Publishing
the Scholarly Article in Classical Studies:
A Guide for New Members of the Profession
By
Ruth Scodel and Marilyn B. Skinner
The
following guide to scholarly publishing has been compiled
by two former editors of TAPA. It is designed to help a graduate student
or recent Ph.D. write a good first article, choose the
right venue for it, and successfully submit it for
publication. While our opinions are strictly personal,
and may on occasion seem idiosyncratic, they represent
what we would be likely to say to any of our graduate
students who asked us for tips about publishing in this
field. We hope you will find at least some of the advice
useful.
Writing the Scholarly Article
Scholarly articles belong to the
larger genre of expository writing. A piece of expository
writing tries to present information and arguments as
clearly as possible. Consequently, it is the author's
obligation to articulate his or her meaning explicitly,
instead of asking the reader to infer it, as the literary
artist does. In a scholarly article, the author sets
forth a thesis about a given topic and attempts to
convince an audience of its validity. If the author makes
a lucid and persuasive case for his or her opinion, the
article is successful. While the boundaries of scholarly
style have expanded in recent years, most editors and
readers evaluate articles by these traditional
criteria.
Published articles may begin their
lives as seminar papers. If so, they need to undergo a
long conversion process. For tips on how to set it in
motion, see Appendix
B.
An article is not the same thing as a
dissertation chapter. While both may deal with the same
set of issues, they appeal to different audiences and
serve different purposes. Your dissertation was composed
for the members of your thesis committee, especially your
dissertation director. There you needed to demonstrate to
your professors that you had full control of the relevant
primary and secondary sources and had grasped all the
positive and negative implications of a given scrap of
evidence. Consequently, you spent a good deal of time
explaining, and reacting to, the views of virtually every
scholar who had dealt with this question earlier.
The article, on the other hand, is
addressed to a wide audience of fellow classicists--a
group that may well include high school, undergraduate,
and graduate students as well as your professional
colleagues. It may also be of interest to scholars in
other disciplines and to members of the general public.
Relatively few of these readers will know more than you
do about the topic, or even as much as you do. Your
mission is to educate them, to give them the gift of your
knowledge and insights, not to defend yourself against
their potential criticisms.
When you go on the job market, a
well-meaning mentor may urge you to send off a chapter of
your dissertation "as is" so that you'll be able to list
an item "under editorial review" on your curriculum
vitae while getting feedback from referees. We
suggest you politely ignore that advice. The listing
won't carry much weight with a search committee, and
you'll be wasting the referees' time, as well as postage.
While you can certainly base an article upon research
you've done for your dissertation, the material should be
set forth differently in keeping with the above
guidelines.
An article should deal with one, and
only one, scholarly issue, presenting your arguments and
conclusions as succinctly as possible. Keep your thesis
firmly in mind and don't digress. You may need to correct
an earlier interpretation; if so, do so briefly and
tactfully, ideally in a footnote. Sarcasm and extended
polemic are out of place. In fact, you need not, and
should not, concentrate upon demolishing prior views but
rather on expounding your own reading in the most
positive and compelling light; if your conclusions can be
readily integrated into the current communis
opinio, so much the better. Nor do you need to
cite every last obscure or peripheral secondary source.
Experienced scholars reference all items in the
literature that bear on the topic under discussion--and
none that do not. (For advice on proper acknowledgment of
indebtedness to others, see Appendix
A below.)
If you're revising a paper originally
given as a talk, remember the difference between oral and
written communication. Oral arguments are usually
simplified so that the listener can follow them more
easily; in written form, they must be fleshed out with
further examples, while the evidence itself is given a
more nuanced consideration. A lively, conversational tone
is often appropriate in presentation, but the style of a
printed article is almost invariably formal. The sole
exceptions to that rule are plenary addresses (for
example, the APA Presidential Address) and, on occasion,
the scripts of entire panels published together as a
collection, often with invited commentary and audience
discussion.
Once you have revised accordingly,
think of a compelling title, one that arouses reader
interest. If you cannot be both lively and clear,
however, choose clarity. Remember that the published
article will be listed in non-annotated databases such as
TOCS-IN; you will do hurried researchers a favor by
providing a title that clearly indicates subject matter.
