Webinar follow-up: Academic Writing 101
By Author Support
This post originally appeared on Sage Perspectives blog here.
Our recent foundational webinar guides early career researchers and graduate students through the essentials of academic writing.
On September 2, 2026, we hosted another How to Do Research and Get Published webinar, “Academic Writing 101.” The webinar was led by Sage’s Vi La Bianca and Robert Tinkle, with guest panelist Dr. Eric J. Engstrom and Dr. Mike Wallace.
Catch up: Watch the recording
Feedback
“This webinar demystified the hidden criteria of academic publishing and gave me a clear framework for building a convincing argument. Essential for any early-career researcher.”
“An insightful and engaging webinar that provided valuable knowledge I can confidently apply in my professional practice.” – Juvy, Philippines
"A must-attend webinar for early career researchers. Clear, structured, and filled with essential tips for high-impact scientific writing.” Abdelrhman, Egypt
Resources & for further information
Our panelist’s work
History of Psychiatry: Madness, Science, Culture
Q&A
The webinar had a fruitful discussion covering many areas of research and publishing. Unfortunately, we weren't able to answer everything in the moment, but we hope the following will provide further insights from our panelists.
AI and Academic Integrity
How should authors respond to claims that their work is AI-generated?
When responding to questions or claims about AI-generated work, be sure to remain professional and respectful. If requested, provide the historical details and verification of your work that you have on hand. Though some journals may use AI detection tools for preliminary screenings, it is understood that such tools are not reliable to make final decisions on AI usage. As AI develops, so do processes that are intended to uphold research integrity.
How can reviewers assess whether AI was used in a submission?
We recommend that reviewers keep their primary focus on the quality and accuracy of the research and writing rather than searching for signs of AI usage. Apparent “tells” of usage, such as so-called tortured phrases, can develop as AI tools develop and are not always fully reliable. As a peer reviewer, your primary goal is to assess the quality of the submission. That said, if you suspect that generative AI has been used inappropriately in the submission, email the editor and cite examples. You should also feel free to reach out to the author for more information about their use of AI tools.
Never enter the text of a submission you are reviewing into an AI tool, in whole or in part, as this compromises anonymity and author privacy. For more on appropriate and inappropriate use of AI tools and LLMs, visit our artificial intelligence policy. For more on ethical review and reviewer responsibilities, please see our page on peer review ethics.
How can authors use AI responsibly while avoiding plagiarism?
As outlined in our artificial intelligence policy, Sage recognizes two different capacities of using AI: assistive and generative. Using AI in an assistive capacity, such as for grammar correction, is considered appropriate use and does not require disclosure. Using generative AI tools that produce content like text, images, or references, or that perform other actions like translation or assistance with a literature review, must be disclosed. Authors should always cite their original sources rather than the generative AI tool as primary sources, and AI must never be listed as an author. If your submission was primarily or partially generated using an AI tool, this must be disclosed upon submission so that the editorial team can evaluate the content generated. Please note that our policy also outlines prohibited uses of AI, such as for analysis of experiences and themes or generation of data.
Journal Selection and Submission
What are the key requirements for getting published in an academic journal?
This will vary by journal, discipline, and a number of other considerations, but in general, you will want to ensure that your work falls within the stated aims and scope of the journal you are submitting to. Out-of-scope submissions are the #1 reason for desk rejections across all journals. When you are ready to submit your work, be sure it is within scope and correctly formatted to journal requirements.
Your research should also be up to date with the current literature in the field. This means engaging with relevant studies, which may include older landmark studies as well as more recent work with direct relevance to your own research questions. Before you submit to a journal, read through several recent issues to ensure that your work is in alignment with the journal’s own priorities. Does it make a needed intervention or participate in an active, ongoing conversation that has been of interest for the journal? This does not mean your work needs to directly build from or engage with an existing recent article; rather, it means that your work should be the kind of thing that the journal would be interested in publishing, in terms of its content, themes, methodology, conclusions, and so on. Where does your work best “fit”?
In keeping with the theme of this webinar, your work should also be well-written, polished, clear, and easy to understand. Readers can be busy, tired, distracted, and often have a very large number of submissions to assess. They sincerely appreciate a submission whose findings, key takeaways, and impact are clear, with a rhetorical style that is a pleasure to read.
Finally, it can be helpful to find a mentor in your field who is familiar with the research, writing, and publishing standards of your discipline and can help guide you in the publishing process.
How can authors choose the right journal for their work? What should authors consider when shortlisting journals?
You should always carefully read the aims and scope and manuscript guidelines of your target journal to ensure your research is in alignment with journal priorities. Strong, well-written research can be turned down if not submitted to the right journal. Relatedly, you will also want to consider the quality of the journal and its intended audience. Who has been publishing in the journal recently? Who sits on the editorial board? Who is this journal “for”? Try to imagine your work in the pages of your target journal. Does it belong? Or is another journal better suited to your particular research aims?
It’s also worth noting that the quality of a journal or its suitability for your article isn’t always a question of rankings, impact factor, or similar metrics. A journal with a high impact factor, for example, might not publish in your particular niche area, or perhaps it has a lengthy time-to-publication. You’ll want to consider a number of factors when making assessments about target journals and drawing up a shortlist.
You can always contact the editorial team before submitting your research to find out whether it would be a good fit. If you or your fellow researchers know someone on the editorial board, they can also be great sources of insight into what the journal is accepting.
For more on selecting a journal, we have a great blog post available here as well as a webinar available here.
What makes an effective cover letter, and should authors submit one when optional?
An effective cover letter should clearly and concisely describe your work while making a clear case for why your research is relevant to the aims and priorities of the journal. A journal may also require you to state potential conflicts of interest or disclose whether you’ve had any third-party writing assistance in your cover letter. If so, be sure to follow all journal guidelines.
In cases where sending a cover letter is optional, it is really up to your discretion whether or not to include one with your submission. If you do have a conflict of interest to disclose, or additional information you believe would be helpful for the editorial team to know, then it is likely a good idea to submit a cover letter. In general, the cover letter provides a great opportunity to “make the case” for why your research belongs in the pages of the journal.
What advice do you have for publishing in Q-ranked journals?
Our best advice is that you should seek to publish (and, indeed, have the highest likelihood of acceptance) in the journal that is the best fit for your research, whether or not the journal is highly ranked or meets a particular metric. The single most important criterion that editors assess upon their initial review is fit with the aims and scope of the journal. Rankings and metrics such as impact factor, while important, are just one piece of information about a journal and should be considered alongside other factors.
If you are looking to publish in a highly ranked journal to potentially increase readership or citations of your work, note that there are many ways you can maximize the impact of your article and readership. For example, choosing effective keywords will optimize search engine results of your work on Google Scholar and elsewhere. It’s also a great idea to share your published work on social media for wider exposure to scholars and other researchers in your network.
Does Sage accept submissions from independent or unaffiliated scholars?
Yes, journals published by Sage do accept submissions from independent or unaffiliated scholars. You can read a blog post about conducting independent research here, as well as tips on publishing as an independent scholar here.
Are there no-fee publishing options in subscription journals?
Yes—in fact, the majority of subscription journals do not require any fees to publish. This will be stated in the journal submission guidelines, along with notice of any charges that might pertain in specific circumstances, such as for publishing images in color. You should exercise increased caution around any journal or editorial representative who requests fees that are not already described in the journal guidelines. In a hybrid subscription journal, authors usually have the option to publish their article subscription—meaning no fee for the author, but their work is behind a paywall that requires the reader to pay or have a journal subscription—or they can publish open access, which means the article is freely available and is typically funded by paying an Article Processing Charge (APC). The APC is often paid by the author, unless the corresponding author is affiliated with a university or other institution that has an agreement with Sage. More information on payment options and waivers is available here.
Can early-career authors publish through conference opportunities?
Yes, some conferences do publish attendee work, and early-career authors can leverage conference opportunities to expand their professional experience. Conferences can also be a great way for early-career researchers to grow their network and meet other scholars in their discipline.
Writing Style and Manuscript Development
Are creative or pop-culture-inspired article titles appropriate?
Yes, creative or pop culture titles can be appropriate, depending on the discipline and journal. When choosing a title, be sure to accurately describe your research. Having an engaging title and abstract can help set your submission apart from the rest, both for editors/reviewers and in search engines. You might think of your title and abstract as the “sales pitch” for readers, as well as items that contain valuable information for search engine data. In all cases, your title should be both interesting and properly reflective of your research topic.
Should keywords align with MeSH or similar controlled terms?
Be sure to use MeSH if the journal you are submitting to requests alignment. Overall, to best utilize keywords, make sure that your keywords are as specific as possible to your research. Opt for specific terms over open-ended ones; e.g., “medical spending” rather than just “spending.” The keywords contribute to search results and will affect how your research appears to readers using platforms like Google Scholar.
How should authors present limitations when interpreting results?
Present large-scale, consequential limitations in the Discussion section of your paper. You might present smaller-scale limitations in the course of analyzing data points in the body of your paper. When you address limitations, explain their significance and reflect on questions, complications, or opportunities they may present for future research. Was a relevant population not included in your study or not reflected in the results? If so, why not? What consequences might this have for your broader findings? You should always draw a through-line from limitations to consequences or impact.
What resources support grammar, structure, and manuscript development?
We have a suite of editing materials and resources available through Sage Author Services, which provides a range of manuscript preparation services from copyediting to plagiarism checks and beyond. If you are affiliated with a university, a resource like the Writing Center or Career Center can also provide valuable support in these areas. Avail yourself of conferencing opportunities and other forums for sharing your work and soliciting feedback from peers.
Becoming a peer reviewer is also an excellent way to familiarize yourself with the conventions of your field, assess manuscripts, and better understand the peer review process. Indeed, one of the best ways to become a better writer is to consistently read and review the work of others for insight into what is more and less effective, both rhetorically and in terms of written argumentation.
Should academic writing use active voice and first-person pronouns?
Academic writing can, and often does, use active voice and first-person pronouns if these are standard practice for the discipline. Clear writing typically prefers active voice since passive voice can hide or obscure the subject doing the action; e.g., “A study was conducted” (passive voice) vs. “We conducted a study” (active voice). In any case, it is always best to familiarize yourself with the literature in your discipline for a better understanding of these and other written conventions.
Do conference abstracts follow the same structure as manuscript abstracts?
Conference abstracts can follow a similar structure to manuscript abstracts, as their purpose is similar. They are both short outlines that are the first point of engagement for readers. Abstracts should be engaging and accurate to the material presented in the full study. Always be sure to keep within stated word count limits and other formatting guardrails.
What advice helps writers turn ideas into a draft?
When beginning a first draft, consider your subject. A good first step could be to assess where the research gaps are, or clarifying your own methodologies. Every writer has a different approach that works for them. Through practice and trial and error, you’ll want to test different strategies and see what works best for you. You might:
Write a full first draft without any edits, with the intent of getting words on the page unimpeded by any self-editing. Then, when the draft is complete, go through the paper in its entirety and edit or rework material as needed.
Other writers will do the opposite, consistently editing sentences and paragraphs as they progress through the draft.
Start with the sections you feel most confident about, even if these are out of order. As you complete sections, you can go back and rearrange in alignment with journal manuscript guidelines.
You may already have a target journal in mind as you write the article. If so, this is helpful so that you can more readily tailor your style and emphases to the conventions and expectations of that journal.
Approach the process in steps, starting with the basic details and adding complexity as you go.
Although it may seem counterintuitive, it’s often advisable to write your Introduction, title, and abstract last, after you’ve more or less completed the body of your article. This is because writing is also a process of thinking, editing, and redeveloping. By writing the Introduction last, you have a better understanding of what your article actually achieved and can work from that vantage point.
If possible, find a mentor in your network to help you with the publishing journey.
Some journals have opportunities for early-career researchers to get involved in peer review or academic journal publishing through Reviewer in Training programs. One of the best ways to become a better writer is to read and review.
Citations and References
If cited content comes from Chinese scholars and is published on China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), do authors need to provide a DOI, URL, or other relevant link?
All sources should be properly cited according to the style required by the journal. Because DOIs are listed inconsistently on CNKI, however, this can present challenges. In many cases, CNKI articles do carry a Crossref-registered DOI, so it’s always a good idea to verify whether the article is indexed elsewhere with a valid DOI. More information on using and citing from CNKI can be found here.
When should authors cite sources that informed their thinking but are not directly discussed? Is it appropriate to cite multiple references to support one point?
Yes, you should cite any source that significantly informed your own thinking. You can include this source in your References section, even if it isn’t directly cited in the body of the paper. If multiple references informed a single point, they should also be included. In any academic writing, if a source informed your paper, it should be cited.
How should authors use references listed in a special issue call?
Each special issue call can vary in expectations, style guidelines, and use of references. In some cases, the author of the special issue call is doing their due diligence by citing work that they either directly referenced or quoted in their description of the special issue, or that contributed to the conception of the special issue in a meaningful way. As a potential contributor to the issue, you are not usually expected to also cite these references in your own submission; rather, they can lend valuable insight into the intellectual lineage that the special issue is drawing from.
Peer Review and Editorial Decisions
How do journals verify reviewer expertise?
A journal Editor-in-Chief and/or Associate Editor will typically verify a reviewer by analyzing their affiliation, email address, ORCID iD details (including listed areas of expertise), published work, and personal knowledge of the reviewer. This is a critical step of the review process and editors are expected to thoroughly vet peer reviewers before inviting them to review for the journal.
How long should peer review normally take?
Peer review times vary greatly depending on journal size, discipline, volume of submissions, time of year, and availability of reviewers. Sage strives to be transparent about turnaround times, and many of our journals feature time-to-decision metrics on the “Journal overview and metrics” tab of the journal website. If a journal does not have these listed or you would like more information, you can always reach out directly to the journal’s editor or editorial office.
With this in mind, it is good practice to volunteer as a peer reviewer in the field you are submitting to. Academic publishing is an ecosystem: if you are submitting a paper, it is good to give back to your field by also agreeing to review others’ submissions. If you are new to the review process, you can find out more on becoming a peer reviewer from this blog post. Additional information for reviewers can be found here.
What should authors do if a manuscript has been stalled for a long time?
If your manuscript has been stalled in peer review, we recommend reaching out to the journal editor or editorial office to respectfully inquire into the status of the manuscript. It can also be helpful to review the journal’s time-to-decision metrics, located on the “Journal overview and metrics” tab of the journal homepage, for a sense of average turnaround times for the journal.
How detailed should responses to reviewers be? How should authors respond when they disagree with a reviewer?
Authors should respond to reviewers in a professional, collegial manner, thanking them for the time they’ve taken to review their work. It is highly recommended that you respond to each piece of reviewer feedback point-by-point, noting in detail how you’ve addressed the comment in the body of the paper. If you disagree with a reviewer’s recommendation or with their assessment of some element of your work, that is okay. Acknowledge their feedback, provide a clear and detailed explanation or reasoning behind your disagreement, and suggest alternatives to the reviewer’s suggestion. The same holds true if you receive contradictory advice from multiple reviewers: respectfully acknowledge their point(s) of view, clearly state where you may agree and disagree, and provide a clear rationale for your chosen course of action. You can find a detailed blog post on how to respond to reviewer comments here.
Ethics and Consent
What should be included in an ethics declaration?
Specific requirements may differ depending on the journal, so it’s always important to consult the journal guidelines. You should always include any ethics/IRB approvals, even if these are also named in the Methods section. If your study did not require ethical approval, include an explicit statement as to why it was not required.
For studies involving human participants, you must name the relevant ethics committee or Institutional Review Board (IRB) that approved the study or waived the requirement for approval, providing the full name and institution of the review committee in addition to the approval number.
As appropriate, explain in your cover letter and/or article overview how ethical issues were identified, considered, and addressed. In a consideration section, you might explain how ethical issues were identified and managed throughout the research process, including any steps taken to reduce or balance risks to participants, communities, researchers, or other affected stakeholders.
How is consent handled in retrospective studies using existing records?
While ethics declaration policies may differ, Institutional Review Boards typically approve the study and explain whether consent was obtained or potentially waived in the case of retrospective studies.
Open Access and APCs
What options are available for authors who cannot afford APCs?
Sage has over 90 active agreements with more than 2,000 universities, institutions, and consortia around the globe that can assist in fully or partially covering Article Processing Charges (APCs) on behalf of authors. Follow this link for a list of institutions Sage holds such agreements with. Note that the corresponding author must be affiliated with a listed institution in order to receive the discount or waiver.
Corresponding authors who are publishing in a Sage Gold OA journal can also receive significant discounts and waivers (50% or 100%) through the Research4Life program. More information can be found here
You can also reach out to openaccess@sagepub.com with any inquiries or to request help with APCs based on genuine financial need.
Note that hybrid subscription journals always offer the option to publish non-open access for free.
Can accepted open access articles be transferred to a non-OA option if authors cannot pay the APC?
It depends on the type of journal your article has been accepted to. If the journal is fully OA and has an APC, there is normally not a non-OA option. In a hybrid journal, however, you can decline to publish OA and will not be charged to publish. You can read more about hybrid and open access publishing options here.
Originality and Reuse
Can authors publish from a thesis deposited in an institutional repository? How much thesis text can be reused before originality becomes a concern?
Your reuse of material from your thesis deposited in an institutional repository will depend on who holds the copyright, the licensing terms, and the amount of published third-party work contained in the thesis. The author of the thesis usually retains the copyright unless they have assigned it elsewhere, and the university holds a non-exclusive license to host, archive, and distribute the work via its institutional repository. Theses are usually governed by a Creative Commons (CC) license, but you’ll want to verify the exact terms with your repository. Excerpts or material from your dissertation that have not been through peer review will generally be eligible for publication. Fair use of this material typically covers short excerpts and quotes, but larger sections of text (such as entire chapters or datasets) will likely exceed fair use under the terms of the license.
If you are resubmitting or reusing data, always check journal policies beforehand or reach out to the editorial team before submitting. Many journals allow submissions from online repositories, such as preprint servers, but you’ll want to look into journal guidelines around reuse of a thesis.
Can a published article be adapted into another publication with permission?
You’ll want to carefully examine your contributor license for details around reuse, fair use, and permissions. Sage has a pretty generous Green Open Access policy that allows for non-commercial reuse of the Original Submission or Accepted Manuscript version of your article, but every publisher has its own policies. If submitting previously published work (even if adapted) to another journal, it is important to be transparent about the prior publication and the degree and significance of the adaptation. If a substantial portion of your manuscript has already been published, it will likely not be accepted for publication elsewhere. You can read more about Sage’s prior publication guidelines here.
Research Contribution
What makes a research gap significant enough for publication?
To defend your filling of a research gap, you should establish what is known and unknown in the field and articulate why the gap is important to address. Conducting a literature review is one of the best ways to identify a research gap and weigh its significance. Determining the value and utility of your intervention—or the way you address this gap—will depend on a lot of factors and depends in large part on the expectations and structural needs of your discipline.
Take some pressure off of yourself: even seemingly small interventions can open up a whole new line of inquiry, and the goal is rarely to revolutionize an entire field or engineer a full paradigm shift (in any case, a single study rarely has this capability!). Instead, your focus should be on making a meaningful contribution to an existing conversation or field of inquiry, one that other researchers can continue to build on. Whatever the field, scientific knowledge should be advanced by answering, or at least meaningfully addressing, the questions your research poses.
How can authors move beyond descriptive gaps to meaningful contributions?
It’s important to recognize that meaningful contributions follow from, and in many ways depend upon, good descriptions of research gaps. By positioning your description as demonstrating the potential for new applications, methodologies, or outcomes, you already have a throughline to a meaningful contribution. Approach the descriptive gap as a question, then use your data to help address the question and draw meaningful observations—and, eventually, significant conclusions—from it.