The art of patience: My experience publishing in academia as a PhD student

Publishing a paper is a core milestone of any academic’s journey. It can be one of the most challenging and frustrating processes, yet the success of seeing your paper published somehow makes it all worth it. What starts as a simple idea quickly grows into months of reading, writing, editing, submitting, receiving rejections, and revisions, all to finally reach publication day.

Since completing my first publication, I’ve taken the time to reflect on the experience of writing, collaborating, and navigating journal submission processes to consider what it has taught me about resilience, and my personal growth as a researcher. Below, I’ve also consolidated some personal tips for researchers looking to publish in psychology. 

Where the idea began:

The idea for my recent paper ​‘Beyond the classroom: A commentary on overcoming the challenges with conducting research in schools by using public engagement as a novel approach to data collection’ (Mason et al., 2026) was first developed when I began working for the Scouting and Guiding Initiative (SAGI) at the University of Nottingham in 2023. Across the team, the challenges of recruiting and collecting data in young people were clear so SAGI developed public engagement events where young people can enjoy a night learning about psychology while also providing researchers with the opportunity to collect data. When trying to share the importance of this approach, it became apparent that these challenges were rarely discussed systematically. This paper therefore highlights these challenges as well proposes our novel approach to help address these challenges. You can read the paper in full here.

Learning how to write a paper:

Starting research for this paper was an enjoyable process contrasting from my day-to-day routine which, at the time, largely consisted of attending lectures and seminars as I finished my master’s degree. Aside from my undergraduate dissertation, I had little experience conducting larger-scale literature searches, so this came with a learning curve. Identifying relevant (often scarce) literature, organising readings, and building a coherent narrative are skills I’m glad to have developed early within this process, and have since proved invaluable in my PhD studies. 

My advice here is simple. Identifying and reading relevant literature takes time and once you start finding it, you need a system to manage it. For me, this meant utilising a reference managing software where I could label, annotate, and search readings. Whatever system you use, what matters is that the system works for you and allows you to easily return to papers as needed. Setting this up initially take time, but it will ultimately save you time, and stress later. 

Facing imposter syndrome as a new researcher:

Whilst drafting the initial version of the paper, I felt confident in my writing abilities. But as the process became more collaborative, imposter syndrome, an experience I’m sure many will recognise, began to creep in. I knew many members of the SAGI team as mentors or lecturers throughout my undergraduate studies, so collaborating with them as a peer felt like a significant transition. In many ways, it marked a moment where I began to see myself moving from student to researcher. While this was exciting, as I aspire to a career in academia, this brought some hesitation relating to speaking up and leading discussions in meetings. With the encouragement of the team, and positive feedback, however, my confidence began to grow. Over time I felt increasingly able to contribute ideas, lead the writing and editing process, and take ownership of the paper as lead author. 

It is worth noting that building this confidence is rarely a linear process. While some days you feel great about your writing and feel you have a clear plan, other days you can question how you ended up in this position! My advice here is to be honest with those around you. While it may feel isolating, and perhaps embarrassing, it really is something that many people experience and will be happy to share how they have managed this. 

Competing academic demands:

Writing this paper also reinforced the importance of discipline and time management. Academic schedules are busy, often balancing teaching, marking, supervision, and your own research commitments. These quickly fill available time meaning writing time easily slipping from one week’s to-do-list to the next, if it is not actively protected. To initially help with this, blocking out dedicated writing time was essential to maintain steady progress. As the process become more collaborative, we moved to scheduling writing meetings in which we focussed on developing, questioning, and strengthening arguments. These sessions were among the most productive of the entire process. They not only improved the paper but also helped to develop my confidence in defending decisions, articulating my reasoning and recognise my own contribution with the team, skills I carry forward to my work today.

Growing as a collaborative writer:

The collaborative nature of writing an academic paper was, perhaps naively, something I hadn’t anticipated. Coming straight from undergraduate studies where most assignments were completed independently, I had no framework for what co-authorship involved in practice. This therefore introduced a period of adjustment and brought with it some unexpected challenges. For instance, coordinating scheduled writing meetings, reconciling different writing styles, and navigating decisions concerning the direction of the work. It took time to learn how people worked, where their strengths were and how to effectively communicate with one another. 

Despite this initial adjustment, we found a productive rhythm and collaboration quickly became one of the most enjoyable parts of the process. Working alongside other academics meant ideas could be tested, refined, and improved through discussion in ways independent writing does not allow. It also provided the valuable opportunity to learn directly from those with more experience, including how they structure arguments, or how to navigate the writing process itself. Importantly, working with others meant that support was always available, whether to hear frustrations or celebrate achievements when they came. This made everything feel shared, and there was something uniquely motivating about knowing you are not navigating the process alone. As such, this experience gave me a greater appreciation for the importance of collaboration in projects such as this. 

