Publishing: Everything You Need to Know but were too Afraid to Ask Associate Professor Martin Davies Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT)
[email protected]
Outline • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
What have you published Myths and misconceptions Why is publishing useful? The 10 main kinds of publishing opportunities Journals and Peer review What publishers look for How to publish and methods that work (for me) Using everyday opportunities for publishing Dealing with rejection How to respond to editors and reviewers Book publishing Working with others Thing to watch out for! Publishing in a particular Higher Ed journal (first hand knowledge from a former Editor)
What have you published? • Make a single mark on the category of publication relevant to your experience (board activity) • E.g., – Review article (say) II – Refereed Journal article (say) IIII
Myths and Misconceptions
Myths and misconceptions • You can’t write for academic journals: – until you have immersed yourself in the literature – If you have not done any new (“cutting edge”) research • In fact: – There is a great deal of different writing that is published, not all of it based on new “research” – If you wait until you find your place in the Literature you may lose the desire to write anything! – “Knowing The Literature” is a long-term—indeed, never-ending— prospect – Publishing a paper helps to establish your place in the literature – “There is no such thing as an unexpressed thought” R. Murray, (2005) Writing for Academic Journals.
Why Publish?
Why Publish things Anyway? • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Boost academic profile/Add to your CV Mark you out as different from other PhDs Get better/longer term jobs Promotion Grant applications Make yourself more employable in other universities Be more employable outside universities (e.g., public service, journalism, commercial world) Develop skills in academic writing and analysis Be engaged in the debates in your profession/Publicise research Provide shoulders others can stand on Put your academic qualifications to use! Warm fuzzy feeling Add to the sum of human knowledge
The 10 Kinds of Publication 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Book notes/announcements (editor refereed) Newsletters and newspaper articles (editor refereed) Reviews (editor refereed) Continuing commentaries/forums(editor refereed) Conference papers (refereed and non-refereed) Journal articles (refereed, single blind or double blind) Journal articles (editor refereed) Chapters in books (solicited/commissioned and refereed) Books 1. 2.
10.
Scholarly (editor reviewed and refereed) Textbooks (editor reviewed and refereed)
Other (poetry, self-publication, etc) “Vanity” publications
[2] [7] carry little weight, [10] carries no weight at all so there are really only seven.
Some general things • Publication is not a natural activity • Success is not immediate • Rejection is common (even among world-famous academics) • Persistence and doggedness is essential • Some degree of arrogance/confidence is helpful • Use successes (even small ones) to inspire you to better publications • Look at other peoples’ publications: you will notice that some things are not really that good/original/interesting/well-written. • There is no reason you cannot have your work “out there” as well, and you have to to become an academic • Publishing is a game: knowing the rules and practice are key
Journal Publishers, Procedures
Publishing Journal Articles: Editorial Office Senior staff • Editor-in-Chief (Commissioning/Executive Editor) – Direct policy decisions, future directions – May or may not be Managing Editor as well – Makes ‘final round’ decisions • Consulting Editors/Editorial Advisory Board – Advise Editor-in-Chief – Nominated based on scholarly output by outgoing/incoming C Editors – Adjudicators in critical cases – Helps in special issues • Managing Editor/Editor – Oversee peer-review process, editorial office • Associate Editors/Consulting Editors – Handles management of papers through review process – Decides in ‘first/second round’
• •
Special Issue Editor – Handles Special Issue Production Review Editor – Handles book reviews
Assisting staff • Editorial Assistant – Interact with AEs, Authors and reviewers – No decision-making power – Checks manuscript for basic compliance • Technical Editor – Copy-editing/typesetting – Language polishing • Production Editor – Process accepted papers for “production” – Assemble issue • Editorial [Review]Board/Reviewers – Review manuscripts at request of Associate Editors
What Editors do • • • • • • •
Manage peer review, pre-screen manuscripts Make final decision over manuscripts Invite authors for features/reviewer articles Organise, plan topical issues with Guest Editors/Consulting Editors Promotes journal at conferences Communicate with Editorial Board Assemble issue (with Production Editor) – Cover layout – Editorial/Introduction – Extra content (news, call for papers, meeting calendar, and so on) • The Editor need not be an expert in the field of your research, and indeed, may be quite ignorant of it. • The latter is important insofar as how you communicate with him/her
What is Peer review? • “Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to publishers by experts who are not part of the Editorial staff”. International Committee of Medical Journals Editors, Hames, p. 1
• “[Peer review] is the worst form of [research evaluation] except all the other forms that have been tried from time to time” Winston Churchill, 1947 (Paraphrased)
• Peer review is sometimes a brutal process, but it is the best way we have to ensure quality • Not all reviews are balanced or impartial • Not all reviews are accurate and well-informed • Not all reviews are useful to the author BUT WITHOUT PEER REVIEW YOUR WORK HAS NOT PASSED MUSTER
Thoughts on peer review •
There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print. –
•
Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong. –
Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet
Types of peer review • Anonymous, “Blind” – Most common (the reviewer knows the author’s name but not viceversa)
• “Double blind” – The reviewer does not have the author’s name and vice-versa
• Open Peer review – Identity of reviewers is transparent – “Signed” reviews
• Post Publication review – Review after publication in “letters to editor”, online blogs, Open peer commentary (reviews solicited and published on an authors’ work along with target paper).
