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

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: Reidar 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.