*Corresponding author – shirst@ucalgary.ca 

 

Hirst, S., Jeffs, C., Paris, B. M., Arcellana-Panlilio, M., Charles, A., Hill, L., & Hilman, B. (2019). 

Something to say: Writing for publication. Papers on Postsecondary Learning and Teaching: 

Proceedings of the University of Calgary Conference on Learning and Teaching, 3, . 

SOMETHING TO SAY: WRITING FOR PUBLICATION 
 

Sandra Hirst1*, Cheryl Jeffs1, Britney M. Paris1, Mayi Arcellana-Panlilio1, Anne Charles2, Laurie 

Hill3, and Brianna Hilman1 

 

University of Calgary1, Conestoga College2, Saint Mary’s University3 

 

Publication, if successful, is exhilarating! Aspiring academic scholars recognize 

the contribution that peer-reviewed publications make to their careers. It identifies 

their engagement with their discipline. For students, the benefits of publishing a 

paper include bolstering their levels of confidence and knowledge and 

demonstrating to them how they can contribute to their chosen profession. 

However, inexperience can cause trepidations of the unknown or negative emotions 

when the writing and publication process goes amiss. Described in this paper is the 

background, structure, content, and limitations of a writing workshop the authors 

initiated during a recent conference. The purpose of the workshop was to aid both 

academic colleagues and students in publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals. 

It was designed as an introductory interactive session to stimulate conversation 

about the publishing experience.  

 

For new academics, the experience of writing for publication is valuable for career 

development. This article reports on the background, structure, and limitations of a writing 

workshop the authors conducted during a recent conference. The purpose of the workshop was to 

aid both academic colleagues and students in publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals. It was 

designed as an introductory activity for participants to the publishing process. However, 

exploring the structure and activities of the workshop itself may contribute to knowledge of 

teaching and learning, which was one of the conference themes. 

BACKGROUND 

Most graduate programs in Canada require that students obtain competence in scholarly 

tools involving speaking and writing for dissemination of knowledge. They write numerous 

papers during their educational programs, usually to demonstrate learning about a topic. There 

are reasonable and clear expectations arising from differences when writing for publication 

versus course requirements; however, many graduate students receive little education in writing 

for publication (Gibbs, Boettcher, Hollingsworth, & Slania, 2012; Kamler & Thomson, 2014; 

Wingate, & Tribble, 2012). Many course assignment papers are consequently not suitable for 

publication, yet graduate students seeking to move into academic positions often look to these 

course papers as a stepping stone to publication. 

For academics, an important way to advance one’s career is through publication; it enables 

them to enhance the evidence base that underlies best their professional practice and to obtain 

research funding. Gibbs (2016) wrote that even accomplished academics find it challenging to 

keep publishing. One reason for this challenge was identified by McAllister, Mosel Williams, 

Gamble, Malko-Nyhan, and Jones (2011) who wrote that the pressures of teaching are escalated 



Hirst, Jeffs, Paris, Arcellana-Panlilio, Charles, Hill, & Hilman (2019) 

10 

when leaving and retired faculty colleagues are not replaced, which reduces the resources 

available for faculty to put into publication. Yet academics who publish contribute to the 

reputation of their university by demonstrating its research capacity. The World University 

Rankings (-) published yearly provides documentation specific to research intensity and 

knowledge transfer uses citations, in terms of volume and impact, as a performance indicator.  

For both groups, there are other demands upon their time, (e.g. family, committee 

responsibilities, research assistantships), that can impact the time and space required to write and 

publish. Research findings have indicated that academics who are successful at publishing their 

work are not necessarily less busy than their colleagues, but they do find it easier to set aside 

other tasks to focus on their writing (Mayrath, 2008). Chyun and Henly (2016) wrote 

“inexperience and competing interests in the high-stakes endeavor of academic publishing can 

generate a quivering of negative emotion when the process goes awry” (p. 1). It was the 

recognition of and personal experiences with these challenges that generated the idea for the 

workshop. The workshop was offered to participants of the University of Calgary Conference on 

Postsecondary Learning and Teaching, May 2018. 

