PhD workshop: How to get published

Wednesday 30 June 11:00-13:00

Chair: Russell Lansbury

Journal Editors: Richard Hyman, Janine Goetschy, Janice R. Bellace, Marian Baird, Bradon Ellem, Jan Ottosson 

Timetable
A. 11:00-11:05: Introduction (Chair)
B. 11:05-11:30: Short presentation of each journal (Journal Editors - max. 5 minutes each)
C. 11:30-11:55: First question (Journal Editors)
D. 11:55-12:20: Second question (Journal Editors)
E. 12:20-12:45: Third question (Journal Editors)
F. 12:45-13:00: Questions from the audience 

B. Short presentation
We would like each editor to present the journal shortly, their profile, the articles they like to publish, how many articles they get and how many they discard. In addition brief comments should be added on one or more of the following points: How an article should look (abstract, draft, final version) when they get it, why they reject articles, the edition process and what comments to expect (and what to do about them), etc.

Following the short presentation, we would like to raise three general questions for discussion among the editors who are invited to provide hands-on recommendations when transforming research into a publishable article. In doing so, editors are asked to consider different types of research and how each type can be made acceptable for publishing.

C. The good research question: From fads & fashions to long term relevance
Often topicality is of central importance to the formulation of research questions within Industrial Relations. Following contemporary trends seems somewhat of a trade mark for the discipline. But it is not always quite clear which issues will turn out to be just short term fashions and which will prove to be of long term relevance. In designing research questions one is faced with a dilemma of opting for new trends or focusing on classical issues.

• How are each of these choices rewarded in your journal?
• Do you have any opinion on how issues should be framed so as to show their contemporary/long term relevance? 

D. Methodological considerations: From single case to large N
Comparative studies seem to be a treasure methodology within IR. At the same time they demand a large amount of resources, coordination of research efforts or reliance on general statistical data, and the quality of the data in such studies may not always be able to give the in depth understanding that are valued in our research community. On the other hand, it may be hard to show the general relevance of in depth single case studies of national or even local employment practices. While they may give a meticulous understanding of employment relations in the particular settings, this setting may be so special as to make it completely unclear what can be generalized.

• How does your journal prefer articles to be balanced between highly specific, but self-generated data on the one hand and very general data on the other hand?
• What should researchers do to get published if they are at either end of this continuum?

E. The importance of theory: From thick description to theory discussion
The classical literature review should preferably establish the general and theoretical importance of the research conducted. But in classical IR there has been a long tradition of ‘thick description’, which only gradually led to more theoretical considerations. However, theoretical debates are an academic discipline in itself, used both for clarifying positions and elaborating new ideas for further research.

• What is your journals position on very descriptive (non-theoretical) and on very theoretical (non-empirical) articles?
• How does one to get published if coming from either end of this continuum?