next »

[harborcoat]

In another thread, someone mentioned that a professor said that a piece of student work was potentially publishable. Someone responded: "I don't mean to discourage, but it seems to me that profs say this to everyone and it rarely leads to a publication."

This response interested me very much. I wasn't sure if I should start a new thread or not, but in the interests of not hijacking another thread, I thought I might start a new one, and just ask:

Um, is this true? Have many others heard this?

Curious, because a paper I wrote last semester--my first semester--got the same response from a professor, and an offer to spend some time discussing the paper and the topic further which actually panned out. I was excited to hear that he thought my work potentially publishable, and even though it is something I wouldn't be able to get back to for a while, it is something I'd love to pursue, for the challenge, for the potential professional benefits, for the sense of accomplishment that could come from doing well as a graduate student and scholar.

But: when I told a friend here what the professor said to me, my friend smirked and said, "Oh, don't get excited. Professors say that to everyone."

Another friend, someone in a higher cohort, said, "No. Professors don't have time to say that to everyone, or to sit down and actually work on developing a paper with everyone, so that's a good thing to hear."

Of course, there's that way that you want to listen to the positive response--when the slightly negative response is the one that re-plays in your brain like a bad rap song sample!

Wondering what experience others have had with this sort of "potentially publishable" feedback. Does one hears all the time, to no avail? Is it just professor politeness? Should one just know when something is potentially publishable without a professor's suggestion?

[synecdoche]

I was told this about two of the five article-length papers I wrote during my coursework, and I have heard of enough other students receiving the same advice that I gather it is common enough at least in my program. I imagine the frequency of such a comment varies from university to university and department to department.

Mind you, I was also told that every paper you write at the graduate level should be of publishable quality by the time you hand it in (after revision, of course, given the generic differences between a seminar paper and a published article). I think that might be the key. You might write a paper that is potentially publishable but you'll end up re-writing the entire thing anyway before it is actually publishable. And that's before it goes to peer review.

[dellaroux]

I think there might be a bit of "oh, dear, gee, me? publish? I couldn't do that..." in early grad students' approach to their work, and so one motivator might be to speak of something already done in terms of publishing, so that you get used to thinking of yourself as capable of that.

However--as I wrote this, I thought, "Hmm, ironically, I'm still working on getting out an article based on the first paper a professor told me was publishable!"

But there are several reasons, too....

I did look for venues, but the first three places I sent it to didn't "do" that kind of paper, for one reason and another.

Meantime, I was doing other stuff that was getting published, some of it based on work started as an undergrad that was seeing fruition...so it had first dibs on my time, of course.

Then another prof picked up on the topic and told me which journal to send it to, but when I sent it in, they wanted a different kind of article based on the same ideas. So I started re-writing, found a section that needed to be done separately, started working on that, and didn't get back to the original paper itself.

I tried at one point to meet with the original professor to bounce ideas off them, but by then they were retiring, moving overseas again, and couldn't do the time.

More stuff was getting written, presented, turned in for publication, every now and again I'd assure the friend (embarassed) that I had every intention of sending that article in shortly. By then, the original photos were out of phase with electronic production methods, and it wasn't until later that I was able to go to the site and re-take them with a better (digital) camera.

So, photos in hand, and more info from later bits of research here and there, it might just be possible to do a presentation on the object and write the article...maybe this summer.

We won't say how many years that has been since the paper was first written, but...let's say it's more than one decade, maybe two...or so....

But the object has been there a couple hundred years or more, it's not going anyplace.

[readandwept]

It shouldn't matter how many other students are hearing the same thing; it should matter whether it's true.

I'm only a grad student (and I've heard this about a couple, but not most, of my seminar papers), but if I were a professor, there's no way I would offer to meet with someone after a class was done to work on revising a paper that I didn't think had serious potential.

You could have asked your friend, if they are often hearing that their papers could become publishable, how many of them they've pursued revising for publication -- and if the answer is none, why not? I say that not to be snarky to your friend (I haven't pursued the paper I heard this about that I most cared about, and I do often think about why not and whether I should), but because I think your friend is implicitly giving you poor advice. The poor advice is not the fact that many grad students hear this about some of their seminar papers, but that whether you choose to do the hard work of revision should depend on how many other grad students are hearing this.

[laurel_knx]

It shouldn't matter how many other students are hearing the same thing; it should matter whether it's true.

I would qualify this and say that it doesn't matter how many students hear the same thing; you should act as though it's true. Even if the profs do say it all the time, it's worth the effort to try to turn at least a few papers into a publication. They would never say it if your paper was truly abysmal.

At best, you get a publication. At worst, you learn more about writing for publication, especially if you do seek the prof's advice. You don't get anywhere by discounting praise that comes with offers to help.

[bread_pirate_naan]

Should one just know when something is potentially publishable without a professor's suggestion?

For you? Yes, because it is a piece of research or an idea you want to get out there in the conversation. 

You will hear it a lot, or at least some.  If you get out to conferences you will hopefully have senior people network with you and support your work.  This is great if they are reviewers for the journal and/or provide introductions (by email) to editors.  You can meet collaborators this way too.  While some say one conference a year, my heavy conferencing has been a great boon and tons of fun.

As far as 'publishable' seminar papers go, ask for suggestions about placement(s) and see how your current draft would look there.  If its company you want to be in, and you think the audience is the sort for your work, point your next draft in that direction. You may have a different idea that you would want to put in that context.  In an interdisciplinary field you have lots of option, voices and conversations to consider.

