Personal (First-Author) and Student-Led Scholarship: A Balancing Act

Heather E. Ormiston, Ph.D. (Indiana University Bloomington)

Jackie Caemmerer, Ph.D. (University of Connecticut)

Panelists: Matt Burns, Ph.D. (University of Florida), Robin Codding, Ph.D. (Northeastern University), and Amanda Sullivan, Ph.D. (University of Minnesota)

Mentoring students’ research projects is often an essential role in the life of a professor. Theses, programmatic milestone projects, and dissertations can demand a lot of your time. Managing your own personal research demands while balancing the needs and opportunities of your students can be a delicate balancing act. Indeed, in a recent survey early career school psychology faculty reported a strong interest in professional development related to research management and providing students’ with research mentorship (Grapin et al., 2021). Thus, we sought the guidance of three tenured professors on the best ways to balance student-led scholarship with your own first-author scholarship. Dr. Matt Burns, Dr. Robin Codding, and Dr. Amanda Sullivan graciously shared their valuable insights.

What are some effective strategies you have found for balancing personal (e.g., first-author) scholarship with student-led scholarship (e.g., theses, programmatic milestone projects, dissertations)?

Burns: Hopefully, there is little difference between personal and student-led scholarship. My most effective strategy is to use a research-team model in which we all work together on our research. My students (everyone I advise or who works for me, plus other interested) and I meet every week or every other week for 1.5 hours with a standing agenda – 1) Check In (Roses and Thorns), 2) Quick Advising Questions, 3) Check in on Papers and Projects, and 4) Talk Research Topic. There have been very few articles in my career that didn’t involve students. I work with students to find a niche in each study that addresses their interest or to add a component to the research to forward their own interests.

Codding: I tend to organize my work around an established research agenda and set of “next questions” that I can be prepared to answer when the occasion arises. I also aim to balance works in submission, data collection, and preparation. I see my mentoring of student work as parallel to my own agenda. If there are a lot of student works in the data collection phase – I may focus more on writing up previously collected data.

Moreover, the topics of student-led scholarship inform my own research agenda so the projects can work in tandem. Rarely is it the case that a student project is in a topic area that is far outside of my own area of expertise. The match between my expertise and student interest is important as a starting point for mentorship when a student enters graduate school but also can be facilitated during the mentoring process. Students usually enter our mentoring relationship with interests that are similar, and, in the first semester of brainstorming, I meet with students every other week to provide guidance and shape their projects into areas that I am most familiar with. Student-led ideas drive the process and I contribute knowledge on what questions might not be answered in their related area of interest and help them locate existing research as a jumping off point.

There is not always a balance within or even across years; rather, sometimes student-led scholarship takes precedence and I adjust my future priorities accordingly.

Sullivan: To me, a program’s related policies and procedures provide important context to any decisions about this, particularly as they pertain to admission, advising culture, and expectations for students’ research requirements. To the extent that these allow for admissions informed by advisor match, support appropriate boundaries, and set expectations for quality of work, it can help reduce burdens on faculty.  We don’t have a program culture or policy that requires students do their advisors’ scholarship, so student have autonomy in what they choose for student-led projects to meet their degree requirements. This means I try to admit when there’s clear overlap topically or methodologically between my scholarship and a student’s interests so that I can provide the necessary advising of their work. 

I also have to be mindful of what time I set aside for advising, both in terms of meetings and providing feedback, so that it doesn’t eclipse my other responsibilities within the context of a reasonable workload and working hours (I recognize that there’s a certain level of tenure privilege in this). I know I have a tendency to let other people’s projects overshadow my own, so being intentional with how I allocate time for different roles and protecting time for my personal scholarship is crucial.

As a tenured professor, I tend only to engage as a coauthor on student-led scholarship when they express a clear desire for me to do so, I am willing to put in the time and effort to get it to a state where I feel comfortable signing off on it as coauthor, and it fits within my research agenda. I don’t assume that I am entitled to authorship on their projects by virtue of being their advisor. Instead, I try to differentiate for students how my engagement with their projects differs when I am functioning as their advisor versus collaborator.

This occurs within the broader context of research advising where I have conversations with students early in our advising relationship about their goals and preferences. Some people have no interest in publishing, others want to maintain their voice and personal style while completing projects that meet our department and grad school requirements, some just want to get the projects done within the minimum requirements which likely means I would need to be more heavy handed with the process of preparing for submitting to a peer-reviewed journal and that might not be something they or I want. Depending on a students’ goals and interests, I adjust my input accordingly because to me, there’s a difference in advising, for instance on (a) defensible ways to address a particular element of a project within the context of degree requirements and their likely implications for project completion versus dissemination and potential influence within the scholarly community versus (b) what I might suggest as a co-author collaborator. I try to be consistent in being explicit about this with students so that they can make informed decisions. Where students have autonomy in conceptualizing and designing their own work, it’s really important to have conversations about relative contributions and authorship as early as possible so that’s often a feature of my advising conversations early on in projects and throughout to the extent its germane to the decisions students make about their work.

Regardless of the model in place, having conversations about roles, authorship, and ethics are important. I have the APA manual bookmarked on the page defining authorship, something I observed by a former colleague (Thank you, Marley.), and prioritize those conversations with students early and as often as needed. Particularly where students are more independent in conceptualization and design, we’ll have conversations about my potential role as a coauthor as they progress through the project and particularly if they get to a stage of wanting to publish. I find this helpful to minimize misunderstandings and any perceived coercion or exploitation, which I am sensitive to from my own experience as a graduate student. More than once I had to navigate difficult situations with senior scholars making decisions or demanding credit in ways that did not reflect publication standards or professional ethics, and that’s not something I ever want to reproduce with students or other early career scholars I might work with.

How do you make decisions about which student theses or dissertations to submit to peer-reviewed journals?

Burns: It is actually easier to turn a thesis into a manuscript submission. I ask students to format their master’s thesis like a manuscript. When it is finished, we simply revise it and submit it. I encourage students to do a 2-study dissertation, which also makes it easier to submit papers. The question is not “which dissertations should you submit,” but “to what journal should this be submitted?” The only time that I haven’t submitted dissertations was when it was not focused enough to find any specific submissions out of it. Cutting a traditional dissertation to make a manuscript submission is among the most difficult things to do in research. The only times I have not been successful was when we couldn’t find on what the resulting paper should focus.

Codding: My goal is to submit nearly all student-led theses or dissertations for peer-review. My experience has been that sometimes, as a student completes their graduate training and moves into their own professional career, they do not have time to engage in the effort required of peer-reviewed submissions or they do not have workload allocated to such endeavors. That reality is the biggest driver for a thesis or dissertation to not be submitted.

Sullivan: Often, the decision comes down to the likelihood of publication; how much time I anticipate needing for writing/editing and verifying data, analyses, and interpretations; and my likelihood of having the bandwidth to give it the time and attention I’ll feel okay about without having to hold up the timeline for them. I’ll happily advise through the publication process without being a coauthor but my feedback and contributions depend on my agreed upon role.

For early career scholars, their decisions might look very different from mine depending on the expectations and requirements of their positions, as well as their short- and long-term goals. For example, in a position where quantity of pubs is valued, early career scholars might orient their advising and time on personal projects and student-led papers towards whatever gets good enough papers submitted to journals as quickly as possible. Some programs or units also have cultures and policies that require students to use their advisors’ scholarship for their degree requirements, which effectively puts them in more of a supportive/second author role on those projects while advisors provide primary intellectual leadership (e.g., specifying research questions, project conceptualization, methods, etc.). Others might be in positions where supporting students’ scholarship is highly valued, so carving out time to create processes and supports that allow for student-led projects to be easily transitioned to publications would be worthwhile. In general, I encourage folks to consider how scholarship and performance are evaluated in their position and unit because there’s considerable variability in expectations and policy across institutions and roles within them.

Any other comments or suggestions you have regarding navigating your own and students' publications and scholarly products?

Burns: No student should earn a Ph.D. without publishing research along the way. In my opinion, I’d like to see at least one conceptual paper and one study for each Ph.D. student, even if they are interested in working in an applied setting. I don’t think that I’ve ever had a student graduate with only two publications and I think these are the reasons why-

1. The research-team model which makes research more feasible, personally applicable, and the basis for a strong sense of community.
2. I try to build a culture of research from Day 1. I tell my students, “if you are getting all As, then you are not doing enough research.” Every activity in which they engage, I ask them to find the research question. Finally, we do social events around research. For example, in school psychology we have SPR at the Bar – every time the new SPR issue comes out, we go to a family-friendly bar, I buy them appetizers (they buy their own drinks), and we talk about the issue. Each student comes prepared to talk about 1 article from the issue – first year students just tell us which article they picked and why, and maybe the IV and DVs. However, second and third-year students should be more critical and more advanced students should present more in depth critical analyses. The entire conversation is casual, low-stress, and fun. I am also a big believer in other social events and organized activities around research such as future-faculty clubs.  
3. I rely heavily on developmentally appropriate scaffolding. Every study has a student lead, which is usually an advanced student who organizes data collection, helps analyze the data, and shepherds the writing process. First year students will help collect data and might write an abstract, but will be part of the process every step of the way. Second- and third-year students are somewhere in between. They take a little more leadership in studies and write specific sections, but always with support from a more advanced student. Finally, I expect first-year students to present a poster at a national conference in Year 1. Right away, I get students presenting at NASP, APA, or CEC. Year 2, students do a symposium with me. It is a short presentation that is part of a panel and I’m right there to help. Year 3, students present a paper with me or a more advanced student. Finally, Years 4 and beyond they do whatever they want. Students can accelerate this pace if they want and feel comfortable doing so, but they have to at least stay on this progression.

It is all about culture, community, support, and scaffolding.

Codding: I often provide recent personal publications to new students as summer reading, before they enter our doctoral program in the fall as my advisee, which connects their interests to my scholarship area. I don’t spend much time developing non-peer-refereed written products or giving extensive numbers of presentations, both of which may take time away from writing my own or supporting student-led peer-refereed submissions. In addition to participating in idea generation and data collection, I also include students in dissemination activities associated with my personal scholarship - all of which facilitates their own interest in related topics.

When it comes to authorship contributions, which is indirectly related to this conversation, our research team uses a scorecard for determining authorship (https://tipec.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Scorecard-for-Determining-Authorship_APA.pdf) but there are other ways to make this determination as well (https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/resources/publishing-tips/giving-credit). Engaging in this exercise helps organize the project along with roles and contributions of research team members.

