Scott Miles

Getting Your First Journal Article Published

Fields such as applied linguistics and second language education depend on contributions
from scholars and practitioners to continue to grow. However, writers new to publishing
academic articles often struggle to get their articles published. This article outlines some of
the basic expectations for academic articles in the field of applied linguistics and language
teaching and lists a number of common mistakes that new writers tend to make. Advice for
each section of the typical academic article (title, abstract, introduction, literature review,
methodology, results, discussion and conclusion) is given. Finally, an overview of the peer
review process is given, along with advice on how to work with peer reviewer feedback and
revisions.

1. Introduction

This article is for writers new to publishing in academic journals, particularly in the field of
second language teaching. As the editor of TESOL Review for the past 5 years (in addition to
writing and reviewing articles for the past 10 years), I have noticed a number of common
mistakes and misunderstandings that new writers make. The purpose of this article is to help
new writers become familiar with the expectations of academic writing and thus improve
their chances of getting through the peer review process. Hewlett (2002) notes, “The Catch
22 in research publishing is that few authors work effectively in the process until after they've
published a few manuscripts.” Though it may be true that nothing can take the place of
experience, some initial guidance can hopefully make the process less frustrating.

2. What are good topics?

It is a common mistake for novice authors to send their articles to a journal without first
checking to make sure their article will fit into the overall theme and purpose of the journal.
Every journal will have its own type of preferred articles. Some journals prefer research with
clear practical applications, while others are biased towards articles with more theoretical or
descriptive ends. Research that addresses an issue that is particular to one country or region
may encounter difficulty in getting published in a journal with a more international scope.
Read the guidelines for submissions and read over a number of articles in recent issues of the
journal to get an idea of whether the journal is a good fit for your topic.

We can make some generalities, though, about what academic journals tend to expect in an
article. Epstein, Kenway, and Boden (2007:26) provide some general guidelines on what
academic journals expect to see in an article:

 They present new knowledge, either in the form of substantive research findings,
theoretical developments, new insights into existing debates, new analyses of
existing knowledge or a synthesis of the literature.

 They are grounded in the relevant literature, demonstrating familiarity and

engagement in an on-going academic conversation.
  They address new or familiar issues pertinent to the discipline or field.

 They ask and attempt to answer provocative questions in a persuasive manner.

 They are well written, with carefully crafted and sustained argument

One type of article that I see occasionally that does not fit well with most academic
journals is the opinion piece. These articles often come across as an ‘everything wrong with
language education” rant and provide very little in the way of relevant references to the
academic literature (violating the second guideline provided above). It is highly unlikely that
one individual has recently identified a problem or solution in language teaching that has not
already been researched and discussed in the academic literature. Indeed, I find that most
articles like this tend to cover ground that has already been discussed and debated in the field
for decades, and thus offer very little, if anything, that is new. Opinion pieces can be
publishable, but the author should still show familiarity with academic literature on the
subject and support arguments with references.

MA thesis
It is common for MA graduates to try to publish their thesis. This is a good practice
and should be done far more often than it is. You have selected an interesting area for
research, your supervisor has (likely) checked to make sure you conducted the research
reasonably well, and thus the findings are valuable and should be disseminated. However, it
is important to know that the thesis can never simply be published as is in an academic
journal. A thesis can have 30,000 to 60,000 (or more!) words, but most journals have word
limits for articles around 7,000-9000.
Going from 50,000 words to 7000 words is quite a challenge. Generally, you cannot
just cut and paste entire sections of the thesis into the article. The article still requires an
introduction, a literature review, methods section, and so on, meaning that all sections of the
thesis will need to be rewritten. A literature review that covered 20 pages in your thesis, for
example, will need to be cut down to 2-3 pages. This is a daunting task, but the advice given
in the following sections can be helpful to serve as a guide.