•
Peer review should help to: 1) filter out bad work 2) Identify work of interest to readers 3) Ensure accuracy 4) Ensure interpretations are reliable 5) improve quality of journal 6) improve quality of the authors’ work 6) lead to improved citation metrics for journal
Five kinds of peer reviewers The spankers: “out to adminster
discipline over everything from the aim to misplaced commas”
The young (and old) Turk: “Sees the
review as an opportunity to show his/her own superiority”
The Self-abuser: “Feel they could have written something better themselves, given half a chance”
The Gusher: “Skip over the content and only communicate the enjoyment of reading it”
The good reviewer Susan Swan, Nine ways of looking at a Critic, Globe and Mail (1996)
How are referees chosen? • Referee database (keywords, interest, history) • Author suggestions – “Big names” often too busy - lower ranked academics are better – Those who have gained authors’ respect (been cited) • Associate Editor suggestions: – Reviews are ranked for quality, this sorts out better reviewers – Reviewers who are “good citizens” • Have published related papers – Cited in related texts • Editor’s Knowledge/experience • Did you know? James Watson’s pioneering work on the structure of DNA was published without peer review? Black & Scholes 1973 paper on “the pricing of options and corporate liabilities” was rejected many times in peer review.
Writing for Publication
What Editors look for • • • • • • • • • • • •
Not brilliance …. (fortunately!) A new angle that adds to knowledge Strong methodology Sound argument Something crisply and tightly written/readability Something that brings learning up to date in an area Something that taps into a current debate Something actually or potentially controversial (“Novelty”) [The “That’s interesting” factor] with implications Something that fits the journal’s scope and objectives Something of “importance” “Citability” Something that does all the above and meets their specifications in terms of format and word limit
Analysis of 133 rejected articles (Emerald) • • • • •
Motivation/Background (not interesting/relevant to readers, etc) Design Issues (flawed/poorly planned research design, etc.) Statistical Issues (inappropriate statistical procedures, etc.) Results/Implications/Conclusions (insufficient/trivial contributions, etc) Manuscript Preparation Issues (poor organization/poor writing)
Good Book
Techniques for Writing for publication • • • • • • • •
Make a plan (you need not stick to it) but a plan is better than nothing at all Compete sections one at a time Revise and redraft at least twice Spend 2-5 hours per week writing Write in quiet conditions and in the same place Set goals and targets Invite colleagues and friends to comment on drafts Collaborate with longstanding colleagues/trusted friends Hartley and Branthwaite (1989) in R. Murray, (2005) Writing for Academic Journals
• • •
Some advocate a “snack” approach; others a “binge” approach (Boice, 1987) Others suggest “sandwich” writing (Murray, 2005) Similarly others stress the importance of “low stakes writing” to build writing skills
Getting to know Journals • Review the journals in your field and categorise them: – – – – – – –
Empirical Popular Professional Applied Multidisciplinary Electronic … etc
• Rank them in order of status • Are there articles in some of these journals to which you could refer in your paper? (You would need to make the links explicit) • Browse the titles of the papers. How are these packaged? Can you do the same for your paper? Descriptive, Functional, Mixture? • What kind of content: methodology foregrounded, review, quantitative …? R. Murray, (2005) Writing for Academic Journals
Analyzing a Journal • • • •
Instructions to authors Scope and aims Read titles and abstracts of several issues Skim and scan last few issues for topics and treatments. Which topics appear most often? How are they treated? • Can your paper be adapted to these topics/treatments? Can it fit the journal agenda? • Read abstracts for each paper of a targeted journal issue, note the language use, how findings are expressed, use of tentative language, and so on • Do this for several papers in their entirety: work out how the papers are constructed, and how that construction is signaled in words R. Murray, (2005) Writing for Academic Journals
