"Getting published" is the aim and bane of scholars everywhere. In many ways, this can be especially problematic for emerging scholars working in feminist studies - from resistance to feminist analyses on the part of journals and editors, to questions of "where does my work fit?"

Shockingly, how exactly to do this publishing thing is often a mystery. So we at thirdspace are happy to help dispell some of the confusion about this cruial area of academic life.

Regardless of your field or favourite body of theory, there are several key things that editors look for in a good paper for publication. Here are some tips, compiled by the editors at thirdspace - it includes the criteria we ask reviewers to use when they evaluate papers, and which we use ourselves in deciding which papers should be accepted. Note: this is required reading for all thirdspace authors-to-be!

Starting the process

Think about what journals your paper would work best in. Go to your library's journals section, check out the Women's Studies (or your own field's) subject guide on your library's website. Often journals will send out a "call for papers" asking for general or special topic submissions. These can be found on many feminist studies e-mail lists.

Do keep in mind that thirdspace has an express mandate to publish emerging scholars' work. Other journals have a different focus - check their own 'mandate' or other similar statement.

Do view an issue or two of each likely journal, to get a sense of what is published there. Pick one journal to submit your paper to. Never submit to more than one journal at once - it's bad etiquette! Once you've decided, carefully look over their submissions guide (here's ours) - it will have details about formatting, language, etc. that the editors will demand as a condition of publication. Do yourself a favour - format your paper to the letter before your submit! The editors will be happy, and a happy editor is a good thing.

Getting help

Before you submit: get someone else to read it! We recommend two readers: one who has expertise in the topic (may be your advisor), and one who has a good critical eye for grammar, structure, and other copyediting issues. Don't overlook people who are not in your field - they will be able to tell you if your paper is too full of jargon, unclear, etc. Hand them this list (below) of criteria. Do ask your readers for any suggestions for the improvement of the paper, relating to style, inaccuracies, omissions, or any other points, either substantive or editorial. If your paper was originally submitted for a course, do use the feedback in revising the paper for journal publication. (Please note: don’t submit an unrevised course paper, especially one still showing the class number, professor’s name, etc. Editors want papers that have been seriously prepared for submission, and submitting what looks to be an unedited course paper – without even the professor's corrections, or bothering to change the cover page – gives a signal that you haven’t make the best effort with your submission.) ‘Revision’ can mean anything from cleaning up typos to going back over substantive issues, but most papers will have something to fix: language that can be tightened up, a recent publication added, or that great idea you had but was too late to use since the paper was due. (We’ve all been there.)

Even after your paper has been accepted, it's not over. Ask your editor(s) for help. thirdspace is committed to helping emerging scholars publish, so we go the extra mile in hands-on editing. Other journals may not. Do ask (or ask someone who has published with the journal) what the extent of their assistance might be.

Evaluate

Before you submit, do put your paper through this evaluation. This exact list is what we want reviewers to look for.

Are the objectives of the paper clear?
Is the scholarship sound? Is the author thoroughly acquainted with the literature on the subject?
To what audience is the paper directed? Does it suit that audience?
Is the presentation of the paper (grammar, inclusion of notes and bibliography, accuracy of notes, bibliography, and citations etc) of professional standard? Is the paper readable? Would this paper benefit by being shortened or lengthened?
How important (to the body of knowledge, not your career!) is it that this paper be published, in light of the scholarship available? Give a 'class' rating to the paper:

a major contribution to research
a contribution which, while modest, is interesting, and which can be recommended for publication (this may include a well-done introductory exploration to a topic other 'emerging scholars' may not have exposure to otherwise).
no contribution to the field (generally this will not be recommended for publication)

This last set is the important one for editors. Try to give your paper an honest rating here, but don't worry too much about it - it's the reviewers' and editors' job to make these evaluations.

Submission

Now if you are satisfied your paper meets all the criteria, send it in! Do check - again! - that you’ve followed all submission procedures. (And note the date when you submitted and keep track of the contact info for the journal.)

