Getting Published in Academic Journals

Photo: diylibrarian

Below are the notes for a class that acting JMRC director A/Prof Jane Mills gave to the Centre's HDR students on how to get published in academic articles.
________________________________________________________

Why Publish?

Academics are expected to publish. In Australia universities receive extra funding based on their academic publication rates and academic promotion is difficult without a good publication record.

However, the reality is that only a small percentage of academics are actively publishing (2006, p.19).

Publish or perish?

There is value for research, teaching and learning in publishing – it’s a way of maintaining currency in the theory and practice of your scholarly discipline

Peer review:  crucial part of the process – few other professions use this system of maintaining excellence.

It’s a way of making a contribution to your discipline and field of research.

Increasingly, HDR student are expected to publish at least one article while they’re writing their PhD.

It’s a way of learning how to make an argument:  dialogue, debate, dialectic, discuss, debate with other scholars – but DON’T just describe!

Exercise: definition of research?

UNSW Definition of Research: The Commonwealth Government provides a definition of research for the purpose of the Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC) of research income and publications. The full HERDC specifications are available at: www.innovation.gov.au/ Research/ ResearchBlockGrants/ =Pages/HigherEducationResearchDataCollection.aspx

Research is defined as the creation of new knowledge and/or the use of existing knowledge in a new and creative way so as to generate new concepts, methodologies and understandings. This could include synthesis and analysis of previous research to the extent that it leads to new and creative outcomes.