You will also do bibliographers a favor by keeping it
relatively short. (One of the authors of this guide has a
penchant for two-word titles hinting at approach, e.g.,
"Pretty Lesbius," Roman Sexualities, "Sapphic Nossis." She concedes, however,
that this strategy may not be feasible in every
instance.)
Regarding footnotes, you may find S.
Nimis, "Fussnoten: Das Fundament der Wissenschaft,"
Arethusa 17.2
(1984) 105-34 amusing and insightful. W. M. Calder, III,
"A Scholar's First Article," CW
77 (1984) 361-66 offers some helpful advice, but also
contains information about submission and refereeing that
is no longer current. Use with caution.
Selecting a Journal
Selecting the appropriate journal for
your submission is an art. Don't rely exclusively on the
advice of teachers and colleagues; explore current
editorial preferences at specific journals yourself.
Spending time in the library and developing a list of
three or four likely venues will have a long-term payoff.
You should read both the policy statements issued by
editors and the tables of contents in recent issues of
the journals to which you plan to submit. (Both are often
available on journal websites; a list of sites is given
below.) Consider the following factors:
Restrictions.
Some journals receive submissions only from members of
the associations that sponsor them.
Subject Matter.
Is the topic of your article within the basic scope of a
particular journal? Don't submit a fundamentally
historical essay to a journal that specializes in
literary criticism.
Length.
Many journals have length limits, so if your article is
long, your choices will be limited. If your article is
too long for journals that would otherwise be ideal, you
should think about whether it could or should be
shortened. Conversely, some journals regularly publish
very short articles; others avoid them. Typically,
quarterlies are likelier to publish brief notes than are
annuals.
Breadth of Appeal.
Is your article likely to interest a large audience
within the profession, or is it more specialized or
technical? Some journals expect all articles to be of
general interest, while others present a mixture of
broader and more specialized works, and others are aimed
at particular subdisciplines. Audiences for some journals
include both professional scholars and secondary
teachers, so editors look for articles that will interest
both groups.
Scholarly Approach.
Some journals prefer submissions that showcase new
methodologies or topics, while others are more
traditional, and some try to represent the greatest
possible variety of approaches. If your article
participates in an ongoing scholarly dialogue or
controversy, it makes obvious sense for it to appear in
the same place as other contributions to that discussion.
Illustrations.
Not all journals are able to publish graphics. Journals
of archaeology and art history invite illustrated essays,
as do some literary journals with a decided orientation
toward the humanities (e.g., Arion).
Otherwise, check with the editor before you send off an
essay containing pictures, drawings, charts, or
graphs.
Refereeing Policy.
Most American journals use anonymous refereeing. Some
rely on editorial boards both to read articles themselves
and to select referees, while others have single editors
who select referees. Some European journal editors
referee all submissions themselves. Know the scholarship
of the editors and board members. Your goal should be to
find rigorous but sympathetic referees. Weak publications
can be worse than none in the job market or a tenure
case.
Decision Time.
The time from submission to acceptance or rejection may
be as short as a month or as long, unfortunately, as nine
months. E-mail has speeded up the process of finding
referees and receiving reports from them. While a
conscientious editor will make every effort to give you a
timely decision, some factors are beyond his or her
control: referees become ill and computers crash. Feel
free to ask the editor beforehand how long the refereeing
process takes on average, but be prepared for an
underestimate.
External factors affect decision time.
It's harder to place a long essay with referees (another
reason for keeping the paper short). Extremely
specialized papers are also hard to place. Referees are
more willing to undertake this obligation at certain
times of the year. The absolutely worst time to send off
an essay expecting a quick decision is between
Thanksgiving and the beginning of the new year.
Prospective referees are deliberating on search and
tenure committees, trying to write their annual meeting
presentations, and making holiday preparations, all at
once. Wheels of adjudication at journals also tend to
grind more slowly during the summer months. The best
period for submitting is usually between September and
November, when relatively fewer contributions come
in.
Sometimes editors themselves inform a
contributor of circumstances that are delaying a
decision. Otherwise, it's proper to make a polite inquiry
if you've heard nothing after four to six months.
Publication Backlogs.
There are journals where a piece may wait two years to be
printed after it is accepted. If this is a concern, find
out what the situation is before you submit by e-mailing
the editor. Editors will not deceive you about the
existence of a backlog. Consider, too, how often the
journal appears and how many articles are usually
published in each issue.