Sullivan: Don’t shy away from conversations about authorship and ethics. Make them a priority throughout any research process while being cognizant of the vulnerabilities of graduate students, particularly those from minoritized backgrounds, implicit norms and expectations that should be made explicit to early career scholars, and the potential influence toxic norms and behaviors common in higher education that can make trust more challenging to earn.

What has or has not worked for you? Do you have any other questions about this delicate scholarship balance? Please comment below.

Managing Your Time During Your First Year of Academia

Garret J. Hall, Florida State University

Sally L. Grapin, Montclair State University

As a first-year faculty member, deciding how to allocate your time can be challenging. Many faculty are expected to balance scholarship, teaching, and service responsibilities, all while acclimating to a new institution. At the same time, academic schedules are often quite flexible and afford faculty considerable discretion in how they spend their time. This can leave new academics (and even more experienced ones) feeling lost about how to schedule their days and plan for accomplishing short- and long-term goals. The following describes tips for new faculty members seeking to use their work time efficiently and realistically during their first year in academia.

• Identify and clarify your institution’s priorities and expectations around faculty responsibilities.

Universities vary considerably in their expectations for research productivity, teaching loads, and service responsibilities. Having a clear understanding of your institution’s expectations is critical for determining how to spend your time. For instance, faculty at institutions with substantial scholarship expectations should be especially intentional about carving out time for research and writing. Similarly, faculty who are expected to contribute heavily to academic programs and/or teaching may benefit from spending more time on these activities.

Unfortunately, institutions can be vague in communicating productivity expectations, especially in regard to research. This is due, in part, to the fact that scholarly pursuits (and thus evidence of productivity) vary considerably across disciplines and among scholars within those disciplines. For example, most universities do not explicitly specify a minimum number of publications or amount of grant funding needed to secure tenure and promotion.

Speaking to as many colleagues as possible at various institutional levels (e.g., department, college) can help clarify expectations. More experienced faculty members often have knowledge of institutional precedent that can be helpful for surmising university expectations. Moreover, examining CVs and other professional profiles (e.g., Google Scholar profiles) of colleagues at your level (e.g., pre-tenure) or more advanced levels (e.g., tenured and promoted) can also be helpful for gauging expectations.

Clarifying tenure and evaluation timelines and requirements is, of course, an important consideration in allocating your time. Being knowledgeable about these processes will allow you to determine how much progress you need to make over a given period. For instance, learning more about whether and how often periodic pre-tenure evaluations occur can help you pace yourself.

Finally, balancing university expectations with your own career goals is important as well. For instance, faculty with primarily teaching and clinical appointments who ultimately aspire to obtain more research-oriented positions should be mindful of balancing institutional priorities with their own research pursuits. Likewise, faculty who aspire to more teaching-oriented positions may wish to focus on refining their teaching philosophy, mastering effective teaching practices, and building a strong, diversified record of university instruction.

• Focus on your existing pipeline of scholarship while maintaining an eye toward building your long-term research agenda.

Building a long-term research agenda at a new institution can be time intensive. As you work toward this goal, consider making progress on writing projects that are already in your research pipeline (i.e., with data that are already collected and/or analyzed). This will allow you to maintain a fluid, consistent record of scholarship as you settle into your new faculty position. If you do not have a robust pipeline of scholarship to draw from, consider undertaking writing projects that do not require a full lab setup or established research partnerships. For instance, you might consider working on conceptual papers, book chapters, or other types of manuscripts while you prepare for new data collection. Working closely with existing collaborators can also help you maintain publishing momentum while also affording you time to set up longer-term projects.

As you build your long-term research agenda, it can be helpful to set tangible, short-term goals and to avoid starting too many new projects at once. You might consider identifying a few short-term research tasks and committing to finishing them (e.g., finishing a literature review, submitting an IRB application). You might also identify projects that will allow you to document clear progress along your tenure timeline (accounting for interim reviews). At the same time, consider how these short-term projects will contribute toward your longer-term publication pipeline and grant funding goals (if relevant).

• Work steadily toward building your lab and research infrastructure while also being mindful of the work required.

Spending time building your lab and/or research team infrastructure can be time-consuming. If you are fortunate to be awarded start-up funding or space for a lab, setting up this space (and even spending down funds) can require quite a bit of time and administrative effort. Likewise, setting up lab routines and protocols, preparing Institutional Review Board (IRB) applications for a new university, establishing external research partnerships, and recruiting and training new lab members can also be time intensive. While these activities pay dividends in the long run, they often do not result in tangible products or evidence of productivity. Be patient with yourself as you navigate these processes and remind yourself that you are still making needed progress. Moreover, consider the above tips for maintaining research productivity while building your lab/research infrastructure.

• Intentionally pursue collaborations within and outside of your university.

Collaboration both within and outside of your university can be one of the great joys of academia; nevertheless, identifying collaborators with whom you are compatible and share common interests can take time. Consider building these relationships as early on as possible. Internal colleagues might appreciate your reaching out to get to know them and to discuss potential collaborations (even if these collaborations are not realized immediately). Outside of your university, attending conferences and connecting with committees and/or interest groups through professional organizations can be a great way to build relationships and identify potential collaborators.

• Choose your service activities carefully.

Service is an important part of contributing to your university and larger profession; however, extremely heavy service loads can make it difficult to balance other roles in your first year and beyond. Typically, first-year faculty are (or at least should) be expected to take on relatively less service than their more advanced peers, as new faculty need time to prepare for research and teaching. While it is important to be a good citizen of your department, university, and profession, be sure to protect your research and teaching time as needed during this early stage of your career.

Ultimately, you will likely take on some service responsibilities in your first year, and choosing activities that are aligned with your other professional roles can be helpful. For example, serving on internal grant review committees may allow you to become familiar with procedures and evaluation criteria for these funding mechanisms. Likewise, becoming involved in editorial service (e.g., serving as an ad hoc reviewer, editorial board member, or editorial fellow) for peer-reviewed journals may sharpen your skills in critiquing and designing research studies as well as familiarize you with publication standards for various journals.

• Identify optimal times for productivity and prioritize them.

Your unstructured time can quickly become filled with impromptu meetings or other unplanned tasks. Imposing your own structure on large blocks of time can help prioritize specific kinds of tasks at different points in the day or week. Some faculty prefer to write research papers on certain days of the week and/or during certain times of the day, but those days/time might not be the same ones conducive to accomplishing other important tasks (e.g., class preparation).  It might take some trial-and-error to identify those times of day that are best suited to specific tasks—not all 3-hour blocks are ideal for the same activities. You might not have the same motivation to finish that Discussion section on a Friday from 1-4 p.m. as you would on a Tuesday. Everyone works a little differently, and that’s OK, but it might take time to figure out what works best for you—especially when the obligations pulling you in different directions as faculty will be very different than those as a graduate student, postdoc, or practitioner. Finding time to write with other friends and faculty can help provide structure and accountability; for instance, the SSSP ECF monthly writing retreats may help you build writing momentum.

Another strategy for prioritizing writing time can be to write during small blocks of time between other commitments. Those 15 minutes between meetings could be used to make some incremental progress on a smaller writing task. We know that saving a large task for a large block of time can feel daunting. Breaking down writing tasks into those smaller chunks to complete in between other commitments can help keep the writing momentum going and prevent you from becoming overwhelmed with the writing projects you have.

On the other hand, try to also be flexible with your time. That impromptu lunch with a colleague during your planned writing time is also important for your social and personal satisfaction at your job. You may feel like you are getting distracted from your writing plans, but being too task-oriented can burn you out. Many fruitful ideas and collaborations have come from unplanned meals, coffee breaks, and hallway conversations. Moreover, save time to think and read about your ideas. What “counts” as writing is not just the act of writing itself; thinking and reading are investments in writing. Don’t underestimate them. It’s OK to stare at the wall for 2 hours if it brought you clarity on how to approach your next project or write your next paper introduction (it’s also OK if it didn’t).

• Finding a way to balance work and life takes time and needs to be intentional.

You worked hard for many years, and you finally landed the academic job you were hoping for. Starting your first academic job is exciting and likely also stressful. There are many new responsibilities to balance. Depending on your teaching load, faculty meeting schedule, and research workflow, you could be left with a substantial amount of time to conduct your research or seemingly very little. You may have also moved a long distance to your new institution. Through all of that, you have to find time to live your life outside of your job.

The lack of structure to academics’ time can make it difficult to draw the line between your work and your personal life. As faculty, we are also passionate about what we do, and even when we are “done” with our workday and close our laptops, many of us are probably still thinking about our teaching, our new exciting research project, or that frustrating comment we received in a manuscript review. As passionate as we might be, it’s important to remember that this is still a job. Some might integrate their life with their job more than others, but that does not work for everyone, nor should it.

Finding structured time to separate yourself from your work can be extremely helpful, but this looks different for everyone. Some might choose to have activities with specific time commitments during the week that force them to be away from work. Others might choose to work only in specific spaces/locations (e.g., coffee shops or work/home offices but not other rooms in their home or on campus). Some are fine working on the weekends, and others don’t open their laptops between Friday afternoon and Monday morning. Establishing these boundaries and habits early on in your faculty career can help you prioritize non-work activities that promote your personal wellness, which will ultimately help you identify how your new faculty position fits into your preferred lifestyle.

Do you have any other good tips for planning your time in your first year of academia? Share below!

Ten Tips for Developing an Edited Book

By Sally L. Grapin, Montclair State University

Developing an edited book can be a valuable activity for school psychology scholars and their field at large. Unlike authored books, edited books represent the voices and contributions of multiple authors. One advantage to edited books is that they allow editors to connect with authors outside of their established networks, which can be a valuable activity for early career scholars. Additionally, early career scholars might consider developing an edited book when they feel a topic is best addressed from multiple perspectives or when they wish to feature expert voices in areas related to but somewhat beyond the scope of their own work (e.g., a scholar with a particular focus on antiracism seeks to develop an edited book on social justice more broadly). Like many other forms of scholarship, edited books are one way in which scholars can support the advancement of their field and fill in knowledge and resource gaps for practitioners, researchers, and others. 

At the same time, edited books are a tremendous undertaking, and coordinating submissions from multiple author teams can present challenges for producing a cohesive product. The following describes ten tips for early career scholars seeking to develop an edited book.

1. Identify a publisher that is a good fit for your project.

Numerous academic publishers are interested in recruiting school psychology book projects. Whereas some publishers may focus primarily on books for higher education students or practitioners (e.g., many trade publishers), others may focus on books for scholars and researchers (e.g., many academic publishers). Examining recent titles from the publisher and talking with editorial staff (e.g., at conference exhibit halls) may help you identify a publisher that is a good fit for your project. Moreover, some publishers produce book series edited by school psychology scholars; talking with these series editors may be helpful for finding a home for your book. Before signing a contract, you might consider asking publishers (and authors who have worked with these publishers) questions such as:

• How long are authors typically given to develop the book?
• How will the book be marketed?
• Who will prepare the index? Who will be expected to secure and pay for permissions?
• What are the criteria for determining if a second edition is warranted?