This definition of research is consistent with a broad notion of research and experimental development (R&D) as comprising of creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humanity, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications. This definition of research encompasses pure and strategic basic research, applied research and experimental development. Applied research is original investigation undertaken to acquire new knowledge but directed towards a specific, practical aim or objective (including a client-driven purpose).

~~~~~~~~~~~
A – Z

1. Getting started.

PhD chapter – this can be turned into an article But they’re quite different genres.
Conference  paper: this is a good way to start writing  an article.
Lecture(s): can result in articles – but the oral and the written are very different genres.
Exercise:  In pairs, choose a topic for an actual or  hypothetical article that one of you have written or might write.  Or consider this one that I’m currently planning – on the films of Aboriginal Filmmaker, Ivan Sen.

Sample

How an article might be generated form the journal itself – but usually only when you're known in the field.

• Letter from editor:  I'm just starting to get together a dossier of articles for issue 3 of Senses of Cinema for 2013 - publication in mid-September. …I've decided it should focus upon contemporary Australian filmmakers - mostly currently active filmmakers who started directing in the 1990s or 2000s. Although a number of these filmmakers have been written about, this has mostly been in relation to individual films rather than their body of work across Australian and international cinema, fiction and documentary, cinema and television. Their work has also - generally - been much less discussed than the groups of filmmakers who emerged in the 1970s and 1980s. We are looking for substantial articles that account for the work of particular directors and examine the nature of filmmaking in the contemporary context within Australia (where, for example a director may work predominantly overseas and mostly in television). Although most suggestions will be considered, we are not looking for essays on such widely discussed figures as Baz Luhrmann or Jane Campion.
• I envisage that this may become an intermittent series, also focusing on other figures such as actors and cinematographers, but for now I am looking for expressions of interest in writing substantial articles (5000 words or so - but negotiable) on a contemporary Australian film director. I have included a preliminary list below, but am open to other suggestions particularly within fields outside of mainstream cinema and the feature film. Plainly, the director will need to have built something of a body of work - so just one feature and a short, for example, is probably not enough.
• Submissions can be peer-reviewed but this will mean a substantially earlier submission.
• Submission date for peer-review: June 1; General submission date: Aug 1

References (Getting Started):
I strongly recommend The Thesis Whsiperer - http://thesiswhisperer.com/  for advice and sanity to all HDR students.
Leki, I. (1998) ‘How to begin to write’.  Academic writing: exploring processes and strategies.
Boice, R. (1990) ‘Spontaneous writing’.  Professors as writers: A self-help guide to productive writing.
Murray, R. (2009) Ch. 4, ‘Outlining’. Writing for academic journals,
The Thesis Whsiperer - http://thesiswhisperer.com/
Thompson & Kamler (2012)  Ch 4, ‘Beginning Work’. Writing for Peer Reviewed Journals: Strategies for getting published.

2. Which journal? 

Who’s the reader? Think about who you're writing for.
Which journals do you most enjoy or get most value from?
ERA check out the ERA accredited journals on ERA website. Also John Lampe’s website.
Journals that count – no longer ranked. But get to know the journal. See who the editors are. Do they feel like top ranking scholars in the field.
Views differ but my advice is HDR students should think about getting published in less highly ranked journals – as long as they’re scholarly and peer-reviewed.
Get to know your journals – who are the editors, advisors, past articles
Writing without a journal firmly fixed in your mind – a good/bad idea? Views differ. I find it useful to plan in advance. Otherwise write for the discipline (and your peers) and then modify later when you've decided which journal to send to.
Check to see in latest issue what the dates of the last cited references are? This way you can tell how long the authors had to wait until it was published after submitting. Some high ranked journals take up to 4 years before publishing after article submitted.

Class exercise:  Using the idea for an article you selected earlier, what journal(s) might you target – and why? How would you go about targeting a journal.

References (Which Journal?)
Murray, R. (2009) Ch. 2, ‘Targeting a Journal’. Writing for academic journals,
John Lampe ERA Current Outlets Access http://lamp.infosys.deakin.edu.au/era/

3.  Planning  + writing schedule 

Look at structures of other articles in the journals of your discipline.
Are ‘templates’ useful?  Some academics think yes: others not so keen. I advise my students to read other journals. But basically there are no templates.
Writing about research and writing as research: writing itself can be a mode of researching.
