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

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◦ Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education◦ Journal of Online Learning and Teaching◦ Social Research Methodology

Higher education◦ Studies in Higher Education (SRHE)

Routledge list5

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 shapethe shapeMost research papers look like this.

The introduction moves from a general discussion of your topic, to the more specific question or hypothesis you will investigate.

The discussion section becomes increasingly more generalised.

Introductory sections

Methods

Results

Discussion

General

Specific

Specific

General

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

Provides rationale for the paper – moves from general overview of the topic to the specifics of your question.

Method Describes the method, materials (or subjects) and procedures.

Results The findings are described, accompanied by commentary.

Discussion 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

12

It is based on a model of empirical research – but it might offer a useful checklist: www.tandfonline.com/ceds (instructions for authors)

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

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 Fails to say anything of significance (i.e. makes no new contribution to the subject) or states the obvious at tedious length.

7 Not properly contextualised (e.g. concentrates on parochial interests and ignores the needs of an international or generally wider readership).

8 Poor theoretical framework (including references to relevant literature).

9 Scrappily presented and clearly not proofread.10 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 onhow 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