Publishing for a master's student

[Adelaide9216]

Hello guys! I'm a newbie so sorry if this question is really basic but how do you get to publish articles in journals when you are a master's student?

 

Thanks

[GreenEyedTrombonist]

Do you have research under your belt and something that you can write about for it? I'm working on several articles right now, 2-3 of which are related to a research project I worked on my first year (co-written articles with other members of the team and possibly one with the project lead). Our professor/project lead discussed the potential of publication at the beginning of the project and we made sure to follow-up when it was completed, including a discussion of which journals would make the most sense for submission. 

Another article I want to write came from team research on another project, but with less involvement of the project lead. I've spoken with the project lead about what journals would make sense for submission, but we haven't spoken regarding exactly what the theme of the article would be. The project lead is also my advisor so I may follow-up with her about this (and get some of the team together for help writing) when I discuss my planned articles regarding my graduate research. 

I also may be published in a conference proceedings from a conference I presented at last year (I'll know more about that in April). Basically, attend conferences, do research, speak with your project leads/professors about your interest in publishing, and then write. If you're more independent, start noticing which journals your reference list is mostly coming from. These journals are more likely to accept your articles since the topics align. Look up the journals and their submission and formatting policies, as well as any due dates that you might need to know.

[Adelaide9216]

Yes, I have been a research assistant for a few teachers, mainly in the field of youth protection and sexual violence against women and children.

At what time should I start thinking about publishing?

 

Thanks for your input!

[OhSoSolipsistic]

Talk to the people in charge of the research you assisted and let them know that you'd like to get experience with publishing, and ask if there's any data that you worked with (or more data) that could be developed into a conference proceeding/publication. They should help direct you in next steps.

[GreenEyedTrombonist]

Yep, I would just make it clear to the people in charge of the research that you're interested in creating an article or conference paper based on the work. As long as they have IRB approval for the research (class research doesn't need IRB approval unless there is intent to publish/present on it in a public setting) this shouldn't be a problem.

[Adelaide9216]

Thanks to both of you!

[Adelaide9216]

I heard that when you want to publish something, it can take a looooot of time. What's the process like? 

[Levon3]

3 minutes ago, Adelaide9216 said:

I heard that when you want to publish something, it can take a looooot of time. What's the process like? 

I think that totally depends on the field, the methods used, etc. There can a lot of time involved in researching, conducting the literature review, conducing the analysis, then polishing the article and distilling it into the proper length. Then reviewers can take a long time to let you know on a decision. As an example, I submitted an article last summer, and received a revise and resubmit in January. I revised and resubmitted it, and have not yet heard a word. I think this is typical in my field. However, on another submission, I was notified within a week that my article was rejected (apparently the editor took one look and hated it.)

[Adelaide9216]

Thanks for your input. I'm sorry your article got rejected.  The fact that the process is taking longer though for the other one might be a good sign! ;-)

[fuzzylogician]

1 hour ago, Adelaide9216 said:

I heard that when you want to publish something, it can take a looooot of time. What's the process like? 

The process: 

1. You choose an appropriate publication venue, write up your paper, revise/polish, submit it. 

2. Your paper hits an editor's desk, who takes a look. They may choose to desk-reject the paper (common in some fields, not others), otherwise they will send the paper out to review (usually to 2-3 reviewers, but this depends on the field). How long it takes to find people who are willing to review the paper may vary (sometimes you can suggest reviewers, which can help the process along). How long it takes to get an editor to actually look at the paper also varies. 

3. You wait. Maybe you bug the editor once in a while. You wait some more. This step can take anything from weeks to months, with a lot of variation across fields.

4. You get your first round of reviews back, with a decision. If it's not a reject, it's likely a Revise and Resubmit. Now it's up to you to make the changes. This can take as long as you let it. 

5. Assuming it's an R&R, you resubmit and the paper along with a letter to the editor specifying the changes you've made. The paper  will likely go back to the same reviewers, if they're willing to look at the paper again.

6. See step 3. 

7. You get your decision back. Hopefully there has been improvement, so either it's an R&R with fewer issues that are easier to deal with, or it's an accept with minor revisions. It could be a rejection, or if there is a new reviewer, there might be new issues to deal with. A good editor should not allow new major issues at this point, but it can happen. Note that some journals only allow one round of R&R so you might at this point get a rejection just because you haven't successfully dealt with all the comments from the first round. This is another one of those things that varies by field and even journal. 

8. If it's good news, you revise accordingly, repeat steps 5-7. If it's a rejection, you regroup, see what you can take from the comments you got to improve the paper, and try again.

(9. Eventually, you deal with copy-editing of a final version, you wait for official publication. You post an unofficial copy on your website and your field's repository. You celebrate.) 

The overall timeframe:

Years. You write, you revise, you submit, you get comments and revise some more, you wait for reviews for weeks or months, once accepted you might even wait months or years for the paper to appear in print, if there is a backlog of papers. Some of my papers have taken up to 5 years from submission to appearing in print. The fastest ones probably took more like 1-2 years. Other fields will have a very different timeline, so YMMV. 

[Adelaide9216]

I have a question. I am looking at different guides online on how to structure a scientific article for a journal. I am currently in the process of writing my first one, for a student contest with the results of a case study that I will also be presenting at a conference later this month. I am now at the Discussion section, and I find it a little bit hard.... basically, what I am trying to do is connecting my case study results with relevant literature that already exists that "proves" what has been highlighted in the case study. Am I doing this the right way? I am also unsure of how to go about for the Abstract section (less than 200 words). 

[fuzzylogician]

1 hour ago, Adelaide9216 said:

basically, what I am trying to do is connecting my case study results with relevant literature that already exists that "proves" what has been highlighted in the case study. Am I doing this the right way? I am also unsure of how to go about for the Abstract section (less than 200 words). 

You want to discuss how your study connects to published literature. This would include both literature that supports your conclusions and any literature that doesn't -- you don't get to just ignore published work that doesn't fit with your story. How do your conclusions expand/support/challenge the literature? If it contradicts prior findings, do you have thoughts about how to reconcile your findings with the published ones? If you're supporting existing findings, what is new in your approach? Why is it interesting enough to be published, if we already know what you are saying (i.e., how are you innovating and adding to the existing body of knowledge)? Any thoughts on next steps, limitations, open questions? 

As for the abstract, that is always the most difficult part to write. Leave it until the end, when you know what your paper argues for precisely. Then you want to briefly explain the main finding, the methodology or how you got to the finding, and the implications or importance of your findings. 200 words means 2-3 sentences per topic I just mentioned. Think of it as the advertisement for your paper; some readers may decide whether or not your paper is relevant to them and they should read further just based on this short blurb, so consider what your potential audience needs to know in order to realize the paper is indeed something they should read.