How to publish … (1) • Have a thesis! (as opposed to a topic) • Review the literature and ‘fill a gap’ or tap into a current debate • Act on instinct (first impressions) • Be original or have a novel angle [That’s interesting!] • Choose a ‘warm’ area of research (not hot or cold) • Be narrow in your focus (have one central idea) • Present your paper to at least one audience or run it past 2-3 readers for feedback • Writing style should be clear and business-like • The title chosen is important, as is the Abstract (for citability)
How to publish … (2) • • • • •
Follow the instructions for authors exactly Incorporate current literature Research publications for a suitable ‘home’ Ensure that your paper meets publishers’ guidelines Edit and proofread the paper carefully (see CELT Helpsheet: Editing and Proofreading) • Don’t be depressed by rejections! • Many of the better journals have a 5 percent acceptance rate • Rejection might be based on other factors – – – –
Desire for editor to canvas new themes Previous attention given to your argument/theme Geographical representation of authors ‘Fashion’ of certain methodologies/approaches
How to publish … (3) • Keep papers in circulation • Make the effort to write on a daily basis! • Use your available opportunities and maximise your chances: – doctoral chapters (2-3 papers at least) – Co-authored work with supervisors and/or colleagues (keep in scholarly loops) – Rejected papers from one journal can go towards a paper elsewhere (journal shifting) – Taking up your last idea and turning it into something else. Taking up the same ground without repeating yourself exactly (recycling) – Turning one study into many small publications (SPUs=smallest publishable units, or “publon”) – Take data from one project and turn into separate papers(“Salami slicing”) – The latter can dramatically increase your output – More output = more opportunities to get your work read, more potential alliances for other publications.
Different methods that work, for me! • The instant strong response/ “gush” method (surprisingly successful!) • The split-it-up method (one long paper becomes 2-3 punchier papers) • The “kill two birds” method (departmental reports to papers) • The recycling method (Interdisciplinary Higher Ed example)
What does it mean to be “Original”? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
setting down a major piece of new information in writing for the first time continuing a previously original piece of work providing a single original technique, observation or result in an otherwise unoriginal but competent piece of research presenting many original ideas, methods and interpretations all performed by others but under teacher’s direction showing originality in testing someone else’s idea carrying out empirical work that has not been done before making a synthesis that has not been made before (putting ideas together that don’t normally belong together) using already known material but with a new interpretation trying out something in my country that has previously only been done in other countries taking a particular technique and applying it in a new area bringing new evidence to bear on an old issue being cross-disciplinary and using different methodologies looking at areas that people in the discipline have not looked at before adding to knowledge in a way that has not previously been done before
The Yes-No Strategy Write down a thesis statement: e.g., …. That the phonetic approach to language learning is crucial for developing early linguistic competence. Use a page with 4 columns marked: – – – –
YES: writer completely agrees with thesis Yes BUT: writer has some agreements but mainly disagrees YES but: Writer mainly agrees but has minor disagreements NO: Writer completely disagrees
Think about where you stand and what you can offer.
Different ways to contribute 1. 2. 3. 4.
5. 6. 7. 8.
