dhasenan comments on How SIAI could publish in mainstream cognitive science journals - Less Wrong

64 Post author: lukeprog 09 March 2011 09:17PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (76)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: lukeprog 13 March 2011 06:40:15PM 7 points [-]

I'll just use this page as a storage bay for discussion of how to get published in mainstream academic journals. So, here's an unordered list of advice.

  • No misspellings, no grammatical errors, avoid unnecessary commas, avoid double negatives (duh).
  • Avoid sexist language.
  • Read your paper out loud several times; this will alert you to parts that sound clumsy.
  • Walk the fine line between stating the obvious and failing to explain yourself. For example: Don't write "Rene Descartes, a French philosopher..." but also don't assume that your audience knows what Casati & Varzi's approach to mereology is without explaining it briefly.
  • Do not use big words unnecessarily. Write as simply and clearly as possible. Of course, certain big words exist so that you can avoid writing long phrases again and again.
  • Avoid rhetorical questions.
  • Don't forget your quantifiers! Instead of "Philosophers have long held that..." make sure to write "Many philosophers have long held that..." or "Most philosophers have long held that..."
  • Show late drafts with lots of people; a new set of eyes can see what you cannot.
  • If possible, you may want to publish in a science journal rather than a philosophy journal. Here's why.
  • If you have no academic publications yet, a good way to get start is by writing a book review. Make sure you contact the journal's editor in advance and ask if they'd be interested in a review of the book in question.
  • Journal reviewers are not usually paid. Do not torture them with underdeveloped work.
  • Pay attention to the journal's self description, and read several of their past published works, to get a feel for the type of work they like to accept.
  • Note the difference between a 'substantial article' (>3000 words, makes a new contribution), 'discussion piece' (<3000 words, makes a few brief comments or criticisms of somebody else's work published in that journal), 'critical notice' (>3000 words, usually a book review with substantial new material, usually solicited by the journal). Certain journals publish only one or two of these types of submission.
  • For initial submission, you usually don't need to style the paper for that journal specifically. Just pick a standard format, double-spaced, use a standard serif font, etc. If the paper is accepted, then follow to a T whichever style guide is appropriate for the journal to which you are submitting. This information is usually listed on the journal's website ("submission details", "information for contributors").
  • Most journals will only consider papers that have not been submitted elsewhere. Don't waste the reviewers' and editors' time.
  • Look up journal turnaround times and so on; this will help you which journal to submit to. Try here.
  • Read Rowena Murray's Writing for Academic Journals.
Comment author: [deleted] 01 November 2011 01:21:08PM 1 point [-]

If you do say "Many philosophers have long held that...", the natural response from your readers will be: which philosophers? and since when? It would be immensely better to at least include the originator for the principle in the statement.

A journal that receives a large number of papers will probably reject incoming papers based on formatting. Many computer science journals do this.