STRUCTURE OF THE WORKSHOP 

The three objectives of the workshop were to:  

1. introduce new writers to the publishing process, 
2. provide information and guidance about preparing to publish, and 
3. initiate a community of practice for novice writers. 
These objectives were in alignment with the conference theme of improving teaching and 

learning practices through collaboration and dialogue. To achieve these objectives, an interactive 

workshop was conducted. We began our presentation by having participants complete a number 

of charts located on the walls of the room to do a quick assessment of their writing focus and 

experiences with writing and publishing. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Workshop wall charts: writing focus and publishing experience. Indicate your writing 

focus. 

Teaching & Learning 

My Discipline 



Hirst, Jeffs, Paris, Arcellana-Panlilio, Charles, Hill, & Hilman (2019) 

11 

Figure 2. Workshop wall charts: writing focus and publishing experience. Rate your experience 

in writing for publication / publishing experience 

To enhance engagement and interaction, conference delegates were invited to indicate their 

writing focus and publishing experiences (Figures 1 and 2). The purpose of this exercise was 

twofold: 1. To provide an opportunity for individual reflection on focus and experience; and, 2. 

To guide the facilitators with a baseline of participants’ experiences. We quickly determined 

participants were focused on a continuum of ‘discipline specific’ to ‘teaching and learning’, with 

a trend towards teaching and learning. It was also a quick assessment that most of the 

participants were not as experienced with writing for publication and this information guided the 

level of detail in the workshop. It was also evident, from their comments, that this was an 

interesting start to the workshop. We felt that it triggered conversation among participants and 

engaged them in the workshop. 

WORKSHOP CONTENT 

The roles and responsibilities of the publisher, editor, author, and reviewer contribute to 

the publication experience. Consequently, the perspectives of these four stakeholders were 

provided to participant by the workshop facilitators. Each facilitator took a role that they were 

familiar with and provided a brief description of the role, followed by questions from 

participants. It was felt by the workshop facilitators that exploring these roles would help 

participants understand how a submitted manuscript moves through the publication process. This 

appeared from participants’ comments to be a valid assumption. 

The Publisher’s View  

The publisher has considerable power to shape the content and form of the final 

publication.  

Knowing Publication Avenues in your Discipline 

The decision to write a book or a journal article is often a challenge. It may be difficult to 

decide the question of co-authorship or acknowledgement. There are benefits to both approaches, 

Very Experienced 

Not Experienced 



Hirst, Jeffs, Paris, Arcellana-Panlilio, Charles, Hill, & Hilman (2019) 

12 

perhaps influenced by timing. Authorship confers credit, and has academic and sometimes 

financial implications. It also implies responsibility and accountability for published work.  

All individuals who qualify for authorship or acknowledgment should be identified. Conversely, 

every person identified as an author or an acknowledged contributor should qualify for these 

roles (Council of Science Editors, -). 

Each journal addresses a distinct audience, requires a specific writing style, referencing 

format (such as APA, Chicago, or MLA), and has specific Guidelines for Authors. The 

publication prospects for a beginning academic are enhanced by a serious review of the best 

possible source for a manuscript. Visit your library and explore the journals in your discipline 

of interest. Consider the audience, the writing style of articles, and the type of articles 

published. It is important to consider practical things such as impact factor, perceived journal 

quality, print or online options, and possible fees for online journals. Also keep in mind the time 

it takes for accepted manuscripts to be published. Acceptance is of little academic or career 

value if the article is to be published 2 years after its submission.  

The Editor’s View 

The editor selects manuscripts suitable for publication while rejecting unsuitable 

manuscripts. It is their responsibility to decide if a submission is to be sent out for peer review. 

Following Guidelines for Authors 

  Journals provide submission guidelines that are essential to giving a manuscript the best 

possible chances for acceptance. These guidelines for authors, or author instructions as they are 

sometimes termed, are often published directly within issues of the journal or can be 

downloaded from websites. Not following these requirements can result in outright rejection of 

a submission, so chances of publication are increased by following the Guidelines for Authors 

precisely in the manuscript preparation. 