Once you have identified a publisher and are ready to sign a contract, be sure to read the contract carefully and ensure that the timelines specified (e.g., due dates) are feasible for you.

2. Carefully consider and clearly identify your audience.

Many books for school psychologists may also be appropriate for other audiences. Because school psychology scholars, practitioners, and/or graduate students constitute a relatively small potential audience, you might consider targeting your book toward a broader range of school-based professionals, mental health providers, students, and/or caregivers. Books that have a wider audience may ultimately be more attractive to prospective publishers.

3. Use the book proposal as an opportunity for in-depth planning.

Publishers will typically request a formal proposal for your book project. While the structure and requirements of these proposals may vary, areas you may be asked to address include: (a) the book’s intended audience; (b) rationale or need for the book; (c) potential competitors; and (d) detailed table of contents with brief chapter summaries. If you are developing a book that could be used in an undergraduate or graduate classroom, you may be asked to specify relevant courses. Often, the questions posed in these proposals will prompt you to think carefully about the content and unique features of your book. Spending time on this proposal at the outset may ultimately benefit you in the long run.

4. Set realistic timelines for your contributing authors and yourself.

Edited books can take a long time to develop (often a full year or more), in part because they involve coordinating multiple rounds of chapter submissions across multiple author teams. Inevitably, authors will experience delays due to work or personal commitments. Being understanding of these circumstances is important, especially given that authors are taking the time to support your work. To minimize potential delays, give authors adequate time to develop and revise their chapters, accounting for summer and holiday breaks as well as particularly busy times of the year (e.g., beginning or end of the semester). More time should be given for initial chapter submissions, whereas timeframes for revision may be somewhat shorter. You might consider staggering due dates for chapters such that you can edit submissions at a steady pace rather than reviewing them all at once.

If you are planning to invite a foreword author, consider securing a commitment from that individual early on. Be sure to let them know when they can expect to review the final (or near final) draft of the book and when their contribution would be due, as there is often a shorter window for preparing a foreword than a chapter.

5. Carefully consider who you will invite to author chapters.

The strength of an edited book relies not only on the work of its editor(s) but also on the ideas, perspectives, and follow-through of its authors. Think carefully about whose voices and perspectives will be represented in the book. For example, editors hoping to cultivate a strong social justice orientation in their work should consider how they will center the voices of scholars and communities with marginalized identities. In addition to considering the lenses, expertise, and perspectives of authors, editors should recruit contributors with strong writing skills and a history of completing projects in a diligent and timely manner. Being thoughtful in recruiting author teams can make for a smoother editing process later on.

6. Provide clear writing guidelines for authors before they begin writing.

Providing clear and detailed guidelines for chapter submissions can be especially helpful for ensuring a cohesive final product. These guidelines should be provided to authors before they begin writing and may include information related to: (a) section headers (e.g., chapter objectives, introduction, recommendations for practice, summary/conclusion); (b) chapter length; (c) guidelines for references; (d) style/formatting (e.g., APA style or other formatting requirements provided by the publisher); and (e) major issues or topics for the author(s) to address (or not address) so as to avoid redundancies or major gaps in content. The more information you provide up front, the less time you will need to spend editing individual chapters for cohesion. Moreover, providing a sample chapter can be especially helpful (perhaps one of your own that you can complete ahead of inviting submissions).

Consider asking experienced book editors about the guidelines they provided to their contributing authors. Sample emails and guideline documents can be helpful in constructing your own, especially if you have the opportunity to see examples from multiple editors.

7. Provide feedback to authors that is constructive but not overly prescriptive.

Providing clear feedback is essential for supporting authors in revising their chapters as well as ensuring timely resubmission. Where appropriate, be as specific as possible about the revisions you hope to see. However, at the same time, respect authors’ decisions about how and where to make edits to their work. One significant advantage of edited books is that they bring together the perspectives and expertise of multiple author teams; as a corollary, it is important to respect authors’ autonomy in deciding which content should and should not be included. Navigating this balance can be difficult, but it may be helpful for you to: (a) clearly distinguish high-priority from low-priority recommendations for revision; (b) give authors the opportunity to indicate which edits they feel are appropriate or inappropriate; and (c) have real time conversations with authors about edits if disagreements arise (rather than going back and forth on email).

8. Implement and maintain a system of organization.

Staying organized is essential for managing chapter submissions, especially when those submissions are at different stages of the writing and/or editing process. Implementing a system of organization early on can be helpful for reducing stress associated with the editing process. For example, you might consider maintaining a Google spreadsheet with chapter titles, author names, due dates, notes about the status of each chapter, and “to do'' items. You might also find it helpful to maintain an inbox folder designated specifically for book-related correspondence so that you can easily retrieve email threads when needed. Whatever organization system you decide on, stick with it throughout the project (even if you think you are likely to remember details without recording them).

9. Work efficiently.

The work for an edited book project often ebbs and flows. There may be times when you are waiting on submissions and have little to do followed by bursts of intense editing. As noted previously, staggering submission due dates can help distribute editing responsibilities across the project timeline; however, there will likely still be lags in your workload from time to time. Be strategic about how you utilize these lags. For example, when waiting on initial chapter submissions or revisions, consider working on other components of the book, such as the acknowledgements, editor bios, preface, dedication, or glossary. Although these may seem like relatively minor tasks, they can be time-consuming, and getting them out of the way as early as possible can be helpful.

10. Don’t underestimate the time commitment of an edited book and pace yourself.

Given that edited books often rely heavily on the contributions of invited authors, it can be easy to underestimate the amount of time, energy, and work that goes into developing them. Before deciding to pursue an edited book project, consider discussing the time commitment with experienced editors. Moreover, recognize that committing to an edited book may leave you less time to work on other projects (e.g., peer-reviewed journal articles). Before undertaking an edited book, consider whether the project is aligned with your professional objectives. If you are a pre-tenure faculty member or are seeking promotion at an academic institution, you might consider discussing with your department chair or dean whether edited books will be valued in the tenure or promotion review process. Finally, remember that book projects are a marathon, not a sprint! Pacing and self-care throughout the process are critical.

Overall, developing an edited book can be an arduous yet rewarding process. What other suggestions do you have for early career scholars who are considering developing an edited book? Comment below.

Top 10 Tips for New Faculty

On November 5, 2020, the ECF’s Lindsay Fallon and Bryn Harris hosted a virtual social for new faculty where they highlighted their top 10 tips from past ECF posts. See the tips below, linked to the original posts. 10. Self-Care MattersIn a year in which the election, racial justice, and a global pandemic are at the forefront, take care of yourself to help others. 

• Take breaks from watching, reading, or listening to news stories, including social media. Hearing about the pandemic repeatedly can be upsetting.
• Take care of your body by engaging in relaxation techniques (deep breathing, stretching, meditation), healthy eating, exercise, and adequate sleep. 
• Make time to unwind and connect with others. Talking with trusted friends and colleagues can help to process difficult events and feelings. 

9. It’s OK to Not Have Academic Parenthood All Figured OutIf you are caring for others, be kind to yourself. In this post, Dr. Sterett Mercer reminded us to:

• Match tasks with current capabilities. 
• Planning and initiating a major project at a “low point” may not be the best use of time. 
• Be aware of the cycles of the work week and academic year and set reasonable expectations. 
• Try to relax and stay in the game - burnout is real!

8. Recognize That Imposter Syndrome Is CommonKnow that you belong; fake it ‘til you make it. Our anonymous blogger, Dr. Ima Syke, pointed out the following steps to help deal with imposter syndrome:

• Recognize it within yourself and in others. 
• Regularly remind yourself of your accomplishments. 
• Become keenly aware of your strengths. 
• Discuss imposter syndrome with your students. 
• Seek support. 

7. Be as Efficient as Possible With Course PrepFind ways to use time wisely when prepping courses and teaching. Dr. Bryn Harris recommends that you: 

• Schedule time to prep. 
• Make revisions right away! Take notes during or immediately after class on things that went well and things that need to be improved. 
• Teach early in the week if you can. It forces you to be efficient, and leaves the rest of the week for other tasks. 
• Use the notes feature in PowerPoint to remind you what you were thinking when you made the slide a year ago. Be kind to your future self!

6. Know Who You Are As a MentorBe intentional about how you will mentor and know your limits. Drs. Bryn Harris and Amanda Sullivan advocated that we: 

• Seek support from others when stuck and to learn ideas.
• Identify strong role models, be inspired by their style. 
• Know your strengths and decide what your approach will be/is. 
• Define expectations, roles and goals. 
• Set boundaries.
• Follow through with what you say you will do. 

5. Your Research Agenda Can EvolveYou are not wedded to who you were in your cover letter. Dr. Milena A. Keller-Margulis emphasized that it’s important you: 

• Don’t think of your research agenda as static but rather inherently reflective and ongoing.
• The best way to determine (or evolve) the general topic(s) of your research agenda is to pay attention to the topics that interest you the most. You might discover this through reading the literature but these ideas may also surface through your practical or field-based experiences. 
• Do not be afraid to test drive some areas of interest by getting involved in or exploring new areas, and talking to other people with similar interests.
• These activities will help you narrow your focus to the topics and questions that are the most interesting to you. 

