Am Soc (2015) 46:99–115

DOI 10.1007/s12108-014-9248-3

Publishing in Academic Journals: Strategic Advice

for Doctoral Students and Academic Mentors

John P. Bartkowski & Carma S. Deem &

Christopher G. Ellison

Published online: 30 January 2015

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Given the increasingly competitive nature of the academic job market and
the profession of sociology at large, publishing has become an even more important
marker of scholarly success. This article discusses the benefits of publishing in
academic journals during graduate school. We outline a series of strategies that doctoral
students can use to achieve this important objective and address the role of academic
mentors in fostering their students’ research productivity. Strategic advice on each facet
of the publication process (e.g., academic writing, journal selection, manuscript sub-
mission, and revision for resubmission) is offered. Faculty mentors and graduate
program directors are encouraged to create an environment in which graduate student
publications are the norm rather than the exception.

Keywords Publishing . Doctoralprograms . Graduateschool . Journalarticles . Sociology

. Social sciences

Introduction

Many of us are well-acquainted with the phrase, “Publish or perish.” At no point in the
history of sociology has this statement been more true. Publications have long been
viewed as the quintessential resource for professional success. Despite a recent rebound
from the Great Recession (Spalter-Roth et al. 2011; June 2012), the academic job
market remains highly competitive. Consequently, publications are an even more
significant marker of distinction and competence than ever before. Candidates with
newly minted doctoral degrees face especially daunting expectations upon securing a
job. Several decades ago, the novice academic was expected to demonstrate research
potential. These days, it is not uncommon for applicants, even those applying to
teaching-oriented institutions, to have accumulated a track record of several published

J. P. Bartkowski (*) : C. S. Deem : C. G. Ellison

Department of Sociology, The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX
78249, USA
e-mail: john.bartkowski@utsa.edu
100 Am Soc (2015) 46:99–115

articles during their years in graduate school. The competition is even fiercer at more
research-intensive institutions, where interviewed candidates have generally published
in the very best journals in the discipline and are, quite likely, the first author or sole
author of such articles.
In many respects, the revolution in research expectations is a welcome development.
Institutional pedigree and a well-placed phone call from one’s advisor used to be the
currency that dominated the academic job market. Although social networks and
institutional prestige still exert some influence on today’s job market, particularly in
elite programs (Burris 2004), merit now commonly receives greater consideration than
in decades past. Increasingly, merit is defined in terms of the quantity and quality of
publications. Yet, as is so often the case, even welcome developments have their
downsides. Graduate students today are under a great deal of pressure to publish prior
to completing their doctoral degree. This pressure is even evident among masters-level
students who aspire to be admitted into competitive doctoral programs. Gone is the old
slow-going model of the graduate apprenticeship that reserved the hands-on phase of
research for the execution of a dissertation study. That paradigm has been supplanted
by a more fast-paced model—what might be called an “expedited apprenticeship”—
that stresses the development, utilization, and refinement of practical research skills
shortly after admission into a graduate program.
This article aims to provide graduate students with strategic advice for publishing
while they are in graduate school. As trained sociologists, it will come as no surprise
that our approach to this topic is governed by a core insight from our discipline.
Publishing is not merely an individual accomplishment. While individual initiative is
not to be discounted, some academic climates are more conducive to supporting and
advancing graduate student research than others. Students are more likely to flourish in
departments that value and reward research collaboration among faculty and students.
Consequently, the advice and reflections offered in this article are two-pronged. On the
one hand, we aim to assist graduate students in making critical decisions about
publishing. These decisions are likely to influence their post-doctoral entry into the
discipline and the trajectory of their career. Yet, on the other hand, much of what is
offered here is also conveyed for ready use by graduate program coordinators and
faculty mentors who may wish to bolster the research climate their departments provide
to graduate students. The reputations of scholars and departments are increasingly tied
not only to faculty research productivity, but their ability to train students well and
place them in desirable jobs.
Regardless of departmental climate, graduate students are often reticent to take on
the seemingly mammoth task of publishing. Yet, as the saying goes, how do you eat an
elephant? The common answer, of course, is one bite at time. To this point, we would
add that the task is hastened with direction from someone who has done so previously.
In keeping with this aphorism, our article breaks down the publishing process into its
constituent parts. Bite by bite, so to speak, we provide targeted advice tailored to
address each stage of the article publication process.1 Our advice is directed not only at
students, but at graduate program directors and faculty mentors who can play a critical

1
Book publication is much less common in graduate school and is beyond the purview of this article. Also,
because book publication is such a protracted process, it is not regularly recommended for students while they
are in graduate school.
Am Soc (2015) 46:99–115 101

role in their students’ scholarly professionalization and research productivity. We begin

by discussing the importance of publications for graduate students (especially doctoral
students), after which we delineate strategies that graduate programs might utilize to
create a climate that promotes research among their students. The centerpiece of the
article follows in the form of step-by-step advice designed to help graduate students
navigate the seemingly labyrinthine article publication process. We conclude by offer-
ing three overarching strategies designed to foster publishing as a doctoral student.
These strategies are drawn directly from sociological axioms.

Why is Publication Important for Graduate Students?

