The Presentation to Publication Pipeline

Abstract

Using the metaphor of a publication “pipeline,” this article offers practical tips for early-career scholars to take their ideas from concept to publication. Too often, conference presentations do not continue to publication, limiting the potential for dissemination of research work throughout the field and impeding professional scholarly growth. Here, experienced scholars share what they have found helpful to maximize publication productivity.

Metaphors are figures of speech that can be descriptive, illustrative, persuasive, and even motivational (Kroth & Carr-Chellman, 2020); they can “structure an everyday activity” (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003, p. 4). It is in this sense of imagining and then organizing activity that we introduce the idea of a publication pipeline to illustrate the process of moving from an idea to an empirical study, literature review, or conceptual paper; then to a presentation; onward to a manuscript; and finally, to a submitted and published article. A publication pipeline metaphor serves two purposes. First, the metaphor motivates scholars to take the idea all the way to publication without becoming sidelined. Second, the metaphor of a publication pipeline can be extended to encompass a scholar’s, or a scholarly community’s, research agenda pipeline.

Lebo (2016) stated that a scholarly pipeline “refers to the progression of papers from the idea stage to the publication stage. Tenure-track faculty and graduate students often are advised that a busy pipeline is the way to tenure” (p. 259). His eight steps in article-writing focus, specifically on drafting an article through the germination of an idea through to the publication of the article. It is important, however, to consider additional analytical and reflective steps along the way, including writing conference proposals, understanding where your ideas fit within your personal interests, the literature within your field, and your institution, and matching your work with appropriate presentation opportunities and scholarly journals. The pipeline, broadly speaking, includes the research, writing, submission, review, and revision process. At a more granular level, though, the pipeline includes a system to move your ideas and research successfully through to publication in a peer reviewed journal or other outlet. The steps in this system include:

• Developing and submitting a conference proposal and presenting, understanding the proposal review process

• Personal, field, and institutional connections

• Community and literature connections

• Turning a presentation into a publication

• Writing a conference proceedings manuscript

• Turning that proceedings manuscript into a journal manuscript, avoiding self-plagiarism

• Understanding the target audience and journal scope

• Considerations in finding a publication match

• Submitting the manuscript

• And, finally, understanding the journal review process.

This paper will unpack this process with the aim of informing readers looking to build their own research pipeline.

Submitting a Conference Proposal and Presenting

A conference offers the opportunity to present a theory or concept in development, to demonstrate the application of a new research method, to build networks with other researchers who have similar interests (Nicolson, 2017), to share preliminary or full results of empirical studies, or to review an exploration into a relevant topic within the field. The feedback from presentation attendees can assist researchers in developing those theoretical ideas, revising their method, introducing individuals to allied research communities, refining research analysis before final drafts are submitted for publication, and suggesting issues germane to the topic. Scholars and practitioners have stories to tell about their work, and conferences provide “a marketplace for knowledge; a metaphorical bookstore for a range of research stories to be told and sold” (Nicolson, 2017, p. 424). A conference presentation is often the point at which a project enters the publication pipeline.

Developing a Conference Proposal

A researcher may complete a paper and then search for a conference that matches the article scope and objectives or see a conference call and create a proposal that responds to that request. A proposal provides an opportunity to shape a research idea. Taking time to craft the proposal can provide the basic outline of a proceedings paper that can be expanded upon to write a full article.

Conference calls include guidelines. Do not wait until the last minute to craft a proposal; instead, leave time to revise and edit the proposal carefully, including asking for advice from those in the field, and proofread carefully. Tables and figures are not necessary, but proposals may include quotations with references. Avoid abbreviations and acronyms that will be unfamiliar to your readers (Sowell, 2019).

The proposal must fit the guidelines, be innovative, and reflect clear thinking. It must link to the conference theme, match the interests and positions of the intended audience, and stay within the word count limit. Elements that can be included in proposals are knowledge gaps that the presentation can fill, an explanation of goals, the importance of the topic to the field, how the information presented reflects current real-world circumstances that can be applied in practice, the attendee take-aways, the presenter’s qualifications, and connections to future research (Sowell, 2019). There is an element of salesmanship in proposals; be direct and persuasive in arguing the value of your presentation.

Conference presentations often benefit from collaboration. Partnering with both experts in the field and early-career peers can lessen the individual burden, add multiperspectivity, provide interdisciplinarity, establish long term advantageous relationships, and enhance career opportunities as “junior researchers who coauthor work with top scientists enjoy a persistent competitive advantage throughout the rest of their careers” (Weihua et al., 2019, p. 1). Conference proceedings are frequently meaningful co-authored publications that lead to future writing opportunities.

