The Language Teacher

In an insightful article, Suresh Canagarajah describes the problems faced by Third World scholars who are often marginalized and excluded from the academic publishing process (1996). While a shortage of funding for research is the main problem, Canagarajah argues that the "non-discursive" obstacles to publications, such as the lack of material resources, leads to the marginalization and exclusion of Third World scholars.

While most readers of The Language Teacher are fortunate in not having to face the obstacles that Canagarajah describes, teachers in countries such as Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore, which have advanced and sophisticated academic institutions that rival those of the West, face another challenge. Some universities in these countries expect their teachers to publish in Western journals for career advancement, often ranking the journals according to prestige within the appropriate discipline. Some institutions and academic departments even specify the number of articles to be published within a time frame. According to Philip Altbach, a Professor of Higher Education at Boston College, a recent survey found

American and British scholars and scientists to be the least internationally minded. In short, it is quite difficult for researchers in other parts of the world to gain acceptance in the competitive and . . . insular world of Western publications. (1997 p. 10)

A glance at the leading international journals in any field will show that academic publishing is dominated by the West. In fact, most readers of academic journals are also from the West, and they may have little interest in what happens in non-Western contexts. When scholars from outside the West attempt to publish in Western journals which already have a high rejection rate, they face the additional obstacle of editors and reviewers who may find such research of little interest to their readership.

While the writing process itself is a challenge, authors need to be aware that the preparation of a manuscript is only the beginning of a journey to publication. Hence, the aim of this article is to present, from my position as an editor of an academic journal, strategies that authors could use to have their articles published.

The Right Journal

Perhaps the first decision that an academic writer faces is in selecting the most appropriate journal for publication. Choices include highly prestigious journals in one's discipline, theoretical, empirical, or pedagogical journals, and local, regional, or international publications. These decisions depend on the topic and scope of the article, and the author's objectives and expectations. For instance, an article dealing with a fourth-year writing class in Japan would not be suitable for submission to Written Communication, a journal more likely to publish on a topic which has wider appeal, such as contrastive rhetoric.

If the writer has a short publication deadline in order to meet the requirements for an annual review or promotion, a journal which has a shorter review and publication period would be more suitable than a journal which takes longer. Of course, a writer may have to compromise on the status of the journal when choosing to publish quickly.

Academic authors need to be aware that the process, from conceptualization to publication, could take years. Careful planning is therefore important, especially for authors who need to maintain a continuous record of research and publications. A quick survey of 38 journals in ELT and applied linguistics shows that the review and publication periods range widely from journal to journal. While most scholarly journals such as The Modern Language Journal and TESOL Quarterly take at least three months to have an article reviewed, publications such as the English Teaching Forum and TESL Reporter take only a month. However, authors must be prepared to face unexpected delays due to items lost in the mail and reviewers' procrastinations.

Academic institutions are becoming increasingly more stringent in specifying the types of journals in which their teachers may publish for tenure and promotion purposes. For instance, whereas publication in any journal would have sufficed in the past, many academic institutions now require publication in international refereed journals. In fact, some institutions even specify relevant journals by name. Accordingly, authors must be aware that international refereed journals usually take more time to review and publish. Further, such journals have a comparatively low acceptance rate for articles. Until recently, even the English for Specific Purposes Journal, although distributed internationally, was not refereed. Recognizing the need and the demand from the academy for refereed publications, most journals now have articles refereed blind, which means that the experts who evaluate the manuscripts are not aware of the authors' identity.

In addition to the review period, authors must contend with the time required for publication after an article has been accepted. The Modern Language Journal and TESOL Quarterly, both international refereed journals, take an average of nine months from acceptance to publication. On the other hand, English Teaching Forum and TESL Reporter take only six months. From initial submission to publication, an article could take two years or more in an international refereed journal, provided that the article is accepted for publication without revision. However, in my experience, less than 10 percent of the articles would fall into this category; authors may often have a longer wait, up to three years or more, to see an article in print. For those who need to keep publishing regularly, the importance of continuous research and writing cannot be emphasized enough.

Another factor in choosing a journal is the type of article on intends to publish. Is the article theoretical, empirical, or pedagogical? Would the article appeal to generalists or to specialists? If pedagogical, would it appeal to a local audience in Japan, an Anglophone audience, or an American audience? For a theoretical or empirical article that would appeal to mainly American writing specialists, Journal of Second Language Writing is probably the most appropriate. On the other hand, for a pedagogical article, one could use English Teaching Forum or ELT Journal for an international audience, or The Language Teacher if an Asian or Japanese audience is the target. Care in the selection of a journal is wasted effort without paying equal attention to the guidelines for authors, the proper use of visuals and statistics, and a reader-friendly presentation.