Write a comprehensive summary or meta-analysis of literature about “P” (“round it up” method) Literature says “P”; you argue “P” has insufficient evidence (“ain’t necessarily so” method) Literature says “P”; you argue “not P” (negative critique method) **Note that this kind of approach is often rejected by journals** Literature says “P”. You argue that while “P” is true, lessons can be learned by looking at “Q” (“alternative approach” method) Literature says “P”. You argue that while it seems true now future developments might cast doubt on “P” (“Room for doubt” method) Literature says “P” or “Q”; you argue “P & Q” (false dichotomy method) Literature says “P” or “Q”; you argue “R” (“barking up wrong tree”/positive critique method) Literature says “P”; you argue “P” but for entirely different reasons (“same thesis; different reason” method)
…… AND SO ON………
Using Everyday Opportunities
Using your Everyday Opportunities • Try to publish everything you write! • Everything written has a home somewhere • The home might just be a newspaper, e.g., the HES, but that’s a publication and it gets your voice heard – Meetings give rise to projects – Departmental reporting to papers in journals – Networks and associates/collaborations – Student materials – Teaching materials • Relish the opportunities these present!!!
Avoiding Rejection
Typical reasons for rejection • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Written expression Careless errors Not following style guidelines Overlooking a theory or body of work Did not explain something Over-explaining No focus (miles wide and inches deep) Too abstract or too general Examples not given Stuff needs to be moved around Not novel/interesting Technical/Scientific issues Conclusions don’t support data Faulty methodology
New Writers’ Errors • • • • • •
Writing too much about “the problem” Overstating the problem Claiming too much for their solution Overstating the critique of others’ work Not saying what they mean—losing focus Putting too many ideas into one paper R. Murray, (2005) Writing for Academic Journals
To this one can add: • Needlessly exposing oneself to criticism, making outright contentious statements unsupported by evidence • Lack of subtlety in expression • Not making the “gap” clear
Example During the last two decades the higher education system in the UK has moved from an elite to a mass orientation, while academic careers have become less secure and more demanding, and a greater accountability has been imposed on the system. In the light of these changes, it is appropriate to ask what is known about the nature of academic work. For the purposes of this article, academic work has been conceptualised as involving one or more of five overlapping roles: the commonplace triumvirate of teaching, research and managing, plus writing and networking. The existing literature on each of these roles, and on academic careers in general is reviewed. At the time of writing, there was no single, comprehensive text available on academic work in the UK. While much has been written in recent years on the teaching role (and, to a less extent, managing) relatively little of a cross-disciplinary nature appears to have been written on academic researching, writing or networking,. The future development of these, and other, areas of writing on academic careers, is considered.
Why manuscripts are rejected
• • • • • • •
Drawn from - Journal of Accounting Education – 1998 to 2004 1,300 submissions (estimated) 3,900 review hours (estimated) 75% rejection rate 2,925 hours on rejected manuscripts 73 work weeks on rejected manuscripts 1.41 work years on rejected manuscripts
Dealing with rejection • • • •
Attitude: It’s the rule, not the exception There may be sound reasons/take it on the chin Reviewer comments may be “off the wall” Writing back does not work (I’ve tried it!) – However, if novelty has been missed by reviewer/factual errors in referee report, this should be brought to Editor’s attention
• Move on to the next journal asap • Take comments on board (if helpful) and incorporate into the next iteration of paper • No paper should sit on your desk!
The seven stages of Resentment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Outrage, noise, unladylike/ungentlemanly rejoinders Incomprehension More outrage One or two of the comments might make sense There’s a bit of truth in that one I’ll just have a go at doing what they said to do here Actually, the paper is a whole lot better for all those revisions Kate Chanock, ALL Forum: http://forum.aall.org.au/viewtopic.php?t=285
Contradictory Reviewers • Refereee A wrote: “… the manuscript reads very much like a novel rather than a scientific report. As such the manuscript lacks a theoretical grounding in reading research from which specific hypotheses can be tested. No data is reported, from either standardised or experimental tests, and there was no attempt to measure objectively … Consequently, as this manuscript is purely subjective in nature I consider it to be totally unsuitable for publication in a prestigious scientific journal such as the Journal of Research in XX.”
Referee B wrote: “… ACCEPT – it’s a delightfully off-the-piste piece, beautifully written …, and the only effect of trying to insist on more or more scholarly … references would be to take the bloom off it.”