4. A Manuscript Rejection Is Sometimes a BlessingIt’s awful, but can also teach you a lesson. Dr. Laura Pendergast shared this story: “Are you done?” my mentor asked patiently. My beautiful manuscript had been rejected… again. My mentor had been listening to me complain for 15 minutes. I was starting a tenure-track position and needed to publish. I had conducted my analyses using the most current statistical techniques. I had painstakingly crafted my arguments and drawn careful, well-supported conclusions. Why didn’t these reviewers understand my paper?! My mentor looked at me calmly and shared a hard truth that changed the way I thought about my writing. She said, “The editor chose three reviewers who he viewed as trusted experts. These hand-picked experts didn’t understand your paper. If multiple, highly educated people didn’t understand what you wrote, whose fault is that?” She was right. Publishing manuscripts is not just about being technically correct and scientifically sound. It is about communicating with an audience… I began by making a new outline. I kept my original results section but rewrote the rest of the paper in a way that was clear and conveyed why the work was meaningful. The revised paper was quickly accepted at another journal.” 3. Start Thinking Now About Your Personal StatementIt’s never too early to start thinking about T&P. Panelists offered the following advice on crafting your materials:Dr. Jamilia Blake: “Your CV provides a quantitative account of what you have accomplished in a set amount of time. I often think of my CV as my personal reference list. However, your candidate statement is qualitative and provides the context for your work. It should not merely be a narrative recount of your CV. It is your opportunity to bring attention to themes in your work that you feel are important and will eventually have impact on the field. It is your space to discuss how your work shows promise for changing school psychology practice and research.”Dr. Amanda Sullivan: “I used my statements to explain activities and describe linkages between them - to tell the story I wanted them to take away from reviewing my materials.” 2. Be Intentional About Managing Your TimeSelf-manage or track your time devoted to research, teaching and service. Dr. Stacy-Ann January offered the following recommendations: “I use a program/app called Toggl (many other programs are available). I started with 3 broad categories (research, teaching, service) and then kept track of everything I did related to those categories. Each week, Toggl sends me an email with a breakdown of how I spent my time during the previous week.”Know when you write best. Dr. Dave Klingbeil shared his approach: “I write best late at night, when there are far fewer distractions. I also tend to be more productive when I write almost every day for 1-2 hours (not always attainable), rather than trying to protect two full days for ‘research time’.” 1. Give Yourself the Gift of NoDr. Amanda Sullivan pointed out, As an early career scholar, you have a finite amount of time so there reaches a point where saying yes to one thing means saying no to another - or where you risk overburdening yourself to the point where your performance in other areas of work suffers. Saying yes to x often means less time for y. Learning to say no first requires identifying your priorities so that you can easily identify requests and opportunities inconsistent with those priorities. Practice pleasantly and unapologetically saying no. It’s okay to say no without offering any more justification than you are simply unavailable. What other tips or favorite posts would you share with new faculty?

Post-convention productivity: Turning presentations into publications

By Katie Maki (Ball State University) and Ethan Van Norman (Lehigh University)You’ve returned home from NASP. You’re likely experiencing a range of emotions. In the back of your mind you have a creeping sense of anxiety as you take a look at your inbox for the first time in nearly a week. At this point it is great to take a step back and acknowledge a major accomplishment. You presented your research at a national conference! Although almost every university expects presentations at a national conference to demonstrate scholarly productivity as part of promotion and tenure decisions, the reality is that the priority for demonstrating scholarly productivity is the publication of your research in peer-refereed journals. As such, the purpose of this post is to offer advice to carry forward the momentum from NASP to transform those poster and paper presentations into peer reviewed journal articles.Curb Your Enthusiasm If you are like us, you left the NASP convention feeling professionally energized (although perhaps physically exhausted) and excited about new research projects and collaborations. Many of us spent the week networking, connecting with other scholars in the field, and attending thought-provoking sessions at the convention. These connections and experiences likely left you ready to jump into new project conceptualizations. There is a hardly a better feeling, perhaps especially as an early career scholar. Therefore, it may sound counterintuitive when we suggest that you consider pumping the brakes on diving fully into new projects at the expense of your existing projects. This is not to say that you should drop your new project ideas. On the contrary, record your new and exciting ideas by outlining your concept and any details you have already worked out. Consider setting up a meeting with colleagues in the next month or so. Then, switch your energy back to the projects on which you presented at NASP but have not yet written up. As we stated before, even if you are not at a research-intensive university, publications in peer- refereed journals are likely still part of how you will be evaluated for promotion and tenure. Thus, you want to be sure that you not only engage in research, but that your research projects come to completion through publication.Work Smarter Not Harder The good news is, you have already done much of the work for writing new manuscripts. Capitalize on the work and effort you already put into your projects by using the projects you presented at NASP as a foundation for manuscript preparation. If you presented studies at the NASP convention, you already outlined the method and results sections for your presentation that can then be translated into text for the study manuscript. Then, revisit the proposal you submitted for the convention back in June to begin writing the introduction of the manuscript. Your proposal should have included a rationale for, and purpose of, the study so take the arguments you already made in your proposal and expand upon them to develop the manuscript introduction. Finally, you likely already outlined implications and other sections of a discussion section for your presentation, which can be expounded for the manuscript discussion. Do not recreate your project for the manuscript; use the work you already put into the project to turn it into a publishable manuscript.Using Feedback Meaningfully  Finally, your presentation likely included a Q&A portion. Use information gleaned from this experience to improve your paper. That is, capitalize on audience feedback and ideas that may have arisen while preparing for the presentation while the information is still fresh. Was there a recurring theme that audience members noted as a strength? Emphasize that aspect of your investigation in the paper. Were there multiple questions about the methodology you used? Revisit and clarify what you did in the manuscript. Were audience members all too eager to point limitations of your project? Get out in front of potential reviewer comments by strengthening your paper or identifying said issues in the limitations section of your manuscript. Given that NASP is largely a practitioner-oriented conference, if your presentation for lack of better terms “fell flat,” consider journal outlets that have a less applied focus (see previous blog post on how to identify appropriate journals for your research). If your presentation lends to a practitioner-orientated publication outlet, consider turning your presentation into a manuscript for the Communique or other similar outlet, particularly if such outlets are appropriate for your promotion and tenure requirements.Planning Ahead Although hindsight may be 20/20, in our experience the best strategy to ensure that conference paper presentations do not stay conference paper presentations is prevention. We have found that submitting the paper you will be presenting for publication prior to the conference circumvents the nasty problem of post-conference procrastination. You will likely be playing catch-up in the weeks following a conference (responding to emails, prepping for a class on a shortened schedule, etc.). Similarly, you may be experiencing conference fatigue where the last thing you want to think about is the paper presentation you have spent substantial time prepping last month. Submitting a project for publication prior to the conference may also alleviate anxiety in having an idea “scooped” while presenting your project to peers. Submitting your work before the conference will also help “prime” you so you are not scrambling to finish a project before the convention or put together your slide show a few days (or hours) before you are set to present.You Can Do It! We hope that you found these pointers useful. A major challenge in academia is that we receive few and infrequent external prompts to encourage us to engage in the behaviors necessary to achieve promotion and tenure. In turn, we must be able to prioritize those things that are most influential in achieving our goals, sometimes at the expense of immediate competing demands. Although carving out time to write immediately after a conference may seem counterintuitive, in many ways it makes sense to strike while the iron is hot. If an email is responded to four hours later than normal, your class lecture has a few less graphics, or the mission statement you were assigned to help refine is a little less eloquent than you would like, all for the sake of preparing your NASP presentation for publication, the world will not stop turning. We promise.Do you have any thoughts about these points? Are there any other strategies you use that we did not mention? Please comment below!

"Revise and resubmit"...Now what?

