Writing For Historical Publications

I recently came across a thought-provoking article challenging the prevalent use of 'precolonial' in describing African history and experiences. It sheds light on how this term, while often applied solely to Africa, might not accurately depict the diverse and complex nature of the continent's history and cultures. The piece aptly highlights the dangers of homogenizing Africa, treating it as a monolithic entity devoid of diverse histories, institutions, and experiences. The term 'precolonial' often misleads and obscures rather than illuminates the rich tapestry of African societies and their evolution through time. It's crucial to acknowledge that while terms like 'pre-Roman Britain,' 'pre-moorish Spain,' or 'pre-Columbian America' exist, their usage differs significantly from the exclusive application of 'precolonial' to Africa. This discrepancy raises questions about the underlying assumptions and motivations behind such categorizations. As we navigate historical frameworks, it's essential to be mindful of the context and the implications of the terms we use. Rather than relying on oversimplified labels, let's strive for a nuanced understanding that respects the complexities and diverse narratives within African history. The concept of 'precolonial' Africa deserves critical examination, challenging the inherited narratives and striving for a more inclusive and accurate portrayal of the continent's rich and varied past. What are your thoughts on the usage of 'precolonial'? How can we reshape historical discourse to better represent the complexities of African history and cultures? #AfricanHistory #HistoricalNarratives #ContextMatters #DiversityInHistory #DecolonizingHistory

Turning Your Thesis into a Journal Article 🔹 Step 1: Identify the Core Focus Extract the main objective or question from your thesis. Why: Journals prefer focused studies, not broad theses. Example: From a thesis on media and youth, focus only on social media's impact on youth political engagement. 🔹 Step 2: Select the Right Journal Choose a peer-reviewed journal that matches your research topic. Why: Each journal has unique aims, scope, and formatting requirements. Example: For education-related media research, consider Journal of Media Literacy Education. 🔹 Step 3: Shorten and Streamline Content Trim your thesis (15,000–80,000 words) down to a paper (~4,000–7,000 words). Why: Journals require concise, direct writing. Focus on: One problem One method One main set of findings 🔹 Step 4: Restructure into Research Paper Format Organize the paper using the standard journal structure: i--Title (10–15 words) ii-Abstract (150–250 words) iii-Keywords (4–6) iv-Introduction (500–700 words) v-Literature Review (800–1000 words) vi-Methodology (500–700 words) vii-Results (500–800 words) viii-Discussion (700–1000 words) ix-Conclusion (200–300 words) x-References 🔹 Step 5: Rewrite in a Concise, Academic Style Avoid repetition, reduce literature discussion, and cut lengthy background info. Why: Academic papers require clarity and brevity. Tip: Use active voice and present tense where appropriate. 🔹 Step 6: Update the Literature Add the most recent studies to your literature review. Why: Journals want current and relevant references (last 5 years is ideal). 🔹 Step 7: Ensure Originality and Avoid Self-Plagiarism Reword thesis content, especially if your thesis is online or previously submitted. Why: Journals check for originality and duplication. 🔹 Step 8: Prepare for Journal Submission Format according to journal guidelines Include cover letter Proofread thoroughly 🔹 Step 9: Submit and Respond to Reviewer Feedback Submit your paper If rejected, revise and resubmit to another journal If accepted with changes, revise carefully and respond to all comments 🔹 Step 10: Celebrate Your Publication! Once published, share your work on LinkedIn, ResearchGate, or academic platforms.

📚 What I’ve Learned from 1,000+ Manuscripts I started my journey as an Editor in January 2024. Since then, my eyes have seen more than a thousand submissions, each one carrying the hopes, ideas, and hard work of scholars from across the globe. A few reflections: 🔹 1. A Good Idea Is Not Enough Many papers start with a strong and timely idea, but execution often falls short. A clear research question, logical structure, and methodological rigor are just as critical as novelty. Without these, even great ideas fail to shine. 🔹 2. Literature Review ≠ Citation Dumping One common mistake, especially among early-career researchers, is filling the literature review with endless citations without critically engaging with them. A strong review builds an argument; it doesn’t just list who said what. 🔹 3. Methodology Sections Are Often Underdeveloped I often find that the methodology is vague or lacks justification. Reviewers don’t just want to know what you did; they want to know why you did it that way. 🔹 4. Findings Without Meaning Some manuscripts present results clearly, but stop there. What do the findings mean? Why do they matter? A strong discussion section connects results back to theory, practice, or policy, and that’s often what makes a paper publishable. 🔹 5. Writing Style Still Matters Clarity, flow, and tone can elevate a manuscript. Poor grammar or awkward phrasing creates unnecessary friction, even if the content is solid. I always encourage authors: edit as if you’re submitting to a top journal, even if you’re not. 🔹 6. The "One-Size-Fits-All" Paper Doesn’t Work Papers that try to appeal to everyone often end up appealing to no one. Targeted research, with a clear audience and focused contribution, performs better in review. 🔹 7. The Cover Letter Is Your Secret Weapon A generic "Dear Editor" note is a missed opportunity. Strong submissions often include a concise, persuasive cover letter that: ✔ Explains the paper’s significance ✔ Highlights fit for the journal ✔ Confirms compliance with journal guidelines 🔹 8. Ethical Red Flag — Over-citing your own work or that of close colleagues — Fuzzy or disputed authorship contributions — “Salami-slicing” one dataset into multiple thin papers 🔹 9. The Best Papers Answer: Why Now? Timeliness matters. Editors are drawn to work that connects with current debates, crises, or emerging trends. If your research speaks to what’s happening in the world or your field right now, make that crystal clear. Relevance gives your paper urgency and impact. 💡 Publishing is about telling a compelling academic story, grounded in evidence, driven by curiosity, and relevant to real-world or theoretical questions. #EditorInChief #AcademicPublishing #PhDLife #ResearchTips #PublishingInsights #HigherEducation #ResearchExcellence #LinkedInForAcademics #IslamicMarketing #JIMA

