Writing for Publication: Rationale, Process and Pitfalls

Peter A. Witt
Texas A&M University

A version of this manuscript appeared as: Witt, P.A. (1995) Writing for publication: Rationale, process and pitfalls. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 13(1), 1-9. (Invited updated version of the 1987 article in SPRE Annual.)

Abstract
 
This article presents a rationale for publishing in an academic setting beyond perish-avoidance. In addition, the process of submitting an article for publication, major pitfalls in preparing a manuscript for publication consideration, and suggestions for overcoming problems encountered during manuscript preparation are discussed. The applicability of many of the ideas to practitioners in professional settings is also discussed.
 
KEYWORDS: academic publishing, stress, learned helplessness, publish or perish.
 
Peter A. Witt is head of the Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2261.
Introduction
 
A vibrant profession or discipline requires a solid body of knowledge to help stimulate improved practice or add to conceptual understanding of key variables and relationships. Thus, universities and colleges have included the development and transmission of knowledge through pertinent writings as one of the triumvirate of professorial responsibilities, along with teaching and service. Unfortunately, many faculty view the research responsibility as simply a hurdle on the way to tenure and promotion. The true purposes of contributing to the body of knowledge are lost in an effort to publish enough to avoid perishing.
 
Unfortunately, the result of publishing motivated by perish-avoidance can be an uninspired struggle to fill manuscript pages with enough words so that some journal will accept the material. Many professors have become cynical, if not outright hostile, toward a requirement they view as an encroachment on undertaking their true responsibilities -- teaching and service.
 
The most recent survey by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching of 5000 faculty members at a representative sampling of U.S. universities, indicates most faculty members believe teaching effectiveness, rather than publications, should be the main criterion for faculty promotion (Boyer, 1989). About 71% of the respondents said their interests lie more in teaching, although this figure changes depending on the type of institution, e.g., 84% at liberal arts colleges, compared to 35% at major research universities. On the other hand, 54% agreed that it is difficult to get tenure if they do not publish (39% at liberal arts colleges and 94% at major research universities). Overall, about two thirds of the faculty are currently doing scholarly work that they expect to lead to publications (68% and 95% respectively at liberal arts colleges and major research universities (Boyer, 1989). Clearly the type of institution influences the overall mission and perceptions of major job responsibilities of faculty. On the other hand, in nearly all institutions of higher education, some kind of on-going contribution to the body of knowledge is considered part of professorial responsibilities. Unfortunately, in a 1985 study conducted by the Professional Development Committee of the Society of Park and Recreation Educators, only 35% and 46% of recreation faculty members reported involvement with refereed or non-refereed publications respectively (Klar & Grossman, 1986).
 
Unfortunately, many of the negative attitudes toward publishing arise from misunderstanding the value of scholarly work. In addition, too many doctoral and masters level degree programs have failed to equip graduating doctoral students (i.e., prospective faculty members) with the opportunity to develop sufficient conceptual, research, analytic and writing skills to successfully undertake the process. This situation can become self-perpetuating through the inability of these individuals when they become faculty members to pass on these skills to the next generation of doctoral students. In addition, negative attitudes toward publishing are also transmitted by faculty members to and/or shared by practitioners who see little value in much of the available published material to advancing the state of practice.
 
To some professors and practitioners the answer is to diminish the importance placed on publishing as a requirement for survival in academic life. Others have proposed further differentiation between the mission and responsibilities of faculty at research universities and those at teaching colleges or universities, and increased rewards for teaching versus research at all universities. Still others seek to expand the outlets for published work, claiming the problem is in the lack of opportunity for their work to reach print. Others wish to trivialize the peer review process by making the standards for what is published less demanding.
 
Many of the problems associated with writing for publication could be solved if there was a better understanding of the rationale for publishing scholarly work and if faculty did not feel so helpless with regard to undertaking the process. In addition, practitioners might be more supportive of the process if they saw the potential applicability of published work to improved professional practice. What follows is a rationale for writing beyond perish-avoidance and some initial ideas for those seeking success in the development of material to be accepted into the body of knowledge.
 
A Rationale for Publish-Beyond-Perish
 
There are at least three major reasons why some degree of publishing efforts should be part of the arsenal of the majority of faculty in park and recreation curricula.
 
Expanding the Body of Knowledge
 
The most widely accepted and understood reason for promoting publishing by faculty is the need to extend the body of knowledge. A growing profession depends on an ever increasing knowledge base to form the basis of practice. At the same time, the leisure sciences or studies aspect of the parks and recreation field will only advance if theory is in a process of continuous updating, extension and refinement. The literature thus provides the evidence and outlet for attempts to develop and refine theory, and improve the application of theory to practice.
 
