Wednesday 08-07-2026 - 16:00

Publishing from Your PhD: Insights from the DTA Summer School 2026 Panel Discussion

by Rabia Arshad and Jennie Eldridge

The overarching theme of the DTA Summer School 2026 was Publishing from Your PhD. For many doctoral researchers, publishing is an important milestone. It can help establish academic credibility, contribute to disciplinary knowledge, and enhance future career opportunities both within and beyond academia. However, understanding the publication process, identifying suitable opportunities, and navigating the expectations of academic publishing can often feel complex and daunting, particularly for researchers at the beginning of their doctoral journey.

To support researchers in developing their understanding of this important aspect of academic life, the final day of the Summer School featured a panel discussion with researchers and academics at different stages of their careers. The session aimed to demystify the publishing process, share practical advice, and provide DTA researchers with an opportunity to ask questions and engage in open discussion with emerging and experienced academics.

This blog post summarises some of the key insights and reflections from that discussion and serves as a useful resource for PhD researchers who are considering publishing during their doctorate.

The panel brought together a diverse range of perspectives and experiences. It included Marco Galzignato, a current DTA Future Societies doctoral researcher at the University of Greenwich; Dr Rabia Arshad, Early Career Researcher and DTA Postgraduate Researcher Development Manager; Professor Sarah Cooper from Birmingham City University and Assistant Professor Arun Ulahannan from Coventry University, both Co-Directors of the DTA Future Societies programme; and senior academics Dr Andrew Rawnsley from Teesside University and Dr Nico Pizzolato from Middlesex University.

Together, the panel offered insights from across different stages of the academic journey, from publishing during a PhD to building an established publication record as an experienced academic. Drawing on their own successes, challenges, and lessons learned, they provided valuable advice on developing publications from doctoral research and beyond, selecting appropriate journals, responding to peer review, and building confidence as an academic writer. Each panellist brought a unique perspective, resulting in a rich and engaging discussion that highlighted both the opportunities and challenges of academic publishing.

Below are the key highlights of the discussion:

• Publications Take Time

One of the most reassuring messages to emerge from the discussion was that publishing is rarely a quick process. Many doctoral researchers submit a paper expecting a decision within a few weeks, only to discover that academic publishing often moves much more slowly.

One panellist reflected on their first publication, which took almost two years to progress from submission to publication. While the process felt long at the time, it provided important insights into how publishing works and helped them develop patience and resilience.

The panel explained that peer reviewers are often academics who volunteer their time alongside teaching, research, supervision, and administrative responsibilities. As a result, delays are common and do not necessarily reflect the quality of a manuscript.

Researchers were also encouraged not to feel intimidated about contacting a journal if they have concerns about unexpected delays. A polite follow-up is perfectly acceptable and can sometimes reveal that an email has been missed or that additional information is needed. The key message was simple: if you are unsure, ask. Journal editors are there to support authors through the process.

• Finding the Right Journal

Choosing where to publish can be just as important as writing the paper itself. Several panellists highlighted the difficulties faced by interdisciplinary researchers, whose work may sit across multiple subject areas.

One common experience shared by the panel was receiving desk rejections because a submission was considered "out of scope" for a particular journal. While disappointing, these decisions are a normal part of academic publishing and should not be interpreted as a judgement on the quality of the research.

The discussion highlighted several practical strategies for identifying suitable journals:

• Read the journal's aims and scope carefully.
• Explore recently published articles to understand the type of work being accepted.
• Use journal search tools and databases to identify potential publication outlets.
• Pay close attention to submission guidelines.
• Use the cover letter to explain why your paper is a good fit, particularly if your research is interdisciplinary.

A recurring message was to spend time researching journals before submitting. This can save considerable time and reduce the likelihood of an immediate rejection.

• The Value of Publishing with a Mentor

For many doctoral researchers, preparing a first manuscript can feel overwhelming. One panellist described how publishing with a mentor outside their supervisory team helped them understand what publication-quality writing looks like in practice.

Working with experienced co-authors can provide valuable insights into structuring an article, responding to reviewer comments, and understanding the expectations of journal editors. The panel encouraged researchers to seek opportunities to collaborate and learn from experienced colleagues whenever possible.