Overall Prestige.
There is a hierarchy of journals, but it is unofficial
and varies from subject to subject. It is based less on
the average quality of articles than on the number of
especially important articles recently published and on
the reputations of the scholars who regularly appear
there. Also, prestige tends to accompany age: after a
century or so, a journal has probably acquired respect
based on tradition. Leading journals naturally set higher
standards. To be suitable for a journal of the first
rank, a contribution must advance discussion of a problem
significantly, e.g., by bringing previously unconsidered
evidence to bear, and must also present a well-reasoned
and highly compelling argument. Less prestigious journals
are often less rigorous in their refereeing. Be very
realistic about the quality of your own work, and don't
send a "B"-grade essay off to an "A"-grade journal hoping
for a miracle.
Alternative Outlets.
Remember that there are journals outside classics that
welcome interdisciplinary work. If your article could
interest non-classicists who study the same literary
genre or historical phenomena, or presents issues of
method, consider one of these. The article will need to
be written or revised with a view to this wider audience.
If you publish in such a journal, you will need to
consider whether you need to make a special effort to
bring your work to the attention of classicists who might
find it interesting but would not necessarily see it. An
oral presentation at a scholarly meeting of classicists
is one strategy for increasing awareness of your work.
You can also send offprints to scholars who are likely to
find your work useful (especially those you have cited
favorably--just be mindful of the gray area between
networking and flattery).
Special Factors.
Finally, consider connections or personal ties you or
your mentors have with particular journals or their
editors. While a journal connected with a department may
not confine itself to submissions from former faculty and
students, such submissions may be especially welcome and
could induce the editor to provide a little extra help to
improve the article. If an editor is an authority on your
own topic, you may receive special advice and assistance.
Personal connections are a very delicate area. Editors
will resent any pressure to relax their professional
standards, and they dislike having to reject the
submissions of their friends and their friends' students.
On the other hand, a friendly eye is always better than a
hostile one.
Preparing the Essay for
Submission
First and most important: read the
style sheet and directions for submission contained in
the journal to which you have decided to offer your
essay. They will be found at the front or back of each
issue, and on the journal website. Follow those
instructions rigorously. For example, if you're asked to
employ footnotes, don't use endnotes instead; if
abbreviations of ancient authors and texts should conform
to OCD, don't abbreviate according to OLD and LSJ.
Some journals have a prescribed form of citation, e.g.,
putting only author's name and date in the note, with
full reference supplied in a bibliography at the back.
Try to follow that form as closely as you can. If the
stylistic instructions don't tell you precisely what to
do, read over the articles in the latest issue and model
your practice on what you find there.
Second, do a thorough audit before you
send off the essay. Typos are bad form, and some referees
make a point of noting spelling errors. Check all quoted
Greek and Latin passages against the original text (use
standard editions, and the same edition throughout).
.Make sure quotations from secondary sources, titles,
dates and page numbers are correct. Don't put this task
off until galley proof stage; you won't have sufficient
time to do it then.
Familiarize yourself with the
regulations concerning "fair use" of copyrighted
material. Giving appropriate credit is not enough.
Generally accepted standards for what constitutes "fair
use" must be observed. Most presses define "fair use" as
no more than 350 words of prose text quoted from any one
source. Otherwise, permission to reproduce has to be
obtained from the copyright holder. You, the author, may
be held responsible for obtaining such permission and
paying any fees required; if so, you should provide the
editor with a copy of the signed permission form before
your essay goes to press. It's better to avoid using
large amounts of copyrighted material, if possible. For
example, if you are citing the Loeb translation to an
extent that copyright becomes a concern, you may be
quoting excessively: supply enough to enable the reader
to follow the argument, but no more. Alternatively,
consider providing your own translations of Greek and
Latin passages rather than quoting the Loeb.
Do not submit the same article to more
than one journal at the same time. Violating that rule is
a fundamental breach of professional conduct. For good
reason, you may withdraw the ms. after submission but
before an editorial decision is reached.
Unless specifically instructed
otherwise, send three copies of the essay. If the journal
requires anonymous submission, remove all personal
references and indicators of your identity from running
text and notes. On a separate page, give the title of the
article, your name, academic address, telephone number
and e-mail, and any other contact information that may be
relevant. If you will be away during the following six
months, specify dates of absence and provide alternative
contact information, if possible. Making it as easy as
possible for the editor to find you can shorten decision
time considerably!