Communicating with the Editor 

 Communicating with a journal editor can often set the stage for publication. Their role 

includes the selection of content, and their feedback will often indicate publication interest. 

Some editors like to receive queries before submission as it permits them to provide 

developmental feedback (Chyun & Henly, 2016). Fear that the writing is not good enough for 

publication, fear that others might think less of the writer, or fear of rejection are reasons for 

delays in writing and publication success. Successful writers learn that when it comes to 

writing, criticism is a “kindness.” Those hoping to publish should find the “kindest” colleagues 

possible to obtain their feedback. Responding appropriately to honest, helpful feedback on 

content, style, and clarity greatly increase the possibility that a manuscript will be accepted by 

reviewers and subsequently published. 

The Author’s View 

The author's goal is to have one’s article read by numerous readers and cited by other 

authors. Authors should carefully read the aim and scope section of the journal before selecting a 

journal for manuscript submission. Typically, they want their manuscript to be accepted to a 

journal listed in high-profile databases and one with a high impact factor. There are no foolproof 

rules for success in writing and subsequently publishing a manuscript. However, a number of 



Hirst, Jeffs, Paris, Arcellana-Panlilio, Charles, Hill, & Hilman (2019) 

13 

strategies can be used to increase the likelihood that a manuscript will be accepted for 

publication.  

Thinking and Crafting 

Deciding upon the purpose of the manuscript is a critical first step in the publishing 

process. If you are uncertain about a possible topic spend a short time reflecting on it, perhaps 

several days. Do a quick search of the literature to ask yourself if your idea or approach is 

redundant or creative. Consider who your audience is: who do you want to read your article? For 

example, writing for researchers in your own discipline is different than writing for practicing 

teachers who may be from a variety of disciplines.  

Creating Time and Place for Writing 

When one starts a faculty position, the tenure clock is started. However, the increasing 

amount of responsibilities of new faculty members means that they tend to fill their time with 

activities with which they are most comfortable. To make certain that the publication progress 

is preserved in a busy schedule, we suggest authors dedicate a specific time and place for 

uninterrupted writing. For example, dedicate 3 to 4 hours on designated days (e.g., 2–5 p.m. on 

Thursday) for writing. Perhaps select early morning hours for writing. While designating a 

specific time and place is a good start, do not be deluded in thinking occasional interruptions 

will not hurt. If you choose your office on campus for your writing times, a sign on your closed 

office door stating “Unavailable” could produce publication results. The same suggestions 

about dedicated time and place to write are also useful to graduate students. They might 

differentiate for themselves, time for assignment writing as part of their course work and time 

for writing for publication. 

 Demonstrating Responsible Authorship  

  It is not the role of the editor to correct grammatical and spelling errors. Use common 

available tools such as a spell check. There are also programs available for purchase, for 

example, Grammarly, and several applications offer free versions with limited functions. 

  Responsible authorship also acknowledges the authenticity of the manuscript’s content. 

Sikes (2009) wrote that plagiarism “can occur …because of negligence or misunderstanding of 

citation conventions” (p. 14). In addition to plagiarizing someone else’s work, one must also be 

aware of self-plagiarism that often occurs when one tries to “recycle” one’s own ideas or data 

from previously published manuscripts without appropriate referencing or acknowledging the 

publication(s) of other previously submitted papers. Some journals, such as the Oxford 

Academic, include a Code of Ethics for Authors document on their website in addition to the 

regular Instructions (Guidelines) for Authors information. This Code of Ethics for Authors 

clearly defines self-plagiarism and how to minimize the chances of self-plagiarism. Further, an 

increasing number of universities and journals invest in plagiarism detection programs such as 

Turnitin.com. Authors can utilize them diligently for each manuscript submission to ensure its 

originality.  

Deciding Whether to Author or Co-author 

Authorship poses challenges for graduate students and new academics. Consider single 

versus multiple authorship. Writing manuscripts with colleagues may result in higher quality 

manuscripts than single-authored works. As a graduate student, a first step into the publication 

field is to write with your graduate supervisor or a course professor. One way to do this is to 



Hirst, Jeffs, Paris, Arcellana-Panlilio, Charles, Hill, & Hilman (2019) 

14 

make it known to your supervisor that you would be interested in co-authoring. You receive co-

authoring credit and you learn about publication basics, as well as use your advisor’s 

connections and expertise to increase your chances of publication success. Such co-authoring 

prior to completing a degree is helpful if it is timed so that your article is published with the 

affiliation of your first academic position. 

