Transcript Filipino Adolescent students’ conceptions of learning goals

PUBLISHING IN INTERNATIONAL
REFEREED JOURNALS IN
EDUCATION: GENERAL
PRINCIPLES
Allan B. I. Bernardo
De La Salle University , Philippines
Objectives
To provide participants:
 an introduction to the refereeing or peerreview process in education and social
science journals
 a discussion of some of the broad and
basic considerations for publishing
research in refereed journals.
 pointers in how to improve chances of
being published in refereed journals in
education
What makes a journal refereed
or peer-reviewed?

“a refereed journal has a structured
reviewing system in which…reviewers,
excluding in-house editors, evaluate
each unsolicited manuscript and advise
the editor as to acceptance or rejection.”
(from Cantor)
What makes a journal refereed or peer-reviewed?
Scholarly peer review (Wikipedia)
 Peer review requires a community of experts in a
given (and often narrowly defined) field, who
are qualified and able to perform “impartial”
review.
 The use of referees permits specialists familiar
with research similar to that presented in the
paper to judge whether the paper makes a
contribution to the advancement of
knowledge. (Cabbel, 2007)
Implications of peer-review system
There is no independent or objective tool
of assessing quality of manuscript
 Quality is assessed through subjective
but partial and expert opinions
 Thus, there are strong interpersonal and
intersubjective processes involved

The Gold Standard:
Thomson ISI journals
Strict refereeing process
 from 2 to 4 referees for each manuscript
submitted
 referees are invited from authors who have
published in the field/subfield
 acceptance rate is less than 50% (some have
less than 20% acceptance rate)
Articles published tend to be more highly cited
in the field
Top Ranked Education Journals
according to JCR 2010 (top 10)
Journal Title
Impact Factor
Education Researcher
3.774
Review of Educational Research
3.127
Learning and Instruction
2.768
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
2.728
Computers & Education
2.617
Acad of the Manag of Learning and Education
2.533
American Educational Research Journal
2.479
Physics Review Special Topics-PH
2.302
Journal of English Education
2.219
Early Childhood Research Quarterly
2.192
Top Ranked Education Journals
according to JCR 2010 (#11-20)
Journal Title
Impact Factor
British Journal of Educational Technology
2.139
Metacognition and Learning
2.038
Scientific Studies in Reading
1.973
Educational Evaluation and Policy Annual
1.919
Review of Research in Education
1.909
Science Education
1.900
Internet in Higher Education
1.896
Journal of Teacher Education
1.891
Health Education Research
1.889
Reading Research Quarterly
1.833
Impact factors in education journals
184 journals listed in “Education and
Education Research”
 Modal impact factor in education
journals (over the years) is around
.500
 Generally, impact factors in education
journals are lower compared to the
natural sciences and related social
sciences (e.g., psychology)

Impact factors of Asian regional
education journals
Journal Title
Impact
Factor
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education
.644
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher
.632
KEDI Journal of Educational Policy
.269
Asia Pacific Journal of Education
.119
Asia Pacific Education Review
.112
JCR Reports
You need to subscribe to the JCR to get
impact factors.
You can also check out the journal’s webpage:
 http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldes
cription.cws_home/347/description
 http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/tf/0022027
2.html
 http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13598
66X.asp
Preparing the Manuscript
Deciding what
to write about
Selecting a
journal
Writing the
paper
From Montiel (2006)
PUBLICATION
PEERREVIEW
CYCLE
WRITE PAPER FOR
PEER-REVIEWED
PUBLICATION
PRESENT RESEARCH REPORT
IN CONFERENCE
IMPLEMENT RESEARCH PROJECT
(includes completion of final report to
funding agency)
RESEARCH PLANNING (review of literature; design
of study; search for collaborators; apply for funding)
Deciding what to write about
Remember: your manuscript will be
assessed in terms of how important are its
contributions to the literature.
 So you need to determine what is the
contribution you want to write about!

