Event summary: Demystifying the publication process
On 5 November 2026 the Postgraduate Network (PGN) hosted a joint event with the Critical Alternatives for World Politics Working Group (CAWP). The workshop aimed to provide PhD students and early-career researchers with a better understanding of the different stages of academic publishing, from preparing an article for submission to navigating peer review and responding to reviewers' comments. Dr Natalie Jester, co-convener of BISA CAWP and lecturer at the University of Gloucestershire, led the session. Drawing on her own experiences and expertise, she guided participants through the publishing process, offering practical advice and insights into the workings of academic journals, alongside interactive exercises.
Getting started: Preparing for publication
The first step towards publishing is by finding a suitable journal for it. Dr Jester recommended starting by identifying your paper's main idea and looking at the bibliography of the work you cite to see which journals publish relevant research. Once you have identified a suitable journal (and a backup option), it is important to write with these journals in mind, taking into account their aims and scope, target audience and formal requirements, such as word count. Other factors to consider include the journal's reputation, publishing house and impact factor, although these should not be treated as the sole indicators of quality. Dr Jester particularly emphasised the importance of checking the journal's aims and scope to ensure that your proposed article is a good fit. This also helps you reach the right audience and adapt the tone and level of explanation accordingly. Finally, she proposed keeping a personal journal database to help identify suitable journals for future publications.
What happens after submission?
Dr Jester provided an overview of the different stages of the publication process. Following administrative checks, the editor decides whether an article should proceed to peer review or be desk rejected. One of the most common reasons for desk rejection is a lack of fit with the journal's aims and scope. She also noted that increased submission numbers, partly driven by the use of AI, can contribute to longer waiting times. If an article proceeds to peer review, it is generally assessed by at least two reviewers, who provide recommendations to the editor. These can range from rejection to major or minor revisions and acceptance. If accepted, the article goes through copyediting, after which authors receive proofs to check before publication. Dr Jester also emphasised the importance of promoting one's work once it has been published.
Reviewing someone else’s work
Another part of the workshop focused on the peer-review process from the reviewer's perspective. Dr Jester introduced an example of a reviewer assessment form and explained the main criteria reviewers are asked to consider: the contribution and novelty of the paper, its engagement with relevant literature and debates, the clarity of its writing, its overall coherence and its fit with the journal. When writing reviews, Dr Jester emphasised the importance of being constructive and kind, even when providing critical feedback. Rather than making general comments, reviewers should offer concrete and actionable suggestions, addressing both the overall argument and specific aspects of the paper. Reviews should also be sufficiently detailed to allow authors to engage meaningfully with the feedback. Finally, participants were encouraged to consider reviewing as an opportunity to become more involved in the academic community, with reviewing experience worth including on one's CV.
On receiving and responding to reviewer comments
Feeling nervous about receiving reviewer feedback is normal. Dr Jester recommended first checking the outcome of the review and adjusting how one approaches the comments accordingly. While positive feedback and revision requests can be read immediately, she suggested leaving negative reviews, particularly rejections, for a few days before engaging with them in detail. This can help authors avoid taking criticism personally and instead use the feedback to improve their work, including when preparing a submission to another journal.
When responding to reviewers, Dr Jester advised drafting the response letter before making the actual revisions. This provides a roadmap for the changes required and helps organise the revision process. The letter should explain clearly how the reviewers' suggestions have been addressed and demonstrate that their feedback has been taken seriously. Where authors disagree with a suggestion, they should acknowledge the reviewer's perspective and explain their reasoning in a constructive manner. Throughout, the response should remain formal, polite and respectful. Importantly, a revise-and-resubmit decision does not guarantee acceptance, making a thoughtful and comprehensive response particularly important.
Finally, Dr Jester briefly addressed the role of AI in academic publishing, highlighting that some journals restrict or prohibit its use. She also recommended setting up an ORCID ID to link publications to one's academic profile. Overall, the workshop demonstrated that understanding the publishing and peer-review process can make what initially seems like a daunting experience considerably more manageable.
We would like to thank Dr Natalie Jester for sharing her insights and experiences, and everyone who joined the session!