Anybody published a literature review or survey? Originally I wanted to wait with publications for completion of PhD but I just decided that I want my name to be associated with a publication earlier (also to facilitate the Viva Voce). As I have no data anaylsis I was wondering about a literature review.

Anybody experience with that/advice/suggestions or thinks this is a bad idea?

sorry, don't mean to say that I just want a publication because of the factors stated above. I just feel that I'm ready to publish..once the paper is rejected I may think differently, though.

It is usual for journal editors to invite specific authors to write literature reviews, rather than for them to be published after spontaneous submission. However, there is nothing to stop you from contacting various journal editors to ask them if they would be interested in publishing your review (give them the title and perhaps the abstract/summary too). Good luck.

Thanks Ann. Are there any journals which particularly focus on literature reviews? I've presented at a conference before yet I'm a complete beginner concerning publications. I'll try to write it in the specific style of a selected journal.

Anybody any experiences, good or bad? How many times did you have to revise before they finally accepted? What would you consider more important, to do loads of conference papers or to focus on publications (during PhD)?

...or to focus on PhD?

Have you already written a review (for your thesis, for eg) that you feel can be adapted for journal publication? Be careful that your desire to get published (which is natural and commendable of course) does not distract you from your PhD progress . Have you discussed your idea with your supervisors?

I've written an extensive literature review (about 30k) for my PhD and discussed various drafts with my supervisor. He said it's definitely PhD level and good enough. I haven't discussed the publication issue with him. He'd probably say: wait until you analysed your data. I just don't wait that long, though, because I feel that there is a time window for that particular theoretical issue which may pass by quickly if I don't publish now. It's a dilemma.

First article I published during my PhD was a review of my area (science). I was 1st author and then my supervisors etc. The article will now be the intro of my thesis...so basically, it made me write my thesis intro in the first year of my PhD, which I am stoked about now that I am writing up.

It was a dumpload of work - esp. searching for the literature and sourcing stuff the uni library didn't have access to - lots of emailing academics around the world, politely asking for copies - by the way, most of them were friendly and willing to help. All up 250 articles referenced - God bless Endnote.

We were really lucky it got accepted by our first-choice journal. In the year after it was published, it was in the top 10 most requested articles for that journal. So a lot of people are reading and referencing it out there. Great for me to be able to be a part of that.

If you have a relevant topic and target journal, go for it, but be prepared for it to take up a lot of your time.

Getting published is a good thing... but don't just jump at it because it sounds nice. It's hard work!

A good way to get started is to do a book review. Check out the publications in your field and write to the editor and ask if you could write a review. Be aware that it can take up to a year for an article to go from initial query to publication and inbetween that time, there are many stages to go through... submission, peer review, provisional acceptance (usually), revisions and rewriting... and so on.

If you have something interesting to say, you'll have an audience... if you don't have anything specific to say, think about the things you've done so far for PhD - see if you can pinpoint something particularly interesting - if it interests you, it might interest others in the field - there's your starting point.

Read journals, speak to people, get to know how others got published. Make contacts, seek advice. I just had my first peer reviewed article accepted this week. It was a long hard slog but I'm happy now.

Incidentally, I'm halfway through second year of my PhD.

Thanks a lot, that sounds really useful. Writing a literature review for my PhD has resulted in me having particular views about this particular theoretical issue but I also feel like I can see the wider implications for my subject discipline. Also I don't want somebody else to publish exactly the same in a year or so.

It sounds like a really difficult process but I'll try definitely. All they can do is reject but hopefully with useful suggestions for changes etc. I'm a beginner in academia but I kind of realised that nobody takes you serious in this environment unless you have publications?

Back to reality. Let's say, I've identified the only journal in my area which explicitly encourages literature surveys only. Hopes were high, but unfortunately I discovered a statement by the managing editor of that journal:

"Judging by current trends in the review cycles, it is likely that fewer than 20% of these [articles submitted] will eventually be published in the Journal"

It's funny how it only took 3 hours to destroy my hopes..

Don't give up Otto! It is really hard to get your first paper out there even if you have data (I am trying now for three month to write the first word). But even if they reject it you normally do get a feedback AND it will be a good practise as you will get familiar with the writing, reviewing etc just go for it and you never know you might be one of the 20%!

I'm only speaking from a social science view, but surely a lit review may not sufficiently original to be publishable? You should wait until your later chapters which show original thought

Thanks Oz, I'll not give up and submit it definitely.
SixKitten, I'm social sciences, too. Apparently there are some journals which explicitly welcome literature reviews in order to see future trends of certain theoretical areas and so on. However, it still seems very difficult to publish there as they have strict criteria. You need to clarify, for instance, why you include some literature and exclude other stuff and it is necessary to highlight methodological contradictions,etc.