Diverse Epistemologies in
Education Research
Positivism
 Post-positivism
 Constructivism / Interpretivism
 Critical / Ideological perspective

Quantitative vs. Qualitative
approaches
Diverse Epistemologies in
Education Research
The quality of the research
contribution is assessed based on
the epistemological assumptions
of the research
 Note: Some journals have a strong
epistemological position &
methodological preference

Significant Contributions
new theory, argument clarification or
or conjecture
elaboration
new definition
rephrasing or recasting
of question
new synthesis of
previous findings
evaluation of an earlier
assertion
new educational
“technology”
new or alternative
interpretation
illustration (new
supporting evidence)
refutation or rebuttal
(new contrary evidence)
Significant Contributions
Significant contributions
push current knowledge forward or
towards some positive direction
always involve building on the
previous contributions
The degree of importance of the
contribution depends on the
degree to which the contribution
advances the current knowledge.
Insignificant or Bad
Contributions
saying something obvious or that
everyone already knows
saying irrelevant, off-track, or even
misleading things
just presenting findings without linking
these to some aspect of the current
knowledge (or linking to outdated
knowledge)
Insignificant or Bad
Contributions
Inappropriate reading and/or response
to other contributions
indiscriminately disagreeing or
agreeing with everything
talking about something most people
do not care about
overreaching in arguments (without
evidence)
Contributions to knowledge
REMEMBER:
A contribution to the research literature
needs to be defined in the context of the
nature of the research enterprise.
A significant contribution can only be
understood in the context of the current
research environment and the types of
research outputs that are being or
considered within.
Contributions to knowledge
Bottom line:
THE QUALITY OF YOUR
CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE
DEPENDS ON THE QUALITY OF
RESEARCH THAT YOU
CONCEPTUALIZED AND COMPLETED
From Montiel (2006)
PUBLICATION
PEERREVIEW
CYCLE
WRITE PAPER FOR
PEER-REVIEWED
PUBLICATION
PRESENT RESEARCH REPORT
IN CONFERENCE
IMPLEMENT RESEARCH PROJECT
(includes completion of final report to
funding agency)
RESEARCH PLANNING (review of literature; design
of study; search for collaborators; apply for funding)
Three important components of a
contribution:
METHODS
DATA
THEORY
The Role of Theory
Perspective or point-of-view
may be explicit or implicit
set of assumptions
Prior? or Emergent?
Some dimensions of
perspective evolve or change
as conversation develops, but
some aspects are inflexible.
The Role of Data
What is you epistemology?
Evidence: supportive,
clarificatory, illustrative, or
contradictory
What makes data useful in
conversations? Credibility?
Reliability? Validity?
Relevance? Replicability?
Representativeness?
The Role of Data-Gathering
and Data-Analytic Methods
What is your epistemology?
Quality of data: relevance?
representativeness? accuracy?
verifiability? completeness?
Quality of analysis: updated
techniques; logic in inference;
rationality; persuasiveness;
vividness; emotional appeals;
usefulness, practical, political &
ethical dimensions
Publishing in Refereed Journal:
The First Question
“IS MY RESEARCH WORTH
PUBLISHING” or
“IS MY RESEARCH REPORT DESCRIBING
AN ORIGINAL AND SIGNIFICANT
CONTRIBUTION TO THE RESEARCH
LITERATURE IN MY FIELD/SUBFIELD?
Thinking about one’s contribution(s)?
Most scholars in my field/subfield
now think/say that ______________
_____________________________
___________________________.
My research shows that _________
_____________________________
_____________________________.
Realizing what you have to
contribute
It is important that you find something in your
research that some group of other scholars will
find interesting.
You need to know the breadth and depth of
existing research literature
You need to consider the diversity within the
community of researchers in your field/subfield.
Even “small” contributions will have space in the
research conversation.
Realizing what you have to
contribute
Your “contributions” may not be the same
as you had planned in your research
proposal.
Your research question/problem should
“match” your “contributions.”
Be very clear about what your
“contributions” are in relation to what the
present literature is stating.
“Contributions” that are typically
rejected (in my experience as Editor)
✗Manuscript that do not have a clear theoretical
point of view (absent or incoherent)
✗Replication of old finding with no new feature or
contextualization