Publications are the primary admission ticket into academic departments and research
centers. A publication record signals the competent application of core research skills
and indicates potential for future achievements. Publications permit a researcher to
claim membership among a community of scholars who are contributing quite directly
to the advancement of the discipline’s knowledge base. Even in private sector positions
(e.g., think tanks) or government jobs (e.g., the Census Bureau), successful applicants
must generally demonstrate research acumen. Publications are increasingly necessary
to secure and retain an academic job. Productivity “metrics” might be cast as a
necessary evil (or just plain evil) by some who long for the bygone days when
academic productivity was not measured as it is today. But the defenders of the old
regime have fast dwindled in number.
The elevation of publication productivity is perhaps best understood within the
broader context of seismic shifts that have occurred in academia. An increasingly
competitive job market has been coupled with the importation of corporate manage-
ment models into academic institutions (Knapp and Siegel 2009). These management
models include calls for defining “accountability” and measuring productivity with
respect to merit. And merit is defined, in large measure, by publication productivity
(see Wilson 2014). 2 This management model has proliferated, such that publication
expectations at both top-tier and mid-tier institutions have risen dramatically. Journal
impact scores and citation counts are now commonly used to determine the prestige of
publication outlets and scrutinize scholarly influence.
These trends often achieve their full flowering on departmental search committees.
The first and third authors (Ellison and Bartkowski) have sat on and chaired numerous
search committees over the years. Discussions with our colleagues at various institu-
tions across the U.S. have convinced us that the most viable candidates will have
published in peer-reviewed journals, probably multiple times. Many of the competitors
for the top (or at least, the most prestigious) positions will have published in the major
general journals in sociology, as well as leading specialty journals. And, with rich and
deep candidate pools, schools have become ever more selective in determining short-
listed candidates. This confluence of factors highlights the need for aspiring academics
to have accrued publications before embarking on the job search.

2
Moreover, publication productivity can be viewed as a promising indicator of a candidate’s future ability to
secure extramural funding. This quality is now commonly valued by hiring committees given current budget
constraints in higher education.
102 Am Soc (2015) 46:99–115

Although there is often merit in other types of publications (e.g., book chapters,
reports, and monographs), articles in peer-reviewed journals are the primary currency
for graduate students and young faculty members. Departments are often ranked3 solely
or primarily on article productivity given the rigor of the double-blind peer review
process (Board on Higher Education and Workforce 2014; The Chronicle of Higher
Education 2010; Glenn 2010). Double-blind review, where the author (s) do not know
the name (s) of the reviewers, and the reviewers are unaware of the identity of the
author (s), is the practice at most outlets in sociology and related disciplines.4
As can be revealed by even a cursory review of advertisements in the American
Sociological Association’s employment bulletin, virtually all significant academic
institutions, including schools often categorized as teaching-oriented, now expect job
candidates to exhibit research capability. Moreover, many institutions seek candidates
who can lead and conduct community-based research involving their students. In fact,
many solid departments, especially those at public institutions, have worked hard to
establish their reputation through well-placed article publications. Given that they have
fought so hard to establish their reputation, search committees are often reluctant to
“bargain their future” on unproven candidates. And, increasingly, the proof is in the
publication record, with journal articles serving as the gold standard. A greater reliance
on the evaluation of publication productivity in job searches has diminished the role of
institutional pedigree on the job market. In short, graduate students who pursue
publications in peer-reviewed outlets will generally find such efforts to be a very
worthwhile investment.

The Facilitation of Student Publication by Departments and Faculty Mentors

Departments, graduate program directors, and faculty mentors might profitably pro-
mote a culture of research publication in any of several ways. They can sponsor and
deliver symposia on the publication process, which (a) provide students with an
overview of the publication process and (b) encourage faculty members (and students
who have published) to share their insights and experiences in this area. Such activities
can occur as stand-alone events, through their incorporation into a publication module
within a broader professionalization seminar, or as a full semester-long class in which
students are taught about different facets of the writing and publication process and
even undergo a mock peer review as both an author and a reviewer.
Departments can also provide guidance, again through symposia, pro-seminars, and
one-on-one mentoring, to help students prepare narrative research statements and
curriculum vitae for the job market (as well as other elements of strong professional
dossiers). In addition to providing tangible assistance with an important but often
overlooked topic, this experience can also reinforce the expectation that, by the time
they participate in such symposia, students will have some significant professional

3
Departmental rankings are markers of overall prestige within the discipline. These same rankings can be
leveraged within a specific academic institution for additional resources, including faculty lines, for ranked
departments. Such rankings have been rendered by U.S. News, the National Research Council, and others
(see, e.g., Chronicle of Higher Education 2010).
4
Some exceptions to the process of double-blind peer review exist, for instance, within health-related fields.
Yet, double-blind review remains the most pervasive model in the social sciences.
Am Soc (2015) 46:99–115 103

activity to report (publications, submitted papers, or at a minimum, conference presen-

tations that can be converted to journal submissions).
Although these suggestions would clearly benefit graduate students, they may also
be in the best interests of academic departments, graduate programs, and faculty
mentors as well. Departmental evaluations and institutional accreditation processes,
conducted periodically by external reviewers, increasingly consider “measurable indi-
cators,” including student and student/faculty publications, during their reviews (see
Eaton 2010; Wolff 2013). As such, faculty/student collaborations can be valuable not
only to the student but can enhance the climate and reputation of the department.
Fostering student publications and “easing” the student into the publication process is
more readily accomplished through initial co-authorships with faculty because sole
authorship can present itself as an overwhelming task for budding researchers. Given
the emphasis and importance placed on graduate student publications, sociology
programs may find it wise to institutionalize processes that promote student publication
such as any or all of the strategies mentioned above.

