The primary purpose of publishing, even scholarly publishing, is communication. If you centre the communicative role of publishing, with a focus on the audience and the difference you would like your work to make for that audience, decisions about when and where to publish will change. This principle can also influence how you understand peer […]
Read More »monographs
How can reviewer comments improve your work?
You want to do good work. You want your work to be published so that other scholars can read it and engage with it. You’ve submitted an article manuscript to a peer reviewed journal or a book manuscript to a scholarly monograph publisher. You’ve received a decision and the reviewers comments. What now? Your emotional […]
Read More »The role of peer review
In situations where scarce resources are being allocated, peer review ensures that those decisions are made by people who share a set of values about what counts as knowledge, rigour, and so on. In the context of journal and monograph publishing, only so many things can be published in this journal issue or by this […]
Read More »Peer reviewed journal articles and monographs in the academic evaluation process
This is the 2nd post in a series on how your scholarship is evaluated in various academic evaluation processes. I was inspired by the comments on a blog post on Melville and the knowledge that some of my readers do blog and worry about how this will affect their careers. The first post is here. […]
Read More »On advice about publishing before securing an academic job
Your doctoral supervisor (and indeed the entire department) has an interest in you getting a tenure-track job. It is in their interests to give you good advice.
That said, sometimes their knowledge of the labour market is limited. Assume that they have good intentions, but don’t treat their advice as gospel. Things have been changing fast.
Read More »