Happy to have contributed Case study 13 on "The Impact of “the Weight of the Past” in Strategic Decision-Making (Kenya)" in a publication by UN Futures Lab titled "Futures Thinking and Strategic Foresight in Action: Insights from the Global South (access the report here: https://lnkd.in/dRF39zqW). To drive meaningful, future-ready change, leaders must boldly challenge outdated norms and foster a culture of foresight and innovation. This requires strong investment in partnerships among scientists, policymakers, and communities; the use of behavioral science and contextual awareness in foresight; inclusive and participatory processes; systemic capacity-building and impact measurement; and strengthened networks with open data access to enable adaptive, evidence-based decisions. My specific conribution during the launch was around some challenges we can face when building futures. 1. Past successes often prevent us from consuming future narratives that do not fit that reality - When individuals or institutions have achieved success through certain strategies, systems, or worldviews, they tend to anchor their thinking to those familiar patterns. This creates a kind of "success trap" where alternative futures—especially those that seem to challenge or upend the foundations of past achievement—are dismissed or undervalued. Future narratives that diverge from the logic or values of past successes can feel threatening or implausible, leading to resistance rather than curiosity. 2. Overconfidence in our expertise can sometimes lead to a false sense of certainty and hinder us from embracing uncertainty and complexity. Experts may over-rely on established knowledge and proven models, assuming that what worked before will continue to work. This mindset resists ambiguity and may oversimplify complex or emergent challenges. When confronted with signals that challenge their expertise, experts may rationalize or dismiss them rather than explore them. 3. Contextual grounding, while important, can also make us very inward-looking - Understanding one's context—historical, cultural, political, or institutional—is critical for relevance. However, too much focus on the local or familiar context can create echo chambers. It can cause individuals or organizations to overlook external dynamics, global shifts, or entirely different systems of logic. This inward-looking stance can make scenarios less transformative and more about minor adaptations to current realities. 4. The timing of scenarios can hinder the practical processing of the issues - If developed during a crisis, people may be too reactive, stressed, or focused on immediate survival to fully engage with long-term thinking. Conversely, if done too early—before stakeholders feel a sense of urgency or relevance—they may be dismissed or ignored. Timing influences both the receptivity and the utility of scenarios.

This week one of my main goals has been to conduct a final review of a paper prior to journal submission - thus I thought it would be helpful to do a short post about the mental checklist I run through when submitting a paper. (This is a first submission to the target journal, not a submission of a revision; and applies primarily to empirical papers.) 1) Carefully review the title and abstract. Are both informative and accurate? Does the abstract meet word limits (usually 100 or 150 words, depending on the journal)? Note that any errors in the abstract make a hugely negative first impression. Check it again! 2) Check the bibliographic compilation. Careful copy-editing of every entry is not usually necessary at this stage (if you want to do this, AI tools can help) but ensure that there are no missing references, "ADD REFERENCE HERE" notes, "???" compilations in Latex, etc. 3) Review the footnotes. Often, footnotes accumulate during writing as a parking lot for extra notes that someone may think are important or wants to remember. Pruning of footnotes is wise at this stage. Longer or more complex background information is often more appropriately placed in an appendix (where it is more clearly separate, and less distracting) compared to a footnote. 4) Review the exhibits and the notes. Does every exhibit have appropriate notes that are complete and readable? Are the exhibit titles logical, clear, and of generally similar structure? Different people have different preferences, but it is not wise, for example, to have one table named "Results" and one named "Robustness check: Alternate construction of the roads variable." They should be roughly similar in length and structure. A reader who goes straight to the exhibits and reads them alone should be able to understand them and understand the primary story of the paper. 5) Review, quickly, the section and subsection titles. Again, preferences differ - there is no one structure of a paper that is always preferable - but ensure that the titles are logical and internally coherent. 6) Review the acknowledgments and ensure that funders, partners, and others are appropriately acknowledged. If original data was collected, ensure that information about ethical approvals and any pre-registrations is provided (I prefer to provide this in the main text but some provide it an acknowledgments footnote.) 7) Return to the journal requirements and note if there are any other required documents (conflict of interest statements, etc.) Cover letters are generally optional at economics journals and if optional, I usually do not provide them; as editor, I only scan them quickly. The primary goal of a cover letter should be to convey information other than "this is a paper about X", information that can be gleaned from the abstract. For example, if the analysis uses proprietary data, or if there is some important information about the composition of the team. Good luck with your submissions!