How to Get Started: First Steps on the Road toward Publication

There are a number of strategies that students can use to begin the process of
publishing. Ideally, the strategy that is pursued should be determined early. The
publication process can be surprisingly lengthy, especially at first. Very few papers
are accepted outright, and many papers are rejected by the first journal or the first few
journals to which they are submitted. So, persistence and resilience are keys to success.
One time-honored approach is to convert class papers into more refined works. In
graduate school, most classes besides theory and methods or statistics require some
type of project or paper at the conclusion of the semester. These courses present an ideal
opportunity to identify topics, data sources, or data collection approaches and generate
an initial draft of what can eventually become a future article. Indeed, students might
even be well-advised to choose paper topics at least partly with this issue in mind and
professors should stress this goal as well. If a student has already completed
coursework in theory and methods, it is generally easier to use these foundational skills
to produce high-quality substantive papers. This process may be somewhat easier for
students using quantitative data and methods (e.g., survey data), as compared with
those using qualitative approaches (e.g., in-depth interviews or ethnography).
Quantitative approaches are often less time-intensive and more amenable to secondary
data analysis when compared with primary data collection efforts. However, qualitative
investigators can utilize course papers to develop detailed research proposals that can
clarify research questions, identify relevant literature, and outline data collection and
analysis strategies for use in future implementation or extension of the class project.
Qualitatively inclined graduate students can also draw readily available data from a
panoply of online sources (websites, blogs, discussion boards, media articles, video
streaming sites, and so forth) given the short duration of the semester and quarter
systems within which most courses are offered (Fielding et al. 2008; Kozinets 2010).
A second approach is to serve as a graduate assistant for a research-active faculty
member. Experience gained though working with faculty on research-related tasks can
provide a multitude of learning opportunities. Ideally, these collaborations may involve
104 Am Soc (2015) 46:99–115

data collection or data analysis, and other more central duties that can translate into co-
authorship of conference papers and journal submissions. All of these arrangements can
be excellent learning experiences, as students gain valuable insight into the research
and publication processes. However, these collaborations are optimized if both parties
are clear about their respective responsibilities, opportunities, and potential rewards at
the outset. Establishing clear responsibilities and expectations initially protects against
misunderstandings or disappointment that may arise in the future. Some faculty-led
research projects may be funded from external sources and may be large enough to
involve a team of graduate students. This team approach may enhance the potential for
publication, but it is helpful if the faculty member can establish clear guidelines for the
conditions under which various types of credit are to be granted. Quite commonly, the
faculty member takes a leadership role in these endeavors, especially early in the
student’s development. Regardless of which type of collaboration students undertake
with faculty members, an ideal outcome is for a given project to involve multiple
products, that is, two or more papers rather than a single paper. In this instance, it is
possible that, after taking the lead on the first or even second paper, faculty mentors
allow or encourage student leadership on other works. In this way, faculty mentors can
help the student build confidence and ease into the publication process.
More advanced students may decide to pursue collaborative research efforts involv-
ing students within the same graduate program, in other departments on the same
campus, or at different institutions (with communication by Skype, e-mail, or other
means). One key to this option is for the initiating student to consider carefully whether
additional students can offer specific contributions to a research project. Collaborations
of this type can work especially well if the students adopt similar approaches to the
topic under investigation (e.g., the theories and methods to be employed), and exhibit
compatible motivation levels and work habits.
Student collaborations can be especially successful under the following conditions:
(a) collaborators may have skills or expertise that the initiating student lacks (e.g.,
specialized methodological or statistical training, or greater theoretical or substantive
knowledge); (b) collaboration may bring enhanced efficiency to the research and
production process (e.g., in the time it would otherwise take for one student to generate
one paper on a given topic, two student collaborators may be able to produce additional
papers); or (c) collaborators may compensate for other weaknesses or limitations on the
part of the initiating student (e.g., they may act as “closers” to complete manuscripts
that are partly or mostly completed, thereby enhancing productivity and timeliness).
However, the failure to delineate these roles at the outset can lead to bruised feelings
and discouragement. Research and publication are difficult enough without the added
problems that result from bad collaborations.
In fact, students would do well at the outset of this journey to anticipate some rough
patches along the way, and to budget their time and manage their projects accordingly.
Arguments may fall apart. Data may not cooperate, leading to poor quality or hard to
interpret findings. Analyses may result in null findings that are generally only publish-
able if they are directly contrary to the received wisdom on a topic. Manuscripts may be
published that come dangerously close to your own work in progress. Collaborations
may work out badly and bring about the ultimate dissolution of a project. Scholars can
also accumulate too many ideas and projects, thereby resulting in scholarly overexten-
sion. Despite the element of truth within the aphorism “better feast than famine,”
Am Soc (2015) 46:99–115 105

scholarly overextension can present vexing challenges. Overextension can spark the
need to perform academic “triage” and abandon less promising papers in favor of those
judged to be most interesting with greater publication potential. These outcomes are not
necessarily failures, as much can be learned from the bumps accumulated along the
way.
We recommend creating a time budget that provides regular periods dedicated solely
to writing. This strategy works especially well when coupled with submission bench-
marks, that is, time-bound goals that specify how many manuscripts will be submitted
for review during a given period. Where writing time budgets are concerned, there is
not a one-size-fits-all solution. For some colleagues, setting aside writing time on a
daily basis, sometimes with an achievable productivity goal of two pages per workday,
proves to be quite effective. Others prefer to set aside a day or so per week for more
prolonged writing investments. Regardless of the approach to time-budgeting that is
adopted, many colleagues combine this short-term tactical approach with long-term
productivity goals, often set according to an academic quarter or semester (e.g., two
manuscripts submitted during the fall semester). This pairing together of long-term
productivity goals with short-term time-budgeting also can be helpful in the sequencing
and rotation of projects. The time during which a manuscript is under review serves as
an ideal opportunity to create forward momentum on another project. Managing the
flow of submissions with multiple projects is an important skill and avoids the rather
dangerous practice of putting all eggs in one basket (that is, having everything hinge on
the publication of a single project).