The editors will typically review the paper to see if they think it is fit to go to reviewers. If so, they will send it off to anywhere from 2-5 experts in the field. Your name or other info will not be known to the reviewers. The reviewers then send in their reports, based on their assessment of the paper.

This can take a long time. If after several months you have not heard back, you can send a note to the editor requesting an update. Typically, the process can take 6 months to 2 years from start to finish.

Reviewers' reports are sent to authors, but the identity of the reviewer is also never disclosed. However, at thirdspace a reviewer who wishes to be in contact with the author (to network, offer further help, etc.) can inform the editors, who will give this information to the author and allow the author to make contact if they wish. (This may not happen with other journals).

Acceptance - or not

The editors generally use the reviewers' comments to decide if the paper should go ahead to be published. These they will send to you, along with a notice whether they will publish or not, and perhaps additional comments by the editor.

Generally your paper will be given one of three answers to the question, "Is the paper acceptable for publication?"

yes - of excellent quality for publication, or only "minor" revisions of copy-editing, an explanatory footnote, or other small corrections.
not in its present form but a revised paper may be publishable with "major" revisions that could be reasonably tackled by the author (correcting certain substantive omissions, lack of analysis, literature that needs to be consulted).
no - too many substantive omissions, lack of analysis, errors, etc. to move into publication at this time.

Often, there will be comments, ideas, errors, etc. that will be pointed out and you will be expected to at least think about them in revising your paper. In very fortunate cases, no revisions of any kind are needed and the editors will publish right away. For ordinary mortals, often some things are recommended.

Note that you are an active participant in this process: if you decide that a comment (etc.) is just not something you want to/can change, you can leave it. However, editors reserve the right to then decide not to publish. In every case, do write up a short statement (half a page) about what you changed and why, and send it in to the editor with your revised paper.

Most journals should give you some sort of written acceptance of your piece for publication. Many will present you with a contract that solidifies both parties’ rights and responsibilities. Do read it carefully, and if you are not sure of the implications of the contract, get some advice from your supervisor or ask the editors. Most journals (including thirdspace) hold “exclusive rights” or an “exclusive licence” to the pieces they publish (including “subsidiary rights,” which includes rights to re-publication). This is not as scary as it sounds.

“Exclusive” here means the journal is the only one with the right to publish this particular article. That means other journals (or other publications) can’t simply reprint this exact article as if it was submitted to them originally and they were the ones that invested the editorial time and expense into it. That also means, if anyone wants to re-print it elsewhere (i.e. in an edited collection), they have to ask the journal’s permission. The journal generally is also required to notify you if they get a request to re-publish your work, and to allow such republication.

As author, you can re-use the material in the piece, but when you re-publish the full piece, or use a reasonable amount of material from it (say, in a thesis chapter), you’ll need to acknowledge that some material was already published. A short acknowledgement sentence including the original citation is usually fine, though check with the journal in question. (This is actually not a bad thing – it signals that you’ve already been published in the area.) All of this is a normal practice in academic publishing, although some clauses might differ. However, some journals may make a “non-exclusive” agreement with the author – again, make sure of the details.

Regardless of the terms, it is the editors’ final decision as to the suitability of a piece for publication. When a paper is accepted for publication with thirdspace, it is on condition that the work will be copy-edited (by the editors) before publication, and that the editors may request additional revisions to produce, with the author, the best paper possible.

If, on the other hand, the paper is rejected, the author will be provided with detailed reasons for the decision. Because our mandate is to help emerging feminist scholars publish their work, in most cases the author will be invited to re-submit the paper after revision. Other journals will often halt the process with the decision not to publish. Don't be afraid to revise and resubmit, however! This may also be the time to move on to another journal on your list.