The first rejection (and what it taught me):

• Processing disappointment, reframing rejection 

Following writing came the notoriously daunting stage of journal submission. When writing, we hadn’t initially targeted a specific journal meaning that identifying a suitable one became our next task. After finding a possible fit and carefully planning our submission, we waited, only to receive the ever-familiar disappointment of a rejection email. Without prior experience, managing this disappointment was hard. I knew rejection is often part of the publishing process, but this did not make the rejection feel any lighter at the time. It helped to take a step back and read the feedback objectively. The paper had not been rejected because it was poor work, it simply did not fit the scope of the journal. This was a different problem, and one a solvable one. 

My advice when receiving feedback is to take your time to understand what is being said, identify what can be actioned, then move on before momentum stalls. While this may feel obvious, reflecting on feedback objectively is genuinely hard and something I continue to work on. 

Finding the right journal – and going again!

Following our initial rejection, we aimed to regroup quickly to maintain the momentum built. This meant returning to the literature to identify journals publishing similar work. This strategy is worth noting as papers with a similar focus can point you to journals that are genuinely relevant rather than just plausible. This approach led us to ​‘Research for All’ and over time we moved through the stages of review: first hearing the paper was suitable, then receiving edits, and peer review. This gave us real reassurance that the paper was now with the right journal.  

What this process highlighted is that the publication process is an inherently iterative process. Rejection, resubmission, revision, re-review, are not signs that something has gone wrong; they are the process. Therefore, managing your expectations around this early makes each stage easier.

Surviving peer review:

• Patience, perspective, revision

Waiting to hear back from the peer review was one of the harder parts of the process, not because it is especially demanding, but because it requires surrendering control of the paper you have worked hard on. The wait can be challenging feeling long and uncertain, made worse by the sense that everyone around you is publishing with ease. Be reassured though that they have likely had their own challenges along the way, and therefore focusing on personal progress is the kindest thing you can do to yourself. 

When receiving feedback, I found the comments were fair and resulting edits helped develop the paper into something more well-rounded. Coming back to the paper after some time away gave me useful distance on the mindset I’d been in while first writing it. This allowed me to work from a more objective perspective which in turn made me feel more confident making revisions rather than second-guessing changes. 

Discovering the Administrative Side of Publishing 

• Emails, tracking progress, developing leadership

Liaising with the journals throughout submission, revision, and publication was another new experience, and one that gave be real insight into how publication works behind the scenes.  

Preparing cover letters was one important part of this. Cover letters provide a crucial role in providing a strong first impression, outlining the paper’s significance and demonstrating its suitability for the journal. Equally important was learning how to respond to reviewer comments, a process with its own etiquette. Previously, I’d treated feedback as a ​‘to-do list’. However, now it was important to view feedback as an opportunity to engage critically with their suggestions. This meant considering each suggestion, making revisions where appropriate and, where we disagreed, clearly yet respectfully outlining why this was. Balancing openness to critique with defending our decisions didn’t come naturally, but this was a good place to begin developing this skill. 

Through the admin side of publishing, I also saw my leadership skills develop. Throughout the process, I frequently interacted with the journal. At first, I checked with the team before making decisions. However, I quickly learnt to take initiative within this process, proactively following up with the paper’s progress rather than waiting to be asked, so that when team members had questions, I often had the answer already.  

Publishing day:

After two years from proposing the paper, through drafting, submission, rejection, resubmission, peer review, revisions, and acceptance, publication day finally arrived. It was an exciting time for the SAGI team and personally, it marked my first publication, something I am incredibly proud of. Publication day brought about a list of jobs mainly consisting of spreading the word about the paper including sharing it on social media, with colleagues, Scouting and Girlguiding groups involved, and with friends and family curious about what it is we actually do!

What This Journey Taught Me About Academia:

Collaborating on this paper has developed skills I could not have anticipated when starting this project. My ability to receive and respond to criticism without internalising it, defending my decisions with clarity and confidence, managing my time against competing pressure, collaboration, and resilience, are all skills that have significantly improved. I continue to develop these, but I’m a more capable researcher for having gone through this process.

Advice for first-time authors: what I wish I had known:

I know there’s still a lot to learn about publishing, but here’s what I would pass on to anyone just starting out:

• Write before you feel ready. The learning happens through the process. Sometimes you have to experience it to understand what people mean. 
• Build a literature system before you need it. Whether this is a reference manager, or something else, the cost of not having a system to organise your thinking quickly becomes apparent. I can confidently say you will thank yourself later. 
• Protect your writing time. Block it out and treat it as a non-negotiable. Without this, academic schedules will expand to fill this available time. 
• Treat feedback, including rejection, as useful rather than personal. Reflect on it carefully, consider the reviewer’s perspective, and use it constructively.  
• Learn to defend your decisions. In collaborative writing, and in responding to reviewers, explaining and defending your reasoning respectfully is a skill worth building early. Confidence with this will grow with time.  
• Be patient. Publishing is slow, and it is easier to compare yourself to others who seem to be moving faster. The right paper takes the time it takes.

References:

Mason, E., Marshall, N. D., Taylor, E., Pervez, A., De Sousa, E., & Parkin, L. (2026). Beyond the classroom: A commentary on overcoming the challenges with conducting research in schools by using public engagement as a novel approach to data collection. Research for All, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.14324/RFA.10.1.2