The Journey Continues: Writing for Publication

There are a number of strategies students can pursue to ensure continued and
steady progress on their journey toward publication, and many of them involve
writing acumen. In fact, scholars are judged principally through their ability to
write. Ultimately, an author’s goal is to convince journal editors and reviewers
of his or her professional competence. Writing is the key means for doing so.
Editors and reviewers tend to form strong first impressions based on the title
and abstract, so make them count. Reviewers’ time is limited, and they typi-
cally allot only a set amount of time in a day or week for reviewing journal
manuscripts in general. Many scholars specify a time limit (e.g., 2 hours) for
evaluating any one paper so they can balance this facet of their job with other
professional obligations. If the title and abstract of a paper are uninteresting or
unintelligible, such a negative first impression is difficult to overcome.
Moreover, the key objective of a paper must be crystal clear and should be able to be
conveyed in a single sentence. An introductory section is typically no more than three
pages double-spaced. The introductory section should briefly discuss the broad impor-
tance of the topic under study, including its currency, significance, and perhaps a sense
of the existing literature and its conclusions to date. Additionally, limitations of
previous work, or issues and questions that have not been satisfactorily addressed or
resolved should be discussed relative to what the manuscript can and will address. The
significance of a project is often sized up in terms of its unique contribution to the
scholarly literature, which should be stressed in the most compelling terms possible.
106 Am Soc (2015) 46:99–115

The section should conclude with a “roadmap” paragraph indicating precisely how the
remainder of the paper will be organized.
The introductory section should demonstrate the author’s command of the material,
establish a clear understanding about what the readers and reviewers should expect to
find in subsequent sections of the paper, and set up unambiguous standards against
which the product can be evaluated. Otherwise, reviewers are free to impose their own
standards, often to the detriment of an author. The research problem is often best
articulated in declarative form (“This study will investigate the influence of X on Y”).
Avoid peppering readers with a series of questions designed to communicate objectives
in interrogative form, as this tactic can reduce clarity while seeming overly ambitious
for one article. Reviewers may challenge various facets of a study’s execution, but
should have no question about the objective of the paper. Lack of clarity will confuse
reviewers, and confusion ultimately begets irritation.
Writing from a detailed outline is often extremely helpful to stay on track. “Spew
drafts” in which a writer generates free-form composition without a priori logical
scaffolding are generally inefficient and inappropriate for technical writing (Becker
2007; see also Goodson 2013; Oliver 2008).5 Ideally, readers and reviewers should be
able to “reverse-engineer” a finished paper, thereby retracing it from full text back to
the outline from which it was originally constructed. Thus, it is important to bear in
mind that technical writing is typically deductive in nature. In line with this deductive
approach, a paragraph should begin with a topic sentence, that is, a clear statement or
assertion that foreshadows the remainder of the paragraph that provides elaboration or
supporting information. If a series of sequential points are warranted for a single idea,
consider using words that indicate logical connections (e.g., “First …” “In addition …”
“Furthermore …” “Moreover …” “Finally …”). Additionally, within the context of a
somewhat longer theoretical or substantive argument, such as setting up the empirical
study and its explicit or implicit hypotheses, a series of paragraphs may be organized in
this fashion (e.g., “First …” “Second …” etc.) to introduce distinct strands of logical
argument. Although most paragraphs should start with topic sentences, it is occasion-
ally useful (for clarity, and also to break up monotony) to begin a paragraph with a
single rhetorical question, which can then be answered using a succession of logical
points or factual claims. Any or all of these strategies function to demonstrate the
author’s meticulousness, professionalism, and clarity of thought, which in turn builds
confidence and trust on the part of readers and reviewers. Think of the desired outcome
of authorship as building “rhetorical capital” with reviewers and use every chance to
cultivate it.
Social science articles have a well-established structure and a finite number of
formats that are accepted as legitimate. Innovation with respect to the paper’s empirical
contribution, theory, or methods is vital and welcome, as these factors often increase a
work’s significance. However, innovation with respect to format is typically unwise.

5
Free-form or undirected writing (that is, composition in the absence of an outline) can be an important part of
brainstorming, but is generally not useful for rendering finished products (e.g., journal articles) in technical
writing fields like the social sciences. Moreover, even in creative fields, structured writing is often used at
critical junctures. Bartkowski is fond of quoting an influential undergraduate English professor who frequently
explained that the most accomplished poets knew that writing free verse must be preceded by a mastery of
rhyme and meter. Strategic and selective deviation from rules that govern a field must first begin with a
mastery of those very same rules.
Am Soc (2015) 46:99–115 107

The publication process has norms and folkways, and deviations from these are usually
punished. Most sociology articles are 25 to 35 pages of printed, double-spaced text
(usually inclusive of references, but exclusive of charts, graphs, or tables). Many
journals have now codified these mandates in author submission guidelines, but they
were the norm well before becoming a requirement. Articles evolved in specific ways
with particular forms because the existing format is an efficient way to communicate
large amounts of information in modest amounts of space, thereby minimizing pub-
lishing costs and increasing the amount of space available for other good papers. Even
with the advent of online publication, most social science journals also publish printed
editions for libraries and personal purchase.
So, what is the most common article format? Given longstanding traditions and
practical considerations, articles generally feature: (a) an introduction of three pages of
printed text; (b) a review of relevant empirical literature and theoretical works of
roughly six to seven pages, (c) perhaps an additional page worth of hypotheses,6 either
listed together at the end of the literature review and theory section or interspersed
within the literature review; (d) a description of data and methods, including specific
factors associated with the dataset and data collection procedures, measurement of
variables (quantitative studies) or sensitizing concepts (qualitative studies), and data
analysis techniques typically amounting to three to four pages; (e) a results section of
approximately four to six pages (plus tables, or somewhat longer for qualitative pieces
often organized thematically); and (f) a discussion section of about four to six pages
that restates the study rationale, key findings, and explanations while specifying
implications (related to future empirical work, theory, and/or policy/practice), limita-
tions, and directions for future research (some of which should redress any limitations).
Our advice to young authors is not to miss opportunities to gain style points. Writing
is more than simply a vehicle for conveying findings or reporting results. It is also a
form of analysis and inquiry (Richardson and St. Pierre 2005). Substance and style are
not “separate parts” of a written document. Graduate students are well-advised to read
the work of others with an eye toward style of prose and delivery. Indeed, it is a good
idea to read widely, including some articles in substantive areas outside of one’s
primary interests, to focus strictly on article format and writing style. In this way, the
reader will not be “distracted” by substance but can instead focus on form (logic,
argumentation, etc.).
A manuscript that appears to be written in a hasty fashion, even one with funda-
mentally good ideas or sound findings, will often merit a quick rejection. If the author
does not care enough to polish a paper in elementary ways, why should reviewers care
enough to see past these obvious shortcomings? Moreover, if a lack of