Perspectives on Preparing Your Revised Manuscript from Associate Editors in School PsychologyBy Laura Pendergast, Temple UniversityContributors: Stacy-Ann January, University of South Carolina; Lyndsay Jenkins, Florida State University; Renee Hawkins, University of CincinnatiImagine that you are new author and you are ready to publish. You’ve worked hard to conduct your research and prepare your manuscript. You’ve carefully selected a journal. You’ve followed all of the instructions for publishing in said journal, navigated the online submission portal, and submitted your paper. You’ve waited patiently (or not so patiently) for weeks. Then, all of a sudden, an email from the journal with a subject line that reads “Manuscript Decision” pops into your inbox. You cannot wait any longer! You read the email discreetly (or not so discreetly) while holding your phone under the table during a faculty meeting. With a sigh of relief, you see that your manuscript was not rejected outright. However, it wasn’t accepted either….You received a “Revise and Resubmit.” Now what? If you are an early career scholar, and you recently received a “Revise and Resubmit,” you are in luck! Three Associate Editors from top school psychology journals have teamed up to provide advice for early career scholars on revising and resubmitting their work. Dr. Stacy-Ann January is an Assistant Professor at the University of South Carolina and an Associate Editor at School Psychology Review. Dr. Lyndsay Jenkins is an Assistant Professor at Florida State University and an Associate Editor at the Journal of School Psychology. Dr. Renee Hawkins is a Professor at the University of Cincinnati and an Associate Editor at the Journal of School Psychology. An overview of the steps for revising and resubmitting your work, along with key pieces of advice from each Associate Editor, is provided below.Step 1: Celebrate a little! But recognize that your journey isn’t finished yet. SAJ: First, celebrate a little! I remember feeling a little disappointed when I received my first Revise and Resubmit (R&R). But my mentor reminded me that this decision is typically what one can hope for, as manuscripts are rarely accepted on the first submission. An R&R means that the journal may be interested in publishing your manuscript, but that there are a number of changes you to need make before it is in a potentially publishable form.RH: A ‘Revise and Resubmit’ decision suggests that the reviewers and action editor see the potential for your manuscript to make a contribution to the literature, which alone can be reinforcing as it can reaffirm the significance of your research agenda. It is also important to keep in mind that how you respond to the feedback provided on your submission plays a critical role in determining whether or not your manuscript is ultimately accepted. There is no guarantee that a “Revise and Resubmit” will automatically lead to acceptance but if you are thoughtful with your approach to integrating the editorial feedback, you can greatly increase your chances for a positive outcome.Step 2: Read the reviews. Manage your emotional response to critical comments. Be ready to write your response to reviewers using a respectful, appreciative tone and to use the feedback to improve your work.RH: Don’t take the feedback personally. The reviewers aren’t out to get you. They are trying to advance our field by helping improve the quality of manuscripts published in our journals. Avoid being defensive in your responses to reviewer feedback.LJ: Feedback about your work from other researchers is an opportunity to make changes that can improve the quality of your paper.  Though it is tempting to get defensive or upset about the feedback provided, it is important to keep in mind that overall a R&R is good news!!RH: The tone of your response should be respectful. Remember the reviewers have provided a valuable professional service by taking their time to review your manuscript and provide their suggestions for improvements. Your response should reflect that you value their time and ideas, even if you do not agree with everything they have to say.Step 3: Revise the manuscript, and write the point-by-point response letter. In most instances, you should make the changes suggested by reviewers. SAJ: To the extent possible, try to make the changes suggested by the AE and reviewers. In your response letter, detail exactly what you did to address the suggested change. Reviewers may make several suggestions in one numbered comment; be sure to address each of them.RH: Take the feedback in the spirit it was intended – to improve the quality of your manuscript. In this spirit, try to incorporate as much of the feedback as you reasonably can, even if some of the suggested revisions seem unnecessary to you. If a revision does not substantially change the meaning of your manuscript, I would go ahead and make the changes. In my opinion, digging in your heels over feedback that does not impact the overall message and contribution of your manuscript seems to be a waste of energy that could potentially jeopardize the editorial decision on your manuscript.LJ: I would say one of the most common mistakes I see is that authors do not fully address an issue raised by the reviewers.  This mistake is particularly problematic when they say that they have addressed it. For example, an editor may note that References are not in APA style in the initial submission.  Upon resubmitting the manuscript, the authors may say in the response letter that they addressed the APA style issues in the References, but, in fact, many errors are still present. If you say you addressed something, be sure that you actually did address it.RH: It is helpful to reviewers if you describe specifically how and where in the manuscript you made revisions in response to the feedback. For example, rather than responding simply with, “We have incorporated this feedback in the manuscript,” provide a more detailed description of your revision with a statement such as, “On, p. 10, we have added the following paragraph…In many journals, the action editor will act as a filter for the comments provided by individual reviewers. The feedback highlighted by the action editor should be prioritized in your revision. Generally, these are the changes that the action editor thinks are most important for you to make in your revision. Given that the action editor will ultimately recommend to the editor whether or not to publish your work, it is critical that you attend to this feedback.SAJ: The number of revisions that are requested can be daunting. If you’re the lead author, don’t go at a revision alone! Review the suggested revisions and determine how you might engage your co-authors in revising and resubmitting the document.Step 4: Do not ignore feedback. If you choose not to make a suggested change, provide a thorough and respectful rationale explaining why you declined to make the edit. Provide empirical support if applicable. RH: One common mistake that authors make when revising and resubmitting their work is to ignore feedback with which they do not agree.SAJ: If you disagree with a change, you should have a strong rationale for not making it. Thank the reviewer for the comment, and eloquently provide the rationale (supporting your argument with science is always a good idea if you’re able to).RH: If the reviewers make a suggestion that you cannot address (i.e., you don’t have the additional information they are requesting), not only should you explain why you cannot integrate the feedback in your response but also consider raising the issue as a limitation or discussion point in your revised manuscript.LJ: Be nice: It can be easy to slip into a defensive tone when writing these response letters, particularly if you do not agree with some of the reviewer feedback.RH: Don’t use page limitations as a reason not to make a revision. This is a pretty weak excuse for not making a suggested revision. I would err on the side of making the revision as efficiently as possible and explaining to the action editor that, in your effort to be responsive to reviewer feedback, you are over the page limit.SAJ: When preparing your response letter, make it clear and easy to read.Step 5: Follow all instructions for resubmission, and proofread, proofread, proofread!  LJ: You should strive to submit an immaculate manuscript. You should spend a couple hours editing and proofreading before submitting a manuscript and ensure that you are following the journal’s formatting guidelines… Pay special attention to use of headings/subheadings, page numbers, references, and correct use of parenthetical and in-text citations.  Typos, grammar, English language issues, and the misuse of APA guidelines are distractions to the content of the paper!!! Even if you have done THE COOLEST study of all time, it will be rejected if it is poorly written.Follow all resubmission guidelines! Every journal has different guidelines for submitting a revised manuscript. Read the instructions in the editor’s letter very carefully before re-submitting.SAJ: Often when making revisions, you’re adding and deleting text. It is very easy to miss things, as you’ve been entrenched in it for so long. One of the best pieces of advice I got about writing from my mentor was to read my work out loud. I still read every manuscript I author/coauthor out loud before I submit/resubmit it, and I always catch something I previously missed. I also recommend having someone not involved with the writing of the manuscript read it as well.Other points to considerLJ: Though in general a R&R is good news, on occasion you may receive a Reject after submitting revisions. There are a number of reasons why this happens.  First, you may not have appropriately addressed reviewer feedback. Second, new reviewers may have been invited to review the new manuscript and these new reviewers may bring up issues not previously noted. Third, a statistical or methodological consultant may have reviewed the second version of the manuscript and identified problems that were not previously brought up.SAJ: Often, AEs will invite you to contact them with questions about the revision. Feel free to do so, if you have clarifying questions that the AE can address. It is better to ask for clarification regarding a suggested revision than to make an incorrect assumption.ConclusionsIn summary, a decision of “Revise and Resubmit” is something to celebrate – while recognizing that there is more work to be done. When you receive a “Revise and Resubmit,” you receive an important gift along with it: feedback. You have the opportunity to improve your work, and, often, to think about your research in a new way. I can honestly say that every manuscript that I have published is better as the result of peer review. Treat the feedback that you have received as a valuable resource. Respond to the feedback thoroughly and thoughtfully. In many cases, doing so will strengthen your skills as a researcher, improve your manuscript, will put you closer an ultimate decision of “Accept,” and, most importantly, enhance the impact that your research has on the field.Special thanks to Dr. Stacy-Ann January, Dr. Lyndsay Jenkins, and Dr. Renee Hawkins for their important contributions to this post.

Avoiding Common Writing Mistakes

By: Daniel Gadke, Ph.D. (Mississippi State University) & Bryn Harris, Ph.D. (University of Colorado Denver)Contributors: Randy G. Floyd, Ph.D. (The University of Memphis); Stephen Kilgus, Ph.D. (University of Wisconsin-Madison); Susan M. Sheridan, Ph.D. (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)Writing is integral to the success of any academic. Active and purposeful writing contributes to publication, grant acquisition, and ultimately, tenure and promotions. That being said, mentorship on scholarly writing is varied. Some early career faculty enter their careers feeling well-prepared to meet their writing demands, while others may find themselves figuring it out as they go along. Regardless, writing is largely an art and everyone has the capacity to grow and become better writers. A large part of improving one’s writing abilities is not only understanding what accounts for “good” writing, but having a firm grasp on common mistakes. To help us with this, Drs. Randy Floyd, Stephen Kilgus, and Susan Sheridan have graciously shared their feedback across a number of questions.In general, what do you think are the top academic writing mistakes scholars make? Floyd: I think that, for graduate students and early career writers, belief that early drafts of their papers must be perfect is a major impediment. Viewing the writing process in terms of pre-drafting, drafting, and post-drafting is vital, as neither planning for writing (pre-drafting) nor text generation (drafting) will tend to produce anything close to the quality that is ready for peer review or publication. It is the cycle of editing and rewriting (post-drafting) that will make a difference in the end. The United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis is credited with saying, “There is no great writing, only great rewriting.” Writers should remove barriers to writing by lowering their expectations for the initial text they produce.For beginning writers, omitting basic and required elements in manuscripts submitted to journals is a common problem; reporting more details makes a difference (see https://www.apastyle.org/jars). I do not feel as strongly about the importance of peer reviewers providing feedback to authors about full application of APA style as I did in the past, but both editors screening manuscripts and peer reviewers providing a thorough review of manuscript content remain concerned about surface-level features. Thus, failure to format manuscripts according to the guidelines recommended by the journal editor and publisher (which is almost always—if not absolutely always—APA style for school psychology journals) results in a serious error in that it undermines reviewers’ trust in the authors’ competence. Online searchable resources for writers abound (see https://blog.apastyle.org/ and https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/general_format.html).For more advanced writers, common problems include both formatting errors (e.g., not carefully attending to in-text citations and reference sections and not italicizing statistical symbols) and more advanced writing skills. These errors with more advanced writing skills often relate to cohesion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohesion_(linguistics). A common error in text cohesion stems from authors using a variety of terms to refer to the same variable or phenomenon. For example, my colleagues and I often struggle to agree on which of these terms to use: “intelligence test,” “IQ test,” “intelligence test battery,” “cognitive ability battery,” and the like. I suspect that most content area experts struggle with these same issues, which are magnified when authors develop different sections of a manuscript. In the same vein, authors’ “curse of knowledge” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge) negatively impacts readers, as authors make too many assumptions about what the reader already knows and what the reader is facile in processing. In particular, authors tend to rely excessively on acronyms, whereas they would probably be better served if they omitted them altogether—especially when acronyms share common letters—for all but the most common ones (e.g., NASP and APA).Kilgus: More generally, one of the more common mistakes I see is the lack of flow or story-telling in writing. Whether it’s a peer-reviewed paper or grant proposal, researchers need to demonstrate the importance of their ideas and justify their examination. All too often, researchers do not provide a sufficient rationale within their writing. Or rather, their rationale is clouded by an unorganized narrative. When teaching courses and mentoring graduate students, I heavily emphasize to students the need to tell a coherent and convincing story about their research ideas, thereby providing a strong context for their research and a compelling justification to conduct new investigations.Sheridan:

• Lack of clarity around purpose, with insufficient theoretical grounding for their work.
• Lack of internal consistency: By this I mean too often people set up a paper one way, but deviate when it comes to developing their methods, results and discussion. Each section should build upon what precedes it, such that you tell a coherent, organized story with a theme that cuts across the entire paper. There should be no “surprises” regarding a paper’s purpose and focus; let the study’s results be the surprise.
• Lack of clearly stated research questions.
• Colloquial writing:Often people write in an overly conversational, casual tone. Scholarly writing should be professional and technical, but also accessible and understandable.
• Confusion regarding main and supplemental points: Paragraphs, sentences, and word choice all matter; all should be selected intentionally and in a way that supports the author’s message. All should convey their meaning very clearly.

In the introduction of a manuscript, what do you think are the top academic writing mistakes that scholars make?Floyd: In general, I think that both authors and reviewers place too much emphasis on the literature review that is included in the Introduction section. Often, it is the first section that authors draft (especially for thesis and dissertation projects) and it is almost always the first section that reviewers read. I assert, however, that it is probably the least important section to facilitate growth in the field. I suspect that many authors believe that a strong literature review can help a manuscript overcome a weak study at its heart, but I do not think that it is often the case. In terms of concrete mistakes made in this section, I see three: not citing a sufficient number of recent and relevant references, not using past tense to describe the results from studies reviewed, and writing such a lengthy Introduction (e.g., 12-15 pages) that it dwarfs more important elements of the manuscript (e.g., Results and Discussion).Kilgus: I would say my prior response would work for this question too.Sheridan:

• Authors sometimes struggle stating their main purpose or point early enough to orient the reader to the most important focus of their paper/study. The main purpose should be introduced somewhere on the first page, and the literature reviewed should then relate to the purpose clearly and logically.
• I often see people citing far too many references to justify points made in the introduction. Typically two are sufficient. Citations are also often dated; if the literature review is replete with papers/citations that are two or more decades old, I question the author’s knowledge of current research.
• At times the introduction reads like a term paper or essay written by a student for a course. It is OK to repurpose a well-written paper, but it is important to understand that writing for a journal (or book chapter) is fundamentally different in terms of purpose, technique, technicality, etc. Much of what may have been in a student’s paper will need to be revamped significantly before going into a journal article or other published outlet.
• Lack of cohesion: Too often sections are loosely connected and don’t hang together to tell a story and lead the reader to understanding why the current study is important.  Flow, consistency, and integration (of arguments, main points, gaps, and the current study’s focus) are super important. Writing needs to be tight.
• Sometimes authors fail to differentiate their study from others that have been published previously.