Manuscript Preparation

No two journals appear to provide the same guidelines to authors. Although the basic differences between British and American publications are the most obvious, even American journals that follow the style guidelines of the American Psychological Association (APA, 1994) have fine distinctions that require careful adherence. For instance, Computers and Composition, which follows APA style, requires the first names of authors in the references section. Applied Linguistics, which is published in both Britain and the United States has its only slight digressions from the APA style. Guidelines also provide specific advice on the number of copies of the manuscript to be submitted, how visuals (tables and figures) are to be presented, the maximum number of words of an article, and if the cost of mailing for reviews is to be borne by the author.

Tables and figures, when used appropriately, enhance the attractiveness and readability of articles. However, as an editor, I have noted that some authors overuse tables and figures and others lack knowledge of the appropriate use of visuals. For example, one 20-page article which I edited had 17 graphs. The author was persuaded to combine as many graphs as possible before the article was accepted for publication. Another author compressed so much information into a table that it was beyond comprehension even after numerous readings. Another author, instead of using standard bar graphs, used pie charts to compare students' preformance on an exit test.

In empirical research articles, the procedure should be carefully described so that readers can replicate it. Similarly, statistics should also be clearly stated in order to facilitate replication. Shortcomings often occur in the use of statistics. For instance, I recently critiqued a manuscript which used a questionnaire to survey students on their preferences for teachers. Surveys are more suitable for descriptive research and should employ statistics minimally. Instead, the author used sophisticated statistical devices and crowded the manuscript with nine tables packed with statistics. Another shortcoming is the inclusion of the mean or averages without stating their significance (p value). Perhaps the most useful advice on the use of statistics is provided by TESOL Quarterly (1997), which publishes detailed guidelines in every issue on how to report studies and conduct analyses.

While careful adherence to guidelines and the proper use of visuals and statistics are important, a reader-friendly presentation will appeal to reviewers. An appealing title, an accurate abstract, and judicious subtitles add to the readability of an article. Even the font style and size play a significant role in enhancing readability. Some authors use smaller fonts such as Times or larger fonts at size 10, which does not make reading any easier. Instead, I recommend a larger font such as Palatino at size 12.

Finally, if the editors prefer computer files, take care that you can provide exactly what they wish. If the specifications are confusing or unintelligible, ask them for clarification, including in your query the type of computer and programs you use. Don't be shy: Standards and procedures are currently changing, and editors who want the convenience such files afford should be happy to spend a few minutes explaining how to provide them.

Revision: A Learning Process

Being unaware that articles are rarely accepted for publication without revision, new authors are sometimes discouraged when their manuscripts are returned for revision. About a third of the manuscripts that I return to authors for revision are not resubmitted. For an editor and reviewers, such manuscripts are a waste of time and effort, especially if they have provided extensive and careful comments and suggestions. Revision is actually a learning process, the first exposure of a manuscript to the intended readers. Hence, reviews are best seen as constructive. In fact, some reviewers provide generous comments and suggestions which are extremely useful during revision.

How do editors choose reviewers? Practices vary from journal to journal. In some journals, all the manuscripts are reviewed by the editorial board, which could consist of up to 20 members. In others, the editors may call upon reviewers at large, depending on their knowledge of the reviewers' expertise. For instance, a manuscript dealing with research in contrastive rhetoric will most likely be sent to contrastive rhetoricians. Where possible, the editor is likely to send a manuscript to an author who has been cited in the references of the manuscript .

Suggestions for revision are made by the reviewers as well as journal editors. In addition to making changes in the manuscript, the editors will require authors to write a separate response, indicating how the suggestions of the reviewers have been handled. A typical letter from an editor may be worded as follows:

We are pleased to inform you that we would like to publish your paper in an upcoming issue of . . . if you are willing to address the reviewers' and our concerns. Specifically, we would like you to consider all of the comments provided and include with your revised manuscript a letter indicating which comments you have dealt with by making changes in your text and which you have chosen not to address and why.

Two reviewers may offer contradictory suggestions on a revision, which places the author in a quandary. In such a situation, the author should not try to please both reviewers and respond only to suggestions that are feasible, clearly justifying to the editor the suggestions he or she decides to follow. Some reviewers even suggest that the author expand the number of subjects in a study, which can only be accomplished if the author is willing to conduct the study all over again.

The Review Process

As mentioned earlier, an article may take years from conceptualization to publication. To best illustrate this process, let me present the chronology of one of my articles.

