# data[].attributes.body
If you're coming up to your viva, the panel can be a good source of advice on how you might go about publishing your findings. Someone on my panel advised me to rework a chapter and submit it as a standalone article, and they were even kind enough to provide feedback on drafts and advice on which journal would be a good fit!

# data[].attributes.body
Some things I noted when I first submitted a paper to a journal:

Firstly, that the portal for submitting to each journal is different, entering all of the information correctly and following the steps can be burdensome - make sure you account for the time. This also becomes more annoying if your paper is rejected and you need to re-format it for another journal. Lots of time involved I didn't think about.

Additionally, I remember being worried I hadn't got all of the formatting/criteria correct despite double-checking. Although this is a good process to follow, please don't panic! Your article will be checked at submission and after acceptance by editors, and you will be prompted to make any small changes along the way.

Thirdly, when you receive reviewer comments, you must respond to these individually. As others have said, make sure to consider them and respond accordingly, pushing back if you think this is the right approach. Do also discuss the comments with your co-authors.

Finally, submitting a paper is a big achievement, even if it gets desk-rejected, you get a million comments from 'reviewer 2', or you don't hear back for a year... make sure to celebrate that submission!! :)

# data[].attributes.body
If your paper makes it to reviewers, and then following review you are asked to revise the paper, this is a good sign that the editor sees something worth publishing. Hold onto this thought as you wade through the comments! All of my papers have been massively improved by addressing reviewer comments, and it has made me a better researcher.

That isn't to say that reviewers always get it right though, so do push back if you disagree with them and make your case for why the changes are not warranted.

Also take opportunities to peer review papers for (reputable) journals if invited. It is really useful to know what it's like to be on the other side of the publishing coin! And you'll almost certainly learn something new that you can use in your own work.

# data[].attributes.body
I had a really positive and insightful experience during the review process recently. I sumitted a paper to a top-in-the-field journal. Undoubtedly as an ECR, the process was extremely daunting but the publishers policy and the Editorial team made it much smoother. On two occassions during the review process I had conflicting priorities with teaching and personal circumstances and found meeting the deadlines for revisions (yes, there were multiple) extremely stressful. I really needed an extension on the deadline to complete the revisions satisfactorily, however I worried that making such a request might make me look unprofessional/unorganised. I mustered up the courage and asked. The response from the editor was really supportive, compassionate and prompt. I was able to get two weeks extension on two occassions. I found the experience really revealing that we are all human afterall, Editors too! :)

P.S. I think the publisher guidelines have something to do with this too. I think most Elsevier journals have a system whereby you can request an extension, no questions asked - I found this out much later in the process. Still, talk to your Editors, usually they understand the ebbs and flows of academic and personal committments too.

# data[].attributes.headline
The differing importance of significance for different journals 

# data[].attributes.subject
The differing importance of significance for different journals 

# data[].attributes.body
In my area, some journals will limit the number of papers published per volume, whereas others (typically open access and founded as online only) do not have volumes or publishing limits. For the first type of journal (article number limited) if the submission is rigorous and original, its significance tends to the deciding factor as to whether it is published and thus should be particularly foregrounded in the submission and letter to the editor. For the latter type of journal (online only) sometimes reviewers are specifically asked to not comment on the significance, as the journal will publish rigorous and original work and allow readers to make their own judgement.

# data[].attributes.body
It is ok to contact the editor handling your paper outside of the review process. This could be, for example, because you don’t quite understand a reviewer’s point/suggestion and want further clarification. You could write that you don’t quite get what the reviewer means in your response letter, but then you’re going to wait for another round of reviews to get a response. There’s no harm in asking informally.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What is the right place to start my publishing journey?

Choose the best international associations and their conferences to pilot ideas and get feedback on conference presentations.

Work on these ideas and seek out publication opportunities shared within these conferences and associations.

2. What is the right place to publish my journal article?

Check the journal's scope, editorial board, latest issues, and publisher to see the reputation and work they usually publish to check fit.

Check their reported turnaround times, whether they offer free, cheap, or eventual open access for more reach and citations.

3. What is the best way to get to the finish line?

Submit the article after checking author guidelines and formatting submission accordingly.

Read review and resubmit comments, sleep on them to tackle them with reason and clarity. Work in comments that ameliorate submission and explain why other comments that might not fit current work have been left out.

About me: I study young people and digital cultures. I completed my PhD in India and moved to the UK for my postdoc. My work has been published in reputed journals like Information, Communication & Society, Media International Australia, Journal of Communication, etc. I am part of the British Academy ECRN London Cluster and the Publishing ThinkIN Group.

- Devina Sarwatay, Presidential Fellow, City St George's, University of London

# data[].attributes.body
Something that was very opaque to me as a phd student- and to a large extent, still is - concerns which journals are"better" ie high impact . How are you meant to know this? I think conversations with senior academics is a good way round this. I wish in hindsight I had not submitted articles to journals based on my assessment of a good "fit" for my work, but rather the impact factor, or quality.