Understanding the Proposal Review Process

Conference committees often provide specific guidelines for reviewers that can be accessed on the website, enabling authors to understand how their proposals will be judged. Reviewers are encouraged to point out proposal strengths and weaknesses and often complete a rubric, ultimately recommending acceptance, revision, or rejection. An accepted proposal is cause for celebration and comes with an obligation to attend the conference and deliver a presentation on the topic of your proposal. If the conference publishes proceedings, you will also need to write a manuscript to be included in those proceedings. A decision to revise your proposal is also worthy of celebration; the feedback from reviewers is generative and encouraging even if it is critical. Take the opportunity to advance your thinking on the topic of your proposal. A rejection is difficult, but also part of growing as a scholar; it is a universal experience for researchers and, while not joyful, is simply part of our work.

Volunteering to be a conference proposal reviewer can increase knowledge of the review process. Creating a successful proposal is the first step in sharing research that may be published in the conference proceedings and lead to future publications in academic journals. Start with topics that reflect your authentic work and effectively present your knowledge and passion. Remember that the conference proposal reviewers are chosen because of their knowledge of the field; avoid pedantic lecturing on basic topics.

Personal, Field, and Institutional Considerations

Research and scholarship are necessarily personal activities, expressing the scholar’s interests and objectives. When introducing a project into your research pipeline, don’t neglect these personal considerations. Understanding your own interests and priorities will improve your scholarship. For example, it may be important for your personal growth to make interdisciplinary, scholarly inroads among subjects. This work will expand your research toolkit, your professional knowledge, and network. The significance of interdisciplinary research has been substantiated in the literature examining methodology, institutional priorities, career growth, theoretical framework development, and research funding (Cohen Miller & Pate, 2019; Gill et al., 2015; Lury et al., 2018; Vajaradul et al., 2021). One approach to interdisciplinarity is applying a theory from outside your discipline to a concept within your disciple. For example, Carr-Chellman et al. (2022) used the ancient notion of human flourishing to interpret processes of adult learning. As in this case, the combination of disciplines may derive from personal motivations that originate in your powerful journey as a scholar. Publishing in academic outlets, such as this journal and others that are receptive to interdisciplinarity, will allow you to make that bridge between disciplines (Afifi, 2017; Pohl et al., 2015).

Beyond personal considerations, also consider the needs of your specific field of scholarship. As you develop your presentation, even though you are at the beginning of the scholarly pipeline, be cognizant of the endpoint of the pipeline—an article in a peer reviewed journal. Think about expanding part of your presentation to match a specific journal that will further your field’s development, which might include interdisciplinary work as well. Publishing in that journal might allow others in your field to build on your work. Or you may publish within an industry magazine where practitioners can grow their expertise. Examples from the human resource management profession include HR Magazine and Management Today. One goal of publishing in a practitioner journal is to create inroads into a practitioner readership and audience (Boyle et al., 2020), therefore, it is worth contemplating publications outside of academia but within your field.

In addition to personal and field considerations, remember your institution’s priorities. You have an ethical obligation to contribute to the strategic plan, vision, and mission of the institution. It is important to understand institutional research priorities, especially when they may be either in conflict with community social concerns or in support of community goals (Harris, 2021; Martinez-Brawley, 2003). For example, working at a land-grant university assumes a commitment to scholarship for the public good. Understanding these institutional priorities will enable your scholarship to make important contributions.

Community and Literature Connections

When exploring publication outlets as part of your scholarly pipeline, consider who will benefit from a publication decision and who should benefit. As the author, you benefit from the opportunity to contribute to a scholarly dialogue. The field of study and the specific journal benefit from your ideas and the generativity of your work. Your institution benefits from the recognition of its scholars. Are there others who might be able to benefit from your work? For example, reflect on how you might contribute to the community that is connected to your work. Community-engaged scholarship is an essential category. When researchers consider where to publish, they need to be cognizant that “academic writing is a form of selecting, arranging and presenting knowledge. It privileges sets of texts, views about the history of an idea, what issues count as significant” (Smith, 2013, p. 37). It follows that the community connections of your scholarship pipeline might require particular emphases. The alignment between the interests of your academic institution and those of the community where the research was based might not be obvious, so communicate how these connections are mutually beneficial. Communicate the importance of less-known publication outlets to your institution, explaining how those outlets might contribute to organizational mission and goals. For example, your institution might value publishing in highly ranked U.S. journals written in English, yet your research might benefit from reaching international practitioners in languages other than English.

As you develop your research, plan for different audiences. Negretti and McGrath (2022) used the metaphor of publication as a stage where researchers perform different genres for varied audiences where “a straightforward disciplinary framing of research-based writing may not be reflective of the hybridized, fluid and multidisciplinary audiences” (p. 9). You will write very differently for various groups of people, which necessitates understanding who those audiences are. In developing this awareness, it helps to consider where your work fits into the literature of your field.