6
Hypotheses are typically not relevant for qualitative studies. Research questions are more commonly posed
in qualitative projects. Hypotheses are generally conveyed as statements of anticipated findings wherein the
nature and direction of the relationship between two or more variables is specified, often based on previous
research and/or theory. Research questions in qualitative investigations are typically more open-ended. In
short, hypotheses communicate clear and specific expectations (“Adherents of conservative religious traditions
will be more strongly opposed to abortion than their liberal religious and nonreligious peers”). By contrast,
research questions invite discovery by exploring subjects’ standpoints and experiences, social processes, etc.
(“How do adherents of conservative faiths articulate and justify their views of abortion?”). The point not to be
lost here is to master and use the language and perspective of experts within a specific field. Researchers who
use various methods often must become adept at “code-switching,” that is, enlisting the lexicon and approach
that is suitable for a specific method.
108 Am Soc (2015) 46:99–115

conscientiousness is observed at the outset of the review process, the reviewer surmises
that there is little chance of this orientation changing for a revise and resubmit. Editing a
paper in several separate passes, with each pass focused on a specific facet of the
manuscript (e.g., overall logic, paragraph organization, terminology, grammar), is
highly recommended to avoid these pitfalls. Faculty members and/or fellow students
can play a vital role in the revision process prior to initial submission, and should be
told explicitly to spare no criticism. An additional writing consideration entails iden-
tifying a small group of journals at which the manuscript in preparation would be
targeted. Read articles within those journals and seek to emulate the writing styles used
by scholars who have published in them.
Another viable forum for receiving feedback involves presenting work at profes-
sional conferences. Conference presentations permit the student to obtain early feed-
back, often in a cordial atmosphere if the conference is a smaller regional venue, while
identifying strengths and weaknesses. The preparation of the manuscript for conference
presentation may be especially beneficial in helping the author to organize her or his
thoughts and to remedy any weak spots in the structure, arguments, and analyses.
Presentations may not elicit a great deal of actionable feedback, as fewer and fewer
conferences seem to include designated discussants at sessions. However, the deadline
imposed by conferences along with the experience of presenting one’s work publicly
can be an important milestone to advance papers along toward the ultimate destination,
which is publication. Even if direct feedback on the paper is somewhat limited,
conferences often provide a good environment in which to network with others, discuss
one’s research interests, and meet more senior scholars as well as fellow graduate
students. And, as public events, they are an excellent motivator for moving one’s work
along the publication pipeline. In fact, conferences provide an outstanding forum for
young researchers to arrange meetings with specific scholars for coffee, drinks, or chats
as schedules permit. Graduate students and scholars in programs outside the United
States will find a warm welcome in most professional societies and, increasingly, may
seek awards from such societies to support their unusually high travel costs.
The topic of transforming a master’s thesis or sections of a doctoral dissertation into
a publishable manuscript merits a separate article. And, in fact, whole books have been
written on this process (e.g., Becker 2007). Graduate programs might consider em-
bracing a pragmatic approach to thesis and dissertation completion, and even present-
ing graduate students with such an option. Increasingly, a thesis is written as a long
article rather than a chapter-by-chapter document, and a dissertation (especially a
quantitative project) can be completed as a series of articles. We heartily endorse these
innovations in graduate programs as they limit the amount of time necessary to pivot
from a graduate program product to a work that is suitable for journal submission. In
the case of a thesis, the literature review can be reduced and, as appropriate, ancillary
statistical tests can be omitted, to pare down a long-article thesis into an article-length
manuscript. And if a dissertation is composed of a series of research papers sharing a
common theme, there is really very little extra time needed to transition from this
format to a journal submission. The persistence of an old-style dissertation model
featuring a whole chapter called “Review of the Literature” (the dreaded chapter 2)
does not serve students well in the highly competitive market of scholarly publication.
Indeed, even if the goal is to publish the dissertation as a book, few (if any) reputable
books feature such a chapter. All works must review prior scholarship, but doing so in a
Am Soc (2015) 46:99–115 109

full stand-alone chapter at the end of a graduate program is a largely pointless exercise
in a world that demands concise and pointed reviews of such work.