Academic writing style

The best way to become familiar with the common style, structures, and nuances of
academic writing style is to read extensively in journals, particularly those of your chosen
discipline. ‘Elements of Style’ (Strunk & White, 2000), with its focus on simplicity and
clarity, is a classic resource for academic writing. A slightly different but also very useful
guide to academic writing can be found in ‘Adios, Strunk and White: A Handbook for the
New Academic Essay’ (Hoffman & Hoffman, 2011). Though there may be some degree of
differences in opinion on proper academic style writing, Bem’s (2002) general advice holds,
“The primary criteria for good scientific writing are accuracy and clarity. If your article is
interesting and written with style, fine. But these are subsidiary virtues. First strive for
accuracy and clarity.” (p. 7).

If your first language is not English, find a good resource that covers many of the common
sentence structures and expressions used in academic writing (e.g. Swales & Feak, 2004).
Even if your command of the English language is advanced, these kinds of resources can be
very helpful in raising your awareness of usage that you might have overlooked.
Avoid informal language such as contractions, idioms and slang. While the writing should be
formal, avoid using over-technical or advanced vocabulary that will lose the average reader.
This is particularly important in the field of language teaching, as many scholars and
practitioners speak English as a second language. Speak formally but in simple and clear
language that could be understood by the average native speaker university student. Assume
the reader has ‘entry level’ knowledge of the general topic, but is not an expert in the field.

3. What are your Research Questions?

Any article that focuses on research must have a clear set of research questions that it
intends to answer. Your research questions will shape and guide every section of your paper:
what to cover in the introduction and literature review, how you determined your research
methods, and of course, what you focus on in your discussion and conclusion sections.
Clear and focused research questions lead to a clear and focused article. At no point
in your paper should you risk the reader becoming confused about what the article is about.
Furthermore, the reader should also be convinced that the research questions are worth
answering. Summers (2001) lists uninteresting research questions among the most common
reasons for article rejection.

4. Parts of the article

Title and abstract
Keep your title relatively short (6-15 words). The title should attract attention and be fairly
clear about what type of study is being reported. A clever title can be helpful, but generally an
informative title is better than trying to be too creative.

An abstract is a summary of the article. As abstracts are short (typically from 100-250 words
long) the author needs to get right to the main points. In most cases, the abstract should be
one paragraph and have few, if any, citations. Abstracts are important as most readers judge
the abstract before deciding whether to read the whole the article, and in effect serve as a
‘window display’ for the article to bring in readers (Feldman, 2004:2). Peer reviewers will, of
course, read the entire article regardless of whether the abstract is enticing or not, but the
abstract will still serve to give an impression that will affect how the reviewer judges the
article. Make sure the first impression is a good one.

A good abstract gives concrete information (without going into too much detail) so the reader
has a clear idea of what to expect in the article. Perry et al. (2003:658) propose seven
elements in a good abstract.

 Element 1: The abstract has to start with a brief theme sentence to orientate the
reader about the overall issue addressed in the article. This sentence should grab the
reader’s attention.

 Element 2: The abstract should then indicate the main aim or purpose of the study.

 Element 3: Next, the academic and/or practical importance of the study should be
explained.

 Element 4: The methodology used in the study should also be briefly described.
  Element 5: The main findings of the study should be summarized.

 Element 6: A statement of conclusions should indicate the contribution made by the

study in filling gaps in the literature.

 Element 7: Finally, the practical … implications of the study’s findings should be

highlighted where appropriate.

As most or all of the above need to be covered in about 200 words, the author needs to be
concise, with each element taking just 1-3 sentences.

5. Introduction

Introduction
Summers (2001:410) details four aims of a good introduction section:
1. Establish the importance of the general area of interest
2. Indicate in general terms what has been done in this broad area
3. Identify important gaps, inconsistencies, and/or controversies in the relevant literature
4. Provide a concise statement of the manuscript’s purpose(s), the contributions the
manuscript makes to the literature

The first two aims should be done briefly, but give the reader a fair idea of the general
context of the issue that the study addresses. The third aim is quite important in convincing
the reader that there is a problematic gap in the literature that needs to be filled, and thus a bit
more space should be allotted to this area. The fourth aim can be done in one concise
paragraph, but should give the reader a very clear idea of what gap in the literature the author
intends to address. For an article of 6000-7000 words, the introduction should take 500-1000
words.

