Scientific Publishing Dos And Don'ts

If your paper is getting rejected, it isn’t necessarily the science that’s the problem (it’s likely the journal fit that’s off!). Here’s how you can be be strategic about journal selection. How do I choose the right scientific journal? ↳ Analyze your citation list and target relevant publications. Can impact factor really determine journal quality? ↳ Look beyond numbers, focus on specialized audience fit. How to avoid predatory journal publication traps? ↳ Verify journal reputation before submitting your research. Will editors help improve my manuscript? ↳ Follow author guidelines meticulously. Navigating the academic publication landscape can feel like traversing a complex maze. As a professor, I've learned that selecting the right journal is both an art and a science. Here's a game-changing approach I've developed: 1. Conduct a citation audit: Count journals you've referenced most frequently. These are likely your ideal publication targets. 2. Beyond Impact Factor: Don't get fixated on numbers. A lower-ranked journal with a specialized audience might be more valuable than a high-impact generic publication. 3. Beware of predatory journals: If an unsolicited email promises quick publication for a fee, run! Legitimate open-access journals conduct rigorous peer review. 4. Craft a strategic cover letter: Suggest credible reviewers, highlight your paper's novelty, and demonstrate professionalism. 5. Patience is key: Most journals reject approximately 50% of submissions. Don't be discouraged - each submission is a learning opportunity. Pro tip: Always read and follow the journal's specific author guidelines. This shows you're a detail-oriented, professional researcher. Have you ever struggled with selecting the right scientific journal for your research? What challenges have you encountered? #science #scientist #ScientificCommunication #publishing #phd #professor #research #postgraduate

When I sent a paper in to a prestigious journal as a younger academic they just replied saying it wasn’t good enough - that was it. I ‘improved’ it, and sent it on to another journal. This time it came back - with two brutal reviews from anonymous readers. The email arrived on a Sunday morning and I eagerly read through the comments. It all got too much - I wasn’t sure I could continue along this path. It seems silly now that one journal article rejection could have impacted my career. The email also had some notes from the Editor: -It’s not as bad as it seems. -The topic is important and it deserves more than this paper is currently giving -Reframe the argument in this way…. -Consider adding an introduction that provides more context. -The conclusion has to be built on the evidence presented and make a clear point. -Come back to the reviews in a few days time and reflect. Go through the paper alongside the reviewers comments. This was sound advice. The first point is fundamental. After spending months crafting an article/grant it is so frustrating and hurtful to have it rejected and requiring a re-write - but it is never as bad as it first seems. After working my way through the corrections, contextualising, and reframing a new paper began to take shape. A lot of what I thought was important in the earlier version was cut. I fashioned a much stronger argument and put together a far more convincing article. It was also shorter, faster paced, and with far more content than the earlier versions. I was relieved the first versions of this work had not been published. I was glad that the work had been rejected and that I had the chance to improve it, based on the valuable ideas and suggestions of the editor and reviewers. It’s not really ‘rejection’ it’s more opportunity for refinement. Does this mean that I want these ‘opportunities’ - no, not always. But as I reflect on this experience I can’t think of a single article that has not been refined, enhanced, and become more focused. -Always aim for the best Journals possible. Although there are exceptions (as described above) they often have the best editors, reviewers, and production processes. -Don’t be afraid of reaching out to the Editor to discuss your ideas and overall vision -Rejection will happen. It’s part of the process and will ultimately enhance your work.

Learnings From 1,000 Rejections has been accepted for publication by Financial Management. Over 6 years as Managing Editor and 1 year as Editor of the Review of Finance I rejected 999 manuscripts. This article aims to use these rejections constructively by distilling common reasons for rejection to guide future research. They are divided into three categories: contribution, execution, and exposition. Beyond extracts from decision letters that give reasons for rejection, this article also shares excerpts that shed light on the editorial process which might otherwise be opaque, such as how an editor weighs up feedback to reach a decision. I hope that this essay will be useful for both producers of research (faculty and PhD students) and consumers of research (practitioners). For the latter, it provides a window into the peer review process which might seem like an arcane scholarly ritual, but in fact helps helps ensure the credibility of research published and thus its usefulness for the real world. https://lnkd.in/eYdmp2fH

