Editors of top academic journals divulged the know-how behind the art of publishing at a workshop on Friday, offering graduate students and junior faculty a behind-the-scenes look at the path of an academic article from submission to publication.

“The Art of Publishing in Academic Journals,” an event hosted by Emory’s economics department, detailed the intricacies of the publishing process through presentations, roundtable discussions and question-and-answer sessions with the audience of nearly 200. Invitees from more than 500 economics, political science and sociology departments around the country partook in the event via a live webcast and sent in inquiries in real time through e-mail.

Economics Department Chair Hashem Dezhbakhsh said that for graduate students and junior faculty who depend on being published to attain jobs or tenure, the workshop offers a valuable resource.

“There is an art to publishing that nobody teaches you,” Dezhbakhsh said. “There are a lot of subtleties about publishing that you might never learn.”

The day of events featured the editors of top journals in political science, economics and sociology, who dispelled publishing myths and imparted knowledge on what publishing hopefuls should expect and what editors look for.

A midday roundtable on writing, journal selection and revision featured Daniel Hamermesh, associate editor of Industrial and Labor Relations Review; Randy Hodson, editor of American Sociology Review, which is often regarded as the top journal in sociology; Sam Kortum, editor of Journal of Political Economy, a top journal in economics; Alessandro Lizzeri, editor of American Economic Review, another top journal in economics; and Ron Rogowski, editor of American Political Science Review, which is heralded by many as the leading political science journal.

Stressing the importance of quality over quantity, Hamermesh said that writers should not compromise quality for the sake of aggrandizing the number of submissions.

“This doesn’t mean writing constipation, but quality is the most important if you want to be published,” he said.

But Hodson warned that because of the long review process, which can range from a few months to a year or two, junior faculty should be mindful of having a solid number of articles under review if they are seeking tenure.

“You’re not the judge of how good your paper is,” Hodson said. “You need to get some papers out there under review, and they all need to be high quality.”

Lizzeri said that deciding between more specific and more general topics has two sides. While becoming known as an expert in a particular arena has its advantages, he said, choosing a more general topic can capture a wider audience.

According to Rogowski, a writer needs to strike a careful balance.

“You can be as technical as you want, but there also needs to be visibility so that it is accessible to a wider audience,” Rogowski said.

Kortum said writers should not select topics solely based on their desire to be published.

“Focus on the ideas that you’re interested in, and don’t just be driven by trying to get published,” he said.

Rogowski said that in preparation for the lengthy and at times tedious review and revision process, writers should present their papers at seminars, which can help pinpoint weaknesses.

After submission, papers are reviewed by referees, who bring up counterpoints, critique the arguments made and finally make a recommendation to the editor on whether or not to accept the piece for publication. The review process is plagued with a reputation for being inefficient, as the procedure can lag when referees are in a deadlock or are backlogged.

Rogowski said that rookie writers should not shy away from suggesting reviewers, while Kortum said that editors of economic journals would be more adverse to these suggestions. The panelists said that writers should also identify referees who may have a conflict of interest in reviewing their papers.

Following the review, writers submit a memo responding to any charges made in the referees’ reports.

Hamermesh said the equilibrium is shifting towards longer responses, which are “a waste of everyone’s time” because writers have already explained their points in their papers.

But Lizzeri said he believes that proffering a detailed response can be appropriate in many cases.

“From an author’s point of view, it may be good to elaborate and respond to points,” he said.

Kortum said that when editors ask a writer to revise and re-submit a paper, writers should always do so.

“They often make it seem like they don’t like it, but they want to instill fear so that you’ll do the work,” he said. “Don’t think re-submit means reject.”

The panelists agreed that writers who have not received feedback after a given period can send a polite reminder after three or so months.

Dezhbakhsh said the department has plans to expand the scope of the workshop next year, soliciting funding from outside sources. This year, the event was funded by a number of University sources, which were secured in the fall after a proposal was drawn up.

Hodson said in an interview with the Wheel that he was willing to come because he believes the workshop offers valuable information.

“This sort of information is hard to come by. It’s informal knowledge that is acquired through often painful personal experience,” he said.

— Contact Tiffany Han.