# data[].attributes.body
Book publishing can take years even after interest from an editor!

# data[].attributes.headline
Best Practices for Writing the Response Letter to Editors/Reviewers (Revise and Resubmit)

# data[].attributes.subject
Best Practices for Writing the Response Letter to Editors/Reviewers (Revise and Resubmit)

# data[].attributes.body
A good approach to address editors' and reviewers' comments is usually to create a table incorporating each comment and then respond to them individually and proceed with revisions... However, what are the best practices for writing the actual response letter when it's time to (organically) gather all your responses/changes and resubmit your manuscript? How do you balance politeness and rebuttals, apart from an authoritative, logical/argumentative perspective? How do you concisely summarise the many changes you have made in the paper in a way that is persuasive for editors?

I believe that persuading editors about the improved quality of the revised paper in the response letter is as important as actually amending and improving the manuscript's quality - some good writing and 'marketing' skills need to be employed in this very specific context.

# data[].attributes.body
My supervisor introduced me to the editor in chief of a journal I was targetting for my first solo authored paper at a conference. This gave me the opportunity to 'sell' my paper a little in advance and ensure that she viewed it as a good fit before proceeding to submission. When I did submit, my supervisor again encouraged me to email the editor and let her know that the paper we had previously discussed was now in. I thought this was a way too forward thing to do and might even be perceived as exerting pressure on her to view the paper positively. Her reaction however was very warm, and the paper progressed swiftly (but robustly) through two rounds of review. I don't think my paper was treated any differently in terms of quality standards, but the fact that it was already anticipated as a valuable addition to the journal's debates meant they were keen to keep me engaged and get the paper out. As a general rule, I now approach an editor informally (through my extended networks or at conferences) to run a paper idea by them before I submit, as it removes the first hurdle of ensuring fit and generating a bit of interest/anticipation.

# data[].attributes.body
Journal descriptions can sound perfect for your work. They say they welcome interdisciplinary work and various methods. But in practice they don't always! Getting advice from experienced academics about appropriate journals for your work is very useful!

# data[].attributes.body
Get experience of reviewing early in your career. It will help you to know what reviewers/editors are looking for. There are several publishers with schemes for ECRs and journals are always looking out for new reviewers.

# data[].attributes.body
Always aim to publish in a higher impact journal than what you think your work is worth. If they reject it, at least you expected it and will be less disappointed than if you were rejected by a journal you expected would accept your work outright. Moreover, you get to learn more from a higher impact journal rejection.

# data[].attributes.body
It is common to feel disheartened or demotivated whenever you receive feedback from the reviewers. But, let's not forget that even reviewers are human beings that come with different expertise and opinion. So, it is OKAY to disagree with the reviewers sometimes. If you have valid reasons, you are allowed to disagree and justify your standpoint. That is the purpose of providing a point-by-point feedback based on the reviewers' comment. Try your best to address all feedback but if you feel that some of the feedback are overboard, don't keep in silent. You are the master of your craft, afterall your name will be on the paper when it is published. Have an open discussion with your co-authors and seek opinion from experienced people within your circle and decide. Sometimes you don't have to follow the 'herd behavior'.

# data[].attributes.body
A rejection is just a rejection by one journal, not by the academic community as a whole. Dust yourself off and try again until something sticks. Always ask for feedback and use that to come back stronger.

# data[].attributes.body
Try and reframe the negative feedback you get for your own mental health. All feedback is good as it makes your work stronger BUT the negativity you read is not about what they are saying but how it is said.

Always remember that bad use of language and attitude is not a reflection on you or your work but a reflection instead on your reviewers ability to communicate it.

People who offer their time for free to review are wanting to give feedback to make your paper better but sometimes that gets lost in the noise. Reframing this tricky process can help with your own wellbeing and make it into a much more collegiate process.

# data[].attributes.body
In publishing articles that drew from my thesis, I was incredibly surprised how little I knew and how poorly i was informed on publishing rights. I am only now coming to understand issues of copyrighting and creative commons, through discussion with prospective publishing. It would have been extremely helpful to have heard some real-life case studies from ECRs on publishing barriers and potential pitfalls.

# data[].attributes.body
Always look out for special issues, these are a great way to get your work out there with a group of academics who are working towards similar goals within a topic and so you could get more exposure to your work.

# data[].attributes.headline
Have a discussion early on what the authorship looks like for your work

# data[].attributes.subject
Have a discussion early on what the authorship looks like for your work

# data[].attributes.body
I know it's awkward, but if you're working on a bigger project, have a discussion early on what the authorship looks like for publications coming from projects specifically, and make sure it's in an email. This avoids issues later with people wanting to get their name on things when they shouldn't. Also, what earns a name on a paper differs between disciplines. I'm being named on an article I didn't take part in writing at all, but I was the one doing the data collection and data analysis for the project so I deserve to have my name on the paper. Have these discussions early on!

# data[].attributes.body
Some conferences also offer the ability/option for presented works to be published in the conference proceedings - this could be physical, online, or both.

# data[].attributes.body
Make a list of journals and/or publishers that are most appropriate to your field and area of study (more than one list if your work is interdisciplinary). To start with, take a note of journals and publishers you are citing through your own references, then add to this through library/online searches and asking your contacts who they work with. Get on mailing lists if you can for networks in your field which may also share opportunities for publishing and conferences.

# data[].attributes.body
The journal/publisher may request a referencing style that you are not used to working with - pay close attention to style guides and reviewer comments when drafting/redrafting.

# data[].attributes.body
As an ECR, I thought editors need to follow reviewer recommendations. But I have since learned that the editor can take any decision, regardless of what the reviewers recommend. This can be good or bad for the author.