Your cover letter should be brief,
simply indicating that you are submitting the enclosed
essay for editorial consideration. If someone has read
the piece in manuscript, please tell the editor, since in
all fairness that person should not be asked to referee
it.
Never, never fax a submission to a
journal. Some journals will allow you to submit the ms.
as an e-mail attachment; check with the editor first. If
you are sending hard copy, don't include a diskette
unless asked to do so. Usually you will not need to
supply one until the article is accepted.
Editorial Response
Some time later--ideally, between two
and three months--you will receive copies of the
referees' reports, together with a letter from the editor
informing you of the final decision. Several outcomes are
possible:
1. Straightforward
acceptance, without any stipulated changes. This almost
never happens, so don't expect it.
2. Conditional
acceptance. Your article will be published contingent on
revisions suggested by one or more referees and/or the
editor. Very often you will be asked to shorten the
essay. Once you have revised according to instructions,
the editor will read over the new version, and, if s/he
deems it satisfactory, send you a firm acceptance.
3. Rejection,
with invitation to revise and resubmit. The referees
think your article shows promise, but conclude "it isn't
there yet." In their reports, they will often include
very detailed instructions for strengthening your
argument. The editor will explicitly invite you to
resubmit the piece, sometimes giving you a deadline to
meet. When you return a revised version, the editor may
ask at least one of the former referees to reread it. One
of the things s/he will want to know is whether you have
adequately addressed problems identified in the first
draft, so s/he will usually send the earlier referees'
reports out with the new version. A common
misapprehension of inexperienced scholars is to think
that "revise and resubmit" is tantamount to acceptance,
and thus to pay mere lip service to referees' advice. Be
aware that referees frequently take offense when their
painstaking efforts are not heeded, and that "revise and
resubmit" carries no guarantees whatsoever. If you do an
inadequate job of revision, your article may still be
rejected. Normally you shouldn't expect a third
chance.
Perhaps you
disagree with a referee's suggestion. When resubmitting,
explain your reason for not adopting that particular
proposal; leave it up to the editor to weigh the
difference in opinion with the referee. However--and it's
sad that we feel it necessary to give the following
advice, but we do--never question the referee's
objectivity or professional competence. When editors
receive a genuinely unfair report, they normally solicit
another evaluation; if particular comments seem
unhelpful, they will inform the author that they
themselves do not agree. Since an editorial invitation to
revise and resubmit is based upon the premise that the
author will attempt to correct whatever weaknesses
prevented the referees from recommending acceptance
originally, you might do better to try another journal if
a reader's criticisms appear wholly objectionable and the
editor seems to accept them.
4. Rejection,
with the suggestion that the essay be offered to a
different publication. Although an essay strikes the
editor as unsuitable, s/he may nevertheless send it out
to obtain referees' reactions. If they aren't
enthusiastic, s/he could advise you to send it elsewhere.
Sometimes this is a polite way of saying that the quality
of the contribution doesn't measure up to the standards
of the journal. At other times, the essay, while well
written and argued, may be too narrow in focus, too
theoretical, or too specialized for that particular
venue.
5. Rejection,
with no invitation to resubmit. The referees will
identify fundamental problems with the thesis, and the
editor will firmly turn the essay down. Read the reports
over carefully and give serious consideration to the
points they raise before sending the piece elsewhere. At
the same time, don't become discouraged! Good articles
have been rejected, and distinguished scholars have
written articles that were deservedly rejected.
Even if your essay isn't accepted,
it's a nice gesture to e-mail the editor thanking her/him
and the referees for their efforts on your behalf. If it
is accepted, definitely express your thanks and confirm
that a final version will be returned by the stipulated
deadline.
Finishing Touches
Hallelujah, your article was accepted
with relatively few, minor changes. You were asked to
send the final draft in by a certain date, and you're
about to mail off hard copy together with a diskette.
Alternatively, the editor may have asked you to e-mail
the draft as an attachment--although this can wreak havoc
with formatting and is not recommended for essays
containing Greek.
Sooner or later you'll receive page
proofs (a corollary of Murphy's Law provides that it must
happen during finals week). It is your obligation to
return them within the time-frame specified by the
editor. This can be as short as 48 hours. Read proofs
over thoroughly at least twice. One time-honored trick is
to read the essay backward, starting with the last word.
