Research News

and Comment
How to Publish in Scholarly Journals
by Janette K. Klingner, David Scanlon, and Michael Pressley

This article is based on an invited talk entitled Planning Before Writing topic. Think carefully about what that
“Getting Published While in Grad School,” Good writing begins with planning. Con- focus should be, given your data.
which was presented for the Graduate Stu- sider first your purposes for publishing and When planning your manuscript, reflect
the audience for whom you are writing. A about the content available to support your
dent Council of the American Educational Re-
thorough deliberation on why you wish to intended points. If your data cannot stand
search Association at the association’s 2005
publish should guide this process. alone, do not try to publish them alone. If
annual meeting. The authors discuss issues to your theory and/or evidence only weakly
consider when one is planning and writing a Consider Your Reasons for Publishing support what you claim, do not overextend
scholarly manuscript, and they offer several The main reason to publish is that you have your findings; instead, dare to ask yourself
suggestions about substance, organization, something to say. Scholars contribute to critically if you can support your claim at
their profession’s dialogue by publishing. all. If you cannot, do some additional work
and style. They also describe the journal sub-
Contributions should be timely in relation before proceeding, perhaps collecting addi-
mission and peer review process, including tional data, because it is a waste of effort to
to contemporary dialogues and should add
what to do if a journal editor’s decision is “re- new ideas. Although the very best writing try to write up an indefensible case. A com-
vise and resubmit,” “accept pending revi- revolutionizes a field, such groundbreaking mon reason for rejection is that there is not
sions,” or “reject.” work typically is beyond the reach of new enough support in the data for the claims
scholars, whose colleagues instead expect made by an author. Write only after you
that they will produce “good steady work” have accumulated sufficient data (and/or
that advances the field incrementally. Pub- developed a strong theoretical argument)

T
his article is about writing an ar- lications are most widely admired when to support your position. For example, a
ticle for a scholarly journal. We they are part of a coherent, sustained re- sound article on an empirical investigation
begin at the planning stages and search program. is marked by a clearly articulated research
end by describing what can be done if a An even more practical reason to pub- question or questions derived from the re-
journal rejects your manuscript. We con- lish, however, is that many professional view of the literature and theoretical frame-
sider many issues along the way, from con- opportunities follow directly from pub- work, well-conceived design, a thorough
ception to finally seeing the work in print. lications. Academic job-seekers are at a explication of how you collected and ana-
This article is based on an invited talk competitive advantage when they can lyzed your data, and well-drawn, sensible
entitled “Getting Published While in demonstrate a record of productivity with conclusions that do not overextend the de-
Grad School,” which was presented for the publications in an area of claimed exper- sign and outcomes obtained. After meeting
AERA Graduate Student Council at the as- tise. The odds for tenure increase if you these criteria, you are then well on your way
sociation’s 2005 annual meeting. Thus we have published the number of articles con- to writing a solid article—but there are still
address young scholars directly, although sidered adequate by your institution, if the other considerations, such as making sure
we invite others to read on for a refresher or publications reflect a clear programmatic your data and ideas are connected to the
to consider using this as a mentoring tool. focus, and if the articles appear in journals field.
We ground our advice in our experiences as of the type and quality that your col-
journal editors and authors. We each have Connect Your Research to the Field
leagues value.
experienced the joy of acceptance, the dis- The introductory section of an article in-
tress of rejection, and the uncertainty of Determine the Scope of cludes a review of related literature. In ap-
“revise and resubmit.” Your Manuscript preciation of publication as part of an
Once you have established a focus for your ongoing professional dialogue, reviews of
The Research News and Comment section research and you are clear about your rea- the literature should be thorough and up-
publishes commentary and analyses on sons for publishing, then you can address to-date. A weak review may be interpreted
trends, policies, utilization, and contro-
versies in educational research. Like the the scope of your manuscript. Some schol- as a signal that the author does not have
articles and reviews in the Features and ars are overly ambitious, trying to share sufficient command of the topic to make a
Book Review sections of ER, this material too much in a single article. A manuscript significant contribution. If, while plan-
does not necessarily reflect the views of should have a specific focus so that the au- ning, you are not confident that you have
AERA nor is it endorsed by the organization.
