailed instructions - different journals have
different publication pathways.
Don’t rush, take your time and make sure everything
goes right the first time.

24. Immediate Gratification
...isn’t going to happen. Publishing a paper is a long
process. It could take up to a year or longer for your
work to make it to the mailboxes of your colleagues.

25. What happens next
“Rejected without Review”
Unfortunate. There may be critical errors in
your writing or argument. Or, it is a decent
article that simply isn’t a good fit for the journal.

26. What happens next
“Revise and Resubmit"”
Good news! It will likely see daylight. Take the
comments from the peer reviewers and go over
them very, very carefully. Address them all - even if
you disagree.

27. What happens next
“Accepted in its current form"”
Good news! Just wait for those page proofs.

28. Whatever Happens...
You always start on a blank slate with your next paper.
Nobel Laureates have had papers rejected without
review.

29. Living through Peer
Review
• 2) “The author tests for temporal reliability for both willingness to
pay and consumer surplus measurement. It is not very clear why the
author performs the two measurements. The author should provide
some motivation for providing the two measurements, and explain
why they might have led to different conclusions. If divergence were
observed, I wonder what would have been the overall conclusion?”
• The motivation for testing the two measurements (CS and WTP) was mainly for completeness because it
seemed entirely possible for the surplus portion of benefits to behave differently from the total. For instance,
one-time purchases of equipment (camera, books, or binoculars) or club membership fees might lead to
significant structural differences in expenditures between two adjacent periods. This could affect the temporal
reliability of WTP, but not for CS. In this case, only surplus benefits are transferrable while total benefits
remain period specific. We could of course have the transpose as well; WTP temporally reliable and CS not.
The present study showed both welfare measures to be temporally reliable and this is likely to be the norm. In
the revised manuscript, I have inserted the above explanations at the end of the final paragraph in section 3
(top of page 3).

30. Living through Peer
Review
‣ [With respect to GISP2 temperature reconstructions for the Northern
Hemisphere; Figure 4] but strictly speaking not - opposing trend in
Greenland since 3000BCE to 1150 BCE generally the climate seems
to improve and collapse correspond to a particularly pronounced
increase in temperature (which does not correspond to any
significant changes)
• I am unclear as to where the confusion lies - reconstructed temperatures from GISP2 do indicate an increasing
temperature trend from 3000 - 1150 BCE, albeit with some declines along the way. At the beginning of the
collapse period (1315 - 1190), temperature peaked and then began to decline for the next two centuries, reaching a
nadir near the beginning of the Greek Dark Ages (~1010 BCE). Temperatures remain low relative to the Late
Bronze Age until the Roman Warm Period. The temperature drop recorded in the GISP2 ice core (1350 - 1310
BCE) is roughly contemporaneous with the drop in warm-species dinocyst/foraminifera and lower East
Mediterranean SST’s near the time of the LBA Collapse (by 1250 - 1197 BCE). The GISP2 temperature record
was included to show that the period of collapse and following dark ages occurred during lower temperatures
than was the norm for the Late Bronze Age. In fact, that the transition to cooler temperatures is temporally
aligned well with the decline in urban occupation. Perhaps the graphs are misleading - the white line demarcates
the beginning of collapse - the collapse itself is an event that occurred over two centuries, with final urban
occupation ending by 1050 BCE, at which point GISP2 indicates that Northern Hemisphere temperatures were
almost 2 ºC cooler than when LBA societies were at their peak. To address this, I will add disclaimers specifying
the time period of discussion in both the figure captions and body text. I suspect that the disagreement over the
GISP2 record is a consequence of me not being more specific as to its interpretation relative to the other
paeloclimate records used in this study. I hope this addresses the concern, though I am still not fully sure what is
the object of confusion.