It could be argued that publishing should be left to those individuals who enjoy the process or have the skills to contribute. However, this approach would rob the profession of the potential wisdom, expertise and abilities of the largest number of faculty in park, recreation, and leisure studies programs. These individuals have too much collected knowledge and have (or could easily develop) the ability to put that knowledge in a useful form for utilization to confine the publishing endeavor to those seeking tenure or those who choose to participate beyond the point of securing tenure. The same argument could be made for why more practitioners need to become involved in writing and sharing their ideas with professional colleagues.
 
Expanding the Relationship of Research to Teaching
 
A second reason for involving more faculty in the development of materials for publication is that the effort of developing articles can directly contribute to the knowledge brought to bear on teaching a given subject in the classroom or providing consulting assistance. In other words, the process of developing an in-depth understanding of the background literature in a given area, seeking to develop or refine theory, or trying to extend theory to practice, provides a means for strengthening one's own understanding and knowledge of the particular topic. The systematic and in-depth nature of the steps required to develop an intelligible piece that makes a contribution to the literature will at the same time help the researcher keep current with the growing knowledge base and assess gaps in existing knowledge.
 
While it could be argued that faculty would prepare for their classes with the same rigor that can be achieved by developing scholarly publications, the act of developing a manuscript will force the writer to seek a deeper understanding of the topic area and better ways to transmit ideas to students or practitioners. In other words, participating in the process of research and writing often has as much value as the actual published product itself. In many cases, the best researchers are also the best teachers.
 
Developing Critical Thinking Skills
 
A third rationale for writing for publication is to maintain and extend one's own critical thinking skills. While development of a good classroom lecture or professional presentation forces the individual to organize ideas, ferret out complex relationships, and understand theory and/or its relationship to practice, the act of writing down ideas in an organized and systematic fashion pushes the author to fully and cogently express these ideas for critical evaluation by others. The process of tying together past literature, developing theory and hypotheses, or explaining complex interrelationships, forces a depth of thinking that more casual lecturing often cannot achieve. Through undertaking several drafts of a manuscript and revisions based on peer review, the author sharpens ideas and the ability to explain relationships. The carry-over to other academic responsibilities is obvious. Thus, besides the contribution of the article itself, the writing process has the potential to make one a better teacher, researcher and consultant.
 
In total, then, writing for publication has a powerful rationale beyond perish-avoidance. Professors seeking to develop their full talents of critical thinking, teaching, and consulting as well as adding to the body of knowledge should view the process as more than building a vita and ensuring continued employment.
 
The Publishing Process
 
Besides understanding the rationale for developing manuscripts for publication consideration, it is also necessary to understand and overcome some of the pitfalls that can doom even the best-intentioned manuscript to rejection. To better understand some of these pitfalls, the author should initially have a good idea of how the review process of a journal works. Many of the pitfalls arise because authors do not understand this process.
 
Identifying an Appropriate Outlet
 
The first step in getting published is to identify an appropriate journal as a potential publication outlet. This can be done by reading the statement of purpose for each potential journal that delineates the range of topics that will be considered for publication. If an author is unsure, a call or letter to the journal editor should help clarify the initial interest level in the manuscript.
 
Following Preparation Guidelines
 
Having identified a journal, the next step is to prepare the manuscript. Most journals also print guidelines for authors that specify a specific style that a submitted manuscript must follow. These guidelines should not be taken lightly as most journals will reject a manuscript or send it back without review if basic style considerations are not followed.
 
Knowing the Editorial Process
 
If a manuscript falls within the general area of interest for a given journal and is prepared in the correct style, it is then ready for review. Most journals have an editor who acts as the major gatekeeper for what is submitted. The editor is usually supported by a group of associate editors and/or reviewers. When an article is initially received, most editors check the manuscript to ascertain if it is of minimum quality to deserve utilizing the time of the associate editors or reviewers for further review. At this stage the editor assesses the appropriateness of the manuscript for the specific journal, looks for a minimum level of readability, and checks the appropriateness of methods utilized. If the manuscript is unacceptable, the editor returns it to the author. In most cases, however, the article is forwarded to one or more associate editors for their detailed review.
 
Upon receipt, the associate editor reviews the manuscript in conformance with predetermined standards or publication criteria. For example, in the case of the Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, the associate editor evaluates the manuscript in five areas:
(a) Importance, timeliness, relevance of the topic to therapeutic recreation;
(b) Adequacy of the rationale and/or literature review;
(c) Logical organization of ideas and thoroughness of presentation;
(d) Congruence between the questions or issues investigated and implications/conclusions stated; and,
(e) Clarity and consistency of writing.
In most cases, the associate editor selects several reviewers who in turn are sent the article for evaluation. The associate editor, however, usually has the same right as the editor to send poorly developed manuscripts back without further review. When reviews are received, the associate editors will combine the various reviews into a recommendation to the editor regarding disposition of the manuscript. Most journals use some variation of the following set of categories:
 
1. Consider for publication (with minimum revisions);
2. Consider for publication (with major revisions);
3. Ask for major revisions before further publication consideration; or,
4. Reject article.
 