Another is to read aloud to a friend (or paid assistant)
who follows the text in a second copy.
The editor may have modified your
prose in the interests of clarity or smoothness. If
you're not happy with the new wording, explain your
concerns in a cover letter. Do not, however, quibble over
every change as if your prose were deathless--editors
have enough work to do without being pestered in this
way. She or he may have attached queries on Post-It notes
or written them in the margins; respond briefly but
clearly to every question. Buy a copy of the Chicago
Manual of Style,
fourteenth edition, and follow its conventions for
marking page proof. If you have employed cross-references
(a practice editors discourage), make sure that pages or
note numbers are correct. Double-check accents and
breathings in Greek, spellings and diacritical marks in
titles and quotations in modern foreign languages. Do
not, repeat do not, make substantial revisions to content in page proof. You
could be charged for each word changed. At the very
least, you will incur the wrath of the editor, and a
wrathful editor is no fun to deal with.
And Then…
Under the rubric "Publications" on
your CV, enter the title of your essay and add
"forthcoming in [journal title]." Pat yourself on
the back; you deserve it. Then get to work on that second
article.
We regard these guidelines as a
work-in-progress. If you would like us to develop a point
further or have ideas for possible topics not discussed
here, please e-mail us!
Ruth
Scodel
rscodel@umich.edu
Marilyn
Skinner
mskinner@u.arizona.edu
Journal Websites
Below are links to the
guidelines for prospective contributors posted on
websites of representative American classics journals. We
have tried to make the list as up-to-date and
comprehensive as possible; do inform us of additions and
corrections. Thank you!
American Journal of Archaeology
http://www.ajaonline.org/shared/s_info_contrib.html
American Journal of Philology
http://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/american_journal_of_philology/guidelines.html
Arethusa
http://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/arethusa/guidelines.html
Arion
http://www.bu.edu/arion/submit.html
Bryn Mawr Classical Review
(reviews only)
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/review.html
Classical Antiquity
http://www.ucpress.edu/journals/ca/edsub.html
Classical Journal
http://www.camws.org/CJ/contributors.html
Classical and Modern Literature
http://www.missouri.edu/~classwww/clmjournal.html
Classical Outlook
No website. Contact
the editor, Mary C. English (englishm@mail.montclair.edu)
Classical Philology
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CP/instruct.html
Classical World
http://www.caas-cw.com/contribu.html
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/submissions.html
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~classics/hscp.html#Marker3
Helios
No website. Contact
the editor, Steven M. Oberhelman (s-oberhelman@tamu.edu)
Illinois Classical Studies
No website. Contact the editor, David Sansone (dsansone@uiuc.edu)
Ramus
http://www.bendigo.latrobe.edu.au/publicat/ramus/stylesheet.html
Syllecta Classica
http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Eclassics/syllclass/guidelines.html
Transactions of the American Philological
Association
http://www.apaclassics.org
and follow links from "Publications"
Vergilius
Questions should be directed to the editor, Patricia A.
Johnston (johnston@brandeis.edu.)
APPENDIX A
Thoughts
on Footnotes:
Some Considerations for Proper Acknowledgement
By
Maud Gleason
From
preface, text, and notes, a reader not familiar with the
book's topic should be able to reconstruct the "history
of the question," the antecedents of and influences on
the author's approach.
To unpack this a bit:
First and foremost, consider the
reader:
·
The
reader needs general information about the "history of
the question": the works that opened up the question
originally, and those works that constitute antecedents
of the approach used by the present author.
·
The
reader also wants to know more particularly the history
of the present author's involvement with the question.
Whose work is this author building on? This has to be
clear from the text and footnotes; a reader should not
have to read works cited in a book's footnotes to
appreciate both the general outlines and the specific
details of what the author owes to the work of other
scholars.
·
The
author may acknowledge intellectual debts of a more
general kind in a preface and recount briefly the
development of his/her own thinking on the subject.
·
Notes
that give only an author's name and date without page
numbers (Smith 1990) are not very helpful to the reader,
and so appropriate only for very short articles, or where
you are referring to the entire argument of a work.