Chapter and paragraph prompts: write at the start of each section or paragraph
What is this article/section/paragraph about?
What point am I wanting to make here?
Can you write in short bursts? Or do you need whole days? Can you afford to spend whole days on article writing if you're doing your PhD?
Always include in your time plan and consult your supervisor about when you propose to write an article.

Exercise:  what planning and writing strategies will you use?

References (Planning  + writing schedule):
Huff, A.S. (1999)
Murray, R. (2009) Ch. 4, ‘Outlining’. Writing for academic journals,
Wellington, J. (2003)
Silvia, P. (2007) pp. 11-28
Gray, T.  (2005)
Murray, R., & Moore, S. (2006)

4.  Title, Abstract & key words 

When do I write these – at start or at end?
What must/should I include?

4a. Title
Exercise: Write a title (after reading the titles below).
Look at and analyse some titles in the journals in your discipline. The following titles are taken from the formerly A ranked journal, Continuum: Journal of media and cultural studies, (24: 3), 2010.  (With thanks to R. Richardson)

Title	Comment
1: “TV nation or TV city?”	At first glance the title does not give much detail about what the article will cover although it is clear that the article looks at television as its core theme. It is unclear how the ‘nation’ and ‘city’ ideas will be addressed. After reading the abstract I learned that the article looks at how the Sydney metropolitan television service has shaped the nation. I concluded that therefore the title does reflect the themes of the article.
2: “At home with our colonial work: ABC TV’s New Look at New Guinea”	I noted that article either looks at how the ABC depicts PNG historically or how it depicts PNG now. I decided it must be the latter because of the reference to the ‘new look’. After reading the abstract, however, it seems I was wrong; the article looks at a series of documentaries made by the ABC in 1958 and 1959. If someone was researching representations of PNG’s culture then the title of this article would indicate that this would be a useful article for them to read. However, this title is not as descriptive as Richardson would like it to be.
3. Ask the Leyland Brothers: Instructional TV, travel and popular memory	This title is much more descriptive. It is clear that the article will specifically look at instructional TV, travel programs and will make specific reference to the Leyland Brothers television program. After reading the abstract, this is what the article is about but it also looks at why instructional TV “is not prominent in the 'official' discourse of Australia's TV history”. Obviously, not every theme from an article can feature in the title.

4b. Abstract
there are some useful, generic, established rhetorical phrases  - and words/phrases to avoid. It may help to follow Murray and Moore’s (2006) suggestion on p. 60 to develop your abstract by borrowing phrases from existing abstracts, eg you could use:
“this article challenges….” (statement about purpose, aims)
“drawing on…” (statement about methods)
“this article calls for…” (statement about conclusions)
Words to avoid? No hard and fast rules but I’m personally wary of “interesting”, “very”, “certainly”, “utilise” – ask your supervisor for others. They alert peer reviewers/examiners that the writes is unsure or not widely read.

How to write an abstract: there is much conflicting advice. Read up and choose what fits best with the journals of your discipline (or each individual journal will have its own style):
This is my approach to an abstract structure:
1. Begin with what is known (uncontentious)
2. Move to what is not known and therefore needs to be researched
3. How you went about doing your research i.e. methodology
4. Your results/findings
U. Berkeley: These are the basic components of an abstract in any discipline:
1) Motivation/problem statement: Why do we care about the problem? What practical, scientific, theoretical or artistic gap is your research filling?
2) Methods/procedure/approach: What did you actually do to get your results? (e.g. analyzed 3 novels, completed a series of 5 oil paintings, interviewed 17 students)
3) Results/findings/product: As a result of completing the above procedure, what did you learn/invent/create?
4) Conclusion/implications: What are the larger implications of your findings, especially for the problem/gap identified in step 1?
U. Adelaide: offers different advice re methods to the Berkeley advice above.
Descriptive abstracts are generally used for humanities and social science papers or psychology essays.  This type of abstract is usually very short (50-100 words). Describes the major points of the project to the reader. Includes the  background, purpose and focus of the paper or article, but never the methods, results and conclusions, if it is a research paper. Most descriptive abstracts have certain key  parts in common. They are:
 Background
 Purpose
 Particular interest/focus of paper
 Overview of contents (not always included)

Class exercise: Draft an abstract – no more than 100 words (NB some conferences are asking for up to 800-word abstracts)

Sample exchange with Peer Reviewers on an abstract

An abstract dialogue
Conference:  FILM AND MEDIA 2013: The Pleasures of the Spectacle