thor can write in depth about the target a full grasp of the body of published work

14 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
on your topic, stop and review the liter- Decide Early on the Target Journal rankings and determining the status of an
ature thoroughly before attempting to Some publications count much more than outlet.
write. We are not suggesting that you other publications. Peer-reviewed journals You want your work to appear in the
should write your review of the literature are the most prestigious for some disci- best outlet that will accept it. Rewards of all
before other sections of your manuscript plines, while books are valued more in sorts follow from publication in frequently
(e.g., some writers like to start with the other disciplines. Regardless of which disci- cited, visible journals. These range from
methods section). However, it is important pline you are in, some book publishers and more positive personnel reviews to more fa-
to be familiar with the wider body of peer-reviewed journals are viewed more fa- vorable grant reviews, to invitations to pub-
work in your area before proceeding with vorably than others. Many scholars think of lish more. However, before considering the
your research and writing so as not to du- journals and publishers as belonging to relative prestige of potential outlets for your
plicate unwittingly or make unwise or un- tiers, with first-tier journals and publishers work, you should determine which journals
informed claims. (An important exception having the highest status (though not every- would be a good fit for your research and
to this is if you are using grounded theory writing. Look for journals that publish sim-
one agrees on where particular ones fit in
and purposely waiting to review the related ilar types of work targeted for the same au-
the hierarchy). As for journals, a number of
literature in your area until after analyzing diences that you want to reach. Go to the
factors serve to indicate that a journal is well
your data [Glaser & Strauss, 1967]). At library and skim the last 5 years of a journal
regarded:
one extreme, if you are claiming, “There to see what it has published. By doing that
• Wide circulation, which means that
are no prior publications on this topic,” it kind of analysis, you can learn what inter-
more people read it.
is more likely that you have not found ests the editors.
• A low acceptance rate, which indi-
them yet and may need to broaden your One common error is neglecting to re-
cates that the journal receives numer-
search. search the appropriateness of a journal be-
ous submissions and can select only
At another extreme, writing a complete fore submitting a manuscript. For example,
the best articles to publish.
literature review can be difficult with a the Review of Educational Research (RER)
• Well-known editor(s) and editorial accepts only comprehensive, critical reviews
well-trod topic. Do not cite it all; instead, board members.
cite what is most relevant. If that still leaves and never publishes single studies. Yet the
• A long citation half-life (i.e., the jour- journal frequently receives single-study sub-
too much to include, be sure to reference nal is cited often, over time, according missions. Likewise, Educational Researcher
influential sources (particularly fairly re- to, e.g., the Thomson Social Sciences does not publish single studies but often re-
cent ones and key historical pieces), as well Citation Index, 2004). ceives single-study manuscript submissions,
as high-quality work that clearly connects • A high journal impact factor (i.e., the which it rejects without sending out for ex-
to the points you make. Avoid citing as ev- “average article” in the journal is ternal review because such manuscripts do
idence of a claim an article that only weakly cited frequently in a given period; see not fit the scope of the journal. To avoid
supports it or, even worse, that offers only Thomson Institute for Scientific In- making this mistake and annoying editors
speculation about it, which you proceed to formation, 2004). and reviewers, be sure that you have actu-
claim as fact. To avoid misrepresenting • High visibility (i.e., the journal is in- ally read articles in the journal to which you
other researchers’ work, read the sources dexed in multiple computerized data- are submitting and have determined that
you cite. A misleading or erroneous litera- bases, which allows articles in the your manuscript is a good fit for that jour-
ture review can create the impression that journal to turn up on searches). nal. In addition to reading articles, look at
you are not qualified to write on the topic That said, a journal need not have all of the list of editorial board members. If the
or that you are careless, thus dooming your these factors; for instance, there are niche journal is appropriate, you should know at
article. An even worse situation is to get journals with relatively low circulations that least some of the editorial board members
away with faulty citations, making a “con- have prestige within their fields (e.g., Mind, by reputation and be at least somewhat fa-
tribution” to the professional literature Culture, and Activity). In contrast, publish- miliar with their work. Editors regularly
that readers might believe. This disservice for-pay journals are often held in dis- must reject excellent manuscripts that are
is similar to reporting fabricated research repute with respect to tenure review and outside their scope. Avoid that fate by se-
findings. professional decision making. Organiza- lecting a suitable target for your work.
