Transcript AUSTRALIAN EDITOR ROUND TABLES

Ian White, Routledge and Professor Ian McNay
University of Greenwich
July 2nd, 2014
We will cover:
 the mechanics of getting published in
journals
 how to choose the right journal
 working with other people; gaining and using
their feedback
 identifying the differences between writing
for journals and other forms of writing with
which you may be more familiar
2
8. Proofread and
submit
1. Idea
2. Choose
Journal
7. Check
notes for
contributo
rs
6. Refine
further
drafts
3. Read
back
issues
5. Use
critical
friend
4. Write
first draft
3


An interesting topic (to you and others)
Originality
◦ Not been researched before
◦ Not been researched before in that way (different
methods and methodology; different context)
◦ Develops previous work

A thesis chapter, dissertation or conference
paper that has received good feedback from
others
What are your ideas? How are they original?
4

Discipline specific
◦
◦
◦
◦
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education
Journal of Nursing Education
Law Teacher
The Philosophical Magazine

Themed

Higher education
◦ Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education
◦ Journal of Online Learning and Teaching
◦ Social Research Methodology
◦ Studies in Higher Education (SRHE)
Routledge list
5
Which journals are you familiar
with?
In what ways are they
distinctive?
6








See where the people you read publish
Read other articles in that publication
Track key issues/topics, and see where they are published
◦ set up content alerts
◦ use social media (twitter, linked-in)
Contact the editor/previously published (known) authors
Look at the journal’s aims and scope (or calls for special
editions)
Think about the audience
Consider the quality of the journal*
Open Access?
◦ http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk
Adapted from Black et al (1998, pp.86-87)
7

In pairs, look at different journals. Consider the
following questions:
◦ How do the journals’ aims differ?
◦ Do the journals have the same article types (empirical
papers, theoretical papers, think pieces, reviews)?
◦ Are there any patterns in the types of articles that are
published (quantitative, qualitative, policy-focused?)
◦ Is there a house style for the different journals? Are
there common article structures?
◦ How do these compare to the forms of writing you are
more familiar with (research in other disciplines,
essays, chapters)?
8
the shape
Most research papers
look like this.
Introductory
sections
Methods
The introduction moves
from a general
discussion of your topic,
to the more specific
question or hypothesis
you will investigate.
Results
The discussion section
becomes increasingly
more generalised.
General
Specific
Specific
General
Discussion
From Swales & Feak (2007, p.222)
9

…provide information which is:
◦ Sufficient
◦ Structured
◦ Seductive
 The ‘Elevator Pitch’
 TITLE!
 Research into Higher Education Abstracts (SRHE)
10
Introductory
sections
Method
Results
Discussion
Provides rationale for the paper – moves
from general overview of the topic to the
specifics of your question.
Describes the method, materials (or
subjects) and procedures.
The findings are described, accompanied
by commentary.
Offers an increasingly generalisable
account of what has been found out in
the study. Implications and IMPACT
Adapted from Swales & Feak (2007, p.222-223)
11

Educational Studies offers author guidance on what it expects
from submissions in terms of:
◦ General advice
◦ Abstract
◦ Introduction / literature review
◦ Measures of assessment
◦ Sampling
◦ Data collection
◦ Interpretation of findings
◦ References
It is based on a model of empirical
research – but it might offer a useful
checklist: www.tandfonline.com/ceds
(instructions for authors)
12



Focussed background/ literature review
stating a claim for the need for the study
Concise overview of method/s
Findings
◦ Discussion of findings in relation to existing
knowledge / research



Clear structure to argument
Accurately referenced
Bound by (often) tight word count
13

What is a critical friend?
◦ AKA ‘Buddy Mentoring’


Why might you need one?
Choosing the right one
◦ In the same field?
 Specialist
 Generalist
◦ Experienced writer
◦ Proof reader
(MAKE IT EASY FOR
THE REVIEWERS)
14

Check you’ve followed the authors’ instructions
(word count, page layout, referencing, figures
etc.)
 Thank you for submitting your manuscript, "International
Students’ first encounters with exams in the UK:
superficially similar but deeply different," to IJTLHE.
Unfortunately, the manuscript is not being considered
for publication within IJTLHE. After an initial review, it
was determined that your manuscript did not meet the
submission guidelines described by IJTLHE at –
www.istel.org/ijtlhe/guidelines.cfm

Submission is increasingly online – be ready to
register – www.tandfonline.com/cshe
◦ (ScholarOne Manuscripts, Editorial Manager)
15
1. Editor receives
manuscript
2. Reviewers
3. Accept
Minor amendments
Major amendments
Reject
6. Publisher proof
stage
5. Amend
4. Feedback to
author
7. Article
Published!
16

Acceptance
◦ 98% not immediately accepted/2% accepted on
receipt
◦ Acceptance/Rejection Rates (SSH vs STM)

Rejection
◦ Reasons for

Revision
◦ Reviewer’s mediated response(s)
 detail
◦ Major, minor amendments
17
18
1
Sent to the wrong journal, does not fit the journal’s aims
and scope/fails to engage with the issues addressed by the
journal.
2
Not a proper journal article (i.e. too journalistic, or clearly a
thesis chapter, or a consultancy report).
3
Too long (ignoring word limits for the particular journal) or
too short.
4
Poor regard to the conventions of the journal (failure to
consult Notes for Contributors) or to conventions of
academic writing generally.
5
Bad style, grammar, punctuation; poor English (not
corrected by native speaker).
Continued…
19
6
7
8
9
10
Fails to say anything of significance (i.e. makes no new
contribution to the subject) or states the obvious at tedious
length.
Not properly contextualised (e.g. concentrates on parochial
interests and ignores the needs of an international or
generally wider readership).
Poor theoretical framework (including references to
relevant literature).
Scrappily presented and clearly not proofread.
Libellous, unethical, rude, lack of objectivity.
20

Accept feedback with good grace

Revise as requested

If you can’t – admit it, and explain why

Turn the paper round on time

Thank the referees for their time
Adapted from Black et al (1998,
pp.98-99)
21

Be specific

Exemplify
 e.g. author’s response to Reviewers’ comments

Defend your position
◦ (be assertive and persuasive, not defensive,
aggressive)

Re-submit within the given timeframe
 n.b. version control
22

Article Proofs
 Fast turn-round

Publication
◦ Online
◦ (within weeks of acceptance)
◦ Print
◦ Licensing/Author Rights
◦ retention, transfer?
◦ Creative Commons (Open Access)

Promotion
◦ Publisher
 “E-prints”
◦ What can you do?
23









Acknowledge/Thank those who have helped
Reading lists
Departmental web pages or personal website
Social and academic networking
◦ Twitter, facebook, Linkedin, MyNetResearch,
Academici, CiteULike, Conferences
Discussion lists
Blogs
Library recommendations
E-Prints
Email signature
24
We have an Author Services website http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/
The site contains audio interviews with academic editors providing advice on
how to get published and how to write a research paper.
Guidance is also available on:
 writing an article, editing or language polishing, translating, checking
references, artwork, providing supplementary data, how to choose a
journal;
 systems and interfaces (ScholarOne Manuscripts, CATS, Rightslink);
 the review process and what to expect;
 the production process and checking proofs;
 post-publication, errata, reprints, optimising citations;
 Licensing
 article versions and institutional repositories: what authors can and can’t do with their
articles.
Our Authors’ Newsletter is freely available online.
25
26



Black, D.; Brown, S.; Day, A.; & Race, P. (1998) 500 Tips for Getting
Published, London: Kogan Page
Swales, J.M & Feak, C.B. (2007) Academic Writing for Graduate
Students, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press
Why do academics blog? An analysis of audiences, purposes and
challenges, Studies in Higher Education, 2013, DOI:
10.1080.03075079.2013.835624
27