Are your stakeholders arguing about commas instead of what truly matters? It might not be their fault. Here’s a familiar nightmare for comms professionals: You spend hours crafting content - getting the tone right, aligning with the objective, polishing every detail. You send it out for approval… …and what comes back? A flood of comments about word choices, commas, and the colour of a chart. This often starts with the wrong ask. When you say, “Please review and let me know if you have any feedback,” you’re inviting every type of input - useful or not. Let’s fix that. Here’s how to get more focused, higher-value feedback: 1️⃣ Ask for specific input Narrow the scope so stakeholders know exactly what their role is. The queen of Internal comms Joanna Parsons recommends asking: 👉 “Can you fact-check this for accuracy?” This shift keeps the review focused on what actually matters. 2️⃣ Set a clear deadline Always include a concrete date and time. And add this line: 👉 “If I don’t receive feedback by the deadline, I’ll consider the information approved and move forward with publishing.” This removes ambiguity and speeds up approvals. 3️⃣ Raise the stakes if necessary Some stakeholders can’t resist commenting on every detail. 👉 If that’s your reality, send the content as a PDF. It’s reviewable - just less editable. If major changes are truly needed, they’ll ask for an editable file. This naturally filters out low-value edits. Just to be clear: this isn’t about avoiding input. It’s about protecting everyone’s time. When you guide stakeholders toward the feedback that truly matters, you keep them out of the comma-and-colour weeds and focused on impact. Just make sure before tightening the feedback process that you understand your stakeholders - sometimes maintaining strong relationships matters more than speed. Image credit: E.S. Glenn for The New Yorker

INORDINATE FOCUS ON (METHODOLOGICAL) PERFECTION FAVORS NARROW RESEARCH OVER BIG IDEAS Big-idea papers disproportionately move the field forward. Yet, in general, the bigger the idea, the messier the context. However, the review process is biased against big idea papers. This is not just my opinion (and experience). Ellison (JPE 2002) formalized this in an analytical model of the review process. Articles are evaluated on the contribution inherent in the main ideas in the article (q quality), and the execution of the article (r quality; lit review, methodology, robustness tests, extensions). Ellison proposes a social norm for publication (α, z), where α is a value judgment parameter (0 ≤α≤ 1) and z is an overall quality requirement. Articles are accepted for publication if αq + (1 – α)r ≥ z. He assumes that q quality is determined by the initial work and that r quality is refined in the review process. This is a simplification—the review process does improve the quality of the idea as well--but in my experience the review process is biased toward improving r quality. The q-r model predicts that, over time, α decreases in magnitude—i.e., q (related to the importance of the idea) will receive decreasing emphasis and r (execution) will receive increasing weight (1-α). The end result? Researchers spend less and less time developing new insights and more and more time on producing endless literature reviews, robustness analyses that never seem to fail, trivial model extensions, and the like. Hirshleifer (Rev. of Fin. Stud. 2014) extends Ellison’s analysis. Reviewers seek to demonstrate high skill to editors by recommending the repair of mere blemishes as well as significant flaws. Flaws are a valid signal, but blemishes are not. Authors observe that editors tend to follow the recommendations of highly demanding reviewers. Authors absorb the social norm for high standards of blemish repair and raise their own standards in their roles as authors and referees. As the field absorbs the rising social norm, ever-smaller imperfections can be credibly represented as significant flaws. Hirshleifer concludes: “Innovative papers are especially likely to have imperfections according to the conventions of existing literature. This gives authors an incentive to work on relatively narrow topics, resulting in papers that do not advance thinking much but which can be executed blemish-free.” See also Spiegel (Rev. of Fin. Stud. 2011). I purposely refer to articles in top econ/finance journals to show that this is a general phenomenon. We also see it in marketing. And we need to address it. Some big ideas can be tested in field experiments, but many cannot. May we not benefit from a little messiness to remain relevant for practice? If you enjoyed this, share it with others and follow me, Jan-Benedict Steenkamp, for more writing. Journal of Marketing

AI search is rapidly changing how content gets discovered. To stay visible, the foundation still matters. Before chasing complex strategies, strengthen the basics that help your content show up in LLM-powered results. Start here: ✔️ Right Topic: Focus on high-value queries your audience actively searches for. ✔️ Right Format: Comparative, structured content performs best for AI and readers. ✔️ Clean Metadata: Keep authors, publication dates, H1s, and meta descriptions current. ✔️ Strong Opening: Speak to your persona’s pain point and define your product category early. ✔️ Readable Structure: Use lists and tables that LLMs and humans can both interpret easily. ✔️ FAQ Section: Close with specific answers to likely follow-up questions. ✔️ Competitor Mentions: Add them neutrally to improve credibility. ✔️ Trusted Links: Reference G2, Gartner, or Capterra to back your claims. ✔️ Real Stories: Include customer outcomes and ROI data to strengthen authority. AI search rewards clarity, structure, and authenticity; not volume. Curious how visible your brand is in AI search today? Reach out for an AI SEO Visibility Report and see where you stand.

Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) isn’t just about inserting keywords—it’s about understanding your audience’s intent and structuring your content to address their needs effectively. By focusing on keyword intent, clustering, and topical relevance, your law firm can improve search engine visibility and attract the right clients. 1️⃣ Keyword Intent: Align Your Content with Client Needs Understanding the intent behind a client’s search helps you create content that meets their expectations. >> Informational Intent: Clients seeking answers or guidance: “What are my rights after a workplace accident?” “How does probate work in the UK?” Strategy: Publish blogs, FAQs, and educational resources addressing these queries. >> Navigational Intent: Clients looking for a specific service or firm: “Best family law solicitor in Birmingham.” “Smith & Partners legal advice contact.” Strategy: Ensure your website is optimised with clear service pages and detailed contact information. >> Transactional Intent: Clients ready to take action, such as hiring a solicitor: “No-win, no-fee personal injury lawyer near me.” “Book a legal consultation online.” Strategy: Provide strong calls to action, online booking systems, and client testimonials. 2️⃣ Topic Clusters: Build Content Hubs Search engines prioritise websites that demonstrate topical authority. Instead of individual, isolated keywords, focus on clustering related topics under one umbrella: Example Topic Cluster: Divorce Law in the UK >> Pillar Content: “The Ultimate Guide to Divorce Law in the UK.” Cluster Content: > > >“Understanding the Divorce Process.” > > >“How Child Custody is Decided in England and Wales.” > > >“Divorce Mediation vs. Litigation: Which is Right for You?” Strategy: Link all related content back to the main pillar page, reinforcing its authority and creating a seamless user experience. 3️⃣ Focus on Topics Over Keywords Google’s algorithms are increasingly prioritising the overall relevance of content rather than exact keyword matches. Shift Your Focus to Questions Clients Might Ask: Instead of targeting “probate solicitor,” write a guide like “Everything You Need to Know About Handling Probate in the UK.” Instead of “employment lawyer,” address specific pain points, like “What to Do If You’ve Been Unfairly Dismissed.” Strategy: Create comprehensive, client-focused content that answers multiple related questions in one place. 4️⃣ Tools and Strategies for Success >> Use platforms like Google Search Console, inLinks, Dragon Metrics, and AlsoAsked to identify questions, intent, and related searches. >> Monitor which queries drive traffic to your website. >> Optimise internal linking to guide users through relevant content, keeping them engaged on your site longer. By focusing on the bigger picture—client intent, interconnected topics, and a well-structured content strategy—you can better establish your firm as a trusted authority. #lawfirmmarketing #digitalmarketing