Then
consider your own procedures as an author:
·
What
should one acknowledge in the text, and what in the
notes? The more influential the work of another scholar
has been on one's own approach, the more it belongs in
the text. Scholars mentioned in the text usually make it
into the index (and thus are more likely to be included
in any future "history of the question"); those mentioned
only in the notes often do not.
·
What
if I am building on an idea mentioned by someone else in
print, at a conference, or in conversation? Ideas that
are fundamental to one's argument, without which the
argument would not have taken the shape that it did,
should be acknowledged by name ("Following up on a
suggestion by Professor X...") in the text, with a
footnote showing the source or "personal communication".
Minor suggestions may receive general acknowledgement in
a preface or opening footnote ("With thanks to my
colleagues X and Y and to audiences at Princeton and UCLA
for their stimulating feedback").
·
What
if a junior scholar has received a great many suggestions
from a dissertation advisor or senior colleague? A
general acknowledgement in the preface is definitely in
order. As to specific points, the junior scholar should
ask the senior scholar how they would like such
contributions to be footnoted, both in the dissertation
and in subsequent publication.
·
What
if I am using an original Greek or Latin source that I
found cited in someone else's work? Here it is best to
acknowledge the source of the citation if one is unlikely
to have found it on one's own. Using the Georgics to gloss the
Aeneid is something
everyone is expected to do. Using Artemidorus'
Oneirocritica to solve a
crux in the Aeneid is more
likely to have originated with a particular individual's
diligence or imagination. Credit should be given to that
person.
·
Avoid
plagiarism by paraphrase. A "decoy footnote" that
mentions the name of an author to whose work you are
indebted, but manages to conceal the extent of one's debt
to that person's work, is not sufficient acknowledgement.
Finally, consider professional
relationships:
·
On
strictly prudential grounds, generosity in
acknowledgements protects the reputation of the author
and the reputation of the Press. No one's scholarly
career has been hindered by generous acknowledgement;
failure to acknowledge however can have serious
professional consequences.
·
Professional
seniority confers special responsibilities. Senior
scholars have access to the unpublished work of graduate
students and review the manuscripts of other scholars
seeking publication. Ideas or approaches encountered in
this fashion remain the intellectual property of the
original author and should be acknowledged as such after
the original author has published them, or, with the
author's permission, cited as "forthcoming" or "in
manuscript." Not every instance of two scholars
developing similar ideas should be attributed to
malfeasance, however. Two individuals may be responding
simultaneously to intellectual trends current in the
discipline.
·
A
final test: when the scholars you cite read your book,
will they feel their work has been exploited
unscrupulously or acknowledged fairly?
And bear
in mind: the difference between copyright violation and
plagiarism:
·
Plagiarism
is the appropriation of all forms of intellectual
property without due credit. It goes beyond borrowing
phraseology to include the theft of ideas. Copyright
violation, however, involves the use of words or images
not in the public domain without permission, whether
credit is given or not. There are recognized limits on
quoting a song, poem, book, etc., verbatim and on
reproducing a picture. Adding a footnote giving the
source is not enough; it is the responsibility of the
author (not the publisher) to seek out the copyright
holder and solicit permission, which often involves
paying a fee. In addition to being scrupulous about
attribution, the conscientious author has familiarized
herself with the general rules surrounding "fair use" (if
only to avoid a lawsuit).
APPENDIX B
Seminar
Paper into Article
Many fine
articles have originated as papers in a graduate seminar
(and some as undergraduate essays). Turning that paper
intended to meet an assignment into a publishable article
that contributes to knowledge of the ancient world can be
both a challenge and a rewarding learning experience.
Here are some suggestions on how to go about it.
First, think about the various papers
you wrote for your courses. They will be on both Greek
and Latin topics and deal with a variety of subjects and
issues. For most people who are building a career, it is
best to have one recognizable field of interest without
being too narrow. There are, of course, exceptional
scholars who publish in a broad range of fields, but, as
a rule, they are senior people who have branched out
after receiving tenure. Alternatively, a researcher may
choose to devote her efforts to a single set of problems,
if they are complicated enough. So as you select papers
that might be the basis of future publications, think
about the profile you would like to present to potential
colleagues. Keep in mind that your best work as a student
is likely to have been on a subject you yourself found,
and still find, intriguing.
