Transcript Ethical Issues and Understanding the Review Process

How To Get Published:
Guidance From Emerging and Senior Scholars
Ethical Issues and
Understanding the Review
Process
Patricia B. Elmore
Southern Illinois University
April 16, 2012
Vancouver, BC, CANADA
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
Editing and Reviewing
Experience
Editor or Co-Editor
Educational Researcher
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research
Editorial Boards
American Educational Research Journal – Section on Teaching
Learning and Human Development
Applied Measurement in Education
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Journal of Educational Psychology
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
Strategies for Getting Published
Ethical Issues & Reporting Standards
The Review Process
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Submitting a Manuscript
Understanding the Review Process
Deciphering the Editor’s Letter
Revising and Resubmitting the Manuscript
Regrouping after Rejection
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
What You Need to Know About Ethical
Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper
“Ethical Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper”  American Physiological Society, 2008
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
What You Need to Know About Ethical
Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper
“Ethical Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper”  American Physiological Society, 2008
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
What You Need to Know About Ethical
Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper
“Ethical Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper”  American Physiological Society, 2008
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
AERA Code of Ethics
American Educational Research
Association. (2011). Code of Ethics.
Educational Researcher, 40(3), 145156.
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
AERA Standards
Reporting Research Findings
American Educational Research
Association. (2006). Standards for
reporting on empirical social science
research in AERA publications.
Educational Researcher, 35(6), 3340.
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
AERA Standards
Reporting Research Findings
Two overarching principles:
“First, reports of empirical research should be
warranted; that is, adequate evidence should be
provided to justify the results and conclusions”
(p. 33)
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
AERA Standards
Reporting Research Findings
“Second, reports of empirical research should
be transparent; that is, reporting should make
explicit the logic of inquiry and activities that led
from the development of the initial interest topic,
problem or research question; through the
definition, collection, and analysis of empirical
data or evidence; the articulated outcomes of
the study” (p. 33)
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
AERA Standards
Reporting Research Findings
American Educational Research
Association. (2009). Standards for
reporting on humanities-oriented
research in AERA publications.
Educational Researcher, 38(6), 481486.
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
Journal Guidelines
Do NOT Deviate from
Published Manuscript Submission Guidelines
Style Specified—APA, MLA, Chicago
Manuscript Length—Word Count
Abstract Length and Form
Tables, Figures, and Illustrations
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
APA Publication Manual
American Psychological Association.
(2010). Publication manual of the
American Psychological Association
(6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
Understanding the
Review Process
Basic Structure of Most Journals
Selection of Editors
Appointment of Editorial Board Members
Professional Associations Sponsoring Journals Provide
Guidelines for Editors and Authors
Ethical Standards of Association
Publication Committee for Oversight
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
Understanding the
Review Process
Manuscripts Assigned to Reviewers
Length of Time Between
Receipt of Manuscript and Assignment to
Reviewers
Assignment to Reviewers and Receipt of
Review
Receipt of Review and Editor’s Decision
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
Understanding the
Review Process
Complications Mean Delays
Reviewers Agree to Review But
Ignore Reminders
Send Review Weeks or Months Late
Never Complete Review
Inconsistent Recommendations by Reviewers
May Require Assignment to New Reviewers
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
Deciphering the Editor’s
Letter
Editor’s Decision
Accept
Accept with Minor Revisions
Usually for Editor’s Review
Revise and Resubmit
For Editor’s Review
For Re-review by Same or Different Reviewers
Reject
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
Revising and Resubmitting
the Manuscript
Read the Editor’s Letter Carefully
Follow the Editor’s Recommendations
Whether to Submit a Revision
Timeline
Process Recommended
Discretion Provided the Author
Revisions Required and Not Negotiable
Revise Manuscript and Resubmit ASAP
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
Revising and Resubmitting
the Manuscript
Letter to Editor
NEVER be Defensive
Thank the Reviewers
Indicate where Reviewers’ Comments Improved
the Manuscript
Provide a Detailed Enumerated List of Changes
Referencing Page Numbers and Editor and
Reviewer Comments
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
Regrouping after Rejection
Return to Targeting a Journal
Submit Rejected Manuscript Immediately to
Different Journal
Incorporate Changes Only if YOU Judge the
Recommended Changes Are Appropriate
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012
REMEMBER
ONLY SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPTS
GET PUBLISHED
THANK YOU!
AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012