How to juggle projects effectively?

A reader writes in:

I'm looking for some advice about how to juggle different projects.  I put together a draft, sent it to a few folks for comment, and I received back one set of thorough comments already.  I'm wondering: Is it better to stick with one paper all the way through til it's ready to be submitted somewhere? --the idea being I have the material in my head so it's good to work on it while I have it all well-rehearsed.  Or is it better to sit on some of those comments and work up a different paper draft altogether so that when I do come back to the first project, I'll be looking at the comments and my own work with fresher eyes?  Bear in mind, (1) I have zero pubs and (2) I'm not talking about drafts that are submission ready nor am I talking about drafts that have been commented on by journal reviewers.  Maybe I'm asking a broader question related to a fruitful publishing program: is it better to complete one thing at a time start to finish or to have several papers going at any given time?

These are really great questions. Although everyone works differently, my sense is that it may be a mistake to focus on just one project at a time. For better or worse, academia has become progressively more competitive. Job-candidates seem to have more publications than ever before, and so to be competitive on the market (and then, for tenure) one must publish quite a bit. And unfortunately, focusing on just one project at a time doesn't seem to me to be all that conducive to this--as to publish a lot, one has to get a lot out for review, and to get a lot out for review, one has to (I think) be drafting and revising multiple projects at any given time. Maybe this is wrong, and if so, I'd be curious to hear from readers who work on just one project at a time and are successful that way. In any case, I don't work that way. Allow me to briefly explain how I work (and why), and then open things up for comments.

The OP's query seems to presuppose that they should either choose to draft up something new or revise the paper the already-drafted paper they received comments on. My own strategy is to do both kinds of thing simultaneously--that is, I am always drafting up new papers and revising old ones concurrently. Here, broadly speaking, is how I work. On days that I have plenty of time for research, I'll spend several hours first thing in the morning drafting new work (maybe 3-5 pages or whatever). Then, after a break (e.g. lunch, etc.), I'll spend a few hours revising old work. This way of working in turn leads me to have something like a half-dozen working manuscripts at any given time, as every time I finish a new draft (during my morning writing time), I'll put that paper in my 'papers to revise' slot and begin working on a new paper draft in the mornings. For example, right now, I have a paper I started drafting last week (which I'm going to continue drafting as soon as I finish this post!), as well as four other completed drafts to work on revising. To be clear, I don't revise each of the four papers every afternoon, or anything like that. Rather, if I have time in the afternoon, I'll choose which one to work on--i.e. whichever one I currently feel the most motivated and best equipped to revise. Then, slowly but surely, the papers in my 'revise' pile will get in what I judge to be in good enough shape to send out to a journal--and so when I finally send them off, I'll remove them from the revise pile until I hear back from the journal.

I don't suppose that my strategy will work for everyone, as again, everyone works differently. But regardless, my sense is that juggling multiple projects simultaneously is an important skill to learn in order to publish effectively, so if other readers have different strategies that work well, I'd love to hear about them in the comments section!

 

Comments

[Michel]

Generally speaking, I'm with Marcus: work on stuff simultaneously. I do a little bit every day (just an hour or two), and what I work on depends on what else is in the queue and what the deadlines are. Anything with an imminent deadline (i.e. 1-2 months from now) gets priority.

If I have a long working day, I will start with the imminent stuff then move on to less urgent stuff when my energy or interest starts to flag. Because my time is constrained these days--and because I don't like to write more than a couple hours a day anyway--I usually end up working on just one project a day. But I will alternate throughout the week as time and energy allow. If I'm making a big push on something then I will do all my writing on that one project for a while, but gear down later in the day with reading for other projects.

Usually, this means that revisions (i.e. R&Rs) get priority, and new work takes a backseat until I've cleared my plate. Currently, it means I work on my book a few days a week, and alternate between an R&R and a chapter with the same deadline on the others.

If you feel stuck or bored with one project, work on another for a little while instead. Putting all your energy into one thing that's not feeling very rewarding at present is a recipe for unhappiness.

For someone still trying to get their first pub under their belt, however, I'd recommend focusing their energy on revising that first paper. It's hard to get the swing of things early on, and I think you're liable to dilute your attention a little too much. If you're revising, you're close to submitting it, and you'll have months to work on other stuff while you wait for a verdict.

But do keep a running list of paper ideas, and don't hesitate to write a little if you have a thought about one of them.

[Tim]

I agree with the general point that to be publish effectively (one paper a year or more), you should be working on multiple papers at the same time.

I have never had any difficulty working on multiple projects, so it is hard to give advice. But I'd recommend two things to someone, like perhaps OP, who is starting out. First, have different projects at different stages. For instance, one paper at the 'getting feedback' stage; one paper at the drafting stage; one paper at the reading stage. That way, the work for each project feels different.

Second, experiment with forced time windows. For instance, work on one project Monday/Weds/Friday and the other on Tuesday/Thurs. Or one only in the morning, the other only at night. Sometimes people have a hard time switching between projects because they have a hard time 'getting into the mind set' of a project. By experimenting with forced time windows you can determine how long you need to get back into a project to effectively work. (Is it an hour? A day? A week? etc.)

[Anonymous Grad]

Another plug for at least having a secondary project at all times: sometimes you will get stuck on your main project (for many reasons: genuine philosophical difficulty, lack of motivation, can't find those notes you wrote a week ago), and it is useful to have something else that is relatively easy to work on as a kind of fall back. That way you can always make some progress every day you work, which I find incredibly important to keeping up general motivation to work.

[R]

One important point: given that you already have comments from one person, you really should revise that paper. I think it would be quite inappropriate for you to ask that person for comments on another paper until you have placed this one, or at least sent it out to a journal (unless they have some special obligation to read your work, for example, they are on your committee).

[V]

I used to think that alternating projects frequently was the best way for me to stay interested/motivated. Following some advice, I've recently been trying to focus for at least 3 weeks in a row on a single writing project (taking a small break between projects). I've been able to make more progress this way and I've also felt less overwhelmed. Also, when one of my papers seems more promising than the others (and/or is closer to being ready for submission), I try to prioritize it––only shifting to other projects occasionally when I need a break or when I'm waiting for feedback.

I personally don't often have enough energy to revise/edit a paper in the afternoon after having spent several hours in the morning on another paper, but everyone is different.