| . |
. |
. |
|
Writing an
Academic Article: an Editor Writes . . .
|
|
|
Let us start with the assumption that there is a
matter in which you, a classroom teacher of EFL/ESL, have become interested. Perhaps it
arose directly from your classroom -- for example, an idea regarding student performance,
or a conviction about a teaching method, or just a hunch about a trend you have noted.
Perhaps it came from something you read. Whatever its origin, the thought of publishing
your idea or describing your work looks attractive; but how to go about it? In this
article I would like to open up the world of academic publishing, and try to offer some
suggestions for getting your ideas published.
|
|
|
Publishing, one might add, is a way for members
of the academic community to share ideas and, in the case of very perceptive writers,
possibly contribute something to the world"s store of knowledge. To publish is to
engage in a dialogue with unseen and often unknown others; more particularly, it means
being willing to discuss matters of interest and importance, drawing on the accumulated
knowledge of those who have addressed them in the past, speaking to those who are
currently interested, and finally, perhaps, leaving a richer legacy for those who will
approach these topics later.
|
|
|
I have been speaking of academic publishing as
if our publications all formed a homogeneous world; in reality, however, the variety of
publications is enormous. At one end are the top"class international teaching
journals that may publish one in ten of the articles they receive; at the other, there are
area newsletters whose editors are crying out for almost any material to fill their pages.
There are journals restricted to special areas, such as writing, reading, or
computer-aided teaching methods. And there are journals that relate more to the
so"called "parent" disciplines, such as linguistics, or psychology, or
philosophy, while at the same time including articles in the possibly more popular area of
language teaching.
|
|
|
So one general piece of advice is to read
through enough journals until you narrow the field down to two or three appropriate for
your work. With this short list in mind, you might like to consider the following
sequence, one that has served authors well in the past.
|
|
|
1. Maintain a Steady Gaze
|
|
|
Contextualize your problem/idea/proposal as
accurately asyou can. There is a need to understand where your work stands vis-a-vis
the established ideas on the subject. We could call these ideas the "paradigm"
in the Kuhnian sense of the word, an accepted model or pattern. And one of the important
characteristics of the accepted model or pattern is that under it detailed work (thinking,
research, experimentation, etc.) can, and indeed must, take place. Your work is almost
certainly part of that detailed exploration, and it is important to be able to see it in
relation to the contemporary paradigm, as well as against the historical background.
|
|
|
In our own time communicative teaching is the
paradigm, and the historical background takes us back through the audiolingual method,
grammar-translation, and so on (Howatt 1984; useful summary in Richards and Rodgers 1986).
Can you outline in a few sentences the context of your work? Where does it fit in? Can you
tell a nonspecialist what the work is all about? In my experience, these are salutary
exercises, but ones that may lead to clearer thinking, and great improvement in a proposed
article.
|
|
|
Become conversant with the literature.
There is a literature for every area, sometimes an enormous one, as in the case of
second-language acquisition, but at other times quite restricted, as in the case of video
teaching methods. While it may be impractical or simply dull to attempt to read
everything, it is to your advantage to be aware of the central works and principal trends
in the area, so you are not trying to reinvent the wheel. One of the criteria some editors
use for judging an article is how well it covers the existing literature; that is, how
aware the writer appears to be of the contemporary language"teaching paradigm, and of
the context in which the work has been done.
|
|
|
If, after doing a literature search (and
systematically noting down the references in a retrievable form), you are sure that your
original problem/idea has not been covered, or has not been covered sufficiently, then you
are ready to proceed to the next stage.
|
|
|
There are a number of "classic"
ways of doing research. These research paradigms mostly have their origins in either
the natural sciences or anthropology. Descriptions of them are available from a number of
"research" books (e.g., Chaudron 1988; Nunan 1992) that help to clarify
one"s approach to a problem/idea. The author"s understanding of the method or
approach to be used will inevitably be reflected in the impact of the paper produced. Many
journals have a criterion called "methodology, design, or approach," in which
they evaluate the extent to which the author has been consistent within the chosen
methodology. For example, if you have decided to do research that involves surveying your
students or others, have you followed the logic of surveys, and are you aware of their
limitations? Have you checked the eight steps (listed in Nunan 1992:141) to be considered
when undertaking a survey? This is the kind of thinking that is applied to a paper at the
"review" stage (the stage at which journals invite two or more
"experts" to evaluate each paper). Whatever your approach, it should be
internally consistent; that is, there should be a discernible and authoritative line of
development, an appropriate analytical framework, and a resulting set of ideas that the
reader can take away from the whole piece.
