Getting your research published

(Second of two parts)

In last week’s column, I listed five “golden rules” that I use to help me do research of the quality that gets published in some of the important journals of my field. I can’t vouch for their originality or uniqueness (surely other researchers also use these rules in some form or combination), but I have definitely found them useful in my scientific career over the past decade. Here they are again, in a little bit more detail:

Recognize that scientific novelty is the ultimate measure of the value of research. There is simply no getting over the fact that scientific research is a creative process, and that new knowledge generated by one’s work counts for more than the total man-hours or financial resources that go into research activities. Thus, I believe it is necessary to develop such a mindset when conceiving of new research projects. For instance, when reading an interesting scientific article written by someone else, rather than saying, “I can do that, too!” one should instead say, “what is it that they haven’t done?”

Keep abreast of the state-of-the-art in your discipline. It’s hard to judge the novelty of one’s work without knowing the latest results in your field. Conversely, it’s easy enough to claim to be doing something that no one else has done, and another thing entirely if you have to prove it by publishing your work in an international journal, where any dubious claims of novelty will quickly be exposed. There are no shortcuts here. I myself spend several hours each week reading journal articles in my field, and any serious researcher should do so as well. In this case, I consider myself fortunate to be working in an institution with extensive (and very expensive) subscriptions to most of the journals that I need. Sadly, this is perhaps not the case for most academic or research institutions in the Philippines.

See publication as an integral part of research work. The plain logic here is that research is meant to produce knowledge, and that knowledge is meant to be shared so that others can have the opportunity to use it. A corollary argument is that the knowledge should be available to those who are in the best position to make effective use of it; and thus, it is essential to get work published in journals targeting researchers in one’s field. The rule of thumb I tell my students is that literature review and publication go hand-in-hand; if a journal appears frequently in your reference list, it’s probably the best place to submit your work to.

Develop effective collaborative relationships with colleagues. Research fields can be so highly specialized that it may be very difficult to find collaborators within one’s own institution; or, in some cases, one’s own country. Fortunately, in many disciplines, the Internet makes it possible to develop effective collaborative relationships with like-minded researchers from all over the world. For instance, I have done extensive work in process systems engineering with co-workers from Malaysia, the US, South Africa, the UK and Poland, in some cases even mentoring my collaborators’ graduate students. In my experience, publishing an article together does far more for developing mutual trust between research partners than any legalistic memorandum of agreement between institutions.

Become familiar with the peer review process. The details of the peer review process vary greatly between disciplines, but in general one sends a manuscript to the editor of a journal, who then sends it to external reviewers for comment. The editor eventually decides whether to accept or reject the paper, or ask for revisions, based on the reviews. In many cases, the author is allowed to nominate referees. To successfully navigate the complicated process, it pays to learn subtle skills, such as: reading between the lines (some comments from reviewers may be very vague); writing convincing counterarguments or rebuttals (in case you disagree with the editor or your reviewers); and writing a strong cover letter (which accompanies any submitted manuscript). These skills can only be developed through experience, which can be picked up in graduate school, or by working with a more experienced colleague. One can also learn a lot by agreeing to review manuscripts, if invited.

These are rules that have worked for me, and if properly used, they should work for any researcher as well. To you, the reader, I have just a few final words. If you have some interesting research that you think is up to par, don’t just stop at reading this column. Go write your paper, and send it off soon before someone else gets to publish similar work! And if you have any additional rules that are useful, send me an e-mail, and let me know about them.

* * *

Raymond R. Tan is a full professor of chemical engineering and University Fellow at De La Salle University, Manila. His main research interests are process systems engineering (PSE), life cycle assessment (LCA) and pinch analysis. He received his BS and MS in chemical engineering and Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from De La Salle University, and is the author of about 50 articles in ISI-indexed journals in the fields of chemical, environmental and energy engineering. He is a member of the editorial board of the journal Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, and co-editor of the forthcoming book Recent Advances in Sustainable Process Design and Optimization. He is also the recipient of multiple awards from the Philippine National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) and the National Research Council of the Philippines (NRCP). E-mail him at [email protected].