What are the common academic writing mistakes that you see in the method section?Floyd: At the highest levels of publishing in our field, I see two common errors. Authors often completely omit the Procedures subsection when describing the results of an intervention study or a study employing archival data. To me, a description of how participants were recruited, how consent and assent were obtained, and who collected the data that are analyzed should always be reported. In addition, in the Measures subsection, authors often (a) fail to describe their key variables of interest and (b) include text about other features of their measures that are irrelevant to the study. Instead, authors should describe the metric of the variables (e.g., raw scores or T scores), the scaling of their variables (e.g., describing that high scores reflect more of the targeted construct), as well as the reliability and validity evidence supporting the use of the specific variables included in the analysis. In the same vein, they should not typically describe scores that were not employed in the study.Kilgus: I commonly see two mistakes in Method sections. First, authors tend to under-report information related to study procedure. I know it is cliché to say that Method sections should support any future study replications by providing strong details related to study procedures. Unfortunately, the existence of this cliché has not resulted in uniformly strong Method sections across papers. I recognize it can be challenging for authors to include such information given journal page limits. However, there are always ways around this issue. Many journals support online appendices that do not factor into page or word counts. Authors should consider appending manuals or protocols that were used within their study and can be used to better outline what was done as part of the investigation.Second, many authors simply report on what they did without justifying their decisions. What was the rationale for the selected measures? Were they aligned with a particular theory or supported by evidence specific to a particular assessment purpose (e.g., screening, diagnosis, or progress monitoring)? Similarly, what was the rationale for the study design? If the design is not particularly rigorous, is it still appropriate given the early stages of research within that area? Better justification for methodological choices would help to illustrate to readers that the study was not haphazardly constructed but rather thoughtfully designed.Sheridan:

• Too little detail, especially around analytic technique… but also general methods and procedures. Not only does this create problems with understanding what was done and the rigor with which the study was executed, it makes it impossible to replicate or evaluate.
• Insufficient information about context – setting, sample, etc.
• With intervention studies, not enough attention to criteria specified in the What Works Clearinghouse.

What are the most common academic writing mistakes in the Results section?Floyd: In general, a signature feature of a weak study is when the Results section includes only a paragraph or two, so extending this section is important. Reporting data screening procedures and tests of assumptions of statistical tests as well as describing to readers what to reference in tables and figures make a difference to reviewers and improve the quality of the manuscript. The biggest mistakes I have seen have been related to incongruence (a) between the Method and Results section (e.g., describing one set of variables from an instrument earlier but reporting the results of other variables in Results), (b) between terms used in the text and terms used in tables and figures, and (c) between results and conclusions described in text and the content in tables and figures. If I had one recommendation to advanced writers, it would be to better align text in Results with tables and figures.Kilgus: It seems obvious, but I wish more authors would report the extent to which their data meet various analytic assumptions. Many authors are able to provide this information upon request as part of a revision and resubmission. However, they might not always get the opportunity to revise their paper. Often, as an associate editor, I might be more inclined to invite a revision if I trust the paper will eventually be worthy of publication. Without information related to statistical assumptions, such trust might be limited.Sheridan:

• Lack of connection to the study’s purpose statement and research questions.
• Insufficient detail regarding issues such as fidelity (in intervention studies), missing data, reliability.
• Clarity in describing the study’s findings; authors need to state the findings technically, but also interpret what they mean for an audience not trained as statisticians.
• Clarity in interpreting data presented in figures.

Specifically pertaining to the discussion section, what do you think are the top academic writing mistakes?Floyd: No study can be without some limitations in terms of statistical and methodological rigor or generalization, so when authors omit this section, it is a cue to many reviewers that the authors may not have been as thorough or honest as possible in their reporting.Kilgus: I find many authors do not do a strong enough job connecting their findings back to existing research and theory. It is great to summarize what was found in a particular study and connect results back to research questions. However, it is easier to contribute to the broader literature base when explicit connections are made to what has been found previously.Sheridan:

• Lack of effort to tie the new findings to the literature reviewed in the Introduction. Again, it is an internal consistency issue.
• Interpreting only the current findings and not embellishing their meaning with the extant literature.
• Failure to lead and conclude with important take-home findings.
• Over interpretation of findings is a very common mistake. It is OK if findings are somewhat inconsistent or unclear – that leads to more research.
• Insufficient explanation of study limitations.
• Insufficient attention to research directions.
• In some journals, attention to practice implications is necessary but overlooked.

What are the most common writing mistakes that you have seen in the cover letter?Floyd: It has been my experience that many authors do not include submission cover letters that include the necessary elements. However, it is not crystal clear what these cover letters should look like. My brief internet search for models yielded numerous varieties—from brief ones containing summaries of the study described in the manuscript to more lengthy analytical ones. I was struck by the lack of consensus and how few focused on APA style. The best model might be the one on p. 232 (Figure 8.1) of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010). It is noteworthy that many manuscript submission portals for journals now include items addressing manuscript length and word counts, assurance of the uniqueness of the submission and prior review board approval, potential for copyright transfer, and financial conflicts of interest. Author and contact information is embedded in this submission process, too. These features would seem to make a cover letter obsolete, but I recommend developing a detailed, standardized submission letter to include with all submissions as it allows you to address acknowledgements that cannot be included in a blinded submission, alert the editor about potential ethical problems (e.g., publishing a series of articles based on the same data set), and cope with inconsistencies in manuscript submission portal requirements across journals.Kilgus: I find that cover letters tend to be highly general. Make sure each cover letter is specific to the paper and journal in question. Editors and associate editors really do read these, and it can be helpful to see why the authors chose to submit their work to a particular outlet.Sheridan: I don’t know if this pertains only to the cover letter, but it is important that authors read about the journal to which they are submitting. All journals have their scope and purpose published; it is important that the paper as submitted conforms not only to its standards in terms of page count, presentation of tables/figures, conformance to APA style, inclusion of keywords, etc… but also aligns with the focus of the journal itself.How would you describe the most unforgivable writing mistakes?Floyd: I am not sure that there are truly unforgivable writing mistakes, but as editors return many manuscripts (often about one-quarter or more) without full review after their preliminary screening, manuscripts that are incredibly brief or that include plagiarized content are increasingly likely to attract the attention of editors. While processing manuscripts at Journal of School Psychology (2010-2014), I rejected many that were 10 pages or less in length, and unless the authors have very carefully considered every word and the study is extremely narrow in scope and more appropriate for a “brief report,” such a short manuscript cannot include all the necessary information. Employing single spacing of all text, specifying wide (1-½- or 2-inch) margins, and mashing multiple tables together on the same page are related problems with formatting that are not necessarily practical problems as long as editors and reviewers can access the manuscript content. Most editors and reviewers assume, however, that these formatting errors are associated with more serious problems with conduct of the research, data analysis, and reporting in the manuscript. Regarding plagiarism, editors are increasingly equipped with programs (e.g., iThenticate) that allow them to evaluate submissions prior to their own review, so the probability of getting caught making such an error—even in the form of self-plagiarism—is relatively high.Kilgus: Obviously, plagiarism (whether intended or not) is highly problematic. This goes for self-plagiarism as well. Multiple times I have seen authors include content in a paper that is highly similar to content they included in another one of their papers. Whether that work is cited or not, it can still be really problematic. I would suggest that authors strive for independence across their publications.Another shortcoming that does not necessarily fall into the “unforgivable” category, but can still be a big problem, are errors in grammar or syntax. I would strongly encourage authors to carefully and thoroughly proof their papers before submitting to peer review. Simple errors can undermine reviewer confidence. Also, if I am taking the time to carefully read a paper as a reviewer or associate editor, I would like to assume such care was taken in constructing the paper. Simple undetected errors might lead me to assume authors were not taking such care.Sheridan:

• Careless, sloppy presentation (e.g., incomplete [fragmented] sentences, spelling errors, poor word choices).
• Lack of conformance to APA style. The attitude of “an editor will catch/fix this” is unforgivable.
• Getting mired in unimportant details, or remaining far too much “at the surface.”

What should early career scholars do to improve their academic writing abilities in general?Floyd: Use general journal article reporting standards (see https://www.apastyle.org/jars) or design or analysis specific reporting standards (e.g., for single-case research, http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2016-17384-001.html or for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, http://www.prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/Default.aspx) to guide the drafting of sections of manuscripts.Do not forget to devote 5+ hours to final reviews of a manuscript before submitting it. Printing and reviewing hard copies, using immersive readers while reviewing (see https://support.office.com/en-us/article/use-immersive-reader-for-onenote-10712138-b4ed-4513-958d-d9a1b3038170 and https://www.naturalreaders.com/), and comparing text to tables and figures are important elements during this final stage.Collaborate with others who can contribute substantively to projects and also provide guidance regarding manuscript construction, engage in concurrent internal peer-review of the manuscript prior to submission, and complete final edits to text. Many advanced scholars I know would be delighted to serve in that role during projects relevant to their expertise.Begin using a reference management program early in your development or begin this year. We are fans of RefWorks (https://refworks.proquest.com) but also understand the benefits of using Mendeley (https://www.mendeley.com).Kilgus: I would suggest that researchers find strong exemplar papers from authors they highly respect. They should then read those papers twice: once to obtain the information in that paper and once to examine the paper’s style and structure. I found my writing got better once I started paying attention to how others were constructing their papers.Sheridan:

• Write! There is no substitute for the sheer act of writing.
• Set aside time for writing and be selfish/intentional about it. Writing even a couple of pages in one sitting is better than waiting until you have significant blocks of time. They are few and far between and  you can’t afford to wait.
• Re-read every sentence and every paragraph as you write them. Ask yourself if they are as clear as they can be.
• Get feedback on your writing. When you ask someone to read your work, make sure to give them what you believe is your best effort. It is irritating to readers/reviewers to read and critique shoddy work, and will be much less helpful to you as the author.
• Write with a senior person who is a prolific author. Take the lead but ask them to offer suggestions for improving your style, organization, content, clarity, etc.
• Pay attention to APA style. It actually makes you a better writer; readers will take your writing more seriously if they see you have attended to this professional detail.
• Engage students in writing. This helps everyone.
• Review articles submitted for publication when possible. This helps you see what it is like “on the other side;” what works, what doesn’t, how to organize or frame things, etc. Your critique of others writing will make you a better writer.

