Thread by @raulpacheco

.@JacquelineMBest starts with a few suggestions on how to publish qualitative research (particularly in political economy).

Her 3 questions framework is applicable to EVERYTHING and EVERYONE.

https://twitter.com/ANewman_forward/status/1392828891065106437

The first question has different elements, all of which are also general to all of us who do research. Thanks @JacquelineMBest

Where do you want to publish, where is it feasible to publish, how will you change your strategy if you get rejected, what does your institution want?

This is such a great approach to planning how we write and develop articles, and it is not exclusive to qualitative research by @JacquelineMBest

For me, each article is part of a larger project, and a long-term career, which fits Jacquie's points. And yes, no article is perfect

Oh, on reviews, don't over-revise - this is my major failing too, @JacquelineMBest - I always feel like I am not going to ever get nothing published (and then I realize I can, and DO get published).

These pieces of advice were brilliant, Jacquie. Thank you!

James Morrison: "get your best work out"

"Quality over quantity"

"You will be assessed by your best job"

Great ideas!

I know that some of my doctoral students are watching and I am thrilled they get to hear from you all.

.@thwillow 's (Dr. Layna Moseley) advice:

1) Think carefully to where you are going to submit your paper.

* Engage work that the journal has published. To make sure that you are in conversation with the journal's substantive content.

* Make sure argument/method are clear.

2) Don't assume that a journal is hostile to a particular topic - don't be afraid to send to a place that hasn't necessarily published with your method nor with your substance. -- @thwillow

* If sending to interdisciplinary editorial boards, and journals, think of the framing.

3) Don't be apologetic about using qualitative methods. Explain why is it that an interview-based approach is best? What do we gain from using archival work? Versus doing it some other way. Be transparent about your method - @thwillow - are there limits to materials/subjects?

And remember, your data (online) appendix is your friend - @thwillow - think about ways in which you can deposit your material (i.e. IQMMR).

Final point: Rejection is part of our profession. You may end up writing, rewriting, revising, getting rejected/asked to revise, etc.

This is so important - be kind when you review, this does not mean being non-rigorous. We just need to be as good a scholar as possible and humane as well - @thwillow

What a great panel. Thanks everyone!