A colleague on a branch campus asked if I wanted to collaborate on a piece of writing for publication. Those invitations are fairly common, and they come from people I’ve never even met to those who invite me out for coffee and are those from peripheral fields. The usual answer is “no” not out of any arrogance, but because the logistics of collaboration require that the collaborators have some shared research and experiences. Without that, what’s there to write about?

As a way of respectfully declining and dressing up a “no,” I offered to do a training on academic writing and publishing…on their campus. That endeavor (which is planned for early 2010) led me to think more deeply about this angle of academia, of which I’ve been a part for many years.

Some Standards for Publishing

A lot of academic publishing depends on the respect of professional colleagues—not only those who are local but those who are national and international. They are the ones who stand as gatekeepers to possible publications. On one book project, the editors—who were both British-educated—asked about the use of the term “publics”—as in internal and external publics. That is used in public relations and is an accepted term, but they felt it was too colloquial and offered substitutions that had other implications and nuances that were not desirable. Anyway, they graciously accepted that terminology, and we all moved forward fruitfully with the collaborative endeavor. How writing strikes another’s ear is unpredictable. It is important to know who you have to convince though.

Another standard is to know the field. A lot of professors are so busy that they have a catch-as-catch-can routine in terms of keeping up with changes in their fields. The rule is to contribute something new and original. Without knowing what’s already published or the accepted rules or research or themes in a particular field, it would be very difficult to land a piece of writing in that field.

There are many rules for collecting respected research, in terms of methods and ethics and technologies (for collection and analysis). Those need to be followed and described clearly. There are have to clear lines of logic.

The writing has to fit the conventions of the particular form of writing, whether the writing is a case, a qualitative research project, a mixed-methods research approach, an online survey, a position paper, or a chapter. The citations have to be as clean as possible. Most people still have massive confusions about various mainstream citations methods (like APA citation guidelines), and those seem to be constant points of contention with editors. Citations have to be fully accurate and complete, and it helps to have all the punctuation and spacing done correctly.

IP Considerations

Intellectual property considerations pervade this field. Even though most academic writing is non-profit and falls under many “fair use” guidelines, this only applies to a limited amount of quoted text (50 words or less, say publishers)…and never for images. If one wants to use a full image or diagram from another source, it helps to have a full copyright release to use that information. The best way to go about integrating imagery is to make it all yourself in a non-derivative way. If it is derivative, it helps to generous cite and to assiduously get the necessary approvals.

Anything that goes commercial cannot rest on fair use. The commercial strictures for copyright, trademark, trade secrets, and patenting all come into play with a commercial version, and it’s probably not advisable for novices to jump in commercially until they’ve cut their teeth on the non-commercial, academic aspects.

And any time there’s publishing, there are risks of libel, defamation, privacy infringements, and other considerations, which require plenty of caution.

And Politics

Politics suggests that one should not land too much on another’s turf but on the edges. People who have contributed relevant work to the field should be acknowledged for fairness’s sake. That information needs to show up in the literature review in a smoothly synthesized way. The writing should be clear about how the prior work affects the current work. Writers should not over-reach or over-claim in their writing.

Anything that goes commercial cannot rest on fair use. The commercial strictures for copyright, trademark, trade secrets, and patenting all come into play with a commercial version, and it’s probably not advisable for novices to jump in commercially until they’ve cut their teeth on the non-commercial, academic aspects.

Okay if Not Interested

I personally think it’s totally fine for faculty who have absolutely no interest in research and writing. I come from the community colleges (as an instructor). Here, people focus much on teaching and supporting students. Very few care anything about publishing. That said, at universities, all the faculty I know write and publish. Professional survival suggests that they must contribute to their fields. I’ve worked with faculty who’ve said that for them to participate in a particular project, they would need a chapter or an article out of the work…and we would then proceed with writing and landing a work…so I can “buy” their time on an unpaid “goodwill” project. That all works fine on my end. It just helps to know the rules.

In general, I do find publishers very democratic and very fair. Even though I left tenured faculty ranks, I still find the publishing community very open and supportive. If anything, they’ve been even more welcoming because of the difference of perspective I am able to offer in my role as an instructional designer.

Each a Fresh Challenge

Each publication has its own standards and editorial personalities. The faculty who seem to do best in this realm are those who are sensitive instruments for learning in their fields and who maintain wide interests. Double-blind reviews are truly double-blind and often pretty rough. Publishing can be bruising and are not for those who are weak-of-heart.

There will be comments that may be seen as petty, rude, or discouraging—as well as unfair. It’s important to balance those with an understanding of the editorial context and the worldview of the respondent. It’s true that snarkiness is not just limited to some popular sites or critical personalities.

(The next entry in this series will address the contents of the slideshow.)