First article submission

Ahhh - a beautiful sunny weekend we've just had, more June than April, and I got myself nicely sunburned on the beach at Porth Dafarch and atop Barclodiad y Gawres, Anglesey, North Wales. Sadly I hadn't brought my swimming togs, though the sea was bone-achingly cold even for a paddle; certainly my compadres thought so, as they sat on the beach clad in grey-and-black trainers and hoodies, watching me wade in my sundress. Ah well. With a nod to the Derridean proclivities of one of my co-Cymrics: Vive la differance.

Just submitted my first article to a peer-reviewed journal - in this case, Gender and Education. Am quite delighted at having something of which I'm proud enough to submit (whether its quality is commensurate with my pride is another matter); but, more immediately, at having hauled myself through the online submission process.

For.It.Is.Tedious. And no-one tells you this stuff. I had to:


a) download a Word template to tell me what headings went where and in what font/style;

b) excise my table from the body of the text, indicating only [Table 1 near here], and put it in a separate document;

c) rewrite my references in Chicago style, with initial line-overhang;

d) rewrite my abstract in 200 words, according to the publisher's direction; then saw the journal's stipulation of a max. 150-word abstract and rewrote it again;

e) write a cover letter with a 'statement of relevance' - why my article is of interest to the journal and what is novel about it;

f) choose preferred reviewers - well, I didn't have to do this, but I did. I just assumed the journal itself would send to appropriate reviewers, but it seems there is the option to give the names of two or three people you think might read your work from a sympathetic standpoint. Again - no-one tells you this stuff. After mildly panicked consultation with my vastly more experienced Dr and PhD housemates, Aggie Hirst and Chris Rossdale, I suggested two academics who have been particularly influential for me - but still feel uncomfortably presumptuous about doing so;

g) tick lots of boxes confirming all sorts of legal requirements - that you have not submitted this manuscript anywhere else, that you have read the copyright terms, that you understand the ethical dimensions;

h) excise all identifying markers from one of the manuscripts in preparation for blind peer review.


And more, for the whole business has taken me a good two full days. In fairness, when I created my account and actually started the submission process, it was quite straightforward - the system was reasonably user-friendly and took me through everything step by step. What was frustrating, though, was the absence of one definitive checklist for the journal - there were author guidelines on the journal page that said one thing (e.g. 'submit author details on a separate page'), then links to guidelines on the publisher's page that said something else ('submit author details on a separate document'). That slowed the process down considerably. However, it is done - and I know what to expect for next time.

Speaking of which, am thinking of putting something together from my qualitative MSc assignments, in particular the Qualitative Data Analysis module, in which I explored interview data from both an inductive and a deductive perspective in order to understand how learners perceive and experience agency. It was interesting, it was. I'll poke around some of the qualitative inquiry journals, I reckon, and let you know.

Photosynthesise well, my friends!