In this post, Yuemiao Ma, Sarah Ward and Lindsey Horner describe the ‘Towards Publication’ project, which aimed to support Postgraduate Researchers and academic staff in working towards academic publishing through supportive seminars and writing retreats in Moray House School of Education and Sport. This post belongs to the Student Partnership Agreement 2025 series.
Introduction
Writing for publication can feel daunting, especially with the growing pressure to publish that many of us experience as Postgraduate Researchers (PGRs) and academic staff. Our Towards Publication (TP) project aimed to make this process feel a little less isolating. With a series of ‘work-in-progress’ seminars and a one-day writing retreat for members of the Social Justice and Inclusion (SJI) hub at Moray House School of Education and Sport (MHSES), we aimed to create space for students and staff to support each other’s writing journey.
Writing as an iterative process
For many PGRs, even if we’ve done some academic writing before, the thesis is often the biggest piece we’ll ever write. And the same goes for publications like journal articles or book chapters. One thing we’ve learned through the TP programme is that no piece of academic writing is ever completed in one go. Writing for publication is an iterative process: you develop ideas, draft, get feedback, and revise again and again (Eckstein et al., 2011).
The TP programme was designed to make space for this process. All PGRs and academic staff within the hub were invited to give presentations in seminars, to have a chance to shape their ‘messy’ theories and data into something more coherent. As Gibbs (2016) puts it, by the time you present, you’ve already done half the work towards writing a new article. Presentation forces us to find the narrative in our research.
Then came the feedback and discussion. In the seminars, we tried to facilitate not a rigid ‘question and answer’ type of discussion, but a more interactive one in which anyone can come in to comment, expand on the ideas, or bring in other literature. One presenter told us that they discovered unexpected connections with others who work on similar topics, and, through questions, realised that a key concept needed more unpacking.
From there, these ideas could grow into an article draft. Getting feedback early on (before sending work to journal editors or peer reviewers) could help build clarity and confidence, and make it much easier to respond to ‘formal reviews’ later on.
Scaffolding the publication process
For many early career researchers (ECRs) with limited experience of publishing in journals, it can be hard to know what a successful paper actually looks like, or how to get there. That’s why settings like the TP seminars and the writing retreat are so valuable, as they bring people together to talk openly about the process. More importantly, they create opportunities for experienced academics to model and scaffold what publishing involves (Beck et al., 2020).
One highlight of the programme was a guest talk during the day of writing retreat from Dr Janja Komljenovic, an editor of Critical Studies in Education. She offered a clear, practical walk-through of the publication journey:
- how to choose a journal by reading its aims and scope;
- how to analyse published articles to see what kinds of theories and methodologies they use;
- how to interpret editorial expectations.
She also demystified the review process, explaining strategies for responding to feedback, such as using a response table to track and address reviewers’ comments.
Because many participants were PGRs, one question asked was the difference between a PhD thesis and a journal article. As Janja put it, the thesis is an examination, but a paper is dissemination – it needs to position your voice within the field. These conversations acted as a scaffold, which is not a one-size-fits-all template but flexible supports. They helped participants begin to map their own routes towards publication which are grounded in their unique research topics and experiences.
Modelling feedback was another critical scaffolding element. Some PGRs were initially less confident about offering constructive critique, while staff members demonstrated this through conversations, and PGRs could practice in a safe environment. This modelling strengthened our confidence and helped us engage more effectively in peer review (Carless & Boud, 2018).
Building a sense of community
Throughout the TP programme, community-building was our main principle. Within SJI hub, our research topics and methods are diverse, but we share a commitment to social justice, which could never be achieved through individual efforts alone. In every stage of the programme, we valued the contributions of PGRs and staff equally, and to create a space where everyone’s voice mattered.
One of the clearest examples of this was our writing retreat. Writing retreats, as Kornhaber et al. (2016) note, can offer researchers dedicated time and structure for focused work while also fostering social connection. This balance was important to us. Drawing on resources about writing retreats from IAD and a Writing Retreat Facilitator Guide, we structured the day with dedicated writing blocks and informal breaks.
According to feedback, one of the most valuable aspects was the sense of companionship and accountability. At the start of the day, we invited everyone to share a specific goal for each writing session, which can be as small as revising two paragraphs, drafting some bullet points, or proofreading a section. Research on collaborative learning shows that articulating such goals publicly makes people more likely to achieve them (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). Although everyone worked on different projects, this created a sense of collective momentum, with PGRs and staff progressing side by side.
Another benefit of writing together is that it improves opportunities for research dissemination (Fitriyah, 2025). But meanwhile, we recognise that some people prefer to stay focused on their own work in these settings. We have tried to make this space as inclusive as possible; after all, inclusion is a core part of our hub’s name and ethos. It is not just something we research, but also something we strive to practise in how we treat ourselves and those around us.
Conclusion
The Towards Publication programme gave us a valuable chance to see writing as an iterative and sometimes community-based process. We also broadened our networks and learned a lot from student-staff collaboration, from drafting the initial funding application together to placing both on an equal footing during participation.
We also realise there is still much to do to get more PGRs involved. Many may feel they are ‘not confident enough’ to present their research, and we believe informal and friendly spaces like TP are crucial for lowering that barrier. At both hub and school level, some small and practical sessions, such as workshops, training, or even blog posts on topics like ‘how to provide constructive feedback’ or ‘how to respond to questions after presentations’, could be starting points to help build that confidence.
References
Beck, S. W., Jones, K., Storm, S., & Smith, H. (2020). Scaffolding Students’ Writing Processes Through Dialogic Assessment. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 63(6), 651–660. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1039
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Eckstein, G., Chariton, J., & McCollum, R. M. (2011). Multi-draft composing: An iterative model for academic argument writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 162–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.05.004
Fitriyah, S. M. (2025). Writing and Publishing Collaboratively: A Safe Scaffold for an ECR. In R. Fay & A. Kostoulas (Eds), Doctoral Study and Getting Published: Narratives of Early Career Researchers (p. 0). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83608-766-320251013
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. John Wiley & Sons.
Gibbs, A. (2016). Improving publication: Advice for busy higher education academics. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(3), 255–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1128436
Kornhaber, R., Cross, M., Betihavas, V., & Bridgman, H. (2016). The benefits and challenges of academic writing retreats: An integrative review. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(6), 1210–1227. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1144572
Yuemiao Ma
Yuemiao Ma is a PhD candidate in Education at MHSES. Her research interests include (Global) Citizenship Education, the Model UN simulation activities, discourse analysis, and ethnographic methods. See more of her experience: https://ym-2021.github.io/
Sarah Ward
Dr Sarah Ward is a Lecturer in Learning in Communities and Programme Director of the MA Learning in Communities programme at the University of Edinburgh. Her research interests include informal and community–based education, youth activism and using creative arts and dialogical research methods.
Lindsey Horner
Dr Lindsey Horner is a Lecturer in Education in International Development. Her field of research and teaching is Education and International Development, specialising in critical peace education and participatory research.