A professor may inform you that you
have a publishable idea. When that happens, make an
appointment to discuss the paper in more detail. Ask
practical questions as well as scholarly ones. Take ample
notes. You may already get good advice about where to
submit it. However, a paper might be worth publishing
even if the professor for whom it was written does not
seem unduly impressed. If you think you have come up with
an original and sustainable insight, hang onto it.
No matter how glowingly the professor
praises your insight, it is usually not prudent to rush
it into print. Shorter treatments of technical or
precisely defined questions may well be in finished form,
and supplements to a newly-published papyrus should
appear as soon as possible, but most seminar papers will
be better if you wait. Let your thinking steep.
There are two good reasons to delay.
First, even very good student work almost always needs
substantial revision. As a student, you were only
beginning to understand the issues in a particular field.
You may still have been weak in the modern languages you
need for reviewing secondary literature or possibly not
familiar enough with material evidence or the general
historical and cultural context. Certainly your grasp of
the ancient languages will have improved after reading
additional texts closely. Writing a dissertation has
probably made you a more fluent writer.
Second, if you are in a tenure-track
position or even trying to get one after a year or more
in temporary jobs, you will find yourself under pressure
to develop a record of publications. You can save a
little time by building upon the preliminary research you
did a few years back. If you are lucky, you may now be
asked to teach the same subjects about which you
previously wrote papers, so preparing your classes will
also allow you to refresh your memory of the topic and
expand your research.
Begin the revision process by
re-reading the paper cold. Distance yourself from it; try
to be critical and objective. Since you haven't seen it
for a while, its weaknesses should leap out at you. Make
copious notes on points to check, additional arguments to
supply, etc. Don't assume a claim is acceptable because
your instructor didn't question it. Then do a first
rewrite. If you have a more experienced colleague with
some knowledge of the topic, ask him or her to read the
paper. Weigh suggestions carefully.
You will need to give some thought to
the rhetorical organization of the article, as distinct
from the seminar paper. In the seminar, you and your reader(s)
have shared background and assumptions. The
article needs to clarify its place in scholarly
discussion. You may not have been under pressure to be
concise in the paper, but efficiency is important for
articles. Also, professors have to read seminar
papers, but readers can ignore articles, so you need to
attract the reader's interest. Dull
beginnings are a turn-off; try not to plod.
If your thesis is
daring, state it firmly and immediately so that the
reader will want to see if you can sustain it. Strike a
balance between making it clear where you are going and
keeping readers in some suspense.
At this juncture you should consider
presenting the paper at a conference, particularly one
for which submissions are reviewed anonymously.
Acceptance of your paper for the program is a promising
sign that the fundamental idea has merit. Start writing
the abstract well in advance of the deadline. Weaknesses
in argumentation often show up as you try to summarize
your thinking, and you may have to put in additional
library time to strengthen a point. Even after you've
completed the abstract, let it sit for two or three days
and reread it carefully once again before sending it off.
In an abstract, every word counts and inaccuracies may
mean the difference between acceptance and rejection. Try
not to write the paper at the last minute (but don't feel
bad if you do: you aren't alone!), and time your delivery
(crucial: running overtime will win you no
friends!!!).
At the conference, your paper will
probably be grouped in a session with others in the same
general area (e.g., Latin Literature of the Augustan
Age). Pay close attention to the other presenters'
remarks, because their conclusions may bear on yours.
Download their abstracts from the program web site (or
buy the abstract book) beforehand and respond to their
contributions with useful comments (follow the Golden
Rule). Exchange e-mail addresses with them after the
session. If your session is poorly attended--and it
happens--or if the audience isn't lively, the other
panelists may be your best source of help. Even if you
aren't impressed with someone's paper, his or her
criticism may be helpful to you.
Questions from the audience at a paper
session are frequently directed at matters that need
clarification. Never become defensive, even if the
questioning seems hostile. Often it's best simply to
admit that an issue is one you hadn't considered and
thank the participant for calling it to your attention.
Meanwhile, have a friend in the audience taking notes
about points raised and your responses to them. Don't
rely on your own memory, because stress causes
forgetfulness. If you don't have a friend available, try
to write up your notes on the session the same day,
before you forget.
Now that you've revised your seminar
paper to the best of your ability, shown it to helpful
colleagues, and shared your ideas orally, it's time to
subject your ms. to editorial review. Follow the
directions we've given for submitting an article.
Last
updated: September 2004