For new academics, co-authoring offers an opportunity to learn from each other, to 

enrich the content through discussion, and to develop collaborative working relationships. For 

students and academics alike, a written agreement between authors provides direction to the 

writing process and should include a detailed description of the responsibilities of each. This is 

best done prior to starting the manuscript writing. 

The Reviewer’s View 

  The reviewer is a key player in the manuscript processing and publication process. The 

peer review system is an important component of academic publishing, and it is vital in helping 

editors to decide whether or not a submitted manuscript is suitable for publication. The 

reviewer's responsibilities include protecting the integrity of a specialty, the reputation of the 

journal, and adherence to accepted ethical research practices, as well as treating the author's 

manuscript with respect, fairness, and impartiality (Peh & Ng, 2009). 

Conducting a Review 

 Reviewers evaluate manuscripts following journal guidelines for authors. Submitting a 

10-page, single-spaced manuscript when the identified guideline is 10-12 pages double-spaced 

is not appropriate.  In a close reading of the manuscript, reviewers are looking for the strengths 

of a manuscript and evaluating the merits of the work. They are aware of concerns that may be 

evident in the writing, such as undeveloped aspects of the research design or a lack of alignment 

with research questions, and conclusions. Reviewers also pay particular attention to the suitable 

of the article for publication based on the scope of the journal and the subject matter of the 

article.  

 Peer reviewers provide an important academic activity. It is a voluntary role; undertaken 

to provide service to their colleagues within the academy and specifically within their discipline. 

Peer reviewers serve their colleagues in three important ways: firstly, they view from within but 

provide a perspective from outside (they are experts in their disciplines, but as the peer review 

process is blind, they are looking at a paper objectively as ‘see’ from outside). Secondly, they act 

as mentors through providing constructive feedback on academic work (they help us to make our 

papers stronger). Finally, reviewers act as quality gatekeepers (a service from which we all 

benefit as the integrity of our disciplines and reputations are enhanced by this process). 

 With regards to the reviewers’ functions, it is important to remember that reviewers are 

also authors. They have been in the same position as you; they know what has been invested in a 

piece of academic work, and the anxieties most of us experience knowing our work is the subject 

of critique. It is therefore important to remember that peer review feedback must be recognized 

as a constructive and not destructive exercise. A reviewer may make a suggestion to revise a 

passage or seek clarification of a concept or point (clarification is especially critical in the 

theoretical passages and in theoretical papers). Overall, the reviewer’s main objective is service 

to their peers and their academic discipline. It is therefore recommended that feedback and 

suggestions for revisions to authors are taken in the light of the intent.  



Hirst, Jeffs, Paris, Arcellana-Panlilio, Charles, Hill, & Hilman (2019) 

15 

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 

Wenger, Trayner, and de Laat (2011) defined a Community of Practice (CoP) as a 

“learning partnership among people who find it useful to learn from and with each other about a 

particular domain. They use each other’s experience of practice as a learning resource” (p. 9). 

One example of a CoP is a faculty writing group. Such groups provide mutual support in the 

publication process (Brandon et al., 2015; Kent, Berry, Budds, Skipper, & Williams, 2017) by 

allowing group members to negotiate ideas, navigate the writing process with others, and resolve 

challenges that may arise. Introducing the possibility of a CoP provided a strategy for 

participants to discuss the process of writing in a nonthreatening environment. The acquisition of 

‘know how’ through conversations with colleagues was anticipated. Kent et al. (2017) suggested 

that the success of such communities is based on three factors: a formal structure, co-located 

writing in a shared space, and conversation among peers. Bringing individuals together will 

advance the collective understanding of the writing and publication process. 

