ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

One of the strengths of a scientist-practitioner organization such as the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies (née AABT) is that many of its members, including student members, are actively involved in research and in publishing their findings in scholarly journals. Publishing your scholarly work can be one of the most fulfilling experiences in academia. It can also be one of the most frustrating. Indeed, diatribes have been written by embittered academics about the difficulties in getting their work published. These pessimistic (and generally unhelpful) perspectives are counterbalanced by optimistic and practical advice from successful academics (Darley & Zanna, 2004; Kazdin, 1998; Sternberg, 2000). In the present article and in the second article in this series, we will build on the optimistic advice of others to offer our views on how to be successful at the game of publishing. The choice of the term “game” is deliberate; we believe that publishing should be stimulating, if not fun. It should be viewed as a game or challenge, rather than a threat. Knowing the written and unwritten rules of the game is important for successful publishing. The perspectives and suggestions we offer are based on our experiences as authors, editors, reviewers, and mentors. Collectively, we have published several hundred journal articles and book chapters, and over a dozen books. There is no single recipe for success in academic publishing. We offer some ideas for consideration. We hope this stimulates discussion from other readers of the Behavior Therapist.
... That said, many scholars have navigated these tricky waters, usually by complementing a time-intensive, years-long alcohol-aggression project with an approach that prioritizes productive collaborations (i.e., regularly generates strong publications). For such an approach to be successful, scholars must (a) recognize the professional activities which are most valued by their institution and (b) strike the right balance of being a "fox" (i.e., focusing on many topics) and a "hedgehog" (i.e., focusing on a single topic; S. Taylor et al., 2006). ...
Article
Full-text available
Objective: In this Perspectives article, we outline a collaborative research program aimed at a more refined understanding of the proximal factors involved in alcohol-facilitated intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration. Method: We provide a summary of our research experiences and offer recommendations regarding studies aiming to understand what we term “the how question,” which focuses on applying research methods that allow for the investigation of the potential causal mechanisms that underlie the well-established link between heavy alcohol use and IPV perpetration. Results: We suggest several “gold standard” research methods that allow researchers to yield useful information about how alcohol may cause IPV perpetration but that are infrequently applied in this research area. Conclusions: We conclude by reviewing several factors limiting our understanding of the proximal determinants of alcohol-facilitated IPV, including issues relating to sampling, definition, inclusiveness, and the dyadic nature of IPV.
... Furthermore, additions or minor corrections scattered throughout various locations of the text may challenge its coherence. Consequently, to end a complicated, time-consuming presubmission ping-pong process, a decision is taken to submit the article as it is, with the hope that the reviewers will come up with a pacifying decision or authoritative comments [5]. ...
Article
Full-text available
For various reasons, despite previous linguistic, formatting, and other checks, beginner-authored or multi-authored manuscripts may be rushed to submission while lacking consistency. This article provides a clear outline of the final round of checks for section consistency, subsection consistency, and overall coherence that a scientific manuscript should undergo before submission. Checks for consistency should target the following: consistency between full and short titles; the exact answer in conclusion to research objectives (questions) and matching between methods and results in the abstract; consistency from a comprehensive view of the research field to the announcement of a single specific objective in the introduction section; coherence between methods and results sections and between results and illustrations in the rest of the text; and, recalls of the objective, the results, and the conclusions in the discussion section. Finally, consistency should be ensured between the various sections of the abstract and those of the manuscript, with the ideal abstract being a true miniature of the manuscript. An original figure provides a handy visual checklist authors might use to implement and achieve manuscript drafting. This round of checks increases readability, comprehensibility, confidence in the results, and the credibility of the authors. Subsequently, confidence and credibility will increase the probability of publication and the visibility of a whole team’s work.
Article
Full-text available
In the previous article in this series (Taylor, McKay, Abramowitz, Asmundson, & Stewart, 2006) we examined the relative importance of scholarly publishing in relation to other academic endeavors, in terms of hiring and promotion. Promising approaches and pitfalls in the publishing process were discussed, along with suggested guidelines for maximizing one’s success in publishing. In the present article we examine issues in selecting journals and issues concerning the relative importance of journal articles, book chapters, and books. Although students are often more concerned about whether their work is published, new faculty are more often concerned about whether and where their work is published. Accordingly, the present article is intended more for new faculty, although it should also be relevant to graduate students aspiring toward an academic career. As we mentioned in the first article in this series, there is no single recipe for success in academia. We offer here our perspectives and hope this stimulates discussion from other readers.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.