Journal Manuscript Submission…and (Hopefully) Revision and Resubmission

When moving toward manuscript completion, it is wise to generate a short list of

journals as possible submission targets. Keep in mind that journals, like people, have
identities that have been cultivated, often quite carefully, over the course of time.
Consider the quality of the match between your paper and a specific journal’s identity
by reviewing what has been published in that journal for the past 5 to 7 years. A very
good match is typically found in a manuscript that meaningfully extends a line of
research for which a journal is known. Beyond the substantive point of connection with
such journals, be sure that the writing comports with germane articles that have been
published in such outlets. Here again, voracious readers are quite often the best writers
and this approach can be used early in the manuscript generation process. Some authors
even contact journal editors in advance to determine, in a general fashion, if the
manuscript is one that might be considered at the journal.
Once a specific journal has been chosen, revisit your perusal of back-issues for that
periodical. Pay special attention to articles that are topically germane and be sure to cite
those articles because reviewers may be selected from among authors who have
previously published in that journal on the topic related to your own. Carefully examine
the editorial board of the targeted journal and, if relevant, cite work published by board
members whose research overlaps with the submitted manuscript. They, too, are likely
to be called upon to review the manuscript. In fact, citing the work of others conducting
similar research is a way of nudging an editor toward the selection of possible
reviewers in the absence of explicitly recommending reviewers, which is rarely done.
7
These efforts should not supplant a comprehensive literature review, but they are an
excellent pre-submission cross-check. Once the journal is chosen, ensure that the
manuscript carefully adheres to the journal’s submission requirements and be prepared
to wait at least 4 months for the review process to unfold.
Some ambitious students (and tenure-hungry junior faculty members) may be
tempted to “shoot for the stars” and submit their work to American Sociological
Review, American Journal of Sociology, and other top-notch journals, particularly
general interest journals. Success in these efforts carries great prestige, and it can rocket
new faculty members toward tenure. However, the chances of success are extremely
low. Ultimately, many scholars want to publish their work in respectable journals with
wide readership, as measured in terms of the number of online downloads of articles
and, more directly, by impact factor scores. Impact factors can be a valuable means of
pinpointing journal visibility. Publishing in a specialty journal with a high impact factor
can sometimes bring attention from a more focused, engaged audience, including many
researchers who may cite your work in their own future studies. This potential is
enhanced with the judicious selection of suitable keywords, which many

7
If there are specific scholars who are likely to be antagonistic to a submission, an author may request that the
editor not send the paper to them for review. However, preemptory challenges of this kind should be used only
in rare circumstances, and only for very good reasons.
110 Am Soc (2015) 46:99–115

researchers use to conduct on-line searches for articles relevant to the paper (s) they are
currently writing. The desirability of pursuing multiple second-tier or specialty publi-
cations, as opposed to one or two “home runs,” depends partly on the type of work one
does, as well as one’s long-term aspirations (and perhaps the degree of one’s risk
tolerance). Of course, a good combination of these two approaches may be the best
strategy of all.
Very few manuscript submissions are accepted outright without any meaningful
revisions. Top-tier journals are highly selective, so much so that around 80 to 90 % of
submissions are rejected outright, without even an invitation to revise and resubmit the
paper. Rejection rates are almost this high at leading specialty outlets. Although some
journals are less selective, most highly ranked journals turn back far more submissions
than they eventually accept. Aside from outright rejection (for reasons of quality or fit
with the journal), as assessed by the two or three external reviewers and the editor, the
most common verdict is “revise and resubmit” (R&R, for short). An R&R is an
invitation to revise the paper, based on the commentary from reviewers and the editor,
and resubmit it back to the journal for further editorial consideration. Often, there is no
ultimate commitment to publish the paper.
The revise and resubmit invitation leaves the author in an interesting predicament.
The decision can be made to address the changes advocated by reviewers and, in some
instances, the assessment of the journal editor. The author can make some, but not all,
of the recommended changes. Or the author can opt to search for greener pastures,
perhaps making a few changes in the paper before sending it to a different journal in
hopes of a more favorable outcome. Keep in mind that since the journal has made no
commitments to the author, the author is under no obligation to the journal other than
refraining from having the paper under review at multiple journals simultaneously,
which is forbidden by virtually all journals. If, in the author’s view, the recommended
changes alter the meaning or undercut the significance of the paper, then he or she may
decide that integrity demands foregoing the R&R opportunity. In other instances, the
possible prospect of publication in a good journal may be too tempting, especially if the
changes appear to strengthen or improve the manuscript.
In the event that the author does decide to revise and resubmit the paper to the
original journal, it is necessary to produce a memo to the editor and reviewers. That
memo must summarize the specific changes that have been made in response to
reviewer comments, along with detailed justifications for declining to implement other
suggestions. The percentage of R&Rs that are eventually accepted for publication
varies significantly by journal. At some outlets, this figure is greater than 75 %, while
at others it is no greater than about 50 %. Knowledge of these patterns can often come
from a perusal of the editor’s reports, which are public information for some journals
(mainly those that are sponsored by the American Sociological Association and other
prominent professional societies), but not all of them.
Fielding an R&R and whether and how to respond to reviewer comments depends
on a number of factors, including the extensiveness of the comments, and the time and
opportunity costs associated with revising for the journal. If the choice is made to revise
and submit to a new journal, then it is only necessary to assess which, if any, of the
comments from the initial journal review have sufficient merit for inclusion into the
manuscript. The original journal must also be alerted to this choice to withdraw the
manuscript. Once these changes are incorporated, the new paper (unrevised, lightly
Am Soc (2015) 46:99–115 111

revised, or significantly modified) can be submitted to a new journal. Of course,