The closing discussion section of an arti- tion newsletters and special reports are more Get current information about the jour-
cle should also connect the manuscript to difficult to judge. Although they never have nal you are targeting for your manuscript.
the larger field. A common error is to write the same prestige as refereed publications, Information about the rejection rate, more
a very brief discussion that inadequately ties some may be respected for their exposure to than any other number (e.g., number of is-
the reported work to the larger professional members of the profession. The same ap- sues published per year, number of articles
dialogue(s), thereby not allowing the article plies to book chapters, which generally lack published per year), can help you estimate
to contribute everything it could. In the dis- the prestige of journal publications but your chances of acceptance. These chances
cussion, you should come full circle, con- often expose the author to audiences who may be as little as 1 in 20 for a highly selec-
necting your research findings to the body do not read the original research in jour- tive, well-regarded outlet; however, the
of work that you described in your review nals. Asking the opinion of trusted col- odds are more often closer to 1 in 5. Less
of the literature. leagues can be invaluable in deciphering tier prestigious journals generally offer a better

NOVEMBER 2005 15
rate of acceptance; some accept most of the if you are very efficient in your revisions, why the problem or questions are impor-
articles submitted to them. If after review- then your manuscript could be “in press” in tant. The introduction to your manuscript
ing rejection rates and citation rates you re- such an outlet by late winter—in time for does not need to be limited to the profes-
main unsure about the status of a journal, job hunting. Later in your career, review- sional literature. Links to larger social and
ask more experienced colleagues for their ing and publication lags may not be as political phenomena, such as legislation
opinions. The relative stature of journals in critical. and societal trends, can be appropriate.
one’s field is common knowledge among Perhaps most important, good work
Consider Whether to Co-Author
scholars who have been working for more makes a contribution to theory. Atheoreti-
Your Manuscript
than a few years. This is particularly impor- cal manuscripts rarely get published in the
tant for scholars working in controversial Co-authoring is the natural result of collab- social sciences. Social science articles either
fields or fields involving underrepresented orating with others on research or related test theories, which means the tested theo-
groups. projects. Yet professions differ in how ries need to be identified for the reader early
If you are considering targeting a journal they value co-authored publications. In in the manuscript, or they develop theories,
with a very high rejection rate, you should the medical sciences, for example, author- which means a new theory must be pre-
read a few articles in the journal with an eye ships of six, eight, or more are common. In sented before the manuscript concludes.
to answering the question, “Is my article as education, co-authorship groups rarely ex-
well-reasoned and does it make as great a ceed four. In the social sciences, authorship Tell Them What You Did
contribution as the articles this journal pub- lists tend to be shorter. A rule of thumb is Whether you conducted a research study
lishes?” With respect to a very selective out- that by the time you apply for tenure, you (which may have used quantitative, quali-
let, it also makes sense to ask a senior should have some sole-authored publica- tative, or multiple methods), prepared a
colleague to read your work and evaluate tions and some first-authored publications comprehensive review of the literature, or
whether it has a chance of being accepted. in the mix, with it clear from your overall developed a theoretical piece, you must re-
If you are at an institution without such a record that you have made important con- port the methods you used. Your research
colleague, dare to reach out to other senior tributions to most of the publications on methods should be aligned with your theo-
professionals in the field whose work you your vita since achieving the doctoral de- retical framework, purpose statement, and
admire. Many scholars consider it a profes- gree. An important contribution means research questions. In the case of quantita-
sional responsibility to mentor the next that the author was substantially involved tive research, the standard has long been to
generation of scholars. If you come to be- in the design, analysis, and write-up of the report methods with enough detail that a
lieve that your manuscript might make it in article in question and that the other authors reader could replicate the study. The same
a first-tier journal, give it a try. If you think on the piece are willing to acknowledge such standard is the ideal for reporting the meth-
it will not, look for another outlet serving if asked. Personnel review committees ods used in any research study or other
the same audience that is not as selective. (e.g., those involved with hiring and tenure scholarly work, such as a literature review,
Again, your senior colleagues might have decisions) may inquire about the degree policy statement, or theory construction. In
some insights about where to send it. In and quality of your contributions to co-
qualitative research, a detailed description
short, top-ranked journals are high risk, authored publications. For example, it can
of your methodology helps to establish the
but they are also high gain when you suc- raise eyebrows if at tenure time a high ma-
trustworthiness of your work. A common
ceed. Even if your manuscript is not ac- jority of your publications are co-authored
error, one that some editors consider fatal,
cepted, one reason to favor the best journals with a graduate school mentor. It is worth
is to write a vague and too-brief methods
is that they tend to provide feedback of the the effort to talk with colleagues about your
section. Methods can never be as specified
highest quality, which can be quite help- work during all phases of the research and
as a cookbook recipe, but the reader should
ful to you as you work to improve your writing process so that they are aware of the
be well informed about your process of in-
manuscript. depth of your involvement.
