Publish & Flourish: From Tentative Idea to Tenure-enhancing Publications

Publish and Flourish seminar on how and where to get your publications published. 

1. "I think I have something to say, where should I publish?"

Chair: Geir Ulfstein
Opening comments: Katja Franko, Daniel Naurin, Kristin Sandvik, Reidar Maliks
Possible themes:

  • What should I publish? Book, chapter in edited volume, conference proceeding, or article? Book review, case notes, with or without peer review. (Crisis and Opportunity: Responding to the Brexit Vote (I·CON 14, Issue 3: Editorial, from page 539)  .     
  • If I don’t know where I’ll be on the job market, should I go with US or European publishers?
  • US and European review processes: are they truly (double) blind? Variations among disciplines. Do younger scholars lose out when journals ask for CVs?
  • Multidisciplinary contributions to disciplinary journals? Do multidisciplinary journals have as good peer review? Should I go for a less renowned but multidisciplinary journal or a recognized specialized journal that could appreciate interdisciplinarity? What counts for tenure?
  • Impact factor of the journal, and of my writings – is it a consideration for hiring committees? Which impact factor standard?
  • Co-authorship: is it smart? – for women? why did it happen, how should it proceed, how might I exit from a collaborative writing endeavor?
  • Writing several articles on related topics – yes or no?
  • If you have a book coming out, should you always publish a summary article?
  • Is submitting the same or similar articles to different journals a wise, even expected move for legal writing in the US? – and a no-no in Europe?
  • When time is of the essence: submitting too early or too late – half baked ideas or polished pieces?
  • To get published as a young scholar, and when time to publication is crucial, should I try to place my argument within a circumscribed ongoing debate or come up with a (risky) radically novel argument?
  • High risk and slower top journal or low risk quicker publication? What is decent response time, when can I contact the editor?
  • The pressures of constantly publishing in order to get the next job – publish and still perish?

2. Surviving peer review

Chair: Andreas Føllesdal
Opening comments: Katja Franko, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Daniel Naurin, Reidar Maliks, Geir Ulfstein
Possible themes:

Drawing on examples/excerpts from reviewer comments or revision memos:

  • Must I respond to all reviewer comments? How to do so in an effective and constructive way? – when the reviewers seem biased or illiterate?
  • Dealing with conflicting comments.
  • Dealing with rejections: is it worth trying to defend one’s paper?
  • Should I submit several papers on different topics at the same time, to avoid depending on the outcome of one and being over-focused on it?

3. Spreading the word - get noticed, getting cited

Chair: Andreas Føllesdal
Opening comments: Kristin Sandvik, Reidar Maliks
Possible themes:

  • Creating Buzz...
  • Open access – or higher quality journals? pros and cons. ‘Plan S’ about only open access for EU and national funding in Europe…
  • Where do people publish drafts (and at what stage – how long do you wait?), legal worries about copyright ? – ResearchGate, SSRN, Westlaw, Academia.edu; Research Gate; Twitter; LinkedIn; Facebook
  • Blogs, Facebook…
  • Gender and citation practices
  • Who should get attention: the project, PluriCourts, the individual scholar?

4. Publishing to get Tenure 

Chair: Geir Ulfstein
Opening comments: R
eidar Maliks, Anne Julie Semb, Daniel Naurin, Alf Petter Høgberg
Possible themes: 

  • Will there be tenure? 
  • Perspectives of hiring committee members.
  • Should I publish interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary - before tenure?
  • Which of the following is a waste of time if I want tenure: book (– does publishing house matter?), chapter, article, blog post, book review, co-authored pieces, editing books/special issues…
  • Which journals matter, how many publications should a young scholar have?
  • Is a book more important than several good articles?

ICON-S Conference 2016, Day 3, Panel: "Public Law Scholarship Beyond Borders" (YouTube).

Conclusions: What can PluriCourts do?  

Chair: Andreas
Suggestions for our future policies and agenda.

 

The seminar will have 4 * 30 minute sessions, that each starts with a few colleagues sharing their experiences, max 5 minutes each; 10 minute coffee breaks between. All sessions include issues of multidisciplinarity and temporary employment. The impact of Open Access policies on existing practices and strategies may also merit attention.

 

Published Jan. 7, 2019 3:22 PM - Last modified June 12, 2019 11:36 AM