Keeping your research relevant in an accelerating news cycle

World events, such as a high-stakes election or big policy shift, can inspire scholars’ best work. Yet publishing this research – especially as a book – can be painfully slow. By the time a book debuts, the crucial issue has become yesterday’s news.

How then should scholars publish in-depth research so it will be read and cited and contribute to academic discussion? 

For two years, we grappled with this question as Yasmin Ortiga, a sociologist, wrote Stuck at Home: Pandemic Immobilities in the Nation of Emigration, a book on Filipino nurses and cruise workers stranded during the Covid-19 crisis. She worked closely with Jenny Gavacs, a developmental editor, to prepare the manuscript for publication. Published in May 2025 – five years after the pandemic began – the book arrived amid new global crises, from rising inflation to the war in Ukraine. The challenge was to keep stories on the pandemic relevant in the context of such events. 

In this article, we highlight four main strategies for researchers to use to maximise the impact of their publications.

Remember what books do

Although publishing an article can seem protracted, publishing a book takes even longer. But, to make the decision between them, think about the size of your ideas rather than about how fleeting the event being studied might be. Decide which format fits your research best.

Their quicker production process makes articles the best platform for immediate insights, pinpointing the logic of a theory or argument, and raising questions that deserve more attention.

Books, by contrast, are a better format for arguments about broad concepts or phenomena, making a definitive contribution to a broad field, and uniting genealogies of thought into a new logic. 

• Spotlight guide: What you need to know about academic publishing today
• How to promote your book with confidence
• Campus podcast: pointers on writing and publishing for academics

Even before you begin writing, question whether the insights your findings give you respond to a specific debate or could move a field forward. Ortiga’s research, for example, led her to wonder about how the Philippine state – a government that had encouraged emigration – could manage aspiring migrants who were suddenly unable to leave. Gavacs encouraged her to build these thoughts into book form since they seemed to speak to the broad field of migration studies.

Stay grounded in the scholarship

University presses want to see books that investigate enduring questions beyond current issues. As well as working with an editor and eliciting feedback from trusted colleagues, keep your eye on the broader scholarly conversation beyond your specific topic. As social scientists like to ask: “What is this a case of?” Situate your work amid other research. That way, your book will not be just a record of a particular event but will offer useful scholarly comment on a broader phenomenon.

Another useful question to consider is: “What can this book teach in a broader disciplinary context?” 

In early drafts of her manuscript, Ortiga was entirely focused on discussing migrants’ experiences during the Covid-19 crisis. A senior scholar kindly told her that, while important, its narrow theme made it hard for him to fit her book into his migration course. With Gavacs’ input, Ortiga realised that the book told a larger story of migration governance and immobility. 

Choose your evidence wisely

It can be easy to get drawn into the short-term concerns of a history-making moment as you dive back into your evidence to shape it for the manuscript – but don’t get lost in too much detail. A book manuscript might seem long but in fact the writing needs to be succinct. Choose to include evidence that makes a scholarly point rather than evidence that invokes the emotion of the time.

With an ethnographic project, for example, where scholars have a responsibility to foreground the voices of their participants, it can be easy to think that forensic descriptions of a participant’s challenges are necessary, but this could take readers’ attention away from the central thesis. Instead, include narratives that directly affect your argument.

That said, don’t ignore data that challenges the argument. In fact, addressing findings that conflict with your research question can make the book more robust. 

In the early phase of writing, Ortiga struggled to incorporate the experiences of stranded nurses who were supportive of a state policy that banned them from leaving the country for work overseas. These perspectives contradicted the views of other nursing groups that were trying to pressure the Philippine state to lift this travel ban. Gavacs encouraged her to see how these two narratives fitted into a broader argument rather than a profile of conflict. This contradiction became an important step towards defining the politics of immobility.

Don’t rush your manuscript

The pressure to publish quickly can be detrimental to good writing and to the overall impact of one’s work. 

Ortiga struggled with this impulse during the pandemic. As articles on Covid-19 issues flooded journals, she worried that no one would want to read another pandemic-related study by the time she finished her book. She tried to complete the manuscript within a year. Yet friends who read early drafts couldn’t identify the main argument. While the stories in each chapter were detailed and compelling, the book lacked an overall arc to bring them all together. 

The solution was to slow down and find a clearer narrative. Rushing a project might allow you to join public discussions more quickly, but a well-crafted story will give readers a deeper and more nuanced argument.

In publishing their findings, researchers help fellow scholars and the public make sense of events unfolding today that promise to have long-term consequences for our world. However, keeping pace while staying relevant to academic discussions can seem overwhelming. These four strategies aim to help academics achieve this important balance and find the right medium for their work. 

Yasmin Y. Ortiga is associate professor of sociology in the School of Social Sciences at Singapore Management University. Jenny Gavacs is developmental editor at Whetstone Editing.