Having received the manuscript and recommendations back from the associate editor, the editor combines the comments and recommendations from the various reviews and also places the manuscript in one of the above categories. Sometimes the author is asked to make substantial revisions before a publication decision is made. Few manuscripts are published as originally submitted. Most require some degree of revision and if these revisions are substantial, a second round of reviews will be necessary.
 
Avoiding Pitfalls
 
While the review process itself is fairly straightforward, there are steps the author can take to increase the chances of an article being accepted for publication. A number of articles have appeared that list major pitfalls authors should avoid during manuscript preparation (Berado, 1981; Chase, 1970; McGuire, 1986; Selvin & Wilson, 1984; Smigel & Ross, 1970). The following discussion combines these lists, plus adds other areas that are critical based on my own experience as a journal editor, associate editor and reviewer.
 
Conceptualization
 
A good manuscript usually has a good beginning. Too many articles sound like some equivalent of the following: "The purpose of this article is to study X, so I collected some data and here is what I found." This approach fails to give adequate attention to the background or conceptualization of the study and a review of appropriate literature already available on the topic. Any article, whether data-based, philosophical, historical, or programmatic must do a good job of setting the stage for the current manuscript. Too many writers underestimate the importance of this task. A writer should ask, "What is the theoretical basis of the current study or discussion?" For example, if a given study is couched in attribution theory or based on the continuum model of therapeutic recreation services, this needs to be made clear.
 
If a study is designed to build theory or test existing theory, then the specifics of what the author is trying to accomplish need to be delineated. At this point the author also needs to answer the question, "So what?" If new information is found, confirmed, etc., what will the impact be for theory or practice of the findings? Too often the reader is kept in the dark as to why the study is being undertaken until the concluding section of the paper.
 
Organization and Writing Style
 
Even a well conceptualized study can be rejected for publication due to poor organization of the material, an inept writing style, and/or inappropriate use of language. The editor's or reviewer's job is not to fight through a sloppy or carelessly crafted work. Many articles that have the potential for adding to the literature are rejected because reviewers give up in disgust after struggling through the submission.
 
Here are some suggestions for improving a manuscript:
(a) Use simple language whenever possible and carefully explain difficult concepts or terminology;
(b) Short sentences are preferable as are clear, concise jargon-free statements that do not distort the language;
(c) Avoid unnecessary repetition and use the active voice wherever possible;
(d) The old cliche (avoid cliches at all costs!), "Say what you are going to do, do it, then say what you have done," provides a useful model for overall organization of the manuscript and its subsections. The first anticipates, the second elaborates while the third summarizes and takes stock; and,
(e) Brevity often goes with clarity. Most manuscripts should be limited to a single major issue or argument.
To assist the writer in preparing a quality manuscript, most journals publish a guide to article preparation or recommend a particular guide to follow. For example, articles submitted to the Journal of Park and Recreation Administration should be prepared according to guidelines published by the American Psychological Association. A writer should carefully review these guidelines, as they provide useful hints regarding style, organization, table set-up, etc. In addition, a writer should not be without a basic guide to grammar and language usage.
 
Motivation, Discipline and Humility
 
Understanding why publishing is useful will help stimulate motivation. In other cases, however, bad habits or memories of tortuous writing experiences are so ingrained there is little impetus for involving oneself in the process. Fear of failure, plus feeling that the odds of acceptance are low, and that one does not possess the skills to develop an acceptable manuscript, all can add up to never taking the plunge.
 
Developing Good Work Habits
 
Overcoming these feelings requires developing the requisite technical skills to produce an acceptable manuscript. However, good work habits are also important. When I was in graduate school, my doctoral committee chairperson was writing a book. Every morning at eight he left home and went straight to his library study carrel, where he proceeded to spend two hours on the task. Some days he did background reading; some days he outlined a chapter; some days he wrote or revised material; and some days he doodled. The important point was the regularity of the time set aside for scholarly activity.
 
Once in a while he was truly inspired and wrote beyond his two hours. When inspiration waned, he might undertake another writing project. However, he seldom left his carrel early for fear of falling into an easy habit of putting off a difficult section until the next day. When asked by the Dean or others to meet at nine, my advisor said he had an appointment with himself. After a while, we all got accustomed to his schedule and my advisor had finished his book.
 
Writing and other scholarly activities need to be made as important as the other tasks we schedule during the week. We schedule classes, meetings with students, professional conferences, and lunch dates. Why not schedule time for scholarly activity? If we fail to schedule for this activity, other activities will always eat away at our precious time until there is nothing left but "maybe next week" and other excuses. While it is not necessary to commit the ten hours a week my advisor did to writing, setting aside several regular periods every week for scholarly activity (i.e., an appointment with oneself) will pay long run dividends in terms of the quantity and quality of what is accomplished.
 
