A friend of mine just forwarded me the following advice on publishing from the out-going editor of Sociological Methodology-- helpful, if alarmingly instrumental:
"The future is contained in papers not yet written. Some of those papers will be written by authors who neither need nor seek advice. However, many of those papers – and some of the most valuable ones, I predict – will be written by authors who need advice, seek it, follow it, and thereby bring their work into print. These authors frequently ask editors for general and specific advice. The best advice I can give to others is the advice that I try to take myself, every day that I write. Here it is:
1) Write on topics that other people care about. And tell the readers why they should care.
2) Tell the reader why your findings are important. Be direct. “This question is important because . . .” and “This result is important because. . .”
3) Be short and blunt. Write short sentences. Use short words. Write short paragraphs. Complicated ideas are inevitable, but complicated sounding ideas don’t sell. If your idea is complicated, then find a simple way to explain it. Readers stop reading as soon as they lose track of the author’s argument. That’s true of reviewers too. The celebrated social psychologist Stanley Schachter used to say that if he could not explain his ideas to the satisfied understanding of his un-schooled grandmother, then he knew that he was not ready to write.
4) Start with a theoretical problem and draw theoretical conclusions. Theories are very popular. Everybody wants one.
5) Write for a specific publication. Be specific. Every decision you make about writing your paper should be made on the basis of how well it helps you get your paper into your target journal. Read copies of the journal in which you wish to publish, just to get a sense of the style that is favored by that journal. Then write in that style.
6) Identify the market for your research and then write in a style that appeals to that market. For example, don’t use complex mathematical notation when writing for a subfield that is allergic to fancy methods.
7) Never say that previous research is stupid. First, all theories are eventually found to be wrong. This is science, not religion, so be easy on your predecessors. Second, your paper will be reviewed by the very same people who wrote the stupid previous research. At best, they are only human; but sometimes they are as stupid as you think, and vindictive and mean-spirited too. So say instead that you are filling gaps in the literature, building on previous findings, resolving unresolved problems, or similar.
8) Write a long abstract for the reviewers. A long, well-written abstract will help the reviewers understand your paper. That helps you get a positive review. Of course, the copy editor will make you shorten the abstract before publication, but it’s a happy task to satisfy the copy editor after your paper is accepted.
9) Revise and resubmit quickly. An R&R (rejection with an invitation to revise and resubmit) is a successful outcome. Do whatever the reviewers tell you to do, right away. If the reviewers ask you to do stupid things, then you will have to do stupid things if you want your paper published. Don’t argue with reviewers; you can do the stupid things in footnotes that declare, “A reviewer asked that we . . .” Cancel your vacation. Kiss your family and friends goodbye temporarily; come to meetings late and leave early. Work nonstop except for exercise, food, and a little sleep, in that order. An R&R is like being called up for military duty; when you gotta go, you gotta go. And don’t forget to take the advice that the reviewers give you.
10) Recognize your enemies (perfectionism and pessimism) and have a strategy for defeating them. Try to write a mediocre paper. Then rewrite it until it is a very good paper. Make it your obligation to be an optimist. The important thing is to move forward at all times.
11) Circulate your paper for comments. Ask for advice with an open mind. If advice sounds good, then take it. If the reader misunderstands, conclude that you did not write clearly enough. Some very successful authors in sociology are very good at taking advice, but not very good at much of anything else. I forget their names. But I know that they circulate their papers, get advice, take the advice that they get, and then publish in the leading journals."
