I did an in-person workshop recently. We worked on publishing plans, clarifying objectives, figuring out when to apply for a SSHRC grant, etc.
At the end of the workshop one participant made an interesting comment. Thanking me for the workshop she contrasted my approach to the advice she had had while a doctoral student. “I was just told to publish 2 things a year.”
Thinking about it, I realize that a lot of the pressure academics feel is related to a sense that they need to publish more.
Researchers at smaller universities with higher teaching load bemoan the fact that they will never be competitive because they just don’t have time to write as much as their colleagues at big research universities.
Everyone, regardless of their teaching load, says they need more time. And that academe is not compatible with family, a life, vacations, etc.
Have you lost sight of the important element?
Why do you do the research you do?
And why do you publish it?
Seriously. Take a moment and really think about that question. Because I’m pretty sure you don’t do it to get promoted or to get a grant, though you also want those things.
You do the research you do to contribute to the advancement of knowledge
Research is part of a conversation. A debate.
You were inspired by other research.
Research you thought was missing something. Or research you thought would benefit from a different approach, or a different/additional data set.
You have something to contribute to that conversation. So you publish your work.
You want to have an impact on the advancement of knowledge
Impact is not a function of how much you say. It is a function of how many people listen and use what you say.
To have an impact you need to
- reach the people engaged in the same conversation
- reach as many of those people as possible
- use a means of communicating that assures those people your contribution is worth reading
You also need to build a reputation.
Eventually, people in your field will keep an eye out for what you have to say. Just like you keep an eye out for particular other researchers in your field.
Luckily, you are evaluated for having an impact on the advancement of knowledge
The reward system in universities is in line with your own goals. You are rewarded for the thing you want to do.
Peer review, in journals and with some presses, is a system for ensuring quality. This is why publications in peer reviewed journals, or with particular presses, are more highly valued than publications in edited books or with other presses.
Some journals have lower acceptance to submission ratios. They are more competitive. They are, thus, more likely to publish higher quality work because they are choosing the best from a larger field. This is why publications in those journals are more highly valued than publications in journals that are easier to publish in.
Some journals are more widely read. Articles in those journals will be read by far more people than articles in other journals. The impact of work published in those journals is thus likely to be greater. This is why publication in those journals is more highly valued than publications in other journals.
The system is not random
Although some disciplines use statistical measures of impact (called “impact factors”) and others use more qualitative, cultural notions of “good” journals, all are working with these same principles.
Start with the goal of influencing debates in your field, having an impact on the advancement of knowledge.
Select publication venues based on the principles of suitability of audience, size of audience, and reputation for excellent.
Then write.
These are your people. You want to reach them.
I’m willing to bet that you also have a lot to say to them.