✗Replication of “new” finding with small nonrepresentative sample
✗Descriptive study w/non-representative sample
✗Qualitative data that were analyzed superficially
Preparing manuscript for journal
submission?
Most scholars in my field/subfield now think/say
that _____________________________________.
My research shows that ____________________
_________________________________________.
You need to consider the type of
your contribution to the literature
in choosing your target journal.
Choosing the target journal
If you cannot think of good answers to the
last two items, don’t even think about
publishing in a refereed journal.
If you have answers to the two items, but
they do not seem to be very compelling,
you should consider a low-end refereed
journal.
If you have very strong answers to the last
two items, you should consider a high-end
refereed journal!
Choosing your target journal
The way you prepare the manuscript
should be appropriate to the journal you
will submit to
Know the journal (editorial policy
statement, scope of topic and method
journal, readership, processes, etc.)
Check out table of contents, abstracts,
and sample articles
Consider the editorial standards
Choosing your target journal
Try to find a good match between journal
and your manuscript
Make sure the you choose a journal that fits
the scope and nature of your research
Consider where “similar” studies have been
published (i.e., look at your reference list)
But consider time lag and changes in
editorial policies and teams
Preparing the manuscript
Be clear about what
“contributions” you will highlight
in the manuscript.
Your “contributions” may not be
the same as you had planned in
your research proposal.
Getting started in writing
Organizing the Manuscript
Keep in mind what your
“contribution” is.
Write your manuscript so that every
part of the paper points to your
“contribution”
Know the audience you are writing
for; think of the journal you are
writing for.
Organizing the Manuscript
Write your manuscript so that every part of the
paper points to your “contribution”
Abstract should highlight the contribution
Introduction should clearly show the
significance of the contribution
Review of literature should point to the gaps or
unresolved issues that your contributions would
address
Research questions should be aligned to the
contributions
Organizing the Manuscript
Write your manuscript so that every part of the
paper points to your “contribution”
Methods should convince readers that
contributions are based on sound research
approaches
Results should be presented to highlight the
contributions in a credible way
Discussions should focus on limitations and
significance of the contributions
Organizing the Manuscript
Look at the overall balance of the
different parts of the paper and
ensure that it favors an appreciation
of your contribution.
Avoid: excessively long introduction
and review of literature, with a
skimpy discussion of results.
Thesis format vs Journal format
The thesis/dissertation format was
designed for pedagogical purposes.
The journal format was designed for
developing an argument.
Do NOT make the mistake of simply
transplanting the parts of your thesis to
your journal manuscript.
Journal editors and reviewers will easily
see that you are an amateur.
Writing the Manuscript
Two main goals for writing for peerreviewed journals:
Convince referees that your
contributions are important
Display the right level of expertise
to impress the referees
Recall: gate-keeping function of
peer reviewers
Writing the Manuscript
Two key principles in preparing your
report: clarity and accuracy.
The two principles are important
because your readers will be
assessing whether they will believe
what you are writing. So don’t be
vague, obscure, or intentionally
misleading.
The importance of the first
paragraph / first page
“Page-one-writer”
First paragraph should clearly
communicate to the referee the breadth
and depth of your research and what you
have to contribute
First paragraph should also display
enough of your expertise in the field (e.g.,
refer to “right” issues, theories,
publications, authors, etc.)
Writing the introductory section
Start with the big picture; talk about
something that readers will understand in
concrete terms.
Begin limiting the problem, gradually
focusing on your topic.
In gradually focusing on your topic, you
should already be discussing the
significance of your topic.
State your research problem in broad
terms; if possible, in one question.
Writing the introductory sections
Discuss what other researchers have said in
relation to the problem.
This review of literature should not be
enumerative & need not be comprehensive;
it should be selective but representative.