quiry. Without sufficient detail, the reader
You should also seek information, per- Writing the Manuscript cannot judge your findings and discussion
haps by e-mailing the editor, about how All writers have their own style and ap- and has no reasonable basis for trusting you.
long it takes the journal to review an article, proach to the task of writing. Even so, there
how many rounds of review the journal Tell Them What You Found
are conventions that must be observed if
typically requires before it accepts an article, you are going to publish. Some of these Any dataset, no matter what the design or
and the publication lag from the point of conventions pertain to substance, others to methods, can be portrayed in numerous
acceptance. This information can be help- the organization of the manuscript, and ways. Describe your results as succinctly as
ful in deciding whether publication in the others to basic style rules. possible, providing analyses that support
outlet is timely enough, given your needs. the conclusions you wish to draw. You do
For example, if you are looking for a job for Tell Them What You Set Out to Do not need to report every analysis you car-
the next academic year, and it is now Au- Early in the manuscript you should estab- ried out! Hard thinking is required to de-
gust, you need a journal that reviews in a lish its intended contribution to the pro- velop a results section that flows logically
timely fashion and makes decisions in at fessional literature: Clearly state the topic and is written so that the most important
most two rounds of review. If the journal of the manuscript, as well as the particular results are memorable. If the result is a new
takes about 10 weeks per review round and problem or questions you will address and theory (e.g., a grounded theory; Glaser &

16 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
Strauss, 1967), the most logical possible be defined at first use unless they are submit a well-crafted article. Writing is
version of the theory should be presented, ubiquitous (e.g., TV, U.S.). Remem- challenging work!
one that provides enough detail to be clear ber that not all readers will be as fa-
Submitting the Manuscript
but not so much as to bore readers or ren- miliar with your area as you are. For
der the article much longer than is justified instance, someone who studies the ef- Once you complete a manuscript, you may
for the problem studied. In other words, be fects of DAT may know what an IEP have misgivings about whether it makes
parsimonious. is but is less likely to be familiar with sense to submit it to the journal that you
SCDEs, even though she or he may originally targeted. This is an opportune
Discuss What You Found moment to tap the most distinguished per-
work in an IHE.
Once you have fully reported your find- • Avoid the passive voice. Write, for ex- son in your field who is willing to appraise
ings, discuss the importance of what you ample, “The teachers told us . . .” in- your manuscript and ask for a read and a
have done and relate your new findings to stead of, “We were told by the teachers recommendation about whether the jour-
broader issues. The caution in “going that. . . .” The active voice focuses the nal you have in mind makes sense for your
broad,” however, is to avoid going too far, reader more on the participants and/or manuscript. Ask for suggestions for other
drawing implications from findings not suf- the action. journals if the targeted journal does not
ficiently supported by data or claiming that • Do not anthropomorphize (i.e., give seem quite appropriate. You can also ask
the findings are relevant to issues beyond human-like characteristics to a non- the journal editor if you are unsure about
those that the study was designed to in- human form). Your study did not the appropriateness of your manuscript for
form. Avoid undue speculation and keep conclude anything—you did. The fol- that journal. Virtually all journal editors
the discussion consistent with both the pur- lowing section does not present any- will look at the abstract to make an initial
pose of the manuscript and what you re- thing; you the writer are doing the judgment about the fit and scope of the
ported in each prior section. Do not report presenting. manuscript for their journal. Some may be
new data in the discussion. • Stay away from wordiness and jar- willing to skim or even read a manuscript
gon. Awkward sentences only dis- prior to submission based on an e-mail re-
Don’t Forget About Style
tract the reader from your message. quest to do so.