Conducting a literature review is part of any publication process; a researcher should reflect on the impact of related research and the power of one’s own work. By reviewing existing literature, a researcher becomes more aware of previously completed studies related to the topic, as well as methods, theories, and conceptual frameworks applied to similar ideas (Cooper et al., 2018; Pather & Remenyi, 2019; Snyder, 2019). It is possible, and rewarding to contribute widely across your field if you consider writing on your topic in a variety of publication options within individual journals or in differing journal types. For example, you can write about the theory of transformative education for one journal, explicate how to design transformative learning experiences within a higher education classroom for a practitioner journal, and apply the same ideas of transformative learning to workplace education for a human resource journal.

Turning a Presentation Into a Publication

After a successful conference presentation, there is momentum that can easily be wasted. If the conference offers the opportunity to publish an accompanying proceedings, it is a straightforward task to extend that paper into a full-length manuscript. Don’t give up on your ideas after having exerted effort to have a proposal accepted, to create a presentation and a proceedings, and to attend a conference. Take time to reflect on your ideas and incorporate feedback you received at the conference. It is this process that makes scholarship rigorous, creative, and generative (Levett-Jones & Stone, 2012). Additionally, turning a conference proceedings paper into a journal article can be desirable since many fields of study place greater weight on journals as outlets. Developing this section of your scholarly pipeline is gratifying, but also comes with important ethical considerations to avoid self-plagiarism, which we’ll discuss below.

Developing a Conference Proceedings Into a Journal Manuscript

A conference proceedings article is necessarily brief, intended to provide a quick exploration of the topic. One way to think about expanding yours into a full-length manuscript is to be strategic, elaborate, connect, and situate.

Be Strategic

A strategic approach requires thinking through your existing work, deciding which parts should be quoted directly or paraphrased and, consequently, cited in your new manuscript, and which parts should be further developed with your expanded research, investigations, and ideas. Build an outline from the Microsoft Word American Psychological Association (APA) full-length-manuscript template and develop sections as you disaggregate what you have already written. This template is most useful for an empirical study, but also provides a good starting point for conceptual papers as well. It can be found as part of the MS Word application on your hard drive.

Elaborate and Connect

The full-length manuscript will be new material because you take data and ideas that you have already written, expand them, make new connections, add implications, and elaborate through in a generative process. This expansion will require additional literature sources for support as well as more well-developed connections between topics you have already explored, and also making connections between ideas and scholars that you did not include previously.

Situate

Situating data, scholarship, and ideas is an ever-expanding opportunity that can take the form of developing your scholarly identity in relation to the article topic, situating the data more fully in the literature to which it is related, and explaining the significance of the writing to a particular context.

Avoiding Self-Plagiarism

Self-plagiarism “refers to authors who reuse their own previously disseminated content and pass it off as a ‘new’ product without letting the reader know that this material has appeared previously” (Roig, 2009, p. 16). You do not want to publish the same intellectual material more than once. Your presentation and proceedings for a conference are part of your curriculum vitae, as well as part of the scholarly record, which means they should be cited and used carefully as you write your full-length manuscript. In addition to citing yourself properly, carefully using your prior work entails using that work as a foundation on which to build something more substantive and new, a natural part of the knowledge generation process. The be strategic, elaborate, connect, and situate approach described above demonstrates an intentional approach which will help you avoid self-plagiarism and generate intellectual work from your previous efforts.

The Target Audience and Journal Scope

It is likely you have a sense of your audience already since you are part of the ongoing conversation and generation of knowledge in that area given your conference presentation. When planning to develop a manuscript, it is essential to start by considering where you might submit that manuscript for publication. Pather and Remenyi (2019) argued that dissemination of research is not only a function of publication; it is valuable when a researcher recognizes the need to share knowledge in both scholarly journals and non-academic contexts so that it has a broader impact.

Ross-Hellauer et al. (2020) defined research dissemination as “consideration of target audiences, consideration of the settings in which research findings are to be received, and communicating and interacting with wider audiences in ways that will facilitate research uptake and understanding” (p. 2). There is no shortage of outlets for scholarly works. In addition to traditional forms of publication such as academic journals, books, and conference proceedings, other means of sharing research include digital dissemination through social media, academic social networks, online video presentations, popular magazines, mainstream media outlets, podcasts, and infographics (Charlesworth & Selak, 2022; Ross-Hellauer et al., 2020). Having so many options also means that individual publications can be very specific in the types of manuscripts they publish, and conversely, the types they don’t publish; each publication has its niche in the broader world of research distribution.

