A wise mentor once told me that ‘no-one can take your publications away from you’. This might not be strictly accurate but it represents a kernel of truth. Publications are a major academic currency – not emails, sadly not always ideas, and regrettably not always support to students and colleagues. While the trading system is unfair, of course, to some degree, it does have the advantage of being pretty clear. Recently, I was asked to comment on seven applications for professorships at a prestigious university – all the applicants, experts in their fields, listed their publications prominently in their applications and many commented on where they were published – from top-rated academic journals to the trade or professional press. Publications matter – even at that level of eminence. At the beginning of an academic career, they count too.

There are three sets of questions that might interest researchers or students new to publishing. The first relates to knowing yourself – how ambitious are you? How well organised? How much a team member? How much a completer or finisher? If we are insightful we may know the answers to these questions – if not, a good friend will tell us! But these attributes matter and can influence early decisions about whether to write in a team or to go it alone. Along the years, things can change but many people often start writing with others – to soften the blows, reduce flights of fancy or to keep up enthusiasm.

Quite a lot seems to depend on ambition or expectation. In my view, people adopt the culture of a team or department quite quickly (some can even turn it around). If there are high expectations of outputs then people will publish, but if they are too high then this can be off-putting for those with limited data, no data or little experience. There may be ways to get round a pessimistic or negative culture – finding allies within the department or making new alliances within other areas.

Large numbers of people, not just gerontologists, are indebted to mentors, official or unofficial, who have explained the way things work in publishing, or just been encouraging. Their generosity in including new people (who haven’t necessarily done a great deal more than proof-reading) as authors often seems to be the ‘leg-up’ that new researchers welcome. Offers to do tasks like reference checking, proof-reading, and so on are appreciated by such busy people.

A second set of ideas relates less to self- and sector-knowledge and more to the art of writing. Most people in my experience talk of the importance of just doing it, getting started and not waiting for the perfect moment. And getting started means starting with book reviews, refereeing, conference reports and so on. Editorials, commentaries, even letters, just get a person started. Writing an article, particularly if based on doctoral studies, is at another level but most people advise some pretty obvious things. These include knowing the journal you are proposing to submit to; asking a critical friend to read it before submission; and deciding on the focus of the article. Easy to say, but sometimes easy to forget. Many editors are happy to be approached by a new author and that can raise confidence when a response is generally encouraging. Electronic submissions seem a bit more impersonal, but an editor is still contactable and generally approachable.

We are all worried about rejection and probably with age comes experience – especially that of an article being rejected by one journal and then immediately accepted by another, or even having to try several journals (not at the same time). Most referees’ comments nowadays are polite, even constructive, and it is rare to hear of any that are downright rude. Referees and editors seem to appreciate it when effort has been made to ensure that an article is well-written and the referencing is complete. It won’t guarantee acceptance but can tip the balance in terms of allowing a resubmission.

Everyone working in academia has their opinions, of course. Some of us have never been successful with one journal and will remember this across the years and across editors. Listening to people’s views is important and a wide range of opinionated, if conflicting, views is probably helpful to hear when at thinking stage. Recently, there seems to be greater interest in reviews and this can help a new author get started – especially as a PhD generally contains quite a good review of the literature!

Finally, a third set of questions relate to the dilemmas faced by new researchers or lecturers. The first is about ‘ownership’ and the ways in which authorship can seem to be unfairly claimed or distributed. There are strong disciplinary and institutional cultures here; with some PhD supervisors claiming the work of the PhD candidate as partly their own. In other disciplines this is rare. Likewise, some departments are keen for ‘big names’ to accompany other authors as part of a paying back for some involvement in the early stages of a study – or simply an expression of power and authority. Junior staff or researchers can not usually change this but it is right that they should know these unwritten rules and perhaps take up the issue collectively.

A second dilemma relates to whether to wait for a study to be completed before publication. Again there are disciplinary trends and practices here, but there now seems to be greater encouragement of this, as long as it does not distract from the main study and, of course, is acknowledged.

Lastly, there are dilemmas facing people who want to break into publication but don’t feel they have any data. These may be busy teachers, practitioners or course administrators. It can feel hard to get into research – if you have not experience or evidence of research or publications. There are never enough hours in the days but my experience is that teachers have their course content, students, colleagues and institutions to draw on; practitioners can comment on their own environment and administration is hugely under-researched. Historical documents are more easily obtainable nowadays and huge amounts of publicly available information are unread or lack analysis. As gerontologists we are ironically but especially fortunate that this has been a largely unfashionable area.

In my academic career I have welcomed the support, forbearance, companionship and encouragement of people I have met and worked with through the BSG. I hope that younger generations feel that the Society is equally collegial and supportive of publications.