After reading the introduction to an article, the reader should understand why this issue is
important, know exactly what the author intends to show in the paper, and have some
confidence that the author will address this issue in a reliable way. A good introduction, along
with the title and abstract, thus ‘sells’ the article (Summers, 2001). A peer reviewer whose
interest is piqued in the abstract and introduction is likely to read the article with more
goodwill, patience and attention.

6. Literature Review

The literature review a more detailed survey of what has already been presented and argued
in the field on your topic, and thus gives the reader a good idea of the current state of the
field. Novice writers are often unsure just what and how much to cover in the literature
review. Often papers will place, without any semblance of order, all the information related to
the topic they can find, regardless of whether it is relevant to understand the purpose of the
research paper or not.

Most articles will devote between 1000-2000 words for the literature review, making it one of
the longer sections of the article. Nonetheless, literature reviews need to be focused. As noted
earlier, the literature review is largely guided by the research questions. There is not enough
space to give a grand overview of the field, but just enough for the reader to understand what
research relevant to the research questions has to say. The literature review should appear as a
narrative, leading the reader through the relevant history and leading up logically to the
research questions addressed in the paper. By the time the literature review ends, it should
transition logically to your study. As Bem (2002) puts it, “the review should be "a
straightforward tale of a circumscribed question in want of an answer. It is not a novel with
subplots and flashbacks, but a short story with a single, linear narrative line. Let this line
stand out in bold relief." (p.4)

Some articles address research questions that have already been explored in the literature.
This is not necessarily a problem, but the author needs to show that 1) she is aware of this
previous research, and 2) she has a specific purpose in re-exploring the issue. This can be
simply confirming what previous research has found in a slightly different context or with
different (and arguably superior) methods. This purpose should be made explicit and guide
the entire study.

Consider the reviewer (and readers) as informed on the general issues of English education,
but perhaps unaware of the specifics. General terms like EFL and ESL do not need
definitions, but terms like Focus on Form or Content Based Instruction may require a brief
description (a few sentences should suffice). Papers that drift into disciplines outside of
applied linguistics and language teaching (e.g., politics, philosophy, psychology, and
economics) may require more explanations of even some of the basic concepts.

To conduct your literature review, you will need access to academic journals, which often
requires being affiliated with a university or other institution which has access to major
journal databases. Avoid overuse of ‘secondary citations’, in which you cite one author who
is citing yet another author (e.g. “Smith (1985, as cited in Anderson, 1999) claimed…”). It is
better to check and site the original source, as this shows your literature review is careful and
thorough. Make sure there are no major holes in your literature review. Your literature review
should be relatively current. If most of your sources are older than 10 years, then you
probably are missing many important articles. If your research is conducted in or otherwise
related to a specific country or culture, then make sure your search of the literature includes
journals published in that region. Some of these articles might be published in the language of
the country or region, which can pose a challenge, but you’ll find many are published in
English. As you read, you’ll find some key articles that are very similar to your own study.
These are crucial to report well so the reader can see how your results build on, confirm, or
contradict, these studies.

7. Methodology
It is beyond the scope of this article to go over the methods of conducting various
kinds of research. Before conducting the study, it is essential to check your methodological
decisions with an experienced researcher, or at least consult one or more books giving
guidance on conducting research (e.g., Brown, 1988; Burns, 2010; Cohen, Manion, &
Morrison, 2000; Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005; Kotze, 2007; McDonough & McDonough, 1997;
Walliman, 2001). Articles are often rejected due to fatal problems with methodology, which
may make the paper unpublishable regardless of how well written the article may be. This is
not to say your study has to be completely free of methodological weaknesses—no study can
be—but just that your study is conducted in a way that can produce meaningful results.
Nothing can make up for a poorly designed study, and if your paper is rejected due to major
flaws in the methodology, there may be no recourse but to conduct the entire study again.

The methodology section generally has three sections:

 Participants
 Procedure for data collection
 Measures for analysis

When discussing your methodology, make sure to give enough information about the context
of the study and how the study was conducted so that the reader can evaluate the validity of
your findings. If your study is based on a survey, for example, the following should be clearly
expressed:
 Who are the participants in your study? How were they selected?
 How well do the participants represent the larger population of the group?
 How was the survey designed? Was it piloted to make sure it was clear to the
participants? How did you ensure that the survey questions were not worded in a way
that might bias participants’ answers?
 What was the exact procedure for conducting the survey? What directions did the
respondents receive? What unexpected issues arose while conducting the survey and
how did you respond?
 How were the data recorded, calculated and analyzed? What statistics were run on
the results? What was the protocol for addressing unclear responses or incomplete
surveys?