Review should point to what the gaps or
unresolved issues are
I.e., it describes the current research context
in which you want to make a contribution.
Writing the introductory sections
When citing the literature…
cite recent literature in other refereed
journals
avoid citing unpublished works or
publications in the gray literature
be aware if journal has limits on number of
citations
sometimes, editors select reviewers from
authors in cited literature
Writing the introductory sections
In the review, be explicit about how you define
& use important terms or concepts.
If appropriate, your review should clearly state
your theoretical premises.
End the section with a brief but detailed
articulation of your research problem, variables,
(& if appropriate, hypotheses), being explicit
about how it relates to the existing literature.
Writing the methods sections
This section should be very detailed and
accurate, without being too detailed.
Detail should be sufficient to allow readers
to adequately assess the sufficiency of the
methods.
Refer to similar types of articles that have
been published in terms of how to organize
this section.
Try writing this section following a clear and
linear narrative style.
Writing the results section
Preface the presentation of results with a
reminder of the research questions, and if
appropriate, the hypothesis.
Organize the results in ways the clearly
allow the readers to see the answers to the
research questions.
Provide the “conceptual” answers to
questions before giving the details of the
results and analysis.
Writing the results section
Use the conventional forms of reporting data
(e.g., tables, figures, statistical analysis); if
necessary refer to published papers in your
intended journal.
Do not be redundant in data presentation;
choose the most effective way of presenting
your data
When describing large data sets, provide
summaries after subsections.
Writing the discussion section
Before embarking on discussion:
 very
briefly summarize your findings, highlight
how your findings relate to existing literature.
 state possible caveats in your conclusions
brought about by limitations of the study.
Start discussing your findings: discuss
similarities differences with other research,
theoretical and/or practical implications,
educated speculations, etc.
NOTE: align discussion with focus of journal
Writing the discussion section
Be careful not to overreach with your
discussion and conclusions.
Do not end with “future research” or
“limitations.”
End with a bang. Make sure your readers
feel they got something from your report.
Some reminders on writing
Be very strict in following all prescriptions of
the journal editors (e.g., citations, headings,
tables, figures, etc.)
You conversational academic style of
language. Avoid being abstruse and too
formal (e.g., use of third person).
Use repeated and parallel construction.
Use active voice unless the content dictates
otherwise. Avoid self-references.
Some reminders on writing
Keep sentences short (one thought)
Keep paragraphs short (one main idea)
Be sure your tone or style is consistent
throughout (within paragraphs and across
paragraphs)
You are writing for an international
audience, so be mindful of local language
usage or parochial references
Grammar and idiomatic expressions
Some reminders on writing
Be meticulous in all the details.
Be concise. Make sure every word is
absolutely necessary.
Don’t be offensive. Avoid bias (i.e.,
gender, stereotyping, prejudice, etc.)
Avoid jargon. If you need to, define it first
in concrete terms & use an example.
Proofread.
Important reminders on writing
Think of your reader -- one who is fairly
intelligent, with enough background in the
field, but is not a specialist.
Write as if you are teaching your reader.
Revise
Revise
Revise
Revise
Closing suggestions
Read and model the articles published
in ISI journals (focus on form-substance
connections)
Try to use ISI journals as models for
writing each section of your manuscript,
and even for the organization of your
manuscript
Find out what writing styles, behaviors,
and practices work for you, and stick to
them
Closing suggestions
Try to find long blocks of time for
writing (give it importance)
Be courageous and be willing to stick
your neck out (and make mistakes)
Set high expectations of yourself, work
hard and always try to do your best.
Don’t ever take the negative outcomes
personally.
Never give up. Because we can all do it.
THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING!
Allan B. I. Bernardo, Ph.D.
De La Salle University-Manila
The Peer-Review Process
Submission and acknowledgement
 Peer Review
 Editorial Decision
 Revisions
 Acceptance
 Preparation for publication