|
|
|
There are also a number of
"classic" ways of writing upideas or research. Editors tend to think both in
terms of specific types of articles (review articles that bring together ideas or recount
the stages in the development of a theory or practice, theoretical articles, "how
to" articles, research reports, and state-of-the-art articles), and of particular
audiences (academics, classroom teachers, researchers, administrators). It is well to bear
in mind this kind of editorial thinking, and to work towards a recognizable format that
appeals to a definite audience.
|
|
|
Looking beyond the idea of article types and
readership, most journals want papers that appeal to their subscribers or, in the case of
an association, to their membership. So this too is one of the criteria for judging an
article. For example, in my journal we do not usually publish "heavy"
linguistics papers; nor, on the other hand, do we publish "light" thought pieces
whose theoretical base is weak or nonexistent. We feel, rightly or wrongly, that those of
our readers who want either serious linguistics or light "This Is My Bright
Idea" articles are more likely to look elsewhere for them. Most journals publish a
statement outlining their particular coverage, and time spent becoming familiar with the
"world" of a particular journal is time well spent.
|
|
|
Lastly, don't waste an editors time writing
letters that begin "I am thinking of writing an article on such and such, and wonder
whether or not it would be acceptable to your journal." Find this kind of thing out
for yourself: look in back issues and note what they publish, or ask your colleagues for
advice. If you don't find a journal that takes your kind of article, you probably haven't
searched enough. A very useful guide is the International Reading Association's Contributor's
Guide toPeriodicals in Reading (Doughty 1992), which lists almost 200 journals (not
just in reading) to which language teachers might send their contributions.
|
|
|
5. Something for All to See
|
|
|
Get the article written. This sounds
simple, but there are a number of points to be mentioned here too. The first is that the
major impact of any article lies in the strength of its analysis and interpretation. As
one editor has written:
|
|
|
"The facts are organized
and examined, not merely enumerated.Concepts or hypotheses are presented that embody the
facts andbear the imprint of the author. Difficult concepts are mademanageable. Thoughtful
interpretation leads one to a pointedoverview of the subject. Knowledge (a synthesis of
information)as well as raw information is imparted. The article issubstantially more than
the sum of its sources." (Plotnik1982:28)
|
|
|
Time spent in analyzing the data, looking at the
implications of an idea, or checking the practicalities of a new teaching method you have
always been dreaming about will immediately communicate itself to editors, and
subsequently to readers. So too will the idea of making difficult concepts
"manageable." One can readily think of those in the profession whose aim seems
to be to complicate, to obfuscate, and ultimately to put their thoughts beyond the reach
of all but a few.
|
|
|
This leads to the second point, which is the
need for absolute clarity in the writing itself. Editors spend a lot of time prior to
publication straightening out convoluted writing. The final irony is when the writer of
the convoluted prose subsequently protests about the changes, and demands publication of
the original horror with an apology. So, in many journals the "quality of the
writing" is one of the criteria for judging a manuscript.
|
|
|
Plotnik (1982) suggests that the aim is to make
the article inviting; to intrigue or motivate the reader to continue past the first few
lines. The best articles are interesting; they move forward on a succession of facts or
ideas clearly presented. There is authority in the writing, and the reader feels that
there is a likelihood of learning something. More than one side of an argument is
presented, or at least acknowledged, and the reader has an opportunity to evaluate the
ideas. Preaching is avoided. Where appropriate, examples, anecdotes, even poetry, irony,
and wit can all be made part of the article; there is no prize for being dull, or as
mentioned earlier, incomprehensible.
|
|
|
My own pet peeve is the convolution generated by
metaphor: More frequently than I care to admit (given that many of us are teaching
English) I come across sentences like the following: Classroom interaction is a new
field which we must focus on brickby brick. This is only slightly exaggerated from the
real, recently received example: This cast-iron analysis has finallycome home to roost.
|
|
|
The third point combines the previous two:
Thoughtful analysis expressed in clear language generally leads to a vigorous Conclusion.