For me, the question is not about is it good enough, but am I ready to have those ideas follow me around at that stage of development, forever.  One such paper I have been sitting on for more than a year, and now I think I'm really ready.  <y views have matured.  The journey isn't at an end, but there's a rest stop at the next exit.  The methods question/thread is a good one, but when you hit a certain place, or in certain kinds of work, it isn't necessarily about taking sides, but drawing on them critically and developing from them.   (disclaimer: social sciences are different, which was the methods issue)

IMO, this issue is mostly about the mouth it's coming from.  Run your manuscript past your advisor before you send it out for review.  Other than that, it's open season.  Publishing is good.

[navelgazer]

When I was a graduate student, one professor told me that about one paper I wrote. I submitted it, it was accepted, and it won an award from the (top tier, but interdisciplinary) journal.

Although that research is far behind me, I've never regretted publishing it. It definitely got me job interviews, and it's old enough that as a young professor I'm cited in several locations already.

ETA. That semester, the professor told 3 of us that our papers could be published. In retrospect, he was wrong about one of them, right about mine, and my third friend that turned the paper into his dissertation topic. Since I had no intention of writing a dissertation on all-girl basketweaving, it made the most sense for me to publish.

[t_r_b]

I encourage grad students who hear this kind of remark to turn it around a bit in their heads. When a professor says, "I think this paper is potentially publishable," what they are really saying is, "I think you're a promising young scholar with interesting ideas, and you have the potential to produce quality publications."

Don't get caught up in the idea that this particular seminar paper is so darn special. YOU are so darn special, and one option for you in developing your specialness is to revise that paper for publication.

As I think I mentioned in the other thread, it's also really important to keep in mind the difference between "potentially publishable" and "published." Writing a "potentially publishable" seminar paper will earn you an A in the seminar and the high opinion of the professor, but nothing more. In most cases, it will require quite a bit more work to get that paper into a journal. In calling it "potentially publishable," the professor is letting you know that:

1. She thinks you are capable of doing all that work successfully, and
2. She thinks it could be worth your while

[harborcoat]

Hey everyone. Happy to see so many people respond. Thanks for the words and advice. I've been sitting on this paper, expecting to do so more work on it over break. Having re-read it--and the notes from my two meetings with the prof-- a couple of times, I think I'm still a bit of research away from really solidifying the presentation and the argument. But I look forward to doing the work this summer, and I'm glad the prof thought I had it in me to proceed. I wasn't so sure!

Again, thanks!

H

[t_r_b]

Hey everyone. Happy to see so many people respond. Thanks for the words and advice. I've been sitting on this paper, expecting to do so more work on it over break. Having re-read it--and the notes from my two meetings with the prof-- a couple of times, I think I'm still a bit of research away from really solidifying the presentation and the argument.

It sounds like you're on the right track. Keep in mind that there will always be more research to be done, and more ways of refining the argument. Don't let that fact keep you from getting your work out there.

[verysneaky]

I want to confirm a pattern I see in a couple of other responses: I hear this about my best work, but not about all my work. I think that's pretty typical. Most people I know have heard that at least one paper (always written for a course in their specialty, it seems, for obvious reasons) could be publishable...but I don't know anyone who hears it consistently about all of their papers.

I think that if a prof says something could eventually be published, it probably could, and you should take that word to heart.

[t_r_b]

I want to confirm a pattern I see in a couple of other responses: I hear this about my best work, but not about all my work. I think that's pretty typical. Most people I know have heard that at least one paper (always written for a course in their specialty, it seems, for obvious reasons) could be publishable...but I don't know anyone who hears it consistently about all of their papers.

I'm sure this varies by discipline, but in my field, at least, the vast majority of seminar papers are not likely candidates for publication because they are lit reviews rather than original research - and narrowly focused lit reviews at that. They don't contribute anything to the field other than recapitulating what dozens or hundreds of other grad students working in that area have already covered in their own seminar papers. So no, most or all of your seminar papers are not destined to see print, not because there is anything wrong with them - they may well be outstanding as seminar papers - but because a seminar paper and a published article are different animals, serving different purposes and addressing different audiences.

[academic_cog]

I hate to cite myself, but I wrote a review of Wendy Belcher's How to Write an Article in 12 Weeks, at my blog. It sounds like the book might be useful for you (maybe read my review to check?), especially as it has a chapter describing t_r_b's point about lit reviews vs articles that advance original research.

And encouragement to publish is great; it's a good sign. Just remember that "potentially publishable," if it follows my experience, means extensively revising the article, showing it to the prof and extensively revising it two or three more times, and then sending it out and having it rejected by two or three journals, radically reshaping it each time it gets sent off again, before finally getting an R&R. And then going through a couple more cycles of revisions and edits before acceptance.

That is, your article will eventually be great, and eventually should get published, but it's not some solid gold brick you can send off and have instantly accepted without any work.

And the process takes a long time, which is why it's good to start early in your grad career. I wish I had gotten on that a bit faster.

[bread_pirate_naan]

When I was a graduate student, one professor told me that about one paper I wrote. I submitted it, it was accepted, and it won an award from the (top tier, but interdisciplinary) journal.

Although that research is far behind me, I've never regretted publishing it. It definitely got me job interviews, and it's old enough that as a young professor I'm cited in several locations already.

I just want to pause and salute this.  Very impressive, navelgazer. 

[verysneaky]

Just remember that "potentially publishable," if it follows my experience, means extensively revising the article, showing it to the prof and extensively revising it two or three more times, and then sending it out and having it rejected by two or three journals, radically reshaping it each time it gets sent off again, before finally getting an R&R. And then going through a couple more cycles of revisions and edits before acceptance.

+1