Hunkering Down to Boost Writing Productivity

I am not, nor do I ever anticipate being, one of those people who can or will write every day. As someone who reads (and occasionally writes) on faculty and early career development, and who follows many related listservs and groups, I realize this is regarded as heresy by some, and by their more forgiving acolytes, as an unfortunate and career-stifling dysfunction. Although I certainly appreciate others who’ve called out the performative misery of daily predawn writing and suggested more practical alternatives for daily writing, it just doesn’t work for me. The truth is, I write in large blocks—indeed, the largest uninterrupted blocks I can feasibly manage given the constraints of my energy (read: caffeination), attention span, and competing demands (advising, administration, parenthood, self-care, and so on). This is habitual. I wrote much of my dissertation during a two-week self-imposed sequestration in a dark cubicle in the back of windowless, musty office most other grad students avoided. This would set my habit for the next 15 years, though I can avail myself of much nicer spaces now. When the Minnesota weather allows, students and colleagues know they can often find me on our building’s rooftop deck, feet propped up, earbuds in, wifi off (i.e., no email), and very happily writing with only the occasional eagle overhead to distract me.During the academic year, I write once, maybe twice, a week, though more so in the summer if I strategize appropriately. During some weeks-long stretches of the academic year, I might not write at all, but my research agenda is sustained through meetings with colleagues and students to move emergent or in progress projects forward. This is especially true at the end of the spring semester when advising and administrative duties are heaviest. Since assuming the role of program director, I’ve found concentrated group writing time, what we here have called writing hunkers, to be particularly helpful in shifting back into writing mode and making substantial progress on stalled writing projects. For the past few years, our program has offered at least one hunker per summer for students with faculty leads and participants.What are writing hunkers? Simply, these are concentrated writing days dedicated to the process of preparing manuscripts. All students and faculty are invited, with advanced notice that the ideal hunker project is one for which data collection, analyses, and much of the background reading are done. Writers are encouraged to focus on a single project rather than toggling between multiple ones, and to focus on manuscripts rather than ancillary research products (e.g., presentations, materials, briefs). Generally, our hunkers are scheduled for four consecutive days of 6 to 7 hour blocks. This works well during the summer or other breaks, but regularly scheduled day-long or half-day hunkers throughout the semester or summer can also provide comparable opportunity and support. Sample schedules are provided here.During our hunkers, writers are instructed to plan to be engaged for the full time each day. We try to prevent distractions and other things that might take time away from writing by provide refreshments (coffee, snacks, lunch), reference books, ear plugs, and posted lists of what to do if stumbling upon a writing block. Whenever possible, we arrange for space outside of the building in which our offices and lab space is housed to minimize the likelihood of interruptions. That is, students and faculty alike recognized that if we were easy to find (and basically stationary for the duration of the hunker), it would be all too easy for well-meaning colleagues and students to drop by to ask questions or pull us into friendly chats during breaks, and that this would ultimately undermine our goals for the hunker. We’ve also been fortunate to reserve spaces that allow for each writer to organize their personal worktop to their needs. Some people want to work facing the corner or wall with earplugs in, others facing out the window with music flowing through earbuds. Still others might want to work face to face, the typist across the table spurring dedication to task. Individual tables allow each writer to spread as much or as little paper and books as they like without being concerned about intruding on others’ space.We generally follow the 4-day schedule here. On day one, we set group norms and individual goals, usually using the following form that will anchor each day’s work. Outside of the lunch discussions and afternoon consultation time, the expectation is that everyone will work quietly, avoid internet distractions, and only work on the specified goals. The presence of others creates accountability even though our interactions are limited. If nothing else, no one wants to be caught web surfing by a fellow writer. Each writer takes breaks as needed though, and some use task and time management tools (e.g., pomodoro technique and corresponding apps). At the end of the day we debrief, celebrating progress and troubleshooting challenges.The lunch discussions provide much needed interaction and downtime. Discussion topics are tailored to the needs and preferences of each unique group. Past topics at our hunkers have included general writing strategies, journal selection, peer review process, responding to reviewer feedback, handling rejection, getting over writer’s block, tailoring writing for specific audiences, and effective data presentation. Sometimes we also avail ourselves of various university resources, such as writing consultants who can provide feedback on style and mechanics or lead seminars on dealing with writing blocks. Other great options are inviting speakers from the IRB office or subject librarians to help develop reference skills and research consumerism.I love these writing hunkers and I am consistently pleased with the progress I make. Sure, most of us are wrung out by the end of the day since we’re largely unaccustomed to this intensity of work. Yet it’s also incredibly gratifying. Progress is reinforcing, as is the sense of being in a community of writers. I appreciate that the hunkers provide a space for students and faculty from throughout the program to discuss the writing process and its challenges, publication process, and developing productive writing habits. A common conversation is how to adapt the tools and approaches used in the hunker to our own continued writing practice, both for daily writers and others like me. The warmups and parking downhill exercises are especially valuable to writers of all types because they can be applied by both daily and intermittent writers to support quick transitions back into a writing project after time away. Though I am admittedly not a daily writer, I also appreciate the opportunity to talk openly with students about developing effective writing habits--whatever that means for them--with practice in application of strategies and tools during the hunker and beyond.Do you have ideas to share or questions about how to use writing hunkers to boost your productivity? Comment below or join us for a live chat November 29, 2018 at 1 pm PST/ 3pm CST/ 4pm EST. Sign up here for the chat.

Manuscript Rejected: Moving Onward and Upward

January 25, 2018

Laura Pendergast, Temple University“Are you done?” my mentor asked patiently. My beautiful manuscript had been rejected… again. My mentor had been listening to me complain for 15 minutes. I was starting a tenure-track position and needed to publish. I had conducted my analyses using the most current statistical techniques. I had painstakingly crafted my arguments and drawn careful, well-supported conclusions. Why didn’t these reviewers understand my paper?!My mentor looked at me calmly and shared a hard truth that changed the way I thought about my writing. She said, “The editor chose three reviewers who he viewed as trusted experts. These hand-picked experts didn’t understand your paper. If multiple, highly educated people didn’t understand what you wrote, whose fault is that?”She was right. Publishing manuscripts is not just about being technically correct and scientifically sound. It is about communicating with an audience. How is your manuscript useful to the readers? How can other researchers build on this information? How does your manuscript advance the field? I reviewed the comments carefully. Once I worked through my emotional reaction, I realized how useful the reviews were. I thought about how best to incorporate the reviews, and I decided to start over. I began by making a new outline. I kept my original results section but rewrote the rest of the paper in a way that was clear and conveyed why the work was meaningful. The revised paper was quickly accepted at another journal.Rejection: Perspectives from Four AcademicsMost, probably all, successful academics have stories like mine. Here, I have compiled advice on handling rejection from four highly productive scholars in school psychology at different levels in their careers: Dr. Desireé Vega, Assistant Professor at the University of Arizona; Dr. Stephen Kilgus, Associate Professor at University of Missouri; Dr. Renée Tobin, Professor at Temple University; and Dr. Randy Floyd, Professor and Associate Chair at University of Memphis.All four scholars indicated that, like most academics, they have experienced rejection many times. When asked if he had experienced rejection, Dr. Kilgus noted:“Far more than I would care to admit! I have had plenty of papers rejected, including plenty that appeared to be tanked by a single reviewer (with two other reviewers expressing high opinions of the work). There are certainly also those “zombie” papers, that have been shopped to multiple journals over multiple years. Some have found a home, others continue to wander the earth…”The respondents provided a great deal of advice for early career scholars. Themes and key supporting quotes are presented below:1. Have realistic expectations. Remember that rejection is the norm. RF: Know you must be tough to navigate through the peer-review process. Check out this cartoon from Nick D. Kim (http://www.lab-initio.com/) that conveys well these challenges that authors face in publishing in the strongest journals: http://lab-initio.com/images/fullsize/nz060.jpg. My guess is that the most prolific authors in our field (and psychology as a whole) experience rejection by handling editors (e.g., associate editors and editors-in-chief) at a rate at least double (and probably three or four times) their number of published journal articles. Based on loads of evidence, such as the annual APA journal statistics and operations reports (see http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/statistics.aspx) and journal operations reports routinely published by school psychology journals like JSP (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440517300936) and SPQ (in the APA journal statistics and operations reports), your standard expectation when you submit a manuscript for publication should be rejection. Although the rates of rejection do vary substantially across journals, remember that rejection comes with the territory.2. Carefully consider when to read the feedback and how to respondDV: When I receive a rejection, I usually do not read through the comments immediately. Sometimes reviewers are harsh and unfortunately do not always provide constructive feedback, so I wait until I am in a better space to review the feedback.SK: Do not read the rejection letter right away! It’s just going to make you mad. Let the recognition of rejection be enough for the first day. The next day, once you’re a little calmer, go back and read the decision letter. Know going in that there are going to be opinions with which you vehemently disagree. Also know that there are going to be really strong suggestions that are worthy of your attention. Some of my manuscripts have become much better papers as a result of initial rejection and my (occasionally begrudging) response to reviewer feedback.(Note. All respondents agreed that lashing out or sending an emotional response to the handling editor is unwise. See Floyd (2018) for detailed examples of appropriate and inappropriate responses: https://www.routledge.com/Publishing-in-School-Psychology-and-Related-Fields-An-Insiders-Guide/Floyd/p/book/9781138645998).3. Manage your emotions and engage in self-careRF: More generally, if you engage in wellness activities on a routine basis—socializing, engaging in aerobic exercise, eating a healthy diet, enjoying mindfulness activities such as meditation, and getting plenty of sleep—rejection should be easier to face. Consider that collaborating in research and writing may also benefit you, as your co-authors can be there for you in coping with rejection, offering perspective, and problem-solving.SK: Once you have received the rejection, do not spend a lot of time coming up with arguments and counter points. That journal does not want your paper back and I have yet to hear of someone who has successfully lobbied for their rejected paper to be reconsidered by a journal. Expend your energy on revising the paper and resubmitting it to a new outlet…RT: It is easy to associate the project with the negative feelings that come with a rejection. Try not to let that linger. Get it back under review somewhere else so the negative feelings can be replaced with positive ones or at least something you can do about it (i.e., respond to the next round of reviews when you receive a revise and resubmit response).4. Think carefully and logically about your plan for revisions. DV:  After reading the feedback, I decide whether I am going to make any changes to the manuscript before I send it to another journal. There have been times where I have not made any edits to a manuscript after it has been rejected and send it off elsewhere as it is. And there have been times where I have made changes to the manuscript before sending it elsewhere. The positive side of a rejection is that at least two reviewers have taken the time to provide feedback (hopefully constructive) on your work to help you make it a stronger paper. Nonetheless, after a rejection, the decision to incorporate that feedback into your paper is ultimately up to you.SK: Once you are ready to review the rejection letter, look for comments indicating when reviewers either (a) explicitly indicated their confusion or (b) made statements or assumptions that imply such confusion. Some authors draw the unfortunate conclusion that the reviewer was not qualified to review their work. However, I try to remind myself that if a reviewer did not understand something, that is at least partially on me as the author. I need to do a better job of structuring my content and conveying my ideas.RT: Carefully construct an objective list of editor and reviewer criticisms and address them. Once you have done so, find another suitable journal and submit it. Take enough time in this process that are able to be as objective as possible, but not too long that you let this manuscript fall out of your production queue. RF: Recently, someone asked me to address reviewers’ direct or implied references to “fatal flaws” evident in manuscripts. Sometimes, reviewers are correct in identifying serious objective weaknesses in your study (e.g., very small sample size or lack of a comparison group in group designs and lack of experimental control in single-case designs). Strive to stay in the game and address them with careful reporting of study limitations or collection of additional data in order to submit the manuscript elsewhere. After facing rejection by three or four journals, you may decide that your time would be better spent abandoning that manuscript and trying to publish another stronger study. Often reviewers will offer more nebulous, subjective criticisms (e.g., “this manuscript does not contribute significantly to the literature in the area”) that are idiosyncratic when rejecting manuscripts. In these cases, give the criticisms close scrutiny and consult with a more senior colleague, an insightful peer, or even the journal’s handling editor. In most cases, careful responses to these comments and reframing of the study can, with time, lead to significant improvements in its quality and ultimate acceptance by another journal.5. Use the reviews to improve your writing. RT: Consider how you can make your manuscript clearer to avoid similar criticism. Did you spend too long getting to the main point of the article in the introduction? Were the details of your methods obscured by complex syntax? Did you omit key information assuming that the reader would have a deeper understanding of your data collection or analysis methods? Forcing yourself to generate an objective list of criticisms and then systematically addressing them helps take the sting out of rejection, makes revising more manageable, improves your product, and will ultimately lead to you finding a home for your manuscript.   6. Find the right “home” for your manuscript. DV: But the best advice I received from a senior colleague was that there is a home for your manuscript. It might not be the first, second, third, or even fourth journal that you send it to, but it will eventually find a home… After a rejection, I would suggest finding a new home for it as soon as possible!! On average, I wait no more than one month to resubmit the manuscript. This helps me maintain a steady stream of projects/manuscripts in progress and under review.RT: Early in my career, one of my colleagues noted, “Every project has a home. Your job is to find it.” Sometimes finding that home requires minimal revision and submission to another journal. Sometimes it requires a major overhaul of every section of the manuscript. Sometimes it requires that you collect additional data. Whatever it is, do not give up.RF: After time has passed, determine what you can control, and ponder ways to prevent the same decision from occurring again. Consider the manuscript that was rejected, generate strategies to address the critiques in a revision, and search diligently for a better-fitting journal (based on the structure and relative strength of articles published in that journal, the number of manuscripts submitted to it, its impact and reputation, the composition of its editorial board, etc.). More generally, file away the feedback and use it to guide your development of future studies and design of future manuscripts.7. Know the Habits of Productive ScholarsRF: Perhaps the best, most data-driven article on the topic of being productive as a scholar was developed by Rebecca Martinez for a special issue of JSP published in 2011. This article is “Strategies And Attributes Of Highly Productive Scholars And Contributors To The School Psychology Literature: Recommendations For Increasing Scholarly Productivity” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440511000835). Personally, I re-read it from time to time. A key finding was that the most productive scholars take peer reviews seriously, address revisions thoroughly, and learn from constructive feedback. Specific strategies included (a) not taking criticism and rejection personally and (b) rewriting, revising, and resubmitting without delay. Some of these scholars also suggested serving as a reviewer for journals in which you’d like to publish. Among other things, doing so gives you perspective by allowing you to see the review process from the other side of what you experience as an author. 8. Move Onward and UpwardSK: There is going to be plenty of rejection throughout your career – it’s the rule more than the exception. Of course, recognition of rejection’s commonality by no means makes it easy to take. Just do not get discouraged. Some folks end up playing it too safe and submitting their future work to lower tiered journals, just because they do not want to face tough criticism or because they do not think their work is worthy. Keep getting better at what you do and expose yourself to tough feedback. It is the only way we grow.In conclusion, rejection is part of academia. While many prefer not to talk about it, most of us experience it more than we’d like to admit. As an Associate Editor, I am often in a position where I need to recommend that a manuscript be rejected. When this happens, I always close my rejection letter to the author by noting that I have been the recipient of many rejection letters, and that I understand how disappointing the news can be – because it is true. I have received many rejection letters over the course of my career. But, while disappointing, the feedback that came with each rejection brought me one step closer to success.ReferencesFloyd, R. G. (2018). The peer-review process and responding to reviewer feedback. In R. G. Floyd (Ed.), Publishing in school psychology and related fields: An insider’s guide (pp. 45-61). New York, NY: Routledge.Martinez, R. S., Floyd, R. G., & Erichsen, L. (2011). Strategies and attributes of highly productive scholars and contributors to the school psychology literature: Recommendations for increasing scholarly productivity. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 691–720.

