From Conference Paper to Journal Article: A Step-by-Step Guide

 

By Lilian H. Hill

 

Your conference proposal was accepted, and even better, your presentation was well received. Presenting at a conference is a significant milestone in your scholarly journey. While it certainly deserves a place on your CV, it can also serve as the springboard for a more lasting and impactful contribution to your field. One of the most effective ways to amplify your research is to revise and publish your conference paper as a journal article.

Conference presentations allow for early sharing of ideas and feedback. In contrast, journal articles require greater rigor, depth, and polish. If you’re wondering how to navigate this transition, the following guide outlines each step of the process.

 

1.    Analyze the Feedback you Received

If your presentation generated questions, suggestions, or critiques, consider it a valuable opportunity for learning and improvement. Attendees might have encouraged you to publish or offered ideas for strengthening your work. Make a habit of recording these insights soon after the presentation, while details are fresh. Later, you can revisit your notes to assess which ideas might help refine your paper. (The word paper is used intentionally; your work only becomes an article once it is published.)

 

2.    Reassess Your Purpose and Audience

Conference papers are often written for immediate presentation, tailored to a specific event and its audience. Journals, by contrast, have broader readerships and higher expectations for clarity, evidence, and theoretical grounding. Begin by asking:

• What is the core argument or insight of my paper?
• How does this contribution speak to current conversations in the field?
• Who is the target audience for this journal article?

 

3. Expand the Literature Review

Conference papers often assume shared knowledge among attendees and therefore summarize only the most essential sources. A journal article, by contrast, must situate your study within a well-developed scholarly context. Deepen your literature review to demonstrate how your work addresses gaps or builds on existing research.

 

4.    Strengthen Your Methodology

If your conference paper describes original research, reviewers will expect more detail about your research design, data collection, and analysis. Be transparent and thorough. Ensure that your methodological choices are justified and that readers can assess the trustworthiness of your findings. Journal editors and peer reviewers will examine your methods to determine if they are robust and if the resulting research paper is worth publishing.

 

5. Refine Your Argument

Journal articles typically demand a clearer line of reasoning than oral presentations. Strengthen your argument by explicitly stating your purpose, theoretical framework, and point of view, and supporting it with organized, well-developed evidence. Look for areas where your ideas could be clarified, expanded, or made more persuasive.

 

6. Revise Structure and Tone

Conference papers are often time-constrained and written in a conversational style. A journal article requires a well-organized structure, featuring clear headings and smooth transitions. Move from spoken-word cues to academic writing conventions. Adopt a tone that is professional, evidence-based, and reflective of scholarly discourse, appropriate to your field. Fortunately, research papers have a somewhat standardized structure, although slight variances may occur due to the type of research and your academic discipline. This outline provides you with clear guidance about how to organize the story of your research:

•       Title

•       Abstract

•       Introduction

•       Literature Review

•       Methodology

•       Findings (qualitative) or Results (quantitative)

•       Discussion

•       Conclusion

•       References

•       Appendices, if needed

 

7. Choose the Right Journal

Select a journal that aligns with your topic, methodology, and audience. You can consult with mentors and colleagues who have experience in publishing. Also, consider the publications you used in your literature review. If many of your sources were published in the same journals, it is worth considering them for publishing your work. You can also locate relevant journals through Journalytics Academic (Cabells), a searchable database with comprehensive information about academic journals.

 

Once you have identified possible journals, you need to investigate them. Almost all academic journals maintain websites that provide information about their publication scope, which outlines the specific topics, disciplines, methodologies, and types of content published. It defines the journal’s academic focus and helps authors determine whether their work is a good fit. The scope also typically identifies the intended audience (e.g., scholars, practitioners, policymakers) and may indicate whether the journal is interdisciplinary, regional, or global in scope.

 

Consider whether your work aligns with the journal’s aims and whether you are comfortable with the journal’s review process and publication model (open access vs. subscription, for example). Be sure that your research paper fits the scope and writing guidelines required by your selected journal. Journal editors will quickly reject manuscripts that are out of scope or fail to meet writing guidelines. Please do not exceed the maximum length the journal stipulates; editors receiving manuscripts that greatly exceed length requirements may reject them without reading.

 

8. Avoid Predatory Journals

Predatory journals are publications that exploit the open-access model of academic publishing by charging authors fees without providing legitimate editorial and peer review services. These journals lack transparency, publish low-quality or unvetted research, and exist primarily to generate profit rather than advance scholarship. They may mimic the appearance of reputable journals but fail to meet accepted standards of academic integrity and scholarly publishing. Work published in a predatory journal is not recognized as legitimate by hiring committees, tenure review boards, or funding agencies. This can waste your time, damage your scholarly reputation, and diminish the perceived quality of your research.