Don't get discouraged!! Most scholars have big files of reject letters. Do try your best to tailor your paper to suit the journal's requirements, as well as its topic areas and tone. Do respond to topical calls for papers, as then you are addressing a particular need of the journal and may have more success. And do keep writing and getting feedback from colleagues and experts. Even negative comments are useful, and most reviewers give you lots to think about to make your paper better.

	thirdspace guide to getting published
	Jenéa Tallentire
	"Getting published" is the aim and bane of scholars everywhere. In many ways, this can be especially problematic for emerging scholars working in feminist studies - from resistance to feminist analyses on the part of journals and editors, to questions of "where does my work fit?" Shockingly, how exactly to do this publishing thing is often a mystery. So we at thirdspace are happy to help dispell some of the confusion about this cruial area of academic life. Regardless of your field or favourite body of theory, there are several key things that editors look for in a good paper for publication. Here are some tips, compiled by the editors at thirdspace - it includes the criteria we ask reviewers to use when they evaluate papers, and which we use ourselves in deciding which papers should be accepted. Note: this is required reading for all thirdspace authors-to-be! Starting the process Think about what journals your paper would work best in. Go to your library's journals section, check out the Women's Studies (or your own field's) subject guide on your library's website. Often journals will send out a "call for papers" asking for general or special topic submissions. These can be found on many feminist studies e-mail lists. Do keep in mind that thirdspace has an express mandate to publish emerging scholars' work. Other journals have a different focus - check their own 'mandate' or other similar statement. Do view an issue or two of each likely journal, to get a sense of what is published there. Pick one journal to submit your paper to. Never submit to more than one journal at once - it's bad etiquette! Once you've decided, carefully look over their submissions guide (here's ours) - it will have details about formatting, language, etc. that the editors will demand as a condition of publication. Do yourself a favour - format your paper to the letter before your submit! The editors will be happy, and a happy editor is a good thing. Getting help Before you submit: get someone else to read it! We recommend two readers: one who has expertise in the topic (may be your advisor), and one who has a good critical eye for grammar, structure, and other copyediting issues. Don't overlook people who are not in your field - they will be able to tell you if your paper is too full of jargon, unclear, etc. Hand them this list (below) of criteria. Do ask your readers for any suggestions for the improvement of the paper, relating to style, inaccuracies, omissions, or any other points, either substantive or editorial. If your paper was originally submitted for a course, do use the feedback in revising the paper for journal publication. (Please note: don’t submit an unrevised course paper, especially one still showing the class number, professor’s name, etc. Editors want papers that have been seriously prepared for submission, and submitting what looks to be an unedited course paper – without even the professor's corrections, or bothering to change the cover page – gives a signal that you haven’t make the best effort with your submission.) ‘Revision’ can mean anything from cleaning up typos to going back over substantive issues, but most papers will have something to fix: language that can be tightened up, a recent publication added, or that great idea you had but was too late to use since the paper was due. (We’ve all been there.) Even after your paper has been accepted, it's not over. Ask your editor(s) for help. thirdspace is committed to helping emerging scholars publish, so we go the extra mile in hands-on editing. Other journals may not. Do ask (or ask someone who has published with the journal) what the extent of their assistance might be. Evaluate Before you submit, do put your paper through this evaluation. This exact list is what we want reviewers to look for. Are the objectives of the paper clear? Is the scholarship sound? Is the author thoroughly acquainted with the literature on the subject? To what audience is the paper directed? Does it suit that audience? Is the presentation of the paper (grammar, inclusion of notes and bibliography, accuracy of notes, bibliography, and citations etc) of professional standard? Is the paper readable? Would this paper benefit by being shortened or lengthened? How important (to the body of knowledge, not your career!) is it that this paper be published, in light of the scholarship available? Give a 'class' rating to the paper: a major contribution to research a contribution which, while modest, is interesting, and which can be recommended for publication (this may include a well-done introductory exploration to a topic other 'emerging scholars' may not have exposure to otherwise). no contribution to the field (generally this will not be recommended for publication) This last set is the important one for editors. Try to give your paper an honest rating here, but don't worry too much about it - it's the reviewers' and editors' job to make these evaluations. Submission Now if you are satisfied your paper meets all the criteria, send it in! Do check - again! - that you’ve followed all