Giving conference papers and preparing to publish

Overview of giving conference papers and preparing to publish from Stephen Shute (University of Birmingham), presented at the UKCLE event on enhancing academic practice on 3 February 2005.

Giving conference papers

How do I select the right conference?

• build up knowledge about generalist conferences (the Society of Legal Scholars’ annual conference, for example) and specialist conferences (British Society of Criminology, Socio-Legal Studies Association) that are organised in your field on a regular basis; annually, biennial etc
• keep your eyes open for special one-off conferences that are organised in your field
• ask for advice – consult people, especially your supervisor

How do I get my paper accepted?

• obtain information about the conference (usually available on the Web). Find out who to contact and whether there are different steams or sections at the conference.
• contact the conference or section organiser early – slots can get booked up
• ‘sell’ your paper to the conference organisers – prepare an abstract which highlights what is novel or interesting about your paper, make sure the abstract serves as an advertisement for the paper – it should make the paper seem attractive to organisers and delegates alike
• remember: organisers want papers! Most conference organisers need to balance the books and this requires attracting a sizeable number of delegates. Organisers are also well aware that many delegates will not obtain funding unless they have a paper accepted. They are often, therefore, very keen to accept papers that are submitted to them.

Preparing the paper

• timing – find out how much time has been allowed for your presentation – many conferences only allow 15 or 20 minutes per paper – and p repare a paper that fits that time limit. Try it out beforehand to make sure it doesn’t overrun.
• format – make the presentation easy to understand – don’t swamp the main argument with distracting detail. Identify the most interesting things in your paper and concentrate on those. Don’t over-complicate your paper.
• should I use visual aids/handouts? Probably – they help keep an audience’s interest. If you wish, prepare a longer paper and distribute copies of this at the conference.
• hot tip – don’t leave the preparation to the last minute. Preparation of a paper over breakfast before a morning session or over lunch before an afternoon session ruins a good meal!

At the conference

• check the programme to make sure you know when your session is scheduled – it may have been changed at the last minute
• visit the room in which your paper will be given well in advance of the session so you know exactly where it is. When there, check what equipment is available (PowerPoint, overheads etc).

Giving the paper

• identify the person who will chair the session and make yourself known to that person
• ensure that you stick to the time limit you have been given
• delivery – speak clearly and audibly to your audience and keep them interested. Don’t rush things but don’t go at a snail’s pace either. Enjoy the experience!

Preparing to publish

Starting out

• what sort of thing do I want to write? book review, case note, short article, long article, review article, monograph…
• what sort of publication vehicle is best? For monographs, identify the most appropriate publisher and approach the editor in advance of submission to test out the water. For journal publication consider generalist journals (Law Quarterly Review, Modern Law Review, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Cambridge Law Journal) and specialist journals (Criminal Law Review, Public Law, European Law Review etc).

One perspective on the value of writing book reviews early in an academic career is given by the editors of the European Law Review:

“There is an increasing volume of European material being published and it is not always easy to find reviewers who will write thoughtful comments on new publications within a reasonable deadline (usually three months from receipt of the book). Book reviews are normally around 500 to 750 words in length but longer reviews and review articles will also be considered where appropriate. Writing good book reviews can get you known to an editor and improve your feel for writing in the area and for a particular journal.”

Many new to the profession also cut their teeth on ‘case notes’.

What are my chances of success?

• success depends in part on the journal/publisher
• refereeing/decision making process for peer refereed journals
• refereeing/decision making process for book publishers varies from publisher to publisher (in OUP, for example, decisions are made by the ‘Delegates’)

How can I increase my chances of success?

• be on top of your subject – you will not write well about something if you don’t fully understand it
• produce a piece that says something new

Yet even this may not be enough. Other stratagems that can help improve your strike rate are:

• identify your intended readership
• select the right journal/publisher – thoroughly acquaint yourself with the sort of things that the journal or publisher publishes, read the journal, read the publisher’s catalogues and sample the books that the publisher produces. Read any guidance material produced by the journal/publisher and contact the editor in advance.
• human contact helps – remember editors need to fill their journals
• there is always a possibility the editor will receive several articles on the same or similar topics – it helps to get in first, as editors may then give you first bite of the cherry. The following advice is taken from the :

“It is worth contacting one of the editors to discuss the possible submission of a contribution, but this cannot involve the ‘pre-booking’ of an issue in which the contribution is to be published nor imply any acceptance of the contribution. What a potential contributor can learn is whether there is any material in the pipeline which overlaps or duplicates the subject matter of the proposed contribution and whether the proposed contribution fits in with the publishing plans for forthcoming issues. For example, the proposal may involve consideration of an issue which has been the subject of detailed examination in the articles recently published and in the pipeline. Knowing this can help a contributor both with the timing of any submission for consideration for publication and with a decision on submission of the material which will maximise the chances of acceptance.”