LIMITATIONS 

  The 45-minute length of the workshop challenged the facilitators to introduce the theme 

but prevented us from in-depth conversations with the participants. It was also a single event 

within a conference schedule and provided little opportunity for enhanced conversations about 

specific strategies to help novice writers move forward in the publishing process. While the 

possibility of a CoP was explored with participants, taking specific action towards its 

implementation was not pursued at the time.  However, the facilitators agreed to explore the 

option of offering a series based on the Conference workshop to the University community. 

Another limitation was the lack of a formal evaluation of this type of introductory to manuscript 

writing activity. Informal feedback at the end of the session was positive from participants but 

lacked formal comments. A brief evaluation form would have been beneficial for the workshop 

facilitators.  

CONCLUSION 

Writing for publication can be a rewarding experience. It is both art and science. The art 

is in the style of writing, and the science is in the skill of writing. This article has described a 

workshop conducted to support emerging writers. We provided information and guidance about 

how to prepare for publication and helped both emerging and experienced writers consider the 

different perspectives of the four stakeholders in the publication process. It was designed as a 

single event to initiate conversations about writing for participants. 

REFERENCES 

Brandon, C., Jamadar, D., Girish, G., Dong, Q., Morag, Y., & Mullan, P. (2015). Peer support of 

a faculty “writers' circle” increases confidence and productivity in generating 

scholarship. Academic Radiology, 22, 534-538. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.12.006 

Chyun, D. A., & Henly, S. J. (2016). New scholars writing for publication. Retrieved from 

http://wkauthorservices.editage.com/resources/files/AuthorNewsletter_0816_Editage.pdf  



Hirst, Jeffs, Paris, Arcellana-Panlilio, Charles, Hill, & Hilman (2019) 

16 

Council of Science Editors. Authorship and Authorship Responsibilities Retrieved May 4th, 2018 

from https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-

paper-on-publication-ethics/2-2-authorship-and-authorship-responsibilities/  

Devitt, P., Coad, J., & Hardicre, J. (2007). Ten steps to convert your assignment into a journal 

article. British Journal of Nursing, 16, 362-363. 

Gibbs, A. (2016). Improving publication: advice for busy higher education 

academics. International Journal for Academic Development, 21, 255-258. 

doi:10.1080/1360144X.2015.1128436  

Gibbs, D., Boettcher, J., Hollingsworth, J., & Slania, H. (2012). Assessing the research needs of 

graduate students at Georgetown University. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38, 

268-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.07.002 

Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. 

London, United Kingdom: Routledge. 

Kent, A., Berry, D. M., Budds, K., Skipper, Y., & Williams, H. L. (2017). Promoting writing 

amongst peers: Establishing a community of writing practice for early career 

academics. Higher Education Research & Development, 36, 1194-1207. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1300141 

Mayrath, M. C. (2008). Attributions of productive authors in educational psychology 

journals. Educational Psychology Review, 20(1), 41-56. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9059-y 

McAllister, M., Mosel Williams, L., Gamble, T., Malko-Nyhan, K., & Jones, C. M. (2011). Steps 

 towards empowerment: An examination of colleges, health services and 

 universities. Contemporary Nurse, 38(1-2), 6-17. doi.org/10.5172/conu.2011.38.1-2.6 

Peh, W.C.G., & Ng, K.H. (2009). Role of the manuscript reviewer. Singapore Med J, 50(10), 

931-934. 

Rew, L. (2012). From course assignment paper to publishable manuscript. Journal of Holistic 

Nursing, 30, 270-276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898010112453328 

Sikes, P. (2009). Will the real author come forward? Questions of ethics, plagiarism, theft and 

 collusion in academic research writing. International Journal of Research & Method in 

 Education, 32(1), 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270902749247 

The World University Rankings. (-). World university rankings. Retrieved November 26, 

2018from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2019/world-

ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats 

Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in 

communities and networks: A conceptual framework. Heerlen, The Netherlands: Ruud de 

Moor Centrum, Open University of the Netherlands. Retrieved from https://wenger-

trayner.com/resources/publications/evaluation-framework/ 

Wingate, U., & Tribble, C. (2012). The best of both worlds? Towards an English for academic 

purposes/academic literacies writing pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 37, 481-

495. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.525630 

https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.2011.38.1-2.6