Publish once and keep it working; without post-live action, your content becomes invisible. When your article goes live, the real work begins. Recent data from Chartbeat shows average engagement drops by over 90% within 72 hours of publication. Meanwhile, the Reuters Institute finds that about 82% of readers don’t take further action unless prompted. Unless you activate a deliberate post-publish workflow, even your strongest content will fail to generate lasting impact. The post-publishing Oversight ✅ Engagement decay - Most of your audience fades within three days; therefore, front-loading activity is vital. ✅ Passive readers - Without prompts, 82% won't click, comment, or convert. ✅ Lack of repurposing - Untapped quotes, stats, and assets sit idle instead of reaching new audiences  A 3-phase post-publish framework → Monitor (Hours 0–72) - Track real-time performance. If engagement drops >15% in 24 hours, update your title tag, meta description, and primary keyword. Then add two internal links from high-traffic pages. Sistrix reports a ~33% average visibility rebound from such updates. → Engage (Within 90 minutes) - Promptly respond to feedback. Posts show stronger conversion rates when comments are addressed quickly — delaying risks losing reader interest. Convert passive readers into community participants, not just one-time visitors. → Repurpose (Days 3–7+) - Break content into reusable formats: a. 3–5 social prompts using key quotes or insights. b. 1 newsletter snippet elaborating on a core point. c. 2 discussion topics for forums or groups. This extends reach and taps into different audience behaviours and platforms. Data-backed tactics that deliver 👉 Rescue Decaying Content: If >15% drop in 24h, improve metadata and internal linking, and this can regain ~33% of lost visibility 👉 Boost Conversions: Embedding contextual CTAs after key takeaways (e.g., “Want the full dataset? Download here.”) can increase conversions by ~27%. Here are the key takeaways 1. Treat content as a living asset, not a finished product. 2. Maintain momentum: act within 72 hours, ideally within 24 hours. 3. Prompt, meaningful engagement builds community and trust. 4. Stretch your content: repurpose deliberately for different channels. 5. Use data-driven checks (drop rates, visibility gains) to refine your approach. Which post-publish phase will you tackle first? A) Monitoring & rescue, B) Engagement optimization, C) Strategic repurposing. Share your priority below in the comment section. #PublisherSEO #ContentStrategy #DigitalPublishing #AudienceEngagement #ContentMarketing

Rejection used to silence me. Not anymore. → The first time I was rejected for a significant promotion, I spent a week questioning my entire career path. Now I realize rejection isn't the end of the story - it's just part of the narrative. What changed? I stopped viewing rejection as a verdict on my worth and started seeing it as valuable data. When that major client said "no" to my proposal last year, instead of spiraling, I: ✅ Asked for specific feedback on what didn't resonate ✅ Identified three ways to strengthen future presentations ✅ Scheduled a follow-up conversation six months later That same client is now one of our biggest accounts. The transformation didn't happen overnight. It required: 🔹 Separating my identity from outcomes 🔹 Creating a system to learn from every "no" 🔹 Building resilience through consistent action 🔹 Focusing on what I could control The most powerful shift? Understanding that rejection is simply redirection. Consider this: Many of us avoid situations where rejection is possible, limiting our potential growth. We stay in our comfort zones, telling ourselves it's safer. But what if rejection is actually the fastest path to improvement? My team now tracks rejection as a positive metric. More rejection often signals more opportunity creation. This mindset shift transformed not just how I handle hearing "no," but how boldly I pursue "yes." Think about the last rejection you faced. What if it wasn't happening to you, but for you? → The next time you hear "no," try saying "Thank you for this feedback" instead of "What's wrong with me?" The difference is transformative. I'm Jason. What's your relationship with rejection? Has it evolved throughout your career? I'd love to hear your experiences in the comments.

Personal Story: Turning a Setback into a Future Opportunity Rejection can be a powerful motivator if approached with the right mindset. Rather than seeing a setback as the end of the road, it can be viewed as a valuable learning experience and an opportunity to demonstrate resilience and adaptability. My personal story illustrates how a proactive approach to feedback can turn a rejection into a new opportunity. My Last Mission: I once applied for a role in Afghanistan and, admittedly, didn’t prepare as thoroughly as I should have for the interview. When I received the rejection, it was clear that my lack of preparation was the reason. However, instead of letting the rejection discourage me, I sought feedback, approaching the feedback session as an opportunity to show my value and determination for future opportunities, if not for this role. During the conversation, I accepted their points and provided additional context where appropriate, essentially treating the feedback session as a second interview. Afterwards, I followed up with a thoughtful email, thanking them for the opportunity and wishing the successful applicants good luck in their new roles. A few weeks later, I received an unexpected call. One of the selected candidates had withdrawn, and because of my positive and proactive approach, I was offered the position. The rest, as they say, is history! “Rejection is not the end; it's an invitation to refine your approach, learn from the experience, and return stronger. Sometimes, the path to success is found in how you handle setbacks." This experience underscores the importance of resilience and the willingness to turn feedback into a learning opportunity. ·     When faced with rejection, take the initiative to seek constructive feedback. ·     Demonstrate full respect for their time and the feedback they’re offering. ·     Use it to refine your approach and demonstrate your ability to adapt and grow. ·     Follow up with a positive and thoughtful response, showing that you value the process and are still committed to contributing to the organisation. This proactive mindset leaves a lasting impression and can open doors that might have seemed closed.