• very often it is a good idea to have a journal in mind before you start to write. You can then tailor your writing to the needs of a particular journal and this can greatly increase your chances of success.Again, the following advice is taken from the author information guide for the European Law Review:

“Your chances of having material accepted for publication in this journal will be dramatically increased by targeting this journal. Yet we still receive many contributions from those who have seemingly never read the journal or who are obviously sending photocopies of a piece to every journal they can think of!
 
First, your subject matter should fit in with the coverage of this journal; we are unlikely to be interested in a comparison of the contract law of Botswana and Mongolia! Yet some contributions are as far from the mark as this outlandish illustration.
 
Secondly, you should be aware of material touching on the subject matter of your piece which the journal has published in recent years. Where there is such material your covering letter should be convincing in explaining the contribution your piece makes in the light of the earlier material.
 
Thirdly, your manuscript should follow the conventions of this journal as set out in the notes for contributors. This involves gaining some feel for our approach to the use of headings and titles, and addressing our readership. You will acquire this by reading several pieces in the journal with this in mind. Only by reading a journal regularly will you develop sensitivity to the overall ‘tone’ of the journal.
 
The advice in the previous paragraph applies both to articles and to analysis and reflections.”

• publish at the right time – some topics are time limited. An important decision when writing about a particular case is when to comment – at first instance, after the CA, or after the HL? Authors should find out if and when appeals are planned and let the editor know when the initial enquiry is made. The publication times of some journals mean that there’s a risk that a case comment may quickly be superseded by a further judgment. The general advice must always be – know what’s going on in the case (contact the lawyers if needs be) and pick the best time in consultation with the editor.
• keep to the publisher’s guidelines on format and on length (and remember that you want your work read not just published). The author information guide for the European Law Review is again helpful here:

“Following the requirements set down in the notes for contributors will improve the chances of your contribution being accepted. Neither editor has the time to re-write material into acceptable house style and then footnote it properly. These are the responsibility of the author…The impact of a good clean text which follows a journal’s requirements should not be under-estimated. Equally the submission of a scrappy manuscript with various additions on extra pages inconsistently numbered and with incomplete and poorly numbered footnotes can only reduce the chances of your material being accepted. At best, it will delay acceptance while you put the manuscript into some sort of decent order… Submission on disk or as an e-mail attachment is required. Disks should be accompanied by a hard copy of the contribution. It is not necessary to send a hard copy of a contribution submitted by e-mail.”

• don’t be afraid to cut – most pieces are much better for it. Once again helpful advice is provided in the author information guide for the European Law Review:

“There is little point in sending in a contribution in excess of 12,000 words and asking whether the journal would be willing to publish a cut-down version. We will not normally make any commitment to publication until we have seen the finalised text; it is not reasonable to expect us to do so. In many cases, it would be pure guess work to determine whether the reduced version will be good enough for publication in the journal.
 
One of the biggest areas of disappointment for potential contributors arises from failure to follow the guidance on word limits which appears on the inside back cover of each issue…If your contribution is within these limits, you will immediately improve the chances of your material being accepted for publication. Occasional exceptions to these rules are made, but usually only where the eminence of the author or the distinction of the piece submitted is considered to justify this.”

Don’t lose heart

Rejections happen to most authors. Keep plugging away. If a journal suggests changes, attend carefully to what it says and make alterations accordingly.

Furthermore, remember most editors, even if the journal doesn’t have a formal policy of this kind, want to encourage younger scholars. For example, although the _European Law Review _warns that it “will seldom be the case that a postgraduate paper or dissertation will be suitable for publication without considerable revision”, it also provides young authors with the following note of encouragement from the editors:

“We are keen that the journal should provide a fair opportunity for younger academics to publish. We will do our best to encourage promising writers to get published. This can involve suggestions for working on a piece to improve it or cross-referral to the editors of other journals and yearbooks.”

When will I hear?

This varies. Most journals will try to let you know within a couple of months. The European Law Review’s target for giving a decision on publication, for example, is “within six to eight weeks of receipt of the manuscript”. However, it warns contributors that they’should “bear in mind that not all referees are able to stick to the requested deadline for receipt of their reports”.

Will I get feedback?

Most journals will do their best to provide helpful feedback where material is not accepted. But do not expect the identity of the referee necessarily to be disclosed to you.

Journal criteria

The following criteria are taken from the author information guide for the European Law Review:

• is the aim of the piece clear?
• is there a clear and consistent structure?
• is it original?
• is it interesting?
• does it fit with recent material published in the journal and accepted material in the pipeline?
• is it well written?
• is it well referenced, evidencing familiarity with the authorities and literature?

Last Modified: 4 June 2010