Teaching history honestly is essential so that the future citizens learn to admire courage, resilience and creativity, not those who glorified slaughter and plunder. When textbooks clearly explain how invaders like Mahmud of Ghazni attacked, looted and destroyed centres of faith and learning, young minds can separate genuine heroism from naked aggression. #Why honest history matters - Accurate history builds critical thinking: students see cause, consequence and moral complexity instead of a sanitised tale that hides violence and cultural destruction. - A truthful record of invasions, massacres and temple demolitions helps learners empathise with the victims of the past and recognise how those traumas still shape societies today. # Ending the glorification of tormentors - When perpetrators of brutal raids and forced conversions are presented as “great rulers” without context, it normalises cruelty and confuses moral judgement. - Highlighting their greed, intolerance and disregard for human life ensures they are studied as warning lessons, not role models to be celebrated or worshipped. # Role of new textbooks - The expanded NCERT Class 7 section on the Ghaznavi invasions, with details of raids, killings and temple destruction, is a step toward this honest, evidence-based history. - Giving students this fuller picture encourages them to honour builders, thinkers and protectors of civilisation instead of intruders and butchers of humanity. # Call to action Educators, policymakers and citizens must insist on textbooks that confront uncomfortable truths, resist political whitewashing and place human dignity at the centre of the historical narrative. Only then will future generations stop mistaking fear and bloodshed for greatness and start drawing inspiration from those who defended justice, pluralism and civilisation.

I saw this photo and it got me thinking.... A one-sided story is a narrative that presents only one perspective while ignoring or excluding other relevant viewpoints. Such stories often lack balance and fairness by not considering other sides or evidence.  When we hear only one side of events, we may form opinions or make judgments that are unfair or incorrect. One-sided stories can come from individuals, the media, governments, or institutions, and they often arise from bias, whether intentional or unconscious. One of the biggest dangers of a one-sided story is misrepresentation. By leaving out crucial details or alternative viewpoints, the storyteller creates a false or incomplete picture. This can reinforce harmful stereotypes and prejudices, especially when stories about certain groups are repeated without balance or context. Over time, such narratives can shape how society views people, events, or cultures, leading to systemic inequality or injustice. Another issue is polarisation. When stories only highlight one side, especially in political or social debates, it can deepen divisions between groups. People become more likely to entrench themselves in their own views, unwilling to listen to others. This can create a toxic 'us versus. them' mentality. Leaving out the context also means that important background information such as historical causes, personal experiences, or systemic factors is often ignored. There are many real-world examples of one-sided storytelling. In history, colonialism was often portrayed as a benevolent civilising mission, while the violence, exploitation, and resistance by colonised people were downplayed or erased. In the media, protests are sometimes reported as chaotic or violent, with little attention given to the reasons behind the demonstrations or the peaceful participants. Even in everyday life, we may hear only one person’s side of a conflict or break-up, and assume we know the truth. To describe one-sided stories, we use words like biased, partial, skewed, or misleading. Phrases such as 'cherry-picking' and 'echo chamber' capture the idea of filtering information to suit one narrative. These stories often ignore complexity and nuance, favouring simplicity and certainty instead, which may feel comforting, but it isn’t honest. As author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie said: “The problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story.” To avoid the dangers of one-sided stories, we need to seek out multiple perspectives, question what we’re told, and be open to complexity. Truth often lies in the space between competing stories.

