Writing Papers That Will Be Accepted for Journal Publication

Students sometimes say to me, “You’re so successful. All your papers get published.” This is, in fact, not true. However, after many years as an academic (no need to ask how many!), I have learned a few things about how to write papers that will be accepted for publication in scholarly journals.

This process begins long before one sets pen to paper (or, more accurately, fingers to keyboard). The first step is to select an appropriate problem to work on – one that is viewed as being important. An exquisite analysis of an unimportant problem (for example, a minor variant of an existing analysis) tends to have far less value in the eyes of reviewers and journal editors than a simpler analysis of an important and timely problem. Sometimes a researcher may be examining a problem that is not yet viewed as important, but should be; that is where persuasive writing comes in (see below).

The analysis must be appropriate to the problem at hand. Although researchers frequently are well trained in a particular style of analysis or type of mathematical formulation, it is important not to go too far down the path of “a hammer looking for a nail” unless that nail is really suited to that hammer. It is also important to find the right balance in analysis between realism (appropriately modeling the problem at hand) versus simplicity (modeling the problem in a way that is feasible).

The analysis must be able to add value. I once reviewed a very sophisticated mathematical paper about medical treatment in a stochastic setting that concluded that the sickest patients should be treated first. The math was nice, but I already knew before reading the paper that it makes sense to first treat the sickest patients. It is important that an analysis adds new – and hopefully important – understanding to a problem. When I was an assistant professor, a senior colleague once told me, “If you find that your paper isn’t making a significant contribution, stick it in your desk drawer. Maybe later you will improve it. If not, just leave it there.” I have frequently shelved an analysis – sometimes for good, sometimes only until new inspiration struck. I generally follow the dictum that it’s not a good idea to slice the salami too thin.

The next step is writing the paper. Although different subdisciplines within our field use somewhat different styles of exposition (for example, a highly mathematical paper will be written differently from a paper on organizational theory), at its heart, each article is a story with a beginning, middle and end (though perhaps no hero’s journey). The introductory section of an article must briefly and concisely articulate the main message/contributions/insights. Why should the reader care about this paper? How does it contribute to existing knowledge? The middle section must clearly present methods and findings, and the final section ought to very briefly summarize conclusions, limitations and directions for further research. Notice the repeated use of the word “briefly.” In my experience, very few researchers write papers that are too short. Indeed, as a reviewer, I frequently find myself suggesting that authors make their papers more concise. Professionalism is also important: for example, the paper should contain no typos, grammar should be clear, numbers in tables should match those in the text, etc. When I review a sloppily prepared manuscript, I wonder what other details the authors have neglected (e.g., reasonable assumptions, careful and accurate analysis).

If possible, it is a really good idea to share a manuscript with one’s long-suffering colleagues for their feedback. Now is the time – before submitting the paper for publication – for brutal and honest feedback. Now is the time to make the paper as good as possible.

The next step is to determine where to submit the paper – although I’m getting ahead of myself here: one should in fact be thinking about where the paper will be submitted when writing the manuscript. When I have a target journal in mind, I frequently look through that journal to understand the types of papers the journal publishes. What topics do papers in this journal examine? How long is a typical article? What do the abstracts look like? To what extent are technical details contained in the main manuscript vs. a supplement? A paper has a much higher chance of being accepted if it looks like one of the more solid papers published in that journal.

After submission, the waiting begins. I typically let a couple of months pass before I contact the journal to ask when I may receive reviews. Pinging the journal can be very useful because it can help ensure that an article does not fall through the cracks (yes, this happens) and that the editor knows that the authors are eager (eager-ish?) to receive feedback and revise their manuscript.

Although reviews can be crushing to one’s ego (“minor problem,” “ignored much of the existing literature,” “fairly simple and far from being practical”… I could go on …), it is important to view reviewer comments in the light of suggestions that can improve a paper. If the paper is rejected outright, one can determine whether any of the reviewer comments can improve the paper before submission elsewhere. The review process can be highly variable and sometimes a worthy paper is rejected out of hand. Sometimes a paper is just not suited to the journal or is deemed to not make a significant enough contribution. Here, perseverance is key: submit the paper elsewhere and try again.

If a revision is requested, keep in mind that the goal is to improve the manuscript. It is a good idea to revise the paper in a way that responds to every single reviewer comment, even if it is only adding a clarifying sentence or mention of an area for further research. However, there are some caveats here. Sometimes a reviewer wants the authors of a paper to cite the reviewer’s – irrelevant – papers. Sometimes a reviewer wants the authors to reframe the analysis in a way that the reviewer likes (“this is really a lean manufacturing study”) when that is not the intended viewpoint of the analysis. Sometimes a reviewer asks for an unreasonable amount of additional analysis (“you should extend the analysis to the infinite horizon case”). Although editors should rein in such behavior, reviews like these still slip through. In such cases, authors must decide whether they are willing to perform the requested revision. In any event, it is important to provide a comprehensive response to reviewers that describes how each comment was addressed in the revision.

Finally, if all goes well, the manuscript will be accepted for publication. It will add to knowledge about an important problem and tell a great story in a clear and concise way – and it will have your name on the front page.