submitting to a new outlet is something of a gamble. However, if the author chooses
to revise and resubmit to the original journal, then the implementation of revisions and
the construction of the memo to the editor and reviewers become extremely important.
Seasoned authors have a range of approaches to such memos, and productive scholars
usually have a great deal of experience with R&R verdicts. It may be very useful to
obtain copies of memos written by several different faculty members or other scholars
as models.
It is important to make the review and assessment of the revision as easy as possible
for the editor and the reviewers. A tersely worded cover letter briefly identifying only
the manuscript revisions typically fails to win the day. Instead, we recommend a
resubmission cover letter that begins by diplomatically thanking the editor and re-
viewers for their comments, followed by a clear point-by-point delineation of each
comment raised by the editor and each reviewer coupled with the incorporated revi-
sions. When addressing revisions, it is best to provide detailed documentation of the
substance and location of the change in the revised manuscript. It can even be
advantageous to copy and paste sections out of the revised manuscript so that the
reviewer can simply review the cover letter to determine if the change adequately
addresses his or her concern. The longest resubmission cover letters do not always
secure ultimate publication, but they show a respect for the review process and
appreciation for the time invested by the reviewers as well as a commitment to
producing the very best scholarship possible. And, after all, that’s what the review
process is designed to produce.8 In any event, all points that are raised by reviewers and
the editor must be addressed, either by implementation or specific discussion. If the
author decides against making some changes, it is not necessarily the death knell for the
revised paper, provided that the author can offer good reasons for his or her decision.
However, a revising author will need to make most of the other requested changes,
thereby showing a spirit of cooperativeness and a willingness to defer to the peer
review process. It is, after all, called “submission” for a reason.
At times, authors faced with a revision must manage contradictory advice from
reviewers. We recommend several strategies for reviews that, when taken together,
charge authors with the unenviable (even impossible) task of “galloping off in all
directions.” First, discern if the editor’s letter offers direction that might resolve any
contradictory advice rendered by multiple reviewers. We suggest that the editor’s lead
in his or her letter be followed quite closely unless there is a very compelling reason not
to do so. If there is good reason to deviate from the editor’s recommendation or the path
forward is not clearly articulated, it is wise to make advance contact with the editor
prior to resubmission to inquire about possible resolutions.
Second, it is important to determine if one reviewer is more strongly invested in a
particular viewpoint than another reviewer. If so, that reviewer’s comment might be
prioritized during the revision. The relative strength of reviewer comments may be
indicated by the length of treatment given to a comment or the type of prose used to
offer the critique (“…if a revision is permitted, the author really must…”). We suggest
taking special care to address the more sustained and strongly articulated criticism

8
Note, however, that top scholars can sometimes “get away with” responses that would not be as well-
received if they came from graduate students or junior faculty members.
112 Am Soc (2015) 46:99–115

while, if at all possible, not dismissing the other reviewer’s comment. On such matters,
diplomacy is an important consideration.
If an author is not extended the opportunity to revise and resubmit because a verdict
of rejection has been rendered, we encourage fortitude coupled with the following
avenues of action. First, a prolific colleague abides by a “3-day rule” on the heels of a
rejected manuscript: 1 day to mourn, 1 day to pick a new journal, and 1 day to get the
manuscript back out under review. The only caveat we would provide to this otherwise
sound rule is that there may be avenues for improvement in the round of reviews that
produced the rejection. It is wise to make revisions that seem reasonable before
submitting the paper elsewhere. Apart from improving the substance of the paper,
problems will arise if the manuscript is seen twice by the same reviewer at different
journals and no changes were made after the first review was tendered. (Some journals
want reviewers to decline review invitations if they have reviewed the paper previously
for another journal, but there is no way of enforcing this policy.) Second, the submis-
sion of the paper to another journal can be hastened if an author has identified three or
so possible journals in advance of submitting the manuscript to any one of them, as we
have recommended above. If those possible outlets are easily rank-ordered (by, for
example, rejection rates or impact factors) and the author has been rejected by the
highest-rated outlet on this list, why not proceed to the next best journal? As this short
list of prospective journals is created, we recommend paying close attention to the
mission statements of journals and situating them in the broader publication landscape.
Some journals prefer particular theoretical orientations or methodological approaches.
Others operate within a particular niche (e.g., applied research, critique, methodological
innovation, international topics), all of which should be considered when generating the
initial journal target list and opting for the next outlet if a rejection has been received.

Concluding Remarks: Approaching the Publication Hurdle in a Sociological

Fashion

This paper has aimed to offer recommendations for publishing journal articles while in
graduate school. This project is not a conventional empirical study. Consequently, we
are at liberty to deviate from our own advice about the essential features of a conclusion
to an empirical article. Rather than restate much of what has been said above or specify
implications of this inquiry, we close with one critical observation. It is one of the
greatest ironies of our discipline that sociologists often do not turn back on themselves
the insights that they generate about the social world. Like the proverbial marriage
therapist who has been divorced five times, sociologists themselves often do not take
advantage of the core lessons learned through careful sociological study. But, alas, the
inability of the sociological “physician” to heal thyself is not a fait accompli. In fact,
where accruing publications in graduate school is concerned, we strongly believe that
the personal application of basic sociological tenets can be most useful. We therefore
conclude with three recommendations grounded in the wisdom of our discipline.

1 Structure counts, and in more ways than one. If you have not yet selected a
graduate (and especially a doctoral) program, consider the structural dimensions
of the programs you are considering for the completion of your doctoral degree. We
Am Soc (2015) 46:99–115 113

define structure quite broadly to include its most obvious facets, such as monetary
resources. We understand that, in a time of budget constraints, funding consider-
ations such as stipends, tuition waivers, insurance, etc. are primary criteria by which
decisions are made about where to attend graduate school. And, on these critical
measures, some programs have decided structural advantages over their peers.
But consider other structural dimensions as well, particularly those pursuant to
the topic addressed in this article. Specifically, does the program have faculty who
regularly collaborate with doctoral students in ways that yield publications in
recognizable journals? Are courses offered in a manner that promotes graduate
student publication productivity? Is publication part of the culture of professional-
ization? If two programs are similar on all other dimensions (prestige, funding, etc.)
but one is far superior in terms of facilitating graduate student publication, it would
be difficult to recommend against such a program.
2 The power of agency and collective action: Upon reading this article, some students
may feel despondent if they find themselves far along in a doctoral program that has
not prioritized graduate student publication. While such a path presents challenges,
it is not necessarily a dead-end. We have seen graduate students form working
groups that have been very productive in terms of outright collaboration or,
alternatively, writing independently but then reviewing one another’s work prior
to journal submission. Making a shared commitment to regular meetings and candid
(yet constructive) criticism can prove to be the most important elements of a
working group of graduate student researchers.
We are not downplaying the significance of structural facilitators where graduate
student publication productivity is concerned (see point 1 above). But a lack of
departmental supports need not consign a graduate student to the fate of a research
agenda bereft of any publications. Some graduate students also network and
ultimately collaborate with faculty at other institutions, sometimes through initial
meetings at conferences. The point here is simple: No matter where you find
yourself, a nice mix of initiative, creativity, and leveraging resources where they
present themselves can help you clear the hurdle of your first publication.
3 Specialists with spirit: Perhaps the most significant obstacle to one’s first publica-
tion is what could be called the “magnum opus complex.” Students often think of
publication in such vaunted terms that one must generate a truly revolutionary study
(a sort of “magnum opus” or greatest work) to get published. Nothing could be
further from the truth. The frontiers of scientific knowledge are pushed back in a
very incremental fashion, by dribs and drabs, here a little and there a little. Most of
us will not single-handedly bring about a “paradigm shift” within our field, but are
instead working away in the trenches of “normal science,” where there is indeed
important (though sometimes inglorious) work to be done (Kuhn 2012). Now and
then a study does come along that really challenges the way experts in a field think
of things. But that’s a rarity. And thank goodness that we all do not have to live up
to that standard to get published! If that were the case, few of us would publish.
So, the first bit of advice for a publication-minded graduate student is one that
we have, rather ironically, saved for last. Think very narrowly. And when you’re
done with that narrow thought (publication 1), do it again (publication 2). In short,
specialize. Max Weber, for all of his merits, could have inadvertently tarnished the
idea of specialization when he described the iron cage of instrumental rationality as
114 Am Soc (2015) 46:99–115