Journal editors frequently note that many submitted manuscripts are outside the scope of the journal and are rejected. This rejection is not necessarily an indication of the quality of the article. Rather, it means that the editors did not identify an appropriate match between the article and the mission of the publication. Rejection is part of the process and should not be taken as a sign that the article is unworthy of publication. Authors can minimize some of that rejection by ensuring that the scope and focus of the article matches the scope and focus of the publication. If authors target a specific journal prior to writing the manuscript, they can explicitly incorporate the aims of the journal, address the precise needs of the journal readership, and follow the journal guidelines for structure, word limits, and attribution. Journal options may be revealed in both your own reference list and the references used in articles that are frequently cited in your work. By reviewing articles published in the journal, you can determine if your article would fit (Agathokleous, 2022).

Scholarly journals and other publications post guidelines for authors on their web pages. Read those guidelines thoroughly to ensure your article aligns with journal requirements. It may be tempting to twist the guidelines set forth by a publisher to make them fit with your article. However, journal editors have a strong understanding of the scope of their publications and will recognize a mismatch between the scope of the journal and the article submitted. Ghosal et al. (2019, p. 1) asked the metaphorical question, “Are you fishing in the right pond?” to determine the appropriateness of a manuscript for the scope of the journal. Pay attention to word limits, information on the style and format required, and additional requirements authors must submit such as author statements.

The consideration of an appropriate publication takes some research on its own. As curators of research and community service providers, publishers are aware of the interests of their readers and reject articles that do not reflect the needs of their readership and the objectives of the journal. Publishers rely on both editorial and peer review to determine the relevancy, usefulness, and suitability of a manuscript for publication. The peer review process serves as an invitation for scholars to become members of the research community (Chataway & Severin, 2020). Think about the journal readership and whether it is a community that fits your interests.

Considerations in Finding a Publication Match

In determining the fit between your work and a journal, ask yourself: Who would want to read this research? Would potential readers include researchers or practitioners, for example? The answers can narrow your search. When you have determined the possible publishing outlets, consider other criteria such as the selectivity of the journal, the number of times it is published in a year, the review process, and the formatting requirements.

Ask yourself what type of article you wish to write. Author guidelines will explain the types of articles published in a journal and the requirements for those forms. Articles that are practitioner-based, for example, are practical in nature, typically shorter than research articles, and more focused on real-world applications. Blog posts may be brief, simply covering highlights or findings of a study. Empirical articles have a standard format that includes abstracts, research questions, literature reviews, methodology, results, and conclusions.

Become familiar with the publication’s review process. For some publications, the editors or members of the editorial board review potential articles. Others have many reviewers and use a blind review process, referred to as an anonymous or identity hidden review process where the manuscript is sent to two or three reviewers outside of the editorial board. These external reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. Editors typically do an initial review to ensure appropriate scope and fit before sending it to additional reviewers; however, a significant function of peer review is for reviewers who are content experts on the manuscript topic to provide editors with a further determination of a submission’s fit (Kuo, 2022). The type of review affects the time it takes. When editors review a publication, results can be sent to authors within a few weeks. When editors rely on external reviewers, the process can take several months.

After finding an appropriate publication match for your manuscript, submit your work carefully, following the directions on the submission site. Responses to manuscripts can vary. Articles may be accepted with some revisions necessary, or requiring major revisions for improvement, providing the chance to revise and resubmit. Articles may be simply rejected as well.

If an article is rejected, authors have options. Rejections often come with feedback from the editors and reviewers. If that is the case, authors can benefit from incorporating that feedback and submit that manuscript to another journal, or simply submitting the manuscript as is to another journal. Importantly, rejection from one journal does not mean the manuscript is not worthy of publication. It likely means the author needs to find a journal that better fits the manuscript’s characteristics. If the journal’s decision is to revise and resubmit, authors may choose to make the requested revisions and resubmit to that same journal. In some cases, however, the requested revisions may require undesired changes on the author’s part. For example, if an author is asked to change a study’s theoretical framework, they might decide to rescind their submission and find a different home for the manuscript. Going through the process of submitting and being rejected can be difficult, but do not get discouraged. There is a home for every article developed. It is just a matter of finding it.

Conclusion

It is encouraging to realize that while publishing a meaningful academic paper is not an easy task nor is it quick, it becomes easier as writers repeatedly move through the research, writing, submission, review, and revision pipeline. Receiving negative feedback can be a significant challenge, particularly for early career academics and graduate students, but learning to respond positively to constructive criticism leads to stronger research practices and more effective writing; this process is often necessary to achieve success. Academic research and subsequent publication can be fulfilling work that stretches across a research agenda developed throughout a career, rather than merely boxes to check in the tenure and promotion process (Pather & Remenyi, 2019). Moving step-by-step through the publication pipeline is a rewarding experience, and like a community water system, as a scholar’s research agenda continues to expand and deepen, the field will be the continuing recipient of fresh nourishment for years to come.