Submitting a Paper
Submitting a Paper • Investigate the most appropriate journal for your paper • Most journals use electronic submission portals • Authors are required to: – – – – –
Register Unload a “not for review” file (de-identified) and a “for review” file (identified) Select keywords Upload an Abstract Upload a cover letter to the Editor
• The cover letter should explain why your paper would be of interest to the journal • Persuade the editor informally as to the merits of what is formally expressed in the paper itself. • The cover letter could be the difference between having your paper sent for review and rejection!
Options • Acceptance – Without changes – Subject to minor changes
• Rejection • Revision – Reconsideration possible after major revisions
Dealing with editors • The “accept subject to minor changes” – Count your blessings/treat yourself – Don’t make any other changes! – Return to editor before the date specified
• The “accept subject to major changes” – – – –
Read each review carefully 3-4 times Underline/highlight each instruction where action is needed List each point and tick them off as you do them Write a nice letter to the editor listing each change made with evidence (example) – Not all changes have to be made, but you need convincing arguments why changes were not made
Revision • Carefully consider referee comments: – Not all changes have to be made but you need a convincing reason why
• Prepare revision – Highlight changes – Point by point response in a separate document to all referee comments – Say what changes were made – Why changes were not made – Need to convince Editor and referees
The response to reviewers letter • Begin with the positive comments about your paper (sum them up briefly) • Thank the reviewers for their incisive criticisms • Number each reviewer comment separately. – Cut and paste the comment/suggested correction/criticism – Respond to comment – Show precisely how you have dealt with the criticism in the paper by cutting and pasting the relevant section.
• Editors may not have read your paper closely but they will read the response to reviewers document. • The response to reviewers document may turn out to be as long as the paper itself.
After Acceptance • Production data checklist – Text format – Figure preparation • Proofs – CATS – PDF
• Return proofs quickly – Check copy editing changes and ask someone else as well
• • • •
Typesetting Language polishing Copy-editing Copyright transfer
• Online first publication – Days after acceptance – Assigned a DOI number • Printed issue comes out much later (sometimes 2 years later!) • You can add “forthcoming” to your CV pre-proofs, and “in press” post-proofs
Book Publishing
Book publishing • Very, very time consuming • BUT: it can take as long—from inception to publication—to publish a paper in a good journal! • There is a virtue in spreading your talents amongst different publication genres • Send proposals first • Work out the market niche • There is a publisher out there for every book but the “pitch” is essential • Preparation (proposal) and post-contract work (obtaining permissions, indexes, etc) can take as long as writing the book! • Target the publisher as closely as you target a journal • Avoid “vanity” publishers • Don’t assume that edited books take less time than solo-authoring a book, and don’t assume multi-authored books take less time than solo-authored.
Working with others Advantages • Might increase your output (as a co-author) • Develop useful ongoing research ties (“2 or more heads are better …”) • Further opportunities for research projects/grants as an outcome of the project.
Disadvantages • Different writing “style” • Different emphasis/priorities • Endless miscommunication • Often takes longer than doing it yourself • Co-authored never as good as single authored publications (unless it is a well-known “name”)
• 10 critical things about publishing exercise….
Things to Watch Out For.. • Vanity Presses – These are worthless. Self-publishing is academic death!
• “Vampire” Publishers – They will target academics, often writing personally to them, mentioning their published work, and inviting proposals for books, papers, chapters, etc – Sometimes they have fancy academic-sound names, and produce slick, impressivelooking books and journals
• Doctoral thesis publishers – They sell mainly to libraries around the world at very high prices, and promise keeping your work in press in perpetuity. This can be attractive in some contexts. – Often re-jigged doctoral work – Examples: Edwin Mellen Press, IGI-Global Versita – Beware: Go in with eyes open!
• Nigerian scams directed at academics – Some impressive-sounding journals will target academics, mentioning your previous published work, and inviting you to submit papers … for a fee!
