People who haven’t published think that their lives change after publication of a work. It really doesn’t in a major way. There may be small changes. That’s been my experience, anyway.

Post-Publication…Quiet

Having published for a number of years, I have found that publishing a work really doesn’t change one’s life. There’s always been a muted response. There may be offers to co-write academic works but usually from people with whom I have no overlapping experiences or interests. There are invitations maybe to peer review a publication. There are more open doors to professionally present at various conferences. There may be more personalized invitations to submit articles or chapters (with or without any acceptance guarantees).

Strangers email asking for professional advice, and some approach you with a chip on their shoulders because they assume you must be arrogant or self-important. There will be commentary and probably snarks on the WWW. It gets harder to use one’s own work in future presentations without getting written permission of the publishers. A variety of publishers will ask for comments or reviews of other texts in the field. Then there are opportunities to publicize a text. It’s a line in the CV, or half a line. The best benefit of publishing has to do with your own encouragement to read more widely and to share knowledge.

Knowing your Local Realities

Maybe in this economic downturn, there are fewer and fewer financial benefits to publishing. It used to be that some jobs involved pay raises for publishing. Those have been elusive in terms of specifics. I’ve heard the rumor but never seen this in-the-real.

In my own experiences, supervisors have been of several minds about publishing—do it but don’t use work time to write. PIs on grants like to see what I’ve written and have never been high-handed in terms of contents. They can be very wonderful allies in publishing. The IRB, in my experience, has given me very excellent cautions and advice. Editors can be a mixed bag but are supportive on the whole. Direct colleagues in my field can be a mixed bag, too, with many of them not understanding how publishing is part of the field. Faculty and peripheral supervisors are supportive, on the whole.

It helps writers to be aware of potential constraints in their environment, too. One of the main constraints relates to self-discipline, IMHO. People are unable to say, “I”ll deliver a manuscript by this deadline” and actually do it. Their personal or work lives become too busy, and then the writing falls to the side. A rare few pros can, but my experience is that many cannot. And many do want hand-holding from their editors. There are deadline challenges. There are limitations to software and hardware. There may be a lack of access to relevant information (which would hold up a paper that relies on primary research).

Other constraints may relate to universities policies and R&D; ownership issues (which were addressed earlier). Different work environments may involve necessary political sign-offs from various supervisors or other administrators. If work involves original patentable research that may have financial value and may be put through the patent process, then clearly, no publications should ensure until the patent is locked up. There’s no point in losing the financial benefits of original work for the “cheap thrill” of a publication. If a publication may harm prior, current, or future grant work, that should be a “showstopper.” If the proper channel is going for a patent or working to innovate a product or a service, then publication should be left alone.

(The next section deals with identifying particular publishing resources for a particular faculty or staff member.)