 

9. Seek Feedback Before Submission

Before submitting your research paper, ask colleagues or mentors for feedback. A fresh pair of eyes can help identify unclear sections, overlooked sources, or logical inconsistencies. But choose your reviewers carefully. They need to be:

·      familiar with the type of research used in your research paper

·      knowledgeable in your academic field

·      kind, constructive, and honest

·      respectful of your timeline

 

Upon receiving feedback, respond with grace and gratitude, and thoughtfully incorporate the suggested revisions into your manuscript before submission. Keep in mind that this is your paper, so you have the discretion to choose which feedback to incorporate thoughtfully.

 

10. Submit Your Paper

Most journals require electronic submission of manuscripts through their designated online portals. It is essential to follow the submission guidelines carefully, which typically include providing a title, abstract, full manuscript, references, tables, and figures, a funding disclosure, brief author bios, and a conflict of interest statement. Author names, including any co-authors, should appear only on a separate title page and not within the main manuscript. To facilitate anonymous peer review (also called blind peer review), the manuscript must be anonymized. Avoid including self-identifying details such as citations of your publications, institutional affiliations, or program names. When citing your previous work, use the placeholder ‘Author, 2025,’ and do the same in the reference list. Once your manuscript is accepted, these placeholders can be replaced with the appropriate identifying information during the copyediting stage.

 

You should not submit the same paper to multiple journals at the same time because it violates ethical standards in scholarly publishing. Most journals explicitly require that submissions are not under consideration elsewhere, and violating this policy can lead to retraction, reputational damage, or even blacklisting by journals. These events would severely damage your career.

 

11. Wait for a Response

Patience is crucial in the journal submission process. Once editors determine that a paper is suitable for peer review, they must find qualified reviewers with relevant expertise, a task that can take several weeks. Most reviewers are university faculty who are often overextended and may decline invitations. Those who accept typically have a month or more to complete their reviews, but delays are common due to professional and personal responsibilities. As a result, a wait of three to six months for a response is normal. You can generally expect acknowledgment of submission within a few days to two weeks, a desk review in two to four weeks, and peer review to take one to three months. If no decision has been communicated to you after six months, it is appropriate to send a courteous inquiry to the editor. Journals usually welcome respectful follow-up.

 

12. Understand the Editorial Decision

After peer review, journal editors typically respond to submissions with one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Conditional Accept (requiring minor revisions)
• Revise and Resubmit (requiring substantial revisions)
• Reject
• Reject-out-of-Scope

 

While an "Accept" decision is ideal, more commonly you’ll receive a “Conditional Accept” or a “Revise and Resubmit.” These outcomes may seem discouraging, but they are good news. They indicate that the editors and reviewers value your work and are inviting you to refine it for potential publication. If a journal rejects your paper, respond with professionalism and use the experience as a learning opportunity. Keep in mind that rejection is a standard part of academic publishing, not a reflection of your worth as a scholar. Resilience, revision, and thoughtful resubmission are essential to eventual success.

 

13. Prepare for Peer Review

Manuscripts are rarely accepted without revisions. Take advantage of the editorial reviews you received to revise and resubmit your paper. Use reviewer comments to improve the clarity, rigor, and relevance of your article. Approach feedback with humility and discernment. Engage constructively even if critiques are sharp. If you disagree with the reviewers’ comments, you can contact the journal editor with a well-reasoned explanation. Most journal articles go through multiple rounds of revisions before an “Accept” decision is reached.

 

Final Thoughts

Turning a conference paper into a journal article is both a practical step forward and a mark of scholarly growth. It requires you to move from presentation to publication, from idea-sharing to knowledge-building. With careful revision and thoughtful framing, your conference work can find a lasting place in the scholarly record.

 

Predatory Publishing: How to Identify and Avoid Predatory Journals

 

By Lilian H. Hill

 

Predatory publishing refers to exploitative academic publishing practices where journals charge authors significant fees without providing the standard editorial and publishing services. Nicholas et al. (2017) stated that “predatory publishing, disregarding editorial and publication practices for the sake of monetary gains, is thus widely held to be debasing scholarly research and polluting the scholarly communications system, indeed, to be a real threat to the very integrity of science, its credibility and trustworthiness” (p. 2). For those of us not in the sciences, predatory journals will degrade the integrity and salience of publications in your discipline. They are also damaging to your career.  

Jeffrey Beall, a retired academic librarian, is frequently credited with coining the term "predatory publishers." He defined these entities as organizations that “publish counterfeit journals to exploit the open-access model in which the author pays. These predatory publishers are dishonest and lack transparency. They aim to dupe researchers, especially those inexperienced in scholarly communication” (p. 179). Beall refers to predatory journals as engaging in publishing fraud.  His website, entitled Beall’s List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers, is still available online but has not been updated since 2021 because organizations such as CABELLS have taken responsibility for identifying predatory journals.

Dangers of Predatory Publishing

Submitting your work to a predatory journal will likely result in quick publication; however, it will be a wasted effort because articles in predatory journals are discounted by dissertation committees, academic search committees, and colleagues tasked with deciding on your tenure and promotion. Publishing in predatory journals will:

·      damage your reputation

·      reduce your chances of being hired 

·      impair career advancement

·      weaken grant proposals

·      diminish your intellectual property rights

The enticement of quick publication can be tempting, especially during the tenure-track years when the pressure to publish is most intense.  To safeguard your career, it is essential to develop the ability to distinguish between predatory journals and legitimate ones.

Identifying Predatory Journals

Avoiding predatory journals requires vigilance and thorough evaluation. By critically assessing a journal’s practices, transparency, and reputation, researchers can protect their work from being associated with exploitative and disreputable publishers. This ensures that their research contributes to the academic community’s legitimate and respected body of knowledge. Things to look for include:

 

Unsolicited Emails

Receiving frequent and aggressive emails inviting you to submit articles or join editorial boards, often with overly flattering language. Look for misspellings or misrepresentations of your name (i.e., Dr. Last Name, First Name), enthusiastic phrasing, grammar errors, offers to reduce publication fees, extremely tight timelines, lack of defined journal topic, and requests for manuscripts to be sent directly to an individual’s email. See the example email below that exhibits these characteristics (with some details redacted). It was directed to my email on June 3, 2024, but thanks to my university’s IT professionals, it was shunted to my junk mail folder.

 

Journal Website

Predatory journals will often claim to publish a broad array of topics, rather than being focused. The website may closely imitate the websites of legitimate publishers; however, scrutiny will reveal grammatical errors, poor design, and broken links. Limited information is provided about the editorial board, peer review process, and article processing charges (APCs).

 

Editorial Board

Editorial board members may be non-existent, have fake credentials, or be listed without their permission. Frequent changes in the editorial board may indicate instability or a lack of credibility.

 

Peer Review Process

Articles are accepted very quickly, sometimes within days, suggesting a lack of rigorous peer review. Minimal or no constructive feedback is provided to authors, indicating that the peer review process is either superficial or non-existent.

 

Article Processing Charges (APCs)

Excessive publication fees that are not clearly stated upfront or that are justified by dubious claims of providing extensive services. There may be hidden charges, meaning additional costs that are not disclosed until after submission and acceptance.

 

Indexing and Impact Factor

False Claims of being indexed in reputable databases (like PubMed, Scopus, or Web of Science) without verification. Use of fake impact factors or metrics.

 

 

Ethical Standards
Lack of ethical standards and the absence of clear policies on plagiarism, copyright, and conflicts of interest. Unrealistically fast publication times indicate a lack of thorough review and editing processes.

 

Steps to Avoid Predatory Journals

Graduate students, trainees, and early-career researchers worldwide are being encouraged by predatory journals to take the easiest route to enhance their CVs, gain recognition, and advance in their careers by publishing their work in online journals that solicit content. To avoid falling into this trap, several steps can help you identify predatory journals:

 

1.    Verify Journal Credibility: Use directories and databases of legitimate journals, such as the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Journal Citation Reports (JCR), and the list of journals indexed in PubMed and Scopus. Refer to lists of known predatory journals, such as Cabells Predatory Reports.

 

2.    Research the Publisher: Investigate the publisher’s history and reputation. Established publishers usually have a track record of legitimate and respected journals. Reach out to members of the editorial board to confirm their involvement and the legitimacy of the journal.

3.    Evaluate Journal Metrics: Search for the journal's impact factor in recognized databases, ensuring it aligns with the claims made by the journal. Verify if the journal is listed in trusted indexing services.

4.    Peer Review Process: Ensure the journal provides a clear, transparent description of its peer review process. Be wary of journals that promise unusually fast publication times without a valid explanation.

5.    Read Published Articles: Review articles previously published in the journal to assess their quality, relevance, and adherence to academic standards.

 

6.    Seek Peer Opinions: Consult colleagues, mentors, or online academic communities to get opinions on the journal’s credibility. Look for reviews or experiences shared by other researchers about the journal. You could also reach out to your university’s librarians for assistance.

To address predatory publishing, scholars at all levels can resist a predatory journal’s urge to publish hastily. Scientific literacy should encompass the ability to recognize publishing fraud, and libraries should remove predatory publishers from their online catalogs. The most egregious offenders can typically be identified with minimal effort: their websites often contain grammatical errors and list fake contact details. However, the borderline cases are more challenging to detect, requiring more vigilance. 

 

References

Beall, J. (2012).  Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179. https//doi.org/10.1038/489179a

Nicholas, D., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Herman, E., Clark, D., Xu, J., Abrizah, A., Świgoń, M., Watkinson, A., Sims, D., Jamali, H., Tenopir, C., & Allard, S. (2023). Early career researchers and predatory journals during the Covid-19 pandemic. An international analysis.  Profesional de la Información, 32(1), e320117. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.ene.17