Question

Discuss the steps required to submit research to a professional journal, and what you feel will be the biggest obstacle? Why?

Answer 1

Discuss the steps required to submit research to a professional journal, and what you feel will be the biggest obstacle? Why?

In my seven years of research and teaching, I have observed several shortcomings in the manuscript preparation and submission process that often lead to research being rejected for publication. Monitoring these deficiencies will expand your odds of having your original copy distributed and furthermore support your examination profile and profession movement.

In this article, proposed for doctoral understudies and other youthful researchers, I distinguish regular entanglements and offer accommodating answers for get ready progressively significant papers. While there are a few sorts of research articles, for example, short interchanges, audit papers, etc, these rules center around setting up a full article (counting a writing survey), regardless of whether dependent on subjective or quantitative philosophy, from the point of view of the administration, training, data sciences and sociologies disciplines.

Composing for scholastic diaries is an exceptionally focused movement, and it's vital to comprehend that there could be a few purposes for a dismissal. Besides, the diary peer-audit process is a basic component of production on the grounds that no essayist could recognize and address every potential issue with an original copy.

1. Do not rush submitting your article for publication.

In my first article for Elsevier Connect – “Five secrets to surviving (and thriving in) a PhD program” – I emphasized that scholars should start writing during the early stages of your research or doctoral study career. This secret does not entail submitting your manuscript for publication the moment you have crafted its conclusion. Authors sometimes rely on the fact that they will always have an opportunity to address their work’s shortcomings after the feedback received from the journal editor and reviewers has identified them.

A proactive methodology and mentality will lessen the shot of dismissal and dissatisfaction. As I would like to think, a coherent stream of exercises overwhelms each exploration movement and ought to be pursued for setting up an original copy also. Such exercises incorporate painstakingly re-perusing your original copy at various occasions and maybe at better places. Re-perusing is fundamental in the examination field and recognizes the most well-known issues and deficiencies in the composition, which may some way or another be ignored.

2. Select an appropriate publication outlet.

I also ask colleagues about the most appropriate journal to submit my manuscript to; finding the right journal for your article can dramatically improve the chances of acceptance and ensure it reaches your target audience.Elsevier gives an imaginative Journal Finder seek office on its site. Writers enter the article title, a concise theoretical and the field of research to get a rundown of the most suitable diaries for their article. For a full discourse of how to choose a suitable diary see Knight and Steinbach (2008).

3. Read the aims and scope and author guidelines of your target journal carefully.

Once you have read and re-read your manuscript carefully several times, received feedback from your colleagues, and identified a target journal, the next important step is to read the aims and scope of the journals in your target research area. Doing so will improve the chances of having your manuscript accepted for publishing. Another important step is to download and absorb the author guidelines and ensure your manuscript conforms to them. Some publishers report that one paper in five does not follow the style and format requirements of the target journal, which might specify requirements for figures, tables and references.

4. Establish a decent first connection with your title and unique.

The title and unique are unimaginably imperative parts of a composition as they are the principal components a diary proofreader sees. I have been blessed to get exhortation from editors and analysts on my entries, and criticism from numerous partners at scholarly gatherings, and this is the thing that I've learned:

The title ought to condense the principle topic of the article and mirror your commitment to the hypothesis.

The dynamic ought to be created deliberately and incorporate the point and extent of the examination; the key issue to be tended to and hypothesis; the strategy utilized; the informational index; key discoveries; restrictions; and suggestions for hypothesis and practice.

5. Have an expert altering firm duplicate alter (not simply edit) your original copy, including the primary content, rundown of references, tables and figures.

The key normal for logical composing is lucidity. Before presenting a composition for distribution, it is profoundly fitting to have an expert altering firm duplicate alter your original copy. An article submitted to a friend inspected diary will be examined fundamentally by the publication board before it is chosen for companion audit. As indicated by a measurement shared by Elsevier, between 30 percent and 50 percent of articles submitted to Elsevier diaries are dismissed before they even achieve the friend survey stage, and one of the best explanations behind dismissal is poor dialect. An appropriately composed, altered and displayed content will be sans mistake and reasonable and will extend an expert picture that will help guarantee your work is considered important in the realm of distributing. Every so often, the significant corrections directed in line with a commentator will require another round of altering.

6. Present an introductory letter with the original copy.

Keep in mind the significance of an introductory letter routed to the editorial manager or proofreader in-head of the objective diary. A year ago, I went to a gathering in Boston. A "meet the editors" session uncovered that numerous entries do exclude a covering letter, however the editors-in-boss present, who spoke to recharged and ISI-filed Elsevier diaries, contended that the introductory letter gives creators a critical chance to persuade them that their exploration work merits auditing.

In like manner, the substance of the introductory letter is additionally worth investing energy in. Some unpracticed researchers glue the article's unique into their letter supposing it will be adequate to put forth the defense for production; it is a training best maintained a strategic distance from. A decent introductory letter first layouts the primary topic of the paper; second, contends the oddity of the paper; and third, legitimizes the significance of the original copy to the objective diary. I would recommend constraining the introductory letter to a large portion of a page. All the more significantly, companions and partners who read the article and gave input before the original copy's accommodation ought to be recognized in the introductory letter.

7. Address reviewer comments very carefully.

Editors and editors-in-chief usually couch the acceptance of a manuscript as subject to a “revise and resubmit” based on the recommendations provided by the reviewer or reviewers. These revisions may necessitate either major or minor changes in the manuscript. Inexperienced scholars should understand a few key aspects of the revision process. First, it important to address the revisions diligently; second, is imperative to address all the comments received from the reviewers and avoid oversights; third, the resubmission of the revised manuscript must happen by the deadline provided by the journal; fourth, the revision process might comprise multiple rounds.

Conclusion

Given the consistently expanding number of original copies submitted for production, the way toward setting up a composition all around ok to have it acknowledged by a diary can be overwhelming. High-affect diaries acknowledge under 10 percent of the articles submitted to them, despite the fact that the acknowledgment proportion for unique issues or uncommon subjects segments is regularly more than 40 percent. Researchers may need to leave themselves to having their articles rejected and after that modifying them to submit them to an alternate diary before the original copy is acknowledged.

The guidance offered here isn't thorough but at the same time it's not hard to execute. These suggestions require legitimate consideration, arranging and watchful execution; notwithstanding, following this counsel could encourage doctoral understudies and different researchers enhance the probability of getting their work distributed, and that is critical to having a profitable, energizing and compensating scholastic vocation.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Professor Heikki Karjaluoto, Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics for providing valuable feedback on this article.