• “Aspirational” Journals
Developing your Research and Publication CV Overwhelming representation of conference papers (Why? Was the paper shot
down as nonsense? Indicates lack of follow-through) Lack of clarity between Refereed Conference papers, Non-Refereed Conference papers and Conference presentations Narrow in terms of outlet (not good to publish in only one or two journals, even if they are good. Framing your work differently for cognate peers is good.) Publications in the wrong field (if you are an expert in X this should pre-dominate. This does not mean that you can’t spread your wings.) Short publications (e.g., less than 3000 words) (Giving page range is becoming common.) Too many co-authored papers (Why? Too many looks like over-reliance) Too many co-authored papers in which you are the last-named author Dodgy publications – In weird-sounding locations/journals: Antarctic Journal of Cosmopolonology – Discussion papers, contributions to forums, commentaries, newsletters or newspapers Listing works “in progress”, “in preparation” (This fools no one.)
Developing your Research and Publication CV – – – –
In Press: the manuscript is fully copyedited and out of the author's hands. It is in the final stages of the production process. Forthcoming: a completed manuscript has been accepted by a press or journal. Under contract to . . .: a press and an author have signed a contract for a book in progress, but the final manuscript has not yet been submitted. Submitted or under consideration: the book or article has been submitted to a press or journal, but there is as yet no contract or agreement to publish.
Listing anything other than “in press” or “forthcoming” for a paper looks desperate! (Listing “in press” or “under contract” assumes a contract/copyright waiver has been signed.) Don’t over-claim your role in a grant: lead investigators are first-named followed by others, even when adding to your CV. If you are a RA or postdoc on a grant, you are not necessarily a grant awardee! Don’t list grants “in preparation”. The word “pending” is used if a grant is submitted and under consideration. Don’t list your citations, but do list where citations can be found.
Developing your Research and Publications CV Write a lot, write often, choose from the best, edit, and send it somewhere The best remedy for procrastination is not having a career! Don’t leave rejected manuscripts on your desk for longer than half a day. Paper your walls with rejection slips, take from them what is useful, and don’t agonize about the rest. No one remembers the failures, except you. Submit really good papers to peer refereed journals, not conference proceedings (unless they allow for later publication). Aim for at least two papers in good journals a year. Falling short of this is not failure, but aiming lower than this is not productive. Expect that some years will result in more output then other years. This is normal, and expected. If you get a sabbatical use this to enhance networking leading to publications. This can often be a better use of time than writing new material. Consider how to get multiple publications from the one idea: a journal article, a chapter, a higher education newspaper article, a commentary, a blog entry, etc. They don’t count the same but they get your name out there.
Developing your Research and Publication CV
Developing your Research and Publications CV •
Be a good academic citizen. This can lead to being an Associate Editor, and eventually, an Editor/Special Issue Editor. –
Get involved in peer reviewing • Familiar with topic? • Time? (2-5 hours at least) • Meet deadline? • Conflict of interest? • Do you read/publish in the journal?
– If you can’t review: • Tell Editor asap • Suggest alternative reviewers
– If you can review: • • • •
•
Submit on time Write comprehensive and well-argued review Keep paper confidential Don’t contact author
Above all else, you need to get cited not merely read. This means a) publishing good stuff and b) networking/hawking you material to get it read.
Ways of networking and publishing • • • • • •
• •
• • •
Join discipline-specific sites, email lists and forums. http://www.cestagi.com/ : CV template for academics http://www.academia.edu: Web-based Facebook-type site for academics https://scholasticahq.com/: Networking and publication management tool in which you earn points for contributions, can upload papers to journals from here http://www.mendeley.com/: Collaboration and networking tool http://www.zotero.org/: Collection and sharing repository for scholarly information and networking tool http://www.researchgate.net/ (mainly for scientists) http://www.google.com/intl/en/scholar/citations.html Google Scholar citations: automatically tracks where you are cited. http://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=Z6tx034AAAAJ&hl=en Use Harzing’s Publish or Perish to determine your citation rankings. Get yourself an Endnote library of your publications sorted under categories: use this to upload into a variety of platforms. Get your own personal website, an institutional one, various social media sites, and link them together (personal ones can travel with you).
To Sum Up • Publishing is a rewarding business BUT be prepared for: – Rejection (more often than not) – Working extra hours/persistence and doggedness (never giving up) – The need to operate strategically – To learn the rules of the game
• Good Luck