producing “specialists without spirit” and “sensualists without heart” (Weber 1930:
124). With all due respect to Weber, his diagnosis was not entirely correct. First, in
our view, there is no shame is specialization. It is the world in which we live and
researchers will be judged during their tenure review on the degree to which they
have established a reputation (that is, an identity) as a sociologist of X, Y, or Z, not
all of the above. In fact, an argument could be made that specialization has
advanced the collective interests of the discipline by producing scholars who
exhibit a significant depth of knowledge on a specific set of topics. A balance
can indeed be struck between breadth and depth (as those of us who teach
Introduction to Sociology or interdisciplinary courses well know). But if the
pendulum has swung toward depth of understanding, this is not the worst of all
possible worlds.
Second, just because we specialize does not mean that we need to lack spirit or
heart in doing so. Sociologists and our colleagues in other scientific disciplines are
often quite passionate about the discovery of new insights, even if it produces
incremental progress in rolling back the frontiers of knowledge. Incremental prog-
ress may take the form of enhancing the empirical base that supports dominant
scientific paradigms or discovering anomalies that ultimately contribute to new
explanations (Kuhn 2012). But both pursuits can be accompanied by the joy of
discovery. In short, coupling a pointed focus in the selection of what we do (narrow
problem conceptualization) with passion in terms of how we do it (determination) is
an excellent recipe for success.

In closing, the academic landscape has shifted during the last several decades.
Elevated publication expectations are a core part of this new landscape and there is
no reversal in sight. While there are certainly downsides associated with these trends,
we generally view the swing toward publication productivity in positive terms. Our
goal has been to provide some advice and encouragement to graduate students who are
interested in publishing prior to the completion of their doctoral degree. The model we
have proposed here has been empirically tested for many years in graduate programs in
which we have served. It is our hope that this article serves to stimulate additional
discussion among graduate students—and perhaps within graduate programs—given
that we are all living in this brave new academic world in which publication at the
earliest stages has now become normative.

References

Becker, H. S. (2007). Writing for social scientists: How to start and finish your thesis, book, or article.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Board on Higher Education and Workforce. (2014). Rankings and ratings: Research doctorate programs,
policy and global affairs. Washington: National Academy of Sciences. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/
pga/resdoc/pga_044479. Accessed 1 May 2014.
Burris, V. (2004). The academic caste system: Prestige hierarchies in Ph.D. exchange networks. American
Sociological Review, 69(2), 239–264.
Eaton, J. S. (2010). Accreditation and the federal future of higher education. Academe, 96(5), 21–24.
Fielding, N. G., Lee, R. M., & Blank, G. (Eds.). (2008). The Sage handbook of online research methods. Los
Angeles: Sage.
Am Soc (2015) 46:99–115 115

Glenn, D. (2010). An elaborate ranking of doctoral programs makes its long-awaited debut. The Chronicle of
Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/An-Elaborate-Ranking-of/124633/. Accessed 28 Sept
2013.
Goodson, P. (2013). Becoming an academic writer. Los Angeles: Sage.
June, A.W. (2012). Job market looks brighter for some Ph.D.’s: Many disciplines aren’t celebrating yet,
however. The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://www.chroniclecareers.com/article/Job-Market-
Looks-Brighter-for/130240/. Accessed 8 Jan 2014.
Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. Los Angeles: Sage.
Knapp, J. C., & Siegel, D. J. (2009). The business of higher education. Westport: Praeger.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edution. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Oliver, P. (2008). Writing your thesis, 2e. Los Angeles: Sage.
Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In D. Norman & L. Yvonna (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research, 3e (pp. 959–978). Los Angeles: Sage.
Spalter-Roth, R., Scelza, J., & Jacobs, J. (2011). Moving toward recovery: Findings from the 2010 job bank
survey. Resource Document American Sociological Association. http://www.asanet.org/research/
Moving_Toward_Change_2010_Job_Bank_Survey.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2014.
The Chronicle of Higher Education (2010). Doctoral programs by the numbers. October 1. For sociology
rankings, see http://chronicle.com/article/nrc-sociology/124663/. Accessed 1 May 2014.
Weber, M. (trans. by Parsons, T.). (1930). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London:
Routledge.
Wilson, R. (2014). Lowered cites. The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/New-
Gender-Gap-in-Scholarship/145311/. Accessed 17 Mar 2014.
Wolff, R. A. (2013). Exploding myths: What’s right with regional accreditation and how we can make it even
better. Washington: American Council on Education.