Be upfront about the weaknesses of your study design. No study is ever conducted in ideal
situations or goes off exactly as planned. Discuss any problems you had that required ad hoc
changes in your methodology or otherwise might have affected the validity of your findings.

Ideally, you will give enough information about your methods that another research could
duplicate your research. Include actual copies of surveys, tests, scoring rubrics and other
materials used in the study in the appendices. If you used materials that included a language
other than English, it may be best to include the original form (exactly as was used in the
study) and a second copy which provides a translation.

If you have different groups in your study, refer to them by a short but easily identifiable
name so the reader can easily keep track of each. Generic names such as ‘Group 1’ or
‘Treatment B’ necessitate constant referrals back to the part of the paper which describes the
treatments, which is annoying and often confusing. Group names such as ‘explicit study
group’ and ‘implicit study group’, or ‘free-writing group’ and ‘guided writing group’, for
example, are far easier for the reader to keep track of both during the remainder of the
methods section and again later in the results and discussion sections.

Finally, you may need to address potential ethical issues in this section as well. For example,
how did you ensure the participants understood the purpose of the study and were willing to
participate? How was the study designed to make sure no participants were (or potentially
could be) harmed, embarrassed, or disadvantaged in any way?

Results
 The results section presents and summarizes the raw data of the measures used in the
study. For quantitative studies, this is where you will place the statistical analyses.
Refrain from interpreting how the data answers your research questions at this point.
In the Results section, just show the ‘facts’ and leave the analysis and interpretation for the
Discussion section. If you are reporting statistics, begin with the descriptive statistics
(typically the total or mean scores and standard deviations for each group), followed by a
table showing whether the differences between the groups reached statistical significance
(meaning, the differences between your groups is the result of the treatment, and not just due
to chance fluctuations). If you are investigating treatments, the effect size (a measure of the
strength of each treatment) should also be reported. Statistics can be a bit tricky for people
new to research. There are some good books that can walk you through the procedures for
selecting and running statistics for your study (e.g., Pallant, 2011), but it is advisable to elicit
outside help to make sure you get it right. It is also a good idea to get assistance before you
conduct the study to make sure that you are collecting the data in a way that can be
statistically analyzed properly.
Make the tables and figures as comprehensible and reader friendly as possible.
Readers often prefer to skip the text and try to assess the results from the tables and figures
alone. You will still need to summarize the tables and figures (do so directly before or after
each table/figure), but do this concisely, drawing attention to the results which are key to
answering the research questions.

9. Discussion

While the results section summarizes the findings, the discussion should let the
reader know how the author interprets the information. How does the data answer the
research questions? How does your study fit into the broader picture (as discussed in the
Literature Review)? What questions remain? What new questions arise? What does the
information mean for language teachers?

A good discussion chapter will typically cover the following:

 A brief summary of the main results

 A discussion on how the results answer, or fail to answer, the research questions
 Discussion on how the findings of this study fit into the general literature. What does
your study add to the field?
 A discussion on the practical implications of your findings in language education
 Acknowledgement of weaknesses in the study, and how they might affect your
conclusions

A common mistake in the discussion section is for the author to make claims that are too
bold. One research study alone rarely settles an issue, and studies involving small groups in
one particular context are quite limited. These studies are useful, but they only give one small
piece of the puzzle. The readers (and especially the peer reviewers!) need some confidence
that the author has carefully considered all the limitations and possible interpretations of the
data, and is not trying to present the study as something it is not.

With this in mind, authors should be careful to qualify and soften their claims.
Consider the following examples (see Swales & Feak, 2004, for further examples):
  This study shows that learners benefit more from X than from Y.
 This study suggests that some young learners may benefit more from X
rather than Y.

 These results clearly show this new method is superior to traditional approaches to
grammar instruction
 The evidence suggests that this new approach to grammar instruction may
be more effective than some traditional approaches, at least in regards to the
development of declarative grammar knowledge.