submission procedures. (And note the date when you submitted and keep track of the contact info for the journal.) The editors will typically review the paper to see if they think it is fit to go to reviewers. If so, they will send it off to anywhere from 2-5 experts in the field. Your name or other info will not be known to the reviewers. The reviewers then send in their reports, based on their assessment of the paper. This can take a long time. If after several months you have not heard back, you can send a note to the editor requesting an update. Typically, the process can take 6 months to 2 years from start to finish. Reviewers' reports are sent to authors, but the identity of the reviewer is also never disclosed. However, at thirdspace a reviewer who wishes to be in contact with the author (to network, offer further help, etc.) can inform the editors, who will give this information to the author and allow the author to make contact if they wish. (This may not happen with other journals). Acceptance - or not The editors generally use the reviewers' comments to decide if the paper should go ahead to be published. These they will send to you, along with a notice whether they will publish or not, and perhaps additional comments by the editor. Generally your paper will be given one of three answers to the question, "Is the paper acceptable for publication?" yes - of excellent quality for publication, or only "minor" revisions of copy-editing, an explanatory footnote, or other small corrections. not in its present form but a revised paper may be publishable with "major" revisions that could be reasonably tackled by the author (correcting certain substantive omissions, lack of analysis, literature that needs to be consulted). no - too many substantive omissions, lack of analysis, errors, etc. to move into publication at this time. Often, there will be comments, ideas, errors, etc. that will be pointed out and you will be expected to at least think about them in revising your paper. In very fortunate cases, no revisions of any kind are needed and the editors will publish right away. For ordinary mortals, often some things are recommended. Note that you are an active participant in this process: if you decide that a comment (etc.) is just not something you want to/can change, you can leave it. However, editors reserve the right to then decide not to publish. In every case, do write up a short statement (half a page) about what you changed and why, and send it in to the editor with your revised paper. Most journals should give you some sort of written acceptance of your piece for publication. Many will present you with a contract that solidifies both parties’ rights and responsibilities. Do read it carefully, and if you are not sure of the implications of the contract, get some advice from your supervisor or ask the editors. Most journals (including thirdspace) hold “exclusive rights” or an “exclusive licence” to the pieces they publish (including “subsidiary rights,” which includes rights to re-publication). This is not as scary as it sounds. “Exclusive” here means the journal is the only one with the right to publish this particular article. That means other journals (or other publications) can’t simply reprint this exact article as if it was submitted to them originally and they were the ones that invested the editorial time and expense into it. That also means, if anyone wants to re-print it elsewhere (i.e. in an edited collection), they have to ask the journal’s permission. The journal generally is also required to notify you if they get a request to re-publish your work, and to allow such republication. As author, you can re-use the material in the piece, but when you re-publish the full piece, or use a reasonable amount of material from it (say, in a thesis chapter), you’ll need to acknowledge that some material was already published. A short acknowledgement sentence including the original citation is usually fine, though check with the journal in question. (This is actually not a bad thing – it signals that you’ve already been published in the area.) All of this is a normal practice in academic publishing, although some clauses might differ. However, some journals may make a “non-exclusive” agreement with the author – again, make sure of the details. Regardless of the terms, it is the editors’ final decision as to the suitability of a piece for publication. When a paper is accepted for publication with thirdspace, it is on condition that the work will be copy-edited (by the editors) before publication, and that the editors may request additional revisions to produce, with the author, the best paper possible. If, on the other hand, the paper is rejected, the author will be provided with detailed reasons for the decision. Because our mandate is to help emerging feminist scholars publish their work, in most cases the author will be invited to re-submit the paper after revision. Other journals will often halt the process with the decision not to publish. Don't be afraid to revise and resubmit, however! This may also be the time to move on to another journal on your list. Don't get discouraged!! Most scholars have big files of reject letters. Do try your best to tailor your paper to suit the journal's requirements, as well as its topic areas and tone. Do respond to topical calls for papers, as then you are addressing a particular need of the journal and may have more success. And do keep writing and getting feedback from colleagues and experts. Even negative comments are useful, and most reviewers give you lots to think about to make your paper better.