An interesting observation from the discussion was that publication writing often requires a different level of refinement from doctoral writing. While a doctorate demonstrates the ability to undertake original research, publication requires the researcher to communicate their work in a concise, polished, and highly focused way.

• Learn the Process by Becoming a Reviewer

A particularly valuable piece of advice was for doctoral researchers to explore opportunities to act as peer reviewers or editorial assistants where appropriate.

Reviewing allows researchers to see the publication process from the other side. It develops critical reading skills, provides insight into what reviewers look for, and helps researchers understand the elements that contribute to a strong paper.

Several panellists noted that reviewing had significantly improved their own academic writing by helping them recognise common strengths and weaknesses in submitted manuscripts.

• Interdisciplinary Research is a Strength

For researchers working across disciplines, there can sometimes be a sense that their work does not quite fit anywhere. The panel challenged this perception and encouraged doctoral researchers to view interdisciplinarity as a strength.

Interdisciplinary research often creates opportunities to publish in a wider range of journals, collaborate with different academic communities, and engage with broader audiences. While identifying the right publication outlet may require additional effort, the potential reach and impact of interdisciplinary work can be significant.

• Publishing Beyond Academic Journals

An important theme throughout the discussion was that publishing is not limited to journal articles. Publishing opportunities can also emerge from professional networks and activities beyond your immediate doctoral research. One panellist reflected that their first publication did not arise directly from their doctoral project, but from involvement in a peer-learning initiative supporting postgraduate researchers. Maintaining connections with collaborators, expressing interest in contributing to publications, and engaging with professional communities later led to opportunities to co-author papers, contribute to reports, and publish book reviews. This highlights the importance of remaining open to publishing opportunities wherever they arise and recognising that valuable scholarly contributions are not always limited to your PhD topic.

Researchers were encouraged to consider a broader range of outputs, including:

• Conference proceedings
• Blogs
• Book reviews
• Policy briefings
• Professional magazines
• Industry reports
• Practitioner publications
• Edited book chapters

• Consider Your Long-Term Career Goals

The panel also discussed the relationship between publishing choices and future career aspirations.

Publication records often serve as external validation of a researcher's expertise. Publishing in journals that are recognised within a field can contribute to academic reputation and visibility. However, researchers were encouraged to think carefully about what they want to achieve and who they want to reach with their work.

For some, this may involve publishing in highly ranked academic journals. For others, impact-focused outputs aimed at policymakers, practitioners, industry partners, or the public may be equally valuable. The most appropriate publication strategy will depend on individual career goals and aspirations.

• Resilience, Patience and Teamwork

Perhaps the strongest message of the entire discussion was the importance of resilience. Very few papers are accepted without revisions. Reviewer comments can sometimes feel challenging, particularly after investing significant time and effort in preparing a manuscript. However, revisions are an ordinary and expected part of the publication process.

The panel encouraged researchers to prepare themselves mentally for this reality and to build time into their schedules for responding to feedback after submission. Rather than viewing revisions as criticism, they can be seen as an opportunity to strengthen a piece of work.

For those publishing with co-authors, teamwork was also highlighted as an important factor. Maintaining open communication, agreeing responsibilities early, and supporting one another through the revision process can make the experience far more manageable and productive.

 

Final Reflections

The panel discussion provided a valuable reminder that there is no single route to publication. Every researcher follows a unique path, shaped by different opportunities, challenges, disciplines, and career ambitions.

What united all the panellists' experiences was the recognition that publishing is a skill that develops over time. It requires patience, persistence, curiosity, and a willingness to learn from feedback. Rejections, revisions, and delays are all part of the process and are experiences shared by doctoral researchers and senior academics alike.

For the researchers attending the DTA Summer School, the discussion offered practical advice, honest reflections, and encouragement from those who have successfully navigated the publication journey themselves. The clear message was that publication is not simply the final step of a research project. It is an ongoing process of learning, development, and scholarly conversation.

Most importantly, researchers were encouraged to start early, seek support, remain resilient, and have confidence that their work has something valuable to contribute.