Well, a new academic year is upon us—and with it, the prospect of thousands of new research projects by enterprising graduate students. They will write papers and chapters that may eventually appear in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. In the spirit of academic collegiality, I offer here a basic checklist that may spare academics at all levels possible missteps in the process of bringing a paper to publication. (It was either this or an unsolicited rant about the academic job market.) The following recommendations stem from my field, history, but I hope my advice will prove helpful to folks in other areas of the humanities and social sciences.

Some of this comes from the guidance of mentors; much, from experience. I have published 16 peer-reviewed articles in 15 journals with one more on the way. These studies have appeared in generalist publications with a wide readership, journals with a more focused, topical scope, and regional journals. I have also seen the other side of process as a referee for a number of journals and publishers. I don’t have unusual talent; my ability to publish has come from understanding (if imperfectly) the method in the madness of the academic world, which the following reflects.

I cannot guarantee that these recommendations will ensure a successful journey through peer review. However, they will greatly enhance an author’s chances. Indeed, in history, most of the scholarly articles that a researcher comes across meet most of the following criteria.

I. Content

• Offer a new story or an original perspective on a seemingly well-known one. This first point is arguably the most challenging in this list. It’s easy to check many of these boxes, especially with a few extra pairs of eyes, but originality requires a strong grasp of a field’s dynamics. Often, that fresh perspective will come from research into heretofore unexplored sources, or from a new interpretation of known sources.
• Avoid speaking only of “gaps” (“scholars have failed to discuss this”); you will need something stronger, a claim that will move your field forward in fruitful ways. What’s more, you should be able to boil that “something” down to a thesis statement of one or two sentences.
• Rest your claims on a broad base of primary sources. Avoid simply patching pieces of the secondary literature together without directly studying original sources.
• Make sure that your sources allow or sufficiently support your thesis. Aim to build as airtight a case as is possible; your readers should read your paper, look at the sources, and come to the same conclusion as you have.
• In the interest of intellectual honesty, acknowledge interpretations and sources that may seem at odds with your argument—though the article should be more than a lengthy rebuttal. Why is your interpretation valid amid conflicting evidence?
• Connect your study to existing narratives. This is the “so what?” question. From a broader angle, how will this article enrich our understanding of the past? Why does your study matter and why should scholars in tangential fields pay attention to it?

II. Style

• Write for an educated reader who has general familiarity with your field, but not with this specific topic. It should be accessible to upper-level undergraduates but also engaging for established experts.
• Proofread again and again before submitting your work. Check spelling, grammar, punctuation, capitalization, topic sentences, etc. Avoid needless repetition and long, winding sentences. Be direct. Every word, sentence, paragraph, and section should have a purpose. Have someone else read your paper to pick up on typos and to make sure the text flows well in style and in content.
• Avoid relying too heavily on direct quotations and lengthy block quotes. Your own framework and analysis must resonate strongly. But it is a balancing act. You need to present evidence as illustrative material that will help readers reach the same conclusion as you have.
• Alternate between analytical, argumentative, descriptive, and narrative modes to make a lively and compelling case. A strong article usually works on two levels: it presents real historical actors in their circumstances (in other words, it is a human story) while offering explanations that are more abstract and of wider application.
• Double-check footnotes or endnotes. Incomplete citation or erroneous information can severely undermine your credibility as a scholar.
• Heed your journal’s stipulated article length. Most journals expect a word count between 7,000 and 10,000 words, or about 20 to 30 double-spaced pages.

III. Structure

• Consider beginning with a lively vignette to elicit your reader’s interest and illustrate the unresolved questions you seek to address.
• Define the historical “problem” you are addressing and state your thesis as early in the paper as possible.
• Then, clarify that “problem” by exploring the historiography. Show that what you plan to do has not yet been done. You may not have the necessary space to cover all books and articles; identify broad trends and focus on works published in the last 20 to 30 years. Be fair to other authors; this is not a place for settling scores.
• Also identify, early in the paper, the sources and methods that enable you to make your case.
• Present your evidence. The body of the article should have a consistent thematic, chronological, or geographical structure.
• Conclude by restating the thesis and addressing the scholarly and more general significance of your research.

IV. Submission and Revisions

• Find the right journal. Consider what your target audience is, where you can make the most meaningful impact, and where other influential articles in your field have appeared. The American Historical Review may be tantalizing, but the readers who will benefit most from your research are likely to be found in other, more focused publications. Note that journals of a national and international caliber have very high standards and many submissions do not make it to peer review; at the other end, some journals may promise an easier path to publication, but without providing the desired visibility or the same rigor. Here too there is a balancing act.
• Submit your paper to only one place at a time, but do not pin all hopes on one journal. It may in fact help to have a few journals in mind as the project develops.
• Spare your editor and referees unnecessary frustration by closely following the preferred citation style, e.g. Chicago or MLA. Be attentive to other stylistic requirements; some journals might prefer British spelling, for instance, or require an abstract. (I always include an abstract to help situate readers at the outset.) A bibliography is typically only needed for journals that require parenthetical citation.
• Blind your manuscript to protect the integrity of the peer-review process. Make sure that referees cannot trace the text back to you. (This becomes more difficult as you become an established scholar and people become familiar with the type of work you do.) Leave acknowledgments to a later phase, once it is accepted.

V. Best Practices

• Recognize that peer review can be—or at least feel—lengthy. The length of the process varies between journals. Many aim to have a three-month turnaround, but it can easily take longer. Ask the editor at the outset. Avoid checking on the manuscript’s status within the typical time frame, and then only do so with the greatest courtesy.
• When reports are in, if you are encouraged to make revisions and submit a new version, be sure to address all of the referees’ substantive suggestions. It is fine to disagree on some points, but you should provide sound justification and back your point by making alterations to the text. In some cases, it is perfectly acceptable to consult with the editor, especially if the referees disagree with one another.
• Referee reports can be bruising, even for established scholars. Remember: if the process is truly anonymous, the feedback is not personal. It offers an opportunity to strengthen the case you are making. Read the reports, do something else, and come back to them a week later, at which point, they will certainly seem less objectionable.
• Even if the manuscript is rejected, thank the editor and be cordial. You may want to submit to the same journal at some point in the future—and the editor may be serving on a search committee.

In closing, as helpful as I hope this may be, there is no substitute for simply reading a lot of scholarly articles and chapters, especially in the journals and books that are directly relevant to your research. You will see where current research lies, what the dominant narratives are, and what a sound, persuasive piece looks like.

Best of luck in your journey.