Research Help

Five years, one contribution.

A doctorate is a long project that has to survive its own middle. Pick where you are — each topic opens the full guide: what to do first, how to do it well, what usually goes wrong, and how to know you're done.

Norwegian PhD requirements differ by institution — number of articles, how many must be accepted before submission, and lead-author rules all vary. Treat this as the shape of the rules, and confirm the specifics with your faculty.

Publishing is a process with its own rhythm, and most of it is waiting. Learning to run several papers through that process in parallel — and to take rejection as information rather than verdict — is the practical skill that separates candidates who finish from candidates who stall.

Start here

Before you write a word, choose the target journal — and read its actual author guidelines. The paper's length, structure, and referencing all follow from that choice, and writing first then hunting for a home afterwards means rewriting from scratch.

  1. 01

    Choose the journal before you write

    Pick a journal your work genuinely fits, and one whose turnaround time your schedule can survive. Aim honestly: a paper aimed too high burns a year, and one aimed too low undersells the work. Ask your supervisor for a realistic first choice and a fallback.

  2. 02

    Write to the journal's guidelines, not a generic template

    Word limits, section structure, reference style, and what counts inside the word count all vary by journal — and the journal's rules govern, not your faculty's. Follow them exactly; desk rejections for formatting are pure wasted months.

  3. 03

    Submit, then start the next paper

    The moment a paper goes out, it stops being your problem for months. Do not wait on it. Move immediately to the next piece of work — this is how you keep the pipeline full and the years productive.

  4. 04

    Read the decision letter properly

    Decisions come in grades: accept (rare), minor revision, major revision, reject-and-resubmit, and reject. Major revision is good news, not bad — it means the journal is still interested. Read past the tone and identify exactly what is being asked.

  5. 05

    Answer reviewers point by point

    Write a response letter that takes each comment in turn: what the reviewer said, what you changed, and where. Where you disagree, say so respectfully and give your reasoning — you are allowed to push back, but you must argue, not ignore.

  6. 06

    When rejected, turn it around fast

    A rejection still gave you free expert review. Use the comments, reformat for the next journal, and resubmit quickly — the cost of rejection is measured in the weeks you spend recovering from it, not in the rejection itself.

Best practices

Never let the pipeline empty

Aim to always have one paper under review, one being written, and one being planned. Review time is unavoidable — the only question is whether you're working during it.

Treat rejection as data

Every established researcher has a long rejection history. The comments are free expertise; the decision is one editor's judgment on fit. Separate the two and move.

Respond to reviewers with respect and evidence

Never dismiss a comment, even a wrong one — explain. A courteous, well-argued response letter has rescued many papers that a defensive one would have lost.

Never submit to two journals at once

Simultaneous submission is a serious breach of publication ethics and can end a career before it starts. One journal at a time, always.

Before you hit submit

  • The journal genuinely fits the paper
  • You've followed its author guidelines exactly
  • Word count is within the journal's limit
  • Reference style matches the journal
  • All co-authors have approved the version
  • Ethics approval is cited where required
  • Data availability statement is included
  • You've noted the expected turnaround time

Response-letter phrasing

  • “We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation.”
  • “We have revised the section accordingly (p. X, lines Y–Z).”
  • “We agree, and have added…”
  • “We respectfully disagree, for the following reason:…”
  • “This point is now clarified in the revised manuscript.”

Common traps

Waiting for a decision before starting the next paper.

Review can take many months. Submit and immediately begin the next piece — an idle pipeline is the most expensive mistake in a doctorate.

Reading rejection as a verdict on your ability.

It's a judgment about fit and framing, made by one editor on one day. Mine the comments, reformat, resubmit. The only fatal rejection is the one that stops you working.

Ignoring a reviewer comment you think is wrong.

Silence reads as evasion. Answer every point — if you disagree, argue it politely with evidence. Editors notice which comments went unanswered.

Assuming publication means the paper is PhD-worthy.

It doesn't. Published articles are still assessed on independent academic grounds, regardless of where they appeared. Publication is necessary in many faculties, but never sufficient.

You're ready to move on when…

  • Each paper has a named target journal and a fallback.
  • You always have one paper under review.
  • Every reviewer point gets a written answer.
  • Rejections are turned around in weeks, not months.
  • You know your faculty's acceptance requirement and are on track.