It’s Black History Month 2024, and the theme is "Reclaiming Narratives." This theme resonates deeply, speaking to the power of storytelling in shaping identities and understanding within the Black community, which has often been misrepresented or overlooked. Reclaiming narratives isn’t just about remembering the past; it’s about challenging the stories told about Black lives and experiences the stories that have often been shaped by others, stripping away the richness of lived realities. It’s about picking up the pen and writing truths that deserve to be shared. This act of reclaiming is an assertion of agency, a powerful reminder that every voice within the community holds immense value. The stories of ancestors—those who stood firm against oppression and fought for their rights—are not just historical accounts; they are living legacies that inform the present. When these narratives are reclaimed, they are revived, providing inspiration and guidance for future generations. Identity isn’t set in stone; it's, woven from countless stories, experiences, and dreams. By reclaiming narratives, the community acknowledges that identity is shaped by context and history. This perspective encourages a critical examination of inherited stories and a conscious choice about which ones to embrace and pass on. It’s also essential to confront uncomfortable truths within shared history. This requires bravery to face the legacies of colonialism, racism, and exclusion. While it can be challenging and painful, it also offers an opportunity for growth. Acknowledging these truths fosters a deeper understanding of experiences across different communities and cultivates empathy. In today’s world, overflowing with information, it’s vital to ask: Which stories are being elevated? Whose voices are still missing from the conversation? By amplifying the narratives of those who have been overlooked, a more inclusive dialogue can be created that honours the diversity of Black experiences and the interconnectedness of struggles. As Black History Month unfolds, it’s crucial to engage in conversations that challenge the status quo. Embracing the power of storytelling allows for honouring the past while inspiring future actions. Each person has a role in this—telling stories authentically and unapologetically, weaving them into the larger fabric of history. Reclaiming narratives is about redefining relationships with the past and each other. It’s an invitation to celebrate the power of voices and the stories held within the Black community. Every narrative reclaimed is a step towards a more just and equitable world—one where all voices are recognised, valued, and celebrated. This Black History Month serves as a reminder to honour the past while paving the way for future generations to reclaim their own stories, highlighting the beauty and strength found in their shared humanity.

This book is the first to map an evolving public memory of a specific past across over 200 years; from history to memory. Doing so in relation to a single former slave-trading port city (in this case the largest European port involved in the slave trade), brings into sharp focus the ways in which contestations over this history and its memory are shaped by ‘legacies’ of that specific past as well as other pasts along its trajectory. This challenges the dominant position presented by memory scholars of the overwhelmingly central role given over to the place of contemporary context and concerns in shaping memory. This more ‘horizontal’ contextualization, whilst important for understanding the more official and organized acts of memory work in those specific moments (museums exhibitions and commemorative ceremonies for example), loses the longer historical understanding of the ways in which narratives about the past have persisted over time. Such narratives have a long history of their own and continue to shape engagements with dissonant histories in the present. This book maps the shape this public memory has taken from the time of the history in question (when Liverpool was still intimately involved in the transatlantic slave trade, indeed at the height of its involvement) over the succeeding decades and into the ‘memory’ of this past thereafter. It traces Liverpool’s memory of slavery from expressions of outright pride, awkward renegotiation of this identity narrative through years of abolition and emancipation, downplaying, distancing, and obscuring thereafter, alongside concurrent struggles to challenge such omissions. It therefore places efforts to acknowledge, ‘remember’, and face this dissonant past through the overt memory work and public history of the latter part of the twentieth and early twenty-first century in long historical context. It proposes a transferable methodology for the analysis of public memory (particularly that of dissonant histories) across a longue durée in relation to place and identity. This longue durée approach is important because it reveals the ways in which current narratives and debate around difficult histories have histories of their own. This approach acts to bring together the less obvious realms of memory, going beyond the overt memory work around the millennium, and provides a lens through which to view the places in between; the everyday, the shadows where, it is argued, dissonant memory has dwelled and persisted over time. 328p 2020 Liverpool University Press https://lnkd.in/g24fJc8y

Parks, museums, and historic sites don’t need hero worship. They need evidence. We do a disservice to the public when we smooth rough edges, simplify complex lives, or repeat stories that have drifted from the primary sources. The goal is not to make people larger than life. The goal is to make them understandable, credible, and real. Grounding interpretation in letters, diaries, objects, and documented context does not diminish significance. It does the opposite. It shows how complicated decisions were made, how imperfect people shaped events, and how history actually unfolds. You see this clearly across sites in the Northeast: At Adams National Historical Park, the power is not in a simplified founding narrative. It is in the correspondence between John and Abigail Adams. Their letters reveal disagreement, uncertainty, ambition, and partnership. That complexity is the story. At Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site, the preserved plans, drafts, and revisions show that great landscapes were not born fully formed. They were iterative, debated, and refined over time. The process matters as much as the outcome. At Longfellow House–Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site, interpretation does not rely on mythmaking. It situates George Washington within documented constraints, decisions, and relationships during the siege of Boston. Leadership becomes clearer when it is grounded in reality, not legend. This is the work: 📜 Read the primary sources 🔍 Question the inherited story 🧾 Let the evidence lead, even when it complicates the narrative Because when we strip away embellishment, we do not lose meaning. We gain trust. And in a moment when the public is deciding what to believe, that may be the most important thing we preserve.