# Publication Checklist: - **Paper**: - **Target Journal**: (name of journal) - **Realistic Date of Submission:** (you CANNOT write a full paper in one week) - **Co-author**(s): (these are gracious, smart people) ## Writing - ### Introduction - Do I explain, in less than 2 pages, what my RQ is, what I find, and how I found it? - Do I _kindly_ explain the gap that I am filling in the scholarship? (Not “no one has studied this” as the main reason) - If empirical: Do I clearly explain the coolness of my data or method? - Do I have at least one sentence that explains why anyone cares about my finding? - Do I provide a roadmap of what's to come in the manuscript? (first, we... second, we...) - Do I clearly state the purpose of the paper? (like, actually write, "The purpose of this study is....") - Does the introduction pack a punch - aka, would I even want to read my own article? - ### Theoretical Framework - Have I selected an appropriate theoretical framework for my research? - Have I identified how the theory connects to my context/problem? - Do I use a logicial flow (conceptual map - see [Grant and Osanloo, 2014)](https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1058505)? - Do I _gently_ identify conflicts, controversies, and/or gaps in the literature? - Do I summarize the main points for the reader? - ### Data & Methods - Have I pre-registered my study, if applicable? - Have I explained, kindly and patiently, why my data and method are cool and who else should be excited about my approach? - Would someone else be able to follow my footsteps if they wished to gather the data that I did or use the method that I did? - Do I explain my coding / data analysis process thoroughly? (not just catchphrases) - Have I thoroughly anonymized the data to protect participants? - Do I actually do what I say that I did? (check and see if you changed anything – from drafts to final version) - ### Findings - Are my findings drawn from my data analysis? - Are my findings substantiated by appropriate examples from the data (quotes, images, etc.)? - Do I go beyond description and provide rich theory-driven interpretation of the data? - Do my findings "make sense" -- do they fit together and answer my RQ? - Did I create a clear visual representation (e.g., table/figure) summarizing my findings? - Would media outlets and/or everyday people be interested in my findings? - ### Discussion - Do I revisit my purpose and RQs? - Do I compare and constrast with existing research in the field? - Do I clearly highlight theoretical contributions to the field? - Do I clearly highlighted my practical contributions to the field? - Do I give some direction for future scholarship (aka, would other people want to cite this work and build on it)? - ## Abstract - Does my abstract actually fit my paper? - Does my abstract signal which reviewer pool my paper would go to? - Is my abstract well written and straightforward? - Can a non-academic friend read my abstract and understand what my article is about? - ## Tables & Figures - Does the text clearly explain how to interpret each table or figure? - Does each table or figure have a note that fully explains (if necessary) a) the data, b) the method, c) how to read the table or figure, and d) what every symbol in the table/figure means? - Does each table or figure have a meaningful title? - Is each table or figure numbered correctly? - Does each table or figure have an in-text placeholder? - ## Proofreading - Check that all titles match (it's probably changed 20 times by now) - Accept all track changes - Delete all tracked comments - Run spell check - Run grammar check - Check for consistency (e.g., am I using the same terms throughout?) - Remove erroneous fluffer words meant to impress people (e.g., erroneous) - ## References - Check that all papers cited are included in references - Format reference list correctly for the specific journal - Format in-text citations correctly for the specific journal - Check page numbers - Check volume/issue numbers - Cite articles from the target journal - ## Formatting - Choose an appropriate journal for submission - Add page numbers - Format page numbers according to the journal guidelines - Format headings and subheadings - Format line spacing (double/single/1.5) according to journal guidelines - Title page w/ author contact info & correct title - Set up a Zotero folder - Check citation style according to the journal guidelines - ## Cover Letter - Use correct addresses, titles, and names of editors - Write letter on letterhead - Use the correct manuscript title in letter - Address main theoretical approach and context of the paper - Address novelty of the manuscript - Justify relevance of the manuscript for the particular journal - Proofread letter - ## Uploading to Submission Portal - Did I set up my account and write down or save my login? - Do I have the figures saved separately if needed? - Did I choose appropriate keywords? - Some journals might ask for raw data -- do I have it ready to upload/share? - Do I have any conflicts of interest to declare? - Do I have any funding sources to declare? - Do I want to thank anyone/write an acknowledgment? - Do I have IRB approval, if needed? - Do I have permission to publish figures/images, if needed? - Do I want to request specific reviewer(s)? - Do I want to send out for friendly reviews first? - Did I check the PDF proof when the system asks? (Be honest!) - ## Response to Reviews (if Revising for resubmission) - Have I allowed myself some time and space to fully unpack the reviews? - Did I put the revision deadline on my calendar? - Did I create a plan for tackling the revision? - Did I respond to each concern raised by the reviewers? - Did I stay true to the purpose of the paper and my own scholarly pursuits? (aka, don't be a sellout just to get your paper published) - Did I stay true to my methodological approach? - Did I express gratitude in my responses? (even with Reviewer #2) - Have I reminded myself that reviewers are partners in this process and my research will be better in the end?