Part 6: Submitting, Responding to Reviewers, and Promoting Your Work

Introduction to Part 6

Read the introduction [PDF]

Part 6 provides an overview of submitting a piece for review, responding to reviews when they come back, and promoting your work once it is published.

Discussion Questions

  1. How can you develop a mindset that ensures you are thorough without being overly perfectionistic in preparing to submit a piece of writing?
  2. How can you best prepare yourself for and manage the emotional, intellectual, and logistical demands of revision in response to reviewer comments?
  3. What strategies might you develop for ensuring that your writing contributes to the unfolding conversations constituted by scholarship on learning and teaching?

Chapter 27: Preparing for Submission

Read the chapter [PDF]

Chapter 27 offers a checklist for final steps to take prior to submission. This chapter discusses the function of keywords, which are commonly used in journal publications to maximize the likelihood that readers interested in your topic will find your work. The chapter also offers a reminder of the important role critical friends can play at this final stage of preparing a manuscript.

Discussion Questions

  1. Have you gone through the checklist in Table 27.1 to ensure your manuscript is ready for submission?
  2. Have you devised a list of keywords which complement those in the title and abstract, if the genre in which you are writing calls for those?
  3. Have you asked a critical friend to read through for a final check of the readability of the manuscript?

Related Book Resources


Chapter 28: Responding to Reviewers and Dealing with Rejection

Read the chapter [PDF]

Chapter 28 illustrates the peer-review process as a dialogue between colleagues—an exchange that shapes us and that we can, in turn, shape. This chapter addresses ways to make sense of reviewer comments, offers suggestions for revising your work and responding to editors, and addresses how to deal with rejection.

Discussion Questions

In making sense of reviewers’ comments, a key step is reading across the reviews to understand:

  1. How do you think you will respond to a rejection decision?
  2. Whom in your support network can you contact if you get a rejection decision?
  3. If revisions are requested, what changes are reviewers arguing for in your work?
  4. Are any of these requested changes at odds? Do any overlap?

Then you may want to decide a few things for yourself and with any co-authors:

  1. Can you see how making the suggested changes will enhance your paper?
  2. Are some requests moving the work in a direction you are not comfortable with?
  3. Are some requests unclear to you?
  4. Do some requests seem irrelevant, because you have addressed them elsewhere in the paper or because the requests are more comments rather than suggested changes, for example?
  5. How, and to what extent, will you retain the integrity of your text while also responding to the reviewers’ comments?

Related Book Resources


Chapter 29: Promoting Your Published Work and Developing a Publication Plan

Read the chapter [PDF]

Chapter 29 shares strategies for collegial promotion of your work, including developing publication plans to generate a coherent body of work.

Discussion Questions

  1. Which of the suggested ways of promoting your published work do you use? Which could you see yourself using?
  2. Do you keep a writing-for-publication plan that you regularly update? If not, you might try completing the “Three-Year Writing-for-Publication Plan” available on the online resources (but do not feel guilty if this is not your thing).
  3. What kind of publication plan might you develop to reach varied audiences through a range of genres?

Related Book Resources

  • Project Plan for Research: [PDF] [DOCX]
  • Sample Three-Year Writing-for-Publication Plan: [PDF] [DOCX]
  • Simple Publication Plan for Getting Started: [PDF] [DOCX]