The arrival of the cinema in the final decade of the 19th Century marked the completion of a quest for extended visual representation in motion, with all its attendant revelations of the modern world. Within just over three decades, synchronised sound had provided a further amplification, opening up the twin channels of the audio-visual.
  The new medium offered the generalised pleasures of looking and hearing, but in emphatic terms – concentrated attention focussing on the high intensities of the cinema screen. It stressed visuality and audibility under conditions of increasing narrative rigour, and mounting spectacle. A further pleasure was entailed – membership of social audiences, entertained in the great movie palaces of the 20th Century.
  These pleasures sometimes arose from the medium’s engagement with the real, sometimes from its fantastical departures from the everyday. They offered various forms of psychic release (as in comedy), sometimes reinforced powerful human drives (such as the sexual). Sometimes, perversely, their delights arose from their involvement of the spectator in apparently unpleasable experiences of fear and dread (as in horror).
From the mid-20th Century Television shifted the focus of pleasure from the social arena of the movie theatre to the domesticity of the home, and from the endless circulation of individual film texts to the pleasurable ‘flow’ of television, with its broad generic mix of audio-visual messages and its more diffuse manipulation of the audio-visual. New media dramatically extended the range, in particular by loosening up the manipulation of sound and image – and providing consumers with the pleasures of a higher degree of control – and by ‘personalising’ media experience more directly. The power of digital media demonstrates just how far the audio-visual has come since its early fascination with the pleasures of the ‘real’, now offering both mundane and extreme forms of illusion and delight.
FILM AND MEDIA 2013 will consider the many ways in which the spectacle has been constructed, and in which the spectacle afforded by film and media creates varieties of pleasure for audiences and spectators. These will range from the basic forms of pleasurability involved in looking at, and listening to, audio-visual messages through to the complex psychic regimes involved in these processes, the social nature of the practices of viewing and listening, and the broader politics of pleasure where sound and vision are concerned.

My initial proposal
Title: Spectacle, pleasure and the trap of textualism.
Abstract (strictly 180-200 words):
In Rembrandt’s J’Accuse, Peter Greenaway makes a bold statement about the relationship between image, word and literacy:
Most people are visually illiterate. Why should it be otherwise? We have a text-based culture. Our educational systems teach us to value text over image which is one of the reasons why we have such an impoverished cinema…. Our sophistications of systems of communication are text-based in the spoken and written word. And as a consequence, by comparison, the interpretation of the manufactured image in our culture is undernourished, ill informed and impoverished.
The cause for concern is that ‘literacy’ evokes the insistence of the letter, and is surely evocative of print culture. When film literacy is taught in the classroom as a text there is little or no space for pleasures involving the sensory, bodily, visceral responses to the visual. For the cinephiliac, spectacle really matters but, as Sylvia Harvey suggests, the emphasis on language by film theorists resulted in an “extreme mistrust of the fruits of the camera’s labours.” This paper asks what happens to love and pleasure when understanding and experiencing the spectacle is framed by a linguistic analytical paradigm. [190 words]

Conference Response #1
We confirm that your proposal has now come through our Peer Review process.  Our reviewers considered that your area of research would make a relevant, interesting and valuable contribution to the event. Congratulations! At the same time, they expressed the following reservations:
1. They thought that you would benefit from a stronger title. 'Textualism' does not seem right, since films are also audio-visual texts themselves. From the Abstract, they understand that you are concerned with the practice of Visual Literacy in a cultural context dominated by verbal language, and they therefore thought that it would be good to see this reflected directly in the title. They have suggested the following: 'From Word to Image: Challenges for Visual Literacy'. This is therefore the title by which we propose to list you. We hope that is OK by you.
2. They thought that you spend most of the Abstract attacking the dominance of the word - a position which they fully understand - but that you do not start to explain an alternative until the very end of the Abstract. They found the Abstract somewhat imbalanced in this respect, and wanted to hear more about your proposed alternative. How can the visual be mediated except via the word?
3. On a matter of detail, they did not understand the weight you attach to the opening quotation from Peter Greenaway. What is the force of this remark? Does Greenaway's dismissive remark really help?
4. On a further matter of detail, they wondered why you claim that "we have such an impoverished cinema", and why you seem to blame this on the education system.