It is also important to create a quiet place to undertake scholarly activity. This usually means a place where no students or colleagues can interrupt, the telephone does not ring, and there are few other distractions. For some people it is a home office, for others, a study carrel. Few of us can isolate ourselves in our offices: too many students, friendly colleagues, and other distractions.
 
The Value of Feedback and Professional Interaction
 
Besides dedicating a time and a specific place to undertake scholarly activity, it is also important to interact with one's professional colleagues (both at the same institution and on other campuses) and practitioners, during the article preparation process. Few of us are capable of undertaking publishable first draft efforts in total isolation from the feedback of supportive, yet honest and critical colleagues. Thus sharing ideas, research objectives, plans for a philosophic treatise, etc. with a person down the hall or by e-mail, phone, or mail with someone who will give feedback, offer suggestions, or just encouragement, is important. As one gets to the writing stage, sharing a particularly difficult section of the material early in the development process may greatly improve the manuscript. Similarly, sharing a finished product with someone who will give useful feedback, can avoid the pain of rejection of what is in reality only a first draft.
 
The key to sharing material is to develop the mutual responsibilities of colleagueship. A true colleague is one who will take the time to work over one's ramblings and give thoughtful feedback. When someone's reactions are sought, there is no need to pamper the author or shelter him/her from the truth. While tact, supportive comments and constructive criticism are always in order, one should expect to be told when one has produced second-rate material. Not just anyone can play this critical role with an author. Thus, finding and nurturing colleagues is an important and necessary responsibility. Working with other people is also a primary way to improve one's own scholarly abilities. Acting as a reviewer for someone else's work can give insights into one's own problems. We can also work with other people by undertaking joint projects. This approach helps provide support, sharing of skills and most important, sharing of the burden of seeing a project through to completion. We can also make it standard practice in our interactions with colleagues to ask about their projects, inquire about their deadlines, and in a nurturing way, check on their progress at a later date. All this is in the interest of creating an atmosphere that promotes, encourages, and expects scholarly achievements.
 
Developing Humility
 
Finally, an author must develop humility. Sometimes, just sharing ideas to get feedback is not enough. Sometimes, it is necessary to ask for help, to admit we did not learn all there was to know by the time we finished graduate school, to say that the nuances of a particular theory evades our understanding. Entering the academy should not cut us off from learning. In fact, the university should be a haven for those who seek a lifetime of questioning, growth and exploration of unknown ideas. Humility means asking questions, continuing to take courses, expanding the realm of understanding, being curious, and accepting critique of our efforts.
 
Conclusion
 
Understanding the rationale for and process of writing for publication can help faculty develop the motivation to become more fully involved in the publishing process. In a professional field such as recreation, books, articles, reports and other written materials can supply the basis for practice. We are just beginning to develop an understanding of the antecedents and consequences of leisure behavior; the most optimal ways to market and finance leisure services; the consequences of human-environment interactions; and the impact of leisure on life satisfaction. Therefore, research and other scholarly endeavors are increasingly necessary to support the development of our extant body of knowledge. University faculty have a traditional role in developing the needed knowledge base. In addition, the process of scholarly work can help develop critical thinking skills and improve teaching effectiveness.
 
Helping faculty develop an understanding of the writing for publication mandate and the skills to be successfully involved in the process is an increasing necessity. Without such efforts, writing will never be more than perish-avoidance for the largest percentage of faculty. Practitioners also need to develop an understanding of the process and be supportive of it. Professional practice depends on a solid research foundation.
 
References
 
Berado, F. M. (1981). The publication process: An editor's perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 22, 771- 779.
 
Boyer, E. L. (1989) The condition of the Professoriate: Attitudes and trends, 1989. Princeton, N.J.: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
 
Chase, J. M. (1970). Normative criteria for scientific publication. The American Sociologist, 5(August), 262-265.
 
Iso-Ahola, S. (1986). Editor's notes: Concerns and thoughts about leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 18(3), iv-x.
 
Klar, L.A., & Grossman, A. H. (1986). Survey of professional development of faculty teaching in recreation, parks and leisure services curricula. Prepared for the Society of Park and Recreation Educators. Unpublished manuscript.
 
McGuire, F. A. (1986). Reflections on the peer review process in journal publication. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 3, 285-288.
 
Selvin, H. C., & Wilson, E. K. (1984). On sharpening sociologists prose. The Sociological Quarterly, 25(Spring), 205- 222.
 
Smigel, E. D., & Ross, H. L. (1970). Factors in the editorial decision. American Sociologist, 5(February), 19-21.

 

PREVIOUS LEVEL FACULTY LISTING RPTS MAIN PAGE

Go to top