There are a number of basic style rules that When you have made your decision, you
Let your content dazzle your read-
should be followed. The targeted journal’s must send out your manuscript to only one
ers, not your convoluted syntax or
information for contributors will likely journal at a time. It is a serious ethical vio-
use of terms that are unfamiliar to
name several that are specific to that journal lation to submit simultaneously to more
readers because they are vague. De-
(e.g., word count). It will also name a style- than one journal. If an author is caught
fine terminology that is specific to a
book to follow; most commonly in educa- doing this, all of the receiving journals may
field.
tion this will be the Publication Manual of summarily reject the manuscript. We have
• Avoid using “this” as a stand-alone
the American Psychological Association (APA, seen it happen!
pronoun; rather, use it to modify a
2001), currently in its fifth edition. Make
noun. Too often, the antecedent for Create a Good First Impression
certain that you adhere to these guide-
“this” is not clear.
lines. Stylebooks contain many helpful Make certain that your manuscript has
writing hints; time spent with them can Get Help been scrupulously written in the style re-
be time well spent. What we emphasize Editors and reviewers notice flaws. There- quired by the journal to which you are
here, however, is that even during the fore, ask colleagues to review your writing submitting. Double-check and triple-
early stages of writing a manuscript, you before you submit it. Their helpful com- check that your manuscript is as error-
should be aware of the style requirements ments can point out imperfections to cor- free as possible. Again, we have been
of your target journal; if you are not, you rect before your manuscript ever gets into surprised by the many stylistic errors that
will have to revise the manuscript in ad- the hands of an editor who must judge we find in the submissions we receive. In
vance of submission to make it conform whether your work is ready to go out for re- some cases, we return the manuscript to
to stylistic requirements. view. If writing is really difficult for you, the author, specifying that style must be
There are a few stylistic devices that we, more assistance might be required. For ex- corrected before the manuscript can be
as editors, wish authors would use more ample, a writing group can provide critical reviewed. There are a few style violations
often: feedback and also moral support and en- that particularly annoy reviewers, and,
• Make sure transitions are succinct, couragement. In addition, when you help thus, authors are well-advised to make
with one section naturally flowing into others by reacting to their work in such a certain they do not offend with respect to
another. A weak form of transition is group, you will learn more about the craft these points:
to flag what is going to be said in the of writing. You might also consider hiring • Do not use condensed character spac-
next subsection or section. Although a writing coach or copy editor. The better ing or a font smaller than 12-point to
advance organizers can be helpful, un- the manuscript you initially submit, the make it appear that your manuscript
needed repetition should be avoided. better your odds for success in the review is shorter than it is.