Summertime and the Workin' is Easy: The Five Ps of a Productive Summer

June 1, 2017

By Leandra Parris, Illinois State University & Tamika P. La Salle, University of ConnecticutWe all make those lofty summertime goals in academia, thinking the reduced or nonexistent teaching load plus the relative absence of students will free us up for other projects. Writing those manuscripts that have been brewing on the back burner, finally getting in that R&R, or polishing off that grant you’ve been eyeing.  You just know this is going to be the summer that you get your academic and personal life together, attend to your mental health, go on vacations, tackle those personal projects, and hit the gym every day.Yes, summertime is a great time for work. But it’s also a great time for refreshing your tired academic mind and body. The problem is that, just like the pint of ice cream in the back of the freezer, a small taste of down time is never, ever enough. And with your academic life winning the battle for most of the year, it’s understandable that when work and personal time clash in the summer you tend to opt for that afternoon by the pool instead of revising yet another manuscript or prepping for a new class. So, what is an early career professional to do?The trick, as always, is balance and structure. We’ve put together some ideas that may help you keep or improve your productivity in the summer while also making sure that you don’t burn-out before the next school year even begins.Prioritize. Throughout the year, you have probably had thoughts or made statements along the lines of “that sounds like a good thing to do in the summer” or “I can get to that in the summer.” By May your list is fairly long, as is the list of conferences, weddings, family reunions, camps, and vacations that you plan to attend. This is when it is time to practice what we preach and make a list of priorities.· Things with due dates are easy enough, but things that are simply “need to be done by August” can be more difficult. Set a date for certain tasks that you think is the best-case scenario, and add two weeks to it.· The mistake that a lot of early career professionals make is that they don’t include their personal projects in their list of priorities. What is more important for the whole of your life: repainting the basement or reviewing a manuscript so you can send it back to your co-authors? Depending on the day, that answer can vary! Steve Truscott, Professor at Georgia State University reminds us to “remember to spend some time with people you love and like. You are working so hard to succeed that it is easy to forget that you need some people around who make all the success worthwhile.”Personal. The summer is time to focus on you. Really, focus on you. Unencumbered by the typical day-to-day running of programs, teaching, advising, and supervision, you can do the things that are truly important and valuable to you. Whether it’s writing, reviewing, designing research, conducting research, or improving your skills as a trainer, use this time to focus on the things that you are passionate about. Doing so will not only springboard you into the fall with renewed energy for your career, but will also make working in the summer feel more enjoyable, and less like…working. Reconnect with what brought you to this field and let it flourish in the open space of summer. “Mix a little pleasure with a little work. I find ethnographies to read in the summer so it feels more like a novel” says Tara Raines, Assistant Professor at the University of Denver. The same is true for your personal summer goals. Make them about you, your family, etc., --whatever is going to improve your well-being and give you enough me-time to prepare for when fall rolls around again.Pragmatic. Being pragmatic should come naturally to school psychologists. We are trained to do what is most reasonable, makes the most sense, and is evidence-based to be efficient and effective. Which means we all know that the overworked mind will eventually begin to interfere with any hope of productivity. And yet we continue to hesitate to say no to requests, take on multiple projects, overextend our commitments, and triple book our calendars. Early career professionals are notorious for not refusing any opportunities to add a line to their vitae. But it is important to be pragmatic in your approach to summer. What is reasonable? What is ideal? What is reinforcing? What does your academic to-do list look like up against your psychological well-being need list? How many manuscripts do you really need out this summer, how many grants have to be in during this round? Give yourself space, and time, to address the inevitable surprise or forgotten deadline. “Don’t plan anything from mid August on as that is all class and prep for the semester. Use May-June to get your biggest writing advantage times” says Sandy Chafouleas, Professor at the University of Connecticut.Pace. Pacing is key. Some people function well by charging through their academic goals during the first of the summer, leaving the last half for family, fun, and self-care. Others find that working daily, playing daily, and spreading out their down time is more effective. It really is dependent on your work style, your summer deadlines, and the rest of the world’s schedule. If you go with the first option, keep to a daily schedule that maximizes your time in the office. Melissa Bray, Professor at the University of Connecticut says “My advice is to write very day- or ever other (1/2 page to a page at a time only). This makes a world of difference in getting articles done and out.”  A daily to-do list is a must and you will want very clear start-and-stop dates for projects. If you can do the slow-and-steady approach, there is some flexibility in how you approach tasks. For example, one schedule may include writing for 2 hours every morning Tuesday-Thursday, working on grants in the afternoon, and using the four-day weekend to work around the house, engage in hobbies, or take smaller vacations. If a larger vacation is planned, then the three-day work week can easily be shifted to a full work week to compensate. You can also find the small moments throughout your travels – plane rides, long care rides – to do smaller tasks that will add up to large, meaningful contributions to your work.Play. Get out and do the things that you love and that you could not do during a typical semester. Remind yourself that work is not all that you are, and be okay with taking the afternoon, or even the week, to get back to those old hobbies. Lisa Sanetti, Associate Professor at the University of Connecticut says, “ For me it’s also important to schedule in true breaks from work. I will take my work e-mail off my phone and just relax with family during scheduled times.” All the reminders that academia is more than just a job will be waiting for you in the fall. You need to engage in some serious self-care, and whether you do that throughout the summer or during one set time period, make sure that when you decide it’s time for your personal life that you take it very seriously. It should be just as important throughout the year, but summer is the time to really set up those boundaries and protect the time that you need to refresh, recovery, and prepare.Hopefully these tips can help you accomplish your goals for the summer and get you prepared, professionally and personally, for Fall 2017. In the mean time, if you have any additional tips for your fellow early career academics, please comment below to share!