While authors should be cautious and tentative when making claims, it is completely
acceptable to offer interpretations of the results that may be a bit speculative. Just make it
very clear in your writing when you are making claims based on your study results and when
you are making speculations.

Typically the discussion section includes an acknowledgement of the limitations of the study.
Generally, most authors talk about the weaknesses in their study methodology, such as having
a low number of participants, or participants that only represent a limited population of
learners. Alternative interpretations of the findings should also be acknowledged. Most
reviewers like to see that the author has put serious consideration into how their findings
might be inaccurate. It may be tempting to downplay potential flaws in your study to make it
look stronger, but this too often gives the impression that the author is too eager to produce
positive results, and may be biased. No serious scholar wants this kind of reputation.

11. Formatting and Proofreading

It is common for new writers to be lax on formatting and proofreading when making the first
submission, perhaps with the belief that the minor details can be taken care of later.
Formatting and proofreading may seem like minor concerns in comparison to the overall
content, but for academic articles attention to detail is always important. When peer reviewers
see that the author made little attempt to proofread and adhere to the formatting requirements
of the journal, it can raise doubts about the author’s work in general (Mullins & Kiley, 2002).
If you were sloppy in your presentation of the article, perhaps you were also careless in your
literature review and research methodology? Though it is not typical for an article to be
rejected solely due to formatting and proofreading issues, this lack of attention to detail may
push a reviewer on the fence about the study over to the side of rejection.

Each journal has its own preferences for formatting. Check the submission guidelines
carefully (on the website of the journal, and often found in the back pages of journal copies as
well). Some editors will simply return articles unread if there is no apparent attempt to follow
the journal’s guidelines. Articles that are over the word limit are also usually returned directly
by the editor.

If you are unclear about some issue, their published articles can serve as models. Most
journals in the field of applied linguistics and language teaching follow the American
Psychological Association (APA, 2009). Take care to double check that all the in-text
references are listed in the reference section (and vice-versa). Check out how the journal
prefers the headings and subheadings to be listed. For your references, double-check the
capitalization and punctuation rules. Peer reviewers often scan the reference section to make
sure the writer has generally followed reference formatting

Proofreading is a must. Set aside the paper for a few days and read it again, from start to
finish, with fresh eyes. Though this will help you catch many mistakes, keep in mind that
self-editing is limited, as it is quite difficult to anticipate what parts of your writing may be
ambiguous or confusing to a reader who has less knowledge about the subject than you.
Having a colleague who is willing to read over your paper critically can make the difference
between publication or rejection. No matter how well you conduct and report your research,
peer reviewers will typically make numerous requests for revisions. If your colleague has
nothing but praise for your paper, then you’ll need to find someone else who is either more
knowledgeable about the expectations of academic writing or is capable of being blunt.
Joining are starting a special interest group (SIG) devoted to research in a local teacher
organization such as KOTESOL or JALT can be a good way to find like-minded colleagues
who would be willing give informal feedback on your rough draft.

Submission and Decisions

When you send your paper to a journal, the editor or assistant editor will screen it to make
sure the submission is within the scope of what is acceptable for the journal (topic, general
quality of writing, word length, proper formatting, free of excessive grammatical errors, etc.).
Some will run the paper through software that can detect plagiarism (including self-
plagiarism: no parts of your paper should be published previously). If there is a problem, the
editor will return your submission and likely request that you attend to the problem and then
resubmit. If there are no glaring issues, the editor will inform you that the article has been
sent to the peer reviewers.

Note that some journals charge a reviewing fee and/or a publishing fee. Those that charge a
reviewing fee will expect the money to be paid before the peer reviewing process begins, and
there are typically no refunds if the paper is rejected. Some journals put out by teacher
organizations only accept submissions by paid members, which in effect is the same as
charging peer reviewing fees (though you would be able to submit more than one article per
year without an additional fee). Publishing fees vary, but often range between $100-$300
(U.S.). These are charged when all requested revisions have been made and the article is
ready to be published. Read the submission guidelines for each journal to see what, if any,
fees apply.

Most journals demand that during the peer review process you agree not to send your article
to other journals. Editors and peer reviewers expend a lot of time and effort in the peer review
process, and it is unprofessional to shop an article around to see which journal gives you the
best response. This can be doubly frustrating to authors who patiently wait several months
only to find out that their article has been rejected, but this is an inevitable part of the process.

The peer review process

Editors send submissions to 2 or 3 (depending on the journal) peer reviewers. These are
experts in the field that the editor believes are qualified to judge the value of your paper. The
editor relies on these reviewers to assist in making the decision of whether or not to accept
the article for publication. For most journals, the peer review process is blind, meaning that
the identity of the reviewers and authors will not be told to either party. Editors will remove
title pages and any information in the article that might identify the author before sending the
article to the reviewers.
If the results of the peer review process are delayed, it is most likely due to one or more of
the peer reviewers missing the deadline set by the editor. Most peer reviewers are not paid for
their work (of if they are paid, the compensation is rather low), so it is easy for your paper to
find itself near the bottom of their to-do lists. If you have not heard back from the journal
after several months, a friendly reminder to the editor is about the most that can be done.

Generally, the peer reviewers have four general options regarding accepting or rejecting the
paper:
 Accept as is
 Accept with revisions
 Reject, but may consider accepting with major revisions
 Reject

The first category occurs so rarely that journals should probably remove it, and indeed, some
journals label this category as ‘Accept with minor revisions’. For beginning authors, a clear
acceptance such as this is almost impossible to achieve with a journal of even middling
quality.

The second category (Accept with revisions) is good news. It generally means the reviewer
likes the paper, but needs to see some clarifications and changes before it is ready to be
published. If the majority of the reviewers make this suggestion, your paper stands a high
chance of being published.

Reviewers who select the third category are basically saying that the article could be
publishable, but they are not confident that the author can make the necessary revisions. If the
majority of reviewers select this category, the editor will typically decide to reject the article
and not allow a resubmission. However, the author should take some consolation in that the
paper, if substantially revised, may have a fair chance of publication if submitted to another
journal.

If the reviewers are split on their decisions to accept or reject the article (for journals who
only use two peer reviewers), the editor has several options. The editor may allow the author
to revise the paper and then present the revisions to the peer reviewers once more to see if the
reviewer with the dissenting opinion can be persuaded to accept the paper. Some journals will
elicit a third reviewer to act as a tie-breaker. Finally, the editor may simply make the final
decision to reject a paper with a split decision (this is somewhat more typical in prestigious
journals).

The final category, rejection, is quite common with first time authors, especially if you
submit your paper to a prestigious journal. If the majority of reviewers make this decision,
the editor will likely not allow resubmission. Firm rejections are often given to articles that
have fatally flawed methodology (meaning that the entire study would have to be redone), or
other serious issues to the point that the reviewer has little confidence that the author is
capable of revising the paper sufficiently to result in an article suitable for publication. If the
majority (or all) reviewers make this decision, the author may need some additional training
in research methodology and/or academic writing skills before again attempting to write and
submit an article.
You’ll see quickly that reviewers can vary widely in their feedback. An aspect of your paper
that elicits righteous indignation from one reviewer might not be mentioned at all by another.
Despite the inevitable degree of subjectivity in the peer-reviewing process, make no mistake:
A well-written paper will pass most of the time and a poorly-written paper will rarely make it
through. But for many papers that find themselves somewhere in the middle, having your
paper accepted or rejected can be just the luck of the draw. When you experience a rejection,
understand that it is an inevitable part of the publishing game and do not get discouraged.
Learn from the feedback and submit the paper to another journal.

Some reviewers give very specific advice for revisions. Other reviewers may come across as
carelessly dismissive and give vague (and thus not particularly helpful) criticisms. I generally
recommend paying closer attention to the reviewers who make specific instructions. They are
likely the ones who are carefully reading your article with a constructive attitude, even if their
decision is to reject.

Most authors cannot help but respond emotionally to negative feedback, at least initially.
Some peer reviewers soften their criticisms with tact and an encouraging tone, but others can
be quite harsh. Expect this, and try not to take it personally. As Summers (2001) puts it:
“Authors need to pause to recover from their initial emotional reaction and develop a
pragmatic approach to dealing with the reviews. They need to keep in mind that even the
most critical reviewers are not vindictive and most of what they say is valid criticism.”
(p.412).

In the thousands of reviewer comments I have seen as editor, this is true. Yes, some reviewers
misread articles and give questionable feedback, and others may be overly nitpicky on
irrelevant points, but the majority of reviewer comments will rightly indicate weaknesses in
the paper. And if more than one peer reviewer point out the same issue, you can almost be
guaranteed that revisions in that area are sorely needed. I have found in my own writing that
far more often than not, when I go ahead and make a revision that at first I thought was
unnecessary, I later realized that the revision indeed made the paper stronger. “It is rare for
papers to emerge from the review process unimproved – even if bruised authors are
sometimes reluctant to admit it.” (Epstein, Kenway, & Boden, 2007, p. 23)

How you respond to peer reviewer feedback will make a big difference in how they respond
in turn to your revised submission. Write in a positive manner, acknowledging the merit of
the criticism. Do not get defensive and critical of the reviewers. If you really feel that a
suggestion for revision is not warranted, first make it clear that you understand the reviewer’s
concerns before explaining why you feel the revision should not be made. You might even
offer to acknowledge this issue in the text of the article itself. For some reviewers, this can be
sufficient. What you want to avoid is a negative response to reviewer recommendations
which will just cause the reviewers to dig in their heels and block the paper over an issue that,
9 times out of 10 in my experience, could have been worked out.

The editor may determine that the revisions are suitable without notifying the reviewers, but
generally the revisions are run by the reviewers a second time. The process can then be
repeated (the article is returned again to the author for further revisions), or the editor may
simply decide to let the article pass or be rejected. Editors are generally hesitant to go against
a strong opinion of a reviewer as to do so often would defeat the point of having reviewers in
the first place. As an editor, I occasionally see articles pass that I personally would have
rejected, and see articles rejected that I thought could have been revised into good articles,
but journals should reflect the academic community, and not the decisions of one person. It’s
an imperfect process, to be sure, but there are enough checks and balances to keep the field
moving forward.

Conclusion
Writing academic articles is not an easy process, but getting an article through the review
process and into print can be very rewarding. Smaller journals can be a good place to begin,
as there are usually no fees for peer reviewing, and peer reviewers for smaller journals tend to
give more constructive and extensive feedback for new writers than those in prestigious
journals. Once you’ve been through the process a few times, you’ll be ready to make a name
for yourself in the higher level journals.

References

American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American

Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC:American Psychological
Association.

Bem, D. J. (2002). Writing the empirical journal article. In Darley, J. M., Zanna, M. P., &
Roediger III, H. L. (Eds.) The compleat academic: A career guide (pp. 2-26). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from
[Link]

Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning: A teacher’s guide

to statistics and research design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching. New York: Routledge

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). New
York: RouteledgeFalmer.

Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Epstein, D., Kenway, J., & Boden, R., (2007). Writing for publication. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.

Feldman, D.C. (2004). The devil is in the details: Converting good research into publishable
articles. Journal of Management, 30(1), 1-6.

Hewlett, K. (2002). How to publish your journal paper: Understanding the nuances of the
process smooths the publishing ride. Monitor on Psychology, 33(8). 50. Retrieved from
[Link]

Hoffman, G., & Hoffman, G. (2011). Adios, Strunk and White: A handbook for the new
academic essay (5th ed.). Huntington Beach, CA: Verve Press.
Kotze, T. (2007). Guidelines on writing a first quantitative academic article (2nd ed.).
University of Pretoria. Accessed at [Link]
_academic _journal_article.pdf.

McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods for English language teachers.
U.K.: Arnold.

Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). ‘It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize’: How experienced examiners
assess research theses. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 369-386.

Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS
(4th ed.). Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Strunk, W., & White, E. B. (2000). The elements of style (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Summers, J.O. (2001). Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in Marketing:
From conceptualization through the review process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science,29(4), 405-415.

Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and
skills (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Accessed at
[Link]

Walliman, N. (2001). Your research project: A step-by-step guide for the first-time
researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.