Submission
Most reputable journals now only accept
submissions online through the website
 First, study all the “Instructions for Authors”
found in the website
 http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldes
cription.cws_home/603/authorinstructions
 http://www.bpsjournals.co.uk/authors/authors
_home.cfm

Submission
Second, create an account for submitting your
manuscript
 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajsp
 http://ees.elsevier.com/paid/
 http://www.editorialmanager.com/ajcp/

Submission
Third, follow instructions for uploading your
manuscript
 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajsp
 http://ees.elsevier.com/paid/
 http://www.editorialmanager.com/ajcp/

Acknowledgement





You should get an acknowledgement email, typically
within two days or so.
BUT, this does not mean your manuscript is already being
reviewed. Editor or staff will still vet your manuscript for
requirements.
Staff might request for some corrections or minor revisions
(format, length, etc.).
Editor might request for some revisions.
Editor might reject without review (desktop rejection)
Peer-Review
Manuscript is read by 1, 2, 3, or 4 reviewers
(depending on editorial standard)
 All reviewers are instructed to evaluate
manuscript in terms appropriateness for
publication in the specific journal
 Variations:
 Normal review
 Blind review
 Double blind review (omit author details)

Peer-Review
Other variations:
 Expedited review process (“light-touch”
reviews) : reject-or-accept decision without
comments (may apply to short reports, notes,
book reviews, etc.)
 Norm review process: normally takes three
months, but may be as quick as one month or as
long as six months (or more)
Editorial Decision
You will get an editorial decision letter,
also via email.
 The editor or action editor gives you
his/her comments, the referees’ comments,
& the action editor’s decision.
 Note: Editorial decision is not always
consistent with referees’ comments.

Editorial Decision
The decision will be one of the following:
Accepted without revisions (routine
copyediting)
Minor revisions (indicated)
Revise and resubmit
Rejected but encouraged to resubmit with
revisions
Rejected no revision will be accepted
Sample decision letters



Decision letter #1: D:\PAP Writing
Workshop\JEdPsych Sample\Sample Rejection
Letter.pdf
Decision letter #2: D:\PAP Writing Workshop\Dev
Psych Sample\Sample Decision Letter Revise 01.pdf
Decision letter #3: D:\PAP Writing Workshop\Dev
Psych Sample\Sample Decision Letter Revise 02.pdf
Responding to reviews:
If you have the option to resubmit, consider
whether you want to revise according to the
reviewers’ suggestions.
You don’t have to follow all the reviewers’
suggestions.
But you should pay attention to those
reviewers’ comments that are highlighted by
the action editor.
You need to think about how far you are
willing to depart from your original work.
Responding to reviews:
When resubmitting, include a cover letter
enumerating your responses to the comments
(detailing your revisions and specifying why
you did not follow some suggestions made by
reviewers)
Editors may send out your revision for peerreview again. If so, you will have to wait
again.
Sample revision letters



Revision letter #1: D:\PAP Writing Workshop\Dev
Psych Sample\DevPsych Sample V2.pdf
Revision letter #2: D:\CURRENT TASKS\Response to
reviews JASP.pdf
Revision letter #3: D:\CURRENT TASKS\JADP-D-0900002.fdf
Responding to reviews:
Editors may decide to review your revision
on their own.
Editors will make a decision on your
revision; same options as with first
submission.
The cycle continues until the editor
pronounces that your paper is finally
accepted or finally rejected.
Responding to reviews:
If your work is rejected, or you think you
could not adequately assess the reviews, you
have the following options:
 Resubmit
same paper to another journal
 Revise or reconfigure the paper and submit to
another journal
 Conduct further studies/analysis and submit to
same or another journal
 Publish in an “easy” journal
Acceptance


You will get a decision letter stating your manuscript
has been accepted.
Sample acceptance letter: D:\CURRENT
TASKS\PsychReports Revision\Acceptance letter.pdf
Acceptance

You will be given various instructions:
 Copyright transfer
 Submission of final copies according to publisher
requirements
 Funding disclosure
 Biodata of authors
 Certification of compliance with ethics
 Payment for reprints / publication fees
 Ordering reprints, etc.
Processing of manuscript

You will get “proofs”

Copyedited manuscript in layout form. You will be
required to:
 “accept”
the copyediting done
 provide missing information
 correct errors indicated
 clarify ambiguities in text
 respond whatever questions editors have
 make additional corrections on errors you note
Sample instructions, proofs, etc.




Sample #1: D:\Reference Library\Conceptions of
Motivation\Van etten et al proof JEP.pdf
Sample #2: D:\From CEPD
Desktop\PAID_4738_with reply.pdf
Sample #3: D:\Copyright-Assign Ammons
Scientific.pdf
Sample #4: D:\Reference
Library\BernardoPubs\JGeneticPsych_46-04-27
copyright_Signed.doc