• When in doubt, spell it out. Acronyms process; therefore, you should be willing • Similarly, be sure to double-space
should be used sparingly and should to expend whatever effort is necessary to throughout (including in the reference

NOVEMBER 2005 17
 list, indented quotations, and tables). the steps are the same. First, an editorial as- ing on whether the journal uses an on-line
Tighter spacing is harder to read. sistant acknowledges receipt of the manu- submission system, how quickly the edito-
• Use flush-left alignment for the body script, assigns it a number, and assigns it to rial team can find reviewers, and, more
of the text rather than both right and one of the editors (or the editorial team de- than anything, how promptly the review-
left justification. cides who will handle which manuscripts). ers send their reviews back. Typically, ed-
• Number pages and use specified mar- Once the manuscript is in the editor’s itors ask reviewers to complete their review
gins (usually 1 inch, though some- hands, she or he conducts a preliminary ed- in about 4 weeks. However, reviewers
times wider). itorial review and decides whether the man- often take longer. The editorial assistant re-
• Make sure that your citations and ref- uscript is appropriate to send out for minds delinquent reviewers to get their re-
erence list match. Double-check that review. Some manuscripts are rejected at views in, but sometimes reminders are not
your references and bibliographic this early stage in the process because they sufficient and it is necessary to find a new
style are correct and complete. fall outside the purview of the journal or reviewer. Eventually, the editor decides
• Be fastidious in correcting typograph- they are not considered to be of sufficient that there are enough reviews on hand to
ical and grammatical errors before sub- quality to send out for review. When the make a decision, sometimes coming to this
mitting, for they really irritate some editor determines that the manuscript is ap- decision with fewer reviews than desired
readers. As you make such corrections, propriate to send forward, he or she gener- because just too much time has passed
use your software’s spelling check and ates a list of possible reviewers with since the review process began.
grammar check, but keep in mind that expertise relevant to the focus of the manu- If you have not heard back from the
by themselves these are insufficient for script. These reviewers may or may not be journal after 4 months, that can be a sign
proofreading purposes: Some errors on the editorial board. Editors generally try that something is awry at the journal. (If
are real words that are not caught. to come up with at least six to eight names you did your homework on the journal,
initially, hoping that three to five colleagues you might have found out about such de-
Send in Your Manuscript will accept an invitation to conduct a re- lays in reviewing, which might have shaped
When you submit your manuscript, care- view. For some journals, the minimum your decision about whether to submit to
fully follow submission guidelines. Gener- number of external reviewers is two. AERA that outlet.) After about 4 months, it is ap-
ally, these guidelines are available both in requires its journals to use a minimum of propriate to e-mail the editor and ask when
the journal and on the journal’s website. three. Sometimes there are more (e.g., the feedback can be expected. If there is no
When viewing a copy of the journal, be Research News and Comment section of reply, or the reply is that feedback may be
sure to use the most recent issue. Past edi- Educational Researcher uses four or five re- months away, it might make sense at that
tors continue to receive submissions for viewers per manuscript). Editors may try to point to consider submitting the manu-
years after completing their terms, and include junior as well as senior scholars and, script elsewhere, at the same time with-
your submission may or may not be sent when possible, a graduate student as an drawing it from the first outlet. If you do
on to the current editor. Not long ago, extra reviewer. Many editors aim for diver- withdraw a manuscript because feedback
journals required three to five hard copies sity in critical and theoretical perspectives, was not timely, you should make that clear
of a submission, perhaps along with a disk gender, nationality, ethnicity, methods, to the editor at the time of withdrawal.
copy. Now, more and more journals are and methodology. When uncertain about
accepting submissions on-line rather than any aspect of the process up to this point, The Editor’s Decision
through the mail. Follow the on-line di- the editor consults with others on the edi- The editor carefully reads all reviewers’
rections for posting your manuscript. If torial team or the editorial board. comments and (re)reads the manuscript
you are not sure what the journal requires, Once reviewers have been identified, before making a decision and might also
contact the editors and ask them. the editorial assistant sends the manuscript confer with others on the editorial team.
If the journal calls for masking the sub- to the reviewers and notifies you that the Consulting is particularly important if
mission, carefully do so (i.e., remove all submission is “in review.” Many journals the reviewers’ comments are ambiguous
references to your name and other infor- use a “double-masked” review process; that or their suggestions appear contradictory.