As a general rule, Conclusions are the weakest parts of the papers editors receive; it is
as though all the author's energy had been expended by the time the Conclusion was
reached. Yet the Conclusion is what the reader examines most carefully. In a perfect world
the Conclusion "leaves one with a sense of solid benefit . . . turns on the inner
light." Further, it "opens up new channels of action or understanding"
(Plotnik 1982:29). A rule of thumb I use when looking at the Conclusion of an article is
reflected in the question: "Would I quote from this if I were writing about the same
subject?" If the answer is no, then I find myself wondering whether the article will
have sufficient impact.
|
|
|
A fourth point regarding writing is to
understand what it means to write in accordance with a style sheet. Almost every journal,
and certainly all the major ones, have carefully selected a particular style sheet because
it best suits the type of material they publish.(See Footnote 1 ) Some style sheets are more efficient in dealing with
historical material, some with scientific material, and so on. The style sheet also gives
uniformity and a pleasing appearance to what would otherwise look chaotic on the printed
page. More importantly from a long-term point of view, it guarantees that citations in the
text are retrievable"for example, that references can be followed up. This is an
epistemological function of publishing, enabling future generations to build on earlier
work.
|
|
|
Many language-teaching journals use the American
Psychological Association (APA 1983) style sheet, and insist that contributors adhere to
it. Correct use of the style sheet therefore becomes another of the criteria used in
judging an article. The most common mistakes encountered are in the areas of seriation,
hyphenation, headings, citations in text, and references. In practice I find that hardly
ever is there a perfect match between the references in the text and the references at the
back of the paper: I find myself looking for Aitchison on a list that starts with Brown,
or looking for Widdowson when the list ends with Vygotsky. Virtually all authors can be
guaranteed to spell their own names correctly, and to give correct references for their
own earlier works, but after that I know I must cross-check everything. The APA manual
offers models that solve about 95% of the problems that occur in writing an article; and
editors (a selfless band!) are usually willing to clean up the final few cases.
|
|
|
Lastly, when the article is finished and you
have sent it to the appropriate journal,(see Footnote 2 ) it helps to understand what happensto it at the editorial
end. This usually consists of the following: ( a ) a letter of acknowledgment
is sent; ( b ) the article (assuming the editor feels there is a fair possibility
of its being published) is sent out for blind review; ( c ) a decision is made
regarding acceptance, rejection, or, more likely, a qualified acceptance contingent upon
the author's willingness to rewrite or in specified ways improve the piece; and ( d
) the submission of an improved draft.
|
|
|
At this point the author is often asked to sign
documents turning over the copyright to the journal or its publisher, and is usually given
details about free copies, and a tentative publication date. From then on the article is
effectively out of the author's hands, though some journals return the proofs for
correction. Where this is done, the author has a chance to see the line editing that has
taken place; otherwise the author"s next sight of the article is as a finished
product.
|
|
|
It is in steps ( c ) and ( d )
that the author is faced with the most difficult part of the writing process: coping with
blind reviewers' comments. These often cause great anguish, usually because the criticisms
of the article seem so misguided, and the suggestions for rewriting it so ridiculous.
Contradictory reviews "one praising and one damning" are also quite common, and
leave the writer in a complete dilemma. I can only offer two pieces of advice here.
Firstly, there just might be some truth in all those comments and criticisms! As I
said at the outset, to publish is to engage in a dialogue with others, and to share ideas
with other members of the academic community. That process begins the day you mail your
article.
|
|
|
Secondly, my experience as an editor indicates
that those writers who persist, who re-work their articles and attempt to grapple with the
comments, are the ones who finally get their work published. It may take two or three
drafts, but the chances of its being published increase every time. Good work will always
find a home, and I hope that this article has encouraged some to feel that they can
produce good work too.
|
|
|
- APA. 1983. Publication manual of the American psychological association. Washington,
D.C.: American Psychological Association.
- Chaudron, C. 1988. Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Doughty, B. 1992. Contributor"s guide to periodicals in reading. Newark, Del.:
International Reading Association.
- Howatt, A. P. R. 1984. A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
- Nunan, D. 1992. Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
- Plotnik, A. 1982. The elements of editing. London: Collier Macmillan.
- Richards, J. C. and T. S. Rodgers. 1986. Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
|
Malcolm
Benson teaches English at Hiroshima Shudo University in Japan, and is coeditor of
the JALT Journal. |
|
|
Return
|
|
Footnote 1
| 1. The present activity was developed and adapted
from a suggestion raised by Tomalin and Stempleski, 1993. |
Footnote 2
| 2. The idea of submitting an article to more than
one journal at a time is very much frowned upon, and writers are strongly warned against
it. Considerable administrative and editorial work goes into every article, and mailing
costs have to be borne whether or not an article is eventually published. If an article is
then "pulled" from one journal and published in another, a lot of time, money,
and energy have been wasted. |
Back to Article
|
. |
. |