In 1991, I was responsible for starting a first-year writing program for ESL students at a U.S. university. All students in the program were required to take an exit test at the end of the first year writing course, and I soon realized that ESL students in specially designated ESL classes were performing better at the exit test than ESL students who enrolled in mainstream classes along with native-speaker students. During the 1992-93 academic year, I began to study the students' performance on the exit tests. As part of the study, I also interviewed some students and their teachers. By March, 1994, I submitted a manuscript entitled, "A comparison of the performance of ESL students in ESL and mainstream classes of Freshman English" to a journal. The reviews I received in September, 1994 suggested that I revise and resubmit the manuscript for further consideration, which I did in March, 1995. The revised manuscript also had a new title: "ESL students in Freshman English: ESL versus mainstream classes." However, in May, 1995, the manuscript was rejected. The process, from research to the rejection of the manuscript, had taken nearly three years. Later, in July, 1995, I submitted the manuscript to another journal, which asked me to revise and resubmit in October, 1995. I immediately submitted the revision, and the manuscript was published in April,1996 under the title "ESL students in first year writing courses: ESL versus mainstream classes." Thus, the entire process took nearly four years, during which the manuscript was revised repeatedly and had its title changed three times. What my experience illustrates is that (1) revisions made according to reviewers' guidelines do not guarantee acceptance, and (2) authors need to be patient during the review and revision process.

Multiple Articles From the Same Project

I have already mentioned the importance of continuous research and writing--of having publications in the "pipeline." However, research projects can be expensive and time consuming. Few have the funding or the time to carry out a number of projects concurrently. One way of ensuring continuous publications is to create multiple articles out of a single research project.

Let me begin with a word of caution. In most instances, journals, not the authors, hold the copyright to articles. Hence, the submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal could lead to copyright violations and severe repercussions for the author. Further, the inclusion of large chunks of text from one manuscript in another will also cause similar problems. If more than one manuscript is generated from the same, usually large-scale project, the author should make note of the other articles in the cover letter which accompanies the manuscript. Further, the other articles should be noted and referenced in the manuscript.

To illustrate how to generate multiple publications, let me cite my doctoral dissertation research, which involved ESP needs analysis in engineering and natural sciences. For this purpose, I collected assignments given in undergraduate engineering and natural science courses in the Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) program at a university in the United States. While conducting the study, I realized that previous approaches to needs analysis contained a number of flaws and that I needed to devise a new approach. The literature review chapter of my dissertation became a theoretical article arguing for a new approach to ESP needs analysis.

My data collection and analysis occurred concurrently, and I began to see interesting patterns in the data. Using the initial data analysis, I wrote another article which was a pilot study of my dissertation. The dissertation itself, condensed into an article, was eventually published as a chapter in an anthology.

A few years after graduation, I supervised a doctoral student who was conducting research on WAC courses at the institution where I taught. Although ESP and WAC studies do not always overlap, I saw parallels between her study and my previous research since both focused on WAC courses. This enabled me to co-author an article with her, comparing the structure and effectiveness of WAC programs at the two universities. As noted above, by emphasizing on separate aspects of my research and by focusing on different audiences, I was able to generate four publications from my dissertation research (Table 1).

Table 1: Four Articles From My Doctoral Dissertation

Year	Title and Type of Publication
1988	Academic Writing Task Surveys: The Need for a Fresh Approach (journal article)
1989	Writing in Science and Technology: An Analysis of Assignments from Ten Undergraduate Courses (journal article)
1993	Writing Across the Curriculum: A Study of Faculty Practices at Two Universities (co-authored journal article)
1995	Writing in Engineering and the Natural Sciences (chapter in anthology)

I repeated this experience later when I was responsible for starting a first-year (freshman) writing program for ESL students at another university. I planned to conduct a workshop to train mainstream teachers who had no ESL background to teach in the program. I found that no description of such a workshop had been published. I wrote a pedagogically inclined article describing the objectives of the workshop, the materials used, and its outcome. Later, as more writing on the placement of ESL students in first-year writing programs began to appear, I wrote a theoretical article based on the experience at my institution, arguing for ESL students to be given the option of enrolling in ESL or mainstream classes. As described earlier, I also began to compare the performance of ESL students in both ESL and mainstream classes on an exit test and then published a research article based on that study. Thus, the introduction of ESL classes in the first year writing program proved to be a rich mine of information, providing me with material for three articles: (1) Starting ESL Classes in Freshman Writing Programs (1994); (2) ESL Students in Freshman English: An Evaluation of the Placement Options (1994); and (3) ESL Students in First-Year Writing Courses: ESL Versus Mainstream Classes (1996).

Conclusion

Although the publication process may seem daunting, the proliferation of new journals in applied linguistics and ELT should be an encouragement to new authors. If they choose the right journal, pay careful attention to manuscript preparation, consider revision a learning process, and are patient, they will be rewarded.

Altbach, P. (1997, January 10). Straitjacket scholars. South China Morning, p. 10.

American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manual of the American psychological association (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1996). "Nondiscursive" requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written Communication, 13, 435-472.

Statistical guidelines. (1997). TESOL Quarterly, 31, 831-832.