mation that would reveal your identity), is, the reviewers do not know the identity After reaching a decision, the editor writes
following, for example, the guidelines in of the author of a manuscript and the au- a letter to the author that includes the de-
the APA manual (APA, 2001). Insuffi- thor does not know the identity of the cision, a summary of the reviewers’ com-
cient masking can also be a point of irrita- reviewers. Virtually all journals keep the ments, and any further suggestions. The
tion for editors, some of whom will refuse identities of reviewers unknown to authors, editor’s decision may include one of the
to send the manuscript out for review and although individual reviewers sometimes following: (a) Accept the manuscript as is;
return it to the author for proper masking. sign their reviews with the intent of iden- (b) accept it pending the completion of spe-
tifying themselves to the authors and many cific revisions; (c) invite a revision and re-
The Review Process editors pass on those identities. submission; or (d) reject. These first-round
The review process varies somewhat de- Ideally, the journal editor will get back decisions are not equally probable. Imme-
pending on the journal and on whether the with you in 10 weeks with a decision, al- diate acceptance is extremely rare. The
submission and review process is handled though it can take longer. The length of most common decisions are “revise and re-
manually or on-line. Generally, however, time for the review process varies, depend- submit” and “reject.” If your manuscript is

18 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
not rejected, the most likely sequence of published pieces were rejected somewhere might send it next. Is there a thematically
events is that you will first be asked to revise before they found a publication home. better-matched journal? Should you target
and resubmit and then may receive an ac- Second, know that there are responses to a less selective outlet? The answer to these
ceptance pending minor revisions. For a the rejection that can go far in assuring a questions can be determined only by realis-
revise and resubmit decision to become more favorable outcome in the future (see tic thinking about your manuscript in light
an acceptance, the revisions must respond Pressley, in press). of all the feedback you have received and
constructively to the reviewers’ concerns. Carefully read all the paperwork that you your responses to that feedback. A substan-
Because of the frequency of the revise and received from the rejecting journal, includ- tially reworked manuscript could now ben-
resubmit category, we discuss it next. ing the letter from the editor and the re- efit from pre-review by a respected senior
views, noting and reflecting seriously on colleague.
“Revise and Resubmit”
any revision suggestions in their comments. Finally, sometimes a rejection decision
If the editor’s decision is that you should Keep reading and processing these remarks and the associated reviews compel the con-
revise and resubmit your manuscript, pay until you are certain that you understand clusion that additional effort on the manu-
careful attention to the editor’s letter and them. Often, a rejection letter and accom- script would be a waste of time. If that is the
the reviewers’ comments when revising panying reviews will seem overwhelming at implication, take the possibility seriously
your manuscript. Accompany your resub- first, but, on further reflection, the points and reflect carefully on whether that may
mission with a letter in which you describe become clearer and seem more manageable. be the case. If it is, move on. Focus in di-
in detail the changes you made in the man- By the end, you may be able to organize the rections more likely to pay off rather than
uscript and how you addressed the editor’s remarks into related themes, which can in ones with little likelihood of success.
and reviewers’ concerns. You do not neces- make rewriting much easier to accomplish. Our journals are the major forums for
sarily have to make every change suggested, Once you understand the reviewers’ re- communication in our profession. Their
but if you choose not to, you should explain marks, revise the manuscript on the basis of quality and integrity must be maintained.
why in your letter to the editor. If you are not their suggestions. If quite a bit of work is in With some effort on your part, you can
sure whether the editor is resolute about a order, such as collecting more data or doing reap the professional rewards that come
particular recommendation, contact the extensive re-analysis, plan your time and re- with making valuable contributions to pro-
editor and ask. When you resubmit your sources to accomplish the tasks sufficiently. fessional dialogues by publishing.
manuscript, the editor will often send it You may need to do substantially more
back to the same reviewers, though some- REFERENCES
work before submitting the manuscript
times the journal has a policy of involving elsewhere. American Psychological Association. (2001).
new reviewers and sometimes the old re- Publication manual of the American Psycho-
One common reason for rejection is that
viewers simply are no longer available to do logical Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC:
the manuscript represents an insufficient Author.
a re-review. advance in knowledge. If you receive that Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery
“Accept Pending Revisions” feedback, you should be doing what you of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
If the editor’s decision is “accept pending can to make the importance of your contri- research. Chicago: Aldine.
revisions,” you will again have changes to bution to the literature more obvious, per- Pressley, M. (in press). Overcoming rejection.
make in the manuscript, as detailed in the haps in the discussion section. If there are In S. B. Wepner & L. Gambrell (Eds.),
concerns about the writing (e.g., too long, Writing for literacy publications: Top ten
editor’s letter to you. However, these are
not enough detail), deal with them. Since guidelines. Newark, DE: International Read-
generally fewer in number and not as sub- ing Association.
stantial as when the editor’s decision was months have passed since you last worked
on the manuscript, revision possibilities not Thomson Institute for Scientific Information.