We hope that you will accept these points in the constructive spirit in which they were made by our reviewers. On the basis of the above, we have pleasure in offering you a Provisional Acceptance to FILM AND MEDIA 2013 along with an invitation to let us have a revised Abstract which successfully addresses these points. We will then be happy to send you our official Letter of Acceptance.

My response (after much spitting on my part)
Dear Conference Team: Thank you for your provisional acceptance and the helpful suggestions to amend my proposal. My only caveat concerns the new title that was suggested. My current research and the focus of this paper is 'screen literacy' (sometimes referred to as 'cineliteracy') rather than the much broader notion of 'visual literacy' that your reviewers proposed.  If, however, you still think it more appropriate for the title refers to visual literacy rather than screen literacy, then it's no big problem as I'll obviously be explaining what I am referring to when delivering my paper.

New title and abstract
From Word to Image: Challenges for Screen Literacy.
When cinema entered the English Language and Literature class, screen literacy became one of several literacies in a multimodal age that students were expected to possess. The notion of literacy, however, evokes and promotes the insistence of the letter and print culture. The ensuing struggle for primacy between word and image echoes the warnings of Paul Willemen that the linguistic turn in Film Studies erases ‘the revelatory powers… of the image in movement’ and of Sylvia Harvey that an emphasis on language results in ‘extreme mistrust of the fruits of the camera’s labours.’
This paper explores the impact of a pedagogy –one that is the norm in high school screen literacy learning in the UK, Australia and elsewhere -framed and limited by certain prevailing logics of written text and narrative, language and literacy. It asks if, when applied to the moving image, a linguistic analytical paradigm results in an unnecessarily limited knowledge and understanding of film as an affective experience.  It argues that a love of cinema is deeply implicated in the erotics of visualising in ways that a love of literature may not be and, further, that this could lead to a reframing of how film is taught.
[199 words]
Conference response #2

Dear Jane:  Thank you for sending us your revised proposal to FILM AND MEDIA 2013. We are delighted to confirm your acceptance to the event. We think your revised version much stronger, and we are happy to agree your preferred title.

4c: Key words

Why important - key words typically:

• allow readers to judge whether or not an article contains material relevant to their interests;
• provide readers with suitable terms to use in web-based searches to locate other materials on the same or similar topics;
• help indexers/editors group together related materials in, say, the end-of-year issues of a particular journal or a set of conference proceedings;
• allow editors/researchers to document changes in a subject discipline (over time); and
• link the specific issues of concern to issues at a higher level of abstraction (Hartley)

Class exercise:  choose 5 key words for your article

References (Title, Abstract & key words)
Hartley, J. (2008) pp. 23-28
Hartley, J. (2008) (pp. 37-40)
Day, A. (2007) pp. 89-90
Murray, R., & Moore, S. (2006)
Day, A. ( 2007) Day, A. (2007). ‘Writing an abstract’. pp. 27-34

5. Drafting, revising 

Drafts  - name them! Avoid  the ‘f’ word  (‘final’)
How many drafts? NB Graham Greene reportedly went to 8 drafts for everything he published.
Advice: keep revising!
Don't go it alone: engage with mentors/writing community:

References (Drafting, revising):
Johnson, W., & Mullen, C. (2007)
McGrail, M., Rickard, C., & Jones, R. (2006)
Moore, S. (2003)
Gray, T. (2005) pp. 55-61
Murray, R. (2009)  - Chapter 8

6. Sending it off 

Check requirements (anonymous for blind peer-reviewing)
References (NB endnote)
Get someone else to read it thru
Check if there’s any indication if/when they acknowledge receipt – write it in calendar so that if you don't hear back, you can write a short polite email to the editor to ask if it arrived safely. Editors don't like being pestered but they don't mind a few gentle enquiries. Always get in touch with editor if it’s damaging your health not to know what’s happening!

Checklist:

• length: 5,000 to 7,000 words in length (or whatever length stipulated by the journal you have selected); 
• style: correctly referenced, using the referencing system that is used in your target journal;
• abstract, etc.: an abstract of stipulated length, an introduction, a conclusion, five key words
• UNSW attribution: The University of New South Wales, Australia.

7. Surviving peer reviewers’ responses

Peer reviewers – who are they? Not always experienced; seldom well trained in how to peer review.
Peer reviewing  -experiences I valuable for writers. NB the online, peer-reviewed, open access scholarly journal, fusion: http://www.fusion-journal.com , aims to encourage early career academics, researchers and HDR students by coupling them with experienced researchers as a peer-reviewing team. [This is an advertisement; I’m on the editorial committee and we’re looking for submissions!]

Aim of peer reviewers is  [or should be] to assist writers  to get published. There are usually 4 different responses:
1. Unconditional acceptance
2. Accept with minor revisions
3. Revise and resubmit
4. Rejection

Rejection: Don't give up: Put on one side; revise; try again.
Possible reasons for rejection:
Wrong journal
Not a journal article, i.e. a report, thesis chapter, too journalistic
Too long/short
Poorly structured  (see Gray, T. (2005) pp. 38-49)
Bad style, grammar, English (i.e. not corrected by a native English speaker)
Revise and resubmit: Negative response? Bite your tongue. Don't get sniffy. Engage. Be polite. Respond – accept or explain why you disagree with reviewers. Be respectful.
Always let the journal know what you have and haven’t revised – and why.

Exercise: Follow Murray’s  (2009) recommendations. Start by being polite, then address each criticism, explaining why you have decided to make changes or why you have not. See Murray’s (2009) letter on page 191:
Dear editors,
Thank you for your comments.  I line with your suggestions, I have amended paragraph 2 and expanded my argument…
You will see that I have not amended….
N.B. Consider acknowledging peer reviewers’ suggestions.


_________________________________________________________________________________

Sample Peer Review #1
Screen Education: Referee’s Report

Name of Referee: Jane Mills
Title of paper:  XYZ
Date Sent:
10 August 2012

Return Date:
31 August 2012
I would recommend the following course of action:
Accept without modification
Accept with minor changes
Accept following major revision
Reject

Evaluation:

	None or Unacceptable	Low Poor	Average Fair	High Good	Very High Excellent
Importance of topic		x
Contribution to field/debate	x
Quality of ideas		x
Quality of writing				x
Organization/structure			x
Quality of methodology/approach	x

	Yes	No
Does the content justify the length?		x
Is the theme or argument interesting?		x

Comments for author
This is a perfectly sound summary of the  2012 Report of the […] Review Committee and previous interim reports. As such, it would be valuable to publish as a commissioned piece since it competently condenses the Report and its genesis to 6000 words (I note that this is 1000 words longer than the limit and I’m not at all sure it need be this long).  My concern is that it is not an academic article in the sense of demonstrating any scholarly rigour in regard to research questions, methodological approach, or argument. It cites only three scholarly  texts (apart from three references to the authors’ own writings), and is largely a chronological summary of events and reports culminating in the Final Report.  The reference to […] is valuable although, again, there is no analysis and therefor nothing for a peer reviewer to engage with.


Please also provide comments for the author on a separate sheet, identifying strengths as well as areas for improving quality of content and/or style, organization, etc. Please, where necessary, elaborate on your responses to the categories in the above boxes. This will aid revision and provide essential feedback even in the case of rejection. If you consider that rejected articles could be submitted elsewhere, it would be useful to give suggestions. As these comments will be forwarded to the author, please ensure they do not identify you as the source.

Please take into account that Screen Education’s word limit is 5000 words and the limitations that that places on writers. However, we are willing to publish longer articles where the referees feel that it is warranted.

Signature: jane Mills (sent by email) Date: 20 August 2012
Email Address: jane.mills@unsw.edu.au

_________________________________________________________________________________


Sample Peer Review #2

Dear authors,
We are happy to inform you that your paper "The Role of Popular Screen Culture and Digital Communication Technology in Literacy Learning: Towards a New Pedagogy of Cosmopolitanism" has been accepted for the theme issue on ‘Teaching Popular Film & Television: Critical Media Literacy & Narratives in (Teacher) Education’ (Journal of Popular Film and Television). Please find a summary of the reviews below. Based on these reviews, we propose working together on revising the paper where and if needed.

Review #1
This submission provides a well-constructed, detailed, and useful research report, illustrating the stages of literacy and multicultural development of the Australian students under study and how they grew in awareness and empathy towards their Japanese counterparts by creating their own personal smartphone films.  This article looks good to go with some minor copyediting

Review #2
This paper by Jane Mills and Bill Green focuses on a recent technological development and its  effect on pedagogy: the use of different screens and the production of films and their crossing over into different cultures. Starting from Gee¹s notion of ‘Affinity spaces’, as well as his distinction between formally taught and informally acquired learning, the authors discuss the added value of different screen literacy projects in which popular screen culture and digital communication technology is incorporated in literacy learning. The added value of the projects is that by bringing popular screen culture ­ something about which the students had learned a great deal outside of the classroom ­ inside of the classroom, the students could build on their informally-acquired knowledge in the classroom, where critical analytical and production skills were taught. This is a convincing argument that fits very well within the aims and scope of the journal. However, because a lot is being discussed we would advise the authors to give the paper a stronger focus in some places. There is however room left (the paper is now 5414 words long, maximun is 7000 words) to  elaborate on some of the issues.


_________________________________________________________________________________

References (Surviving peer reviewers’ responses)

Kamler, B. (2010);
Martin, B. (2008)
Murray, R (2009) – Ch. 9
Thompson & Kamler B (2012)  - Ch.  7
_________________________________________________________________________________


References

Belcher, W.L. (2009).  Opening and concluding your article. Writing your journal article in 12 weeks: A guide to academic publishing success. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (pp. 201 -220).

Boice, R. (1990).  Spontaneous writing.  Professors as writers: A self-help guide to productive writing. New Forums Press, Stillwater (pp. 40-49).

Day, A. ( 2007). A Sense of Purpose. How to get research published in journals,  (2nd edn.), Gower, Aldershot (pp. 27-34).

Day, A. (2007). The introduction – the hook. How to get research published in journals, (2nd edn.). Gower Publishing Limited, (pp. 95-96).

Day, A. (2007). Writing an abstract. How to get research published in journals. Gower, Aldershot (2nd edn.), (pp. 89-90).

Fallon, Helen, (2013) See Blog at:  http://academicwritinglibrarian.blogspot.com.au/p/further-resources.html

Gray, T.  (2005). Managing Time. Publish & flourish: Become a prolific writer. Teaching Academy, New Mexico State University (pp. 8-24)

Gray, T. (2005).  Revising. Publish & flourish: Become a prolific scholar. Teaching Academy, New Mexico State University, (pp. 38-49).

Gray, T. (2005).  Share drafts with non-experts and later drafts with experts. Publish & flourish: Become a prolific scholar.  Teaching Academy, New Mexico State University, (pp. 55-61).

Hartley, J. (2008) Key words. Academic writing and publishing: A practical handbook. Routledge, London (pp. 37-40). http://gate.ac.uk/sale/dd/related-work/Academic+Writing+and+Publishing+-+A+Practical+Handbook.pdf

Hartley, J. (2008). Titles.  Academic writing and publishing: A practical handbook. Routledge, London (pp. 23-28). http://www.CSUAU.eblib .com/EBLWeb/patron/?target=patron&extendedid=P_336273_0.

Huff, A. S. (1999).  Introduction and conclusion. Writing for scholarly publication. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (pp. 84-93).

Huff, A.S. (1999).  Making an outline (really).  Writing for scholarly publication. London, Sage (pp. 77-84).

Johnson, W. & Mullen, C. (2007).  Seek mentors, mentoring networks, and writing coaches. Write to the top: how to become a prolific academic. Palgrave Macmillan, New York (pp. 133-144).

Kamler, B. (2010). Revise and resubmit: the role of publication brokers. In C. Aitchison, B. Kamler, & A. Lee, (eds.). Publishing pedagogies for the doctorate and Beyond. Routledge, New York (pp. 64-82).

John Lampe, ERA Current Outlets Access http://lamp.infosys.deakin.edu.au/era/

Leki, I. (1998).  How to begin to write.  Academic writing: exploring processes and strategies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (pp. 20-33).

Martin, B. (2008). Writing a helpful referee's report, Journal of Scholarly Publishing, vol. 39, no. 3, April 2008, pp. 301-306 http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/08jspwhrr.html

Martin, B. (2008).  Surviving referees’ reports. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, Vol 39, No 3, (pp. 307-311). http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/08jspsrr.html

McGrail, M. Rickard, C. & Jones, R. (2006).  Publish or perish: a systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research and Development, (25)1 (pp. 19-35).

Mitchell, P. (2008). The politics of open-access publishing: M/C Journal, public intellectualism, and academic discourses of legitimacy.  M/C Journal, Vol.11, No. 4. http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/38

Moore, S. (2003). Writer’s retreats for academics: exploring and increasing the motivation to write.  Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 333-342.

Murray, R & Moore, S. (2006). Integrating writing into your life. The handbook of academic writing: A fresh approach. McGraw Hill, Maidenhead, pp. 143-158.

Murray, R. (2009) Writing for academic journals, (2nd edn.).  Open University Press, Maidenhead.

Murray, R. & Moore, S. (2006). Disciplinarity in academic writing.  The Handbook of Academic Writing: A Fresh Approach.  Open University Press, Maidenhead, (pp. 54-69).

Silvia, P. (2007)  Specious Barriers to Writing a Lot. How to write a lot: A practical guide to productive academic writing.  APA Life Tools, Washington DC (pp. 11-28).

Smith, R. (2007). Web Publishing: A Critical Evaluation. In L. Neave,  J. Connor, & A. Crawford, (eds.). Arts of academic publication: Scholarly publishing in Australia and beyond.  Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne, (pp. 68-90).

Thesis Whsiperer, The - http://thesiswhisperer.com/

Thomson Pat & Barbara Kamler, (2012) Writing for Peer Reviewed Journals: Strategies for getting published. Routledge: London

Wellington, J. (2003).  Writing and the writing process. Getting published: a guide for lecturers and researchers.  Routledge Falmer, London (pp. 21-40)