What I wish I had known: A thread for #AcademicTwitter on strategies for getting social sciences & area studies academic articles published (based on lots of my own failures & lots of peer reviews of jr. scholars' submissions in particular, but hopefully helpful beyond) /1
Be deliberate about where you submit your articles. Note the difference of how to write for a) disciplinary journals, b) area studies journals and c) subject area journals--here's the break down: /2
a) disciplinary journals want to see how your work is expanding upon existing theory in your field. If you don't cover that, and engage with the literature meaningfully, the journal will likely not accept your work. Read journal's goals before submitting... /3
...because if your submission doesn't meet what they're looking for, they're going to reject it. If your work is within discipline, but not tremendously theoretical, it's still an important contribution, but perhaps not for the discipline's flagship journal /4
b) area studies are interdisciplinary and deeply interested in context and region. Cite area studies scholars, engage with regional work--especially scholars from country you're writing about. No disciplinary jargon--your audience is smart, but isn't in your discipline per se. /5
c) subject area journals are also interdisciplinary & interested in the subject & what your work sheds light on in relationship to that subject. Also no disciplinary jargon--you're writing for a smart audience but it has to be comprehensible to ppl outside your discipline. /6
KNOW & RESPECT YOUR AUDIENCE. Audiences are smart, but are reading to learn. What do they need to know in order to be able to interpret your work? Do they have all the details needed to be able to understand what you're trying to convey? It's on you to help them get there. /7
Analyze each & every case or quote in terms of what you want your audience to see from it. Quotes and cases don't speak for themselves, you need to do the work to analyze them the way you want your audience to interpret them. How do you want them to understand your case/quote? /8
If you're writing for a particular journal, look at other articles there similar to what you're writing, map out how they organize it, and emulate that. You can still be creative, but those formats can help you organize best ways to present to that audience /9
Articles are generally too short to develop more than 1 argument well. Stick to the plan. Cut meandering stuff, put it in a new file because it's seeds for subsequent articles. The ideas are good, they just don't always fit in one article /10
Create a scaffolding you build on--an hourglass (general to specific data/cases to its significance) can be a decent strategy to try. This provides context allowing readers to better appreciate the novelty of your data or analysis. /11
Define all your terms clearly, the first time you use them. This is really hard, but trust me, your reviewers will nab you on it every.single.time (personal experience here) because defining things clarifies the entire thing for the audience, and for YOU /12
As much as possible when providing context/history, organize chronologically rather than thematically. Omit the stuff that doesn't speak to precisely what you're talking about. Include definitions of policies, models, etc. & say WHY they matter to your argument or the context /13
Write everything in terms of "what do I want my audience to learn from this in relationship to my wider argument"? If a reader doesn't know why they're reading something and how it links up to the point of the article, you can lose their buy-in /14
Peer review politics: if your piece is rejected, you may have the same reviewers again for another journal. Don't just resubmit elsewhere. Take in the relevant feedback, revise, revise, revise, then submit elsewhere. Your reviewers are likely to be more favorable if you do /15
Citation politics: Read & cite work of jr. & under-represented scholars. Learn who else has published on your topic. It helps showcase their work, fosters new collaborations, & helps sr. scholars find work they haven't had a chance to read yet. This helps everyone /16
To advisors: mentor your jr scholars better. Peer reviewers shouldn't do this for you. We're all busy, but your junior scholars are worth your time. They're your legacy, they're still learning, they deserve your investment. Help pave the way so it's not so hard. /17
Peer reviewers: be graceful. Say what they did well, what the work contributes to the field (this is so important!), & if it's a rejection, take the time to tell them where it might fit elsewhere & how to fix it going forward. Write the review you would like to receive /18
When you publish something, send it others you believe might be interested. None of us can keep on top of all the literature. Doing so improves scholarship & ⬆️ likelihood you'll get cited or invited to the table. It's daunting, but do it anyway. /19
And finally, find your people--your writing partners you'll share drafty drafts with and who will share them with you. It can be SO affirming, help you see data or analyses in new ways, & makes it all more rewarding. You've got this! /fin