“revise and resubmit.” Once you have (2004). Journal citation report. Retrieved Au-
made these changes and returned your re- obvious during initial drafting may be more
gust 19, 2005, from http://www.science-
vised manuscript, usually only the editor obvious now, especially given the feedback gateway.org/impact/if2004c.htm
will read it to determine if you have ade- from the journal. Similarly, reviewers rec- Thomson Social Sciences Citation Index.
quately addressed all suggestions. At this ommending rejection often have concerns (2004). Retrieved July 26, 2005, from
point, you might be able to consider the about analysis procedures. If reviewers rec- http://www.isiwebofknowledge.com/
manuscript “in press,” but do not assume ommended alternatives, inform yourself as
much as possible about those options and AUTHORS
this is the case—check with the editor to
consider whether they are more sensible JANETTE K. KLINGNER is an Associate Pro-
make sure. The most certain way to move fessor of bilingual special education at the Uni-
from the “accept with revision” category and can be carried out with available re-
sources. If the reviewers spotted what they versity of Colorado at Boulder, School of
to “accept” is to make each and every revi- Education, 249 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-
sion requested and then detail how you considered to be unjustifiable conclusions,
0249; janette.klingner@colorado.edu. She is
addressed those revisions in a cover letter look hard at those conclusions until you are
also a Co-Editor of the AERA journal Review
that accompanies the resubmission. clear about the reviewers’ concerns and ad- of Educational Research. Her research interests
just accordingly. include the disproportionate representation of
Overcoming Rejection By the end of this process, you will un- culturally and linguistically diverse students in
What if your manuscript is rejected? First, derstand your manuscript better, and it special education and reading comprehension
you should recognize that many eventually then makes sense to think about where you strategy instruction for diverse populations.

NOVEMBER 2005 19
DAVID SCANLON is an Associate Professor MICHAEL PRESSLEY is a University Distin- ment Research Center. His recent research fo-
of special education at the Lynch School of Ed- guished Professor, College of Education, cuses on effective reading education, with a
ucation, Campion Hall, Boston College, Michigan State University, 118A Erickson strong commitment to the study of balancing
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467; scanloda@bc.edu. Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824; pressley@msu. the many evidence-based factors than can im-
His research addresses adolescent and adult edu. He directs the doctoral program in prove reading achievement at the elementary
learning and literacy. teacher education and the Literacy Achieve- level.

President-Elect Baker Invites Nominations for Committees

Each year, the AERA president appoints a number of members to committees that
are important to the Association. The committees include Publications, Professional
Development and Training, Government Relations, Scholars and Advocates for
Gender Equity in Education, Scholars of Color in Education, Nominations,
Communications and Outreach, Social Justice Action, International Relations, JEBS
Management, Annual Meeting Policies and Procedures, Technology, Minority
Fellowship Selection, and Research Advisory. In addition, appointments will be
made to the following awards committees: Distinguished Contribution to Education,
Early Career, E. F. Lindquist, Outstanding Book, Palmer O. Johnson, Relating
Research to Practice, and Review of Research.
This year, President-Elect Eva L. Baker will make appointments to many of these
committees during the fall. She urges members to supply names, including their
own, if they are interested in serving on a committee. Please send a resume, if
volunteering, or a statement about qualifications, if nominating someone else,
and state which committees are of interest.
President-Elect Baker also welcomes suggestions about strengthening the quality
of the organization and possible new initiatives to raise the quality of research and
offer support to members.
Please write to her at:
University of California, Los Angeles
Graduate School of Education
and Information Studies
CRESST 301
Charles Young Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90095

Or send her an e-mail message at:

eva@ucla.edu
(preferably without extensive attachments)

20 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER