7/1/13

1

PUBLISHING IN INTERNATIONAL REFEREED JOURNALS IN

EDUCATION: GENERAL PRINCIPLES & PROCESSES

Allan B. I. Bernardo University of Macau, Macau SAR China

Objectives To provide participants:  an introduction to the refereeing or peer-

review process in education journals  a discussion of some of the basic

considerations for publishing research in refereed journals.

 an overview of the processes involved in the peer review of manuscript

7/1/13

2

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)

7/1/13

3

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 & intersubjective processes involved (especially in social sciences)

Implications of peer-review system

  NOTE: Gate-keeping function of referees or peer reviewers.

  ¨Prestige of journals relies partly on the credibility of the peer review process of the journal

7/1/13

4

Varieties of peer-reviewed journals

Journal Abstracting & Indexing Systems:   Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory   Wilson Education Abstracts   Academic Abstracts   Proquest / EBSCO   Elsevier SCOPUS/SciVerse (www.scopus.com)   Thomson ISI (science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl)

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

7/1/13

5

Impact factors (JCR Reports) •  one of the quantitative tools for

evaluating journals •  measure of the frequency with which

the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a given period

•  is calculated based on a three-year period; the average number of times published papers are cited up to two years after publication.

Journal Citation Reports 2012 For example, the impact factor 2012 for a journal

would be calculated as follows:   A = number of times articles published in

2010-2011 were cited in indexed journals during 2012

  B = number of articles published in 2010-2011   2-year impact factor 2011 = A ÷ B *(5-year impact factor is also typically reported)

7/1/13

6

Top Ranked Education Journals according to JCR 2012 (top 10)

Journal Title Impact Factor

Review of Educational Research 4.229

Learning and Instruction 3.337

American Educational Research Journal 3.104

Journal of Learning Sciences 3.036

Acad of the Manag of Learning and Education 3.000

Education Researcher 2.779

Computers & Education 2.775

Education Research and Review (Netherlands) 2.586

Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2.552

Reading Research Quarterly 2.382

Science Education 2.382

Top Ranked Education Journals according to JCR 2012 (#12-21)

Journal Title Impact Factor

Early Childhood Research Quarterl 2.275 Review of Research in Education 2.111 Advances in Health Science Education 2.061 Internet in Higher Education 2.013 Journal of English Education 1.925 International Journal of Computing (Supp Coll) 1.717 Sociology of Education 1.697 British Educational Research Journal 1.660 Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 1.632 Journal of Teacher Education 1.627

7/1/13

7

Impact factors in education journals

 216 journals listed in “Education and Education Research”

 Median impact factor in education journals (over the years) is around .645

 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

The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher .933

Asia-Pacific Education Review .500

Asia Pacific Journal of Education .406

Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education .362

KEDI Journal of Educational Policy .235

7/1/13

8

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/

journaldescription.cws_home/347/description   http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/tf/

00220272.html   http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/

10.1111/(ISSN)2044-8279

Preparing the Manuscript  Deciding what

to write about  Selecting a

journal  Writing the

paper

7/1/13

9

From Montiel (2006)

PEER-REVIEW 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)

PUBLICATION

Deciding what to write about   You will have to decide what you will write

about based on what you want to contribute to the research literature

  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!

7/1/13

10

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

7/1/13

11

Significant Contributions  new theory, argument

or conjecture  new definition  new synthesis of

previous findings  new educational

“technology”  illustration (new

supporting evidence)

 clarification or elaboration

 rephrasing or recasting of question

 evaluation of an earlier assertion

 new or alternative interpretation

 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.

7/1/13

12

 saying something obvious or that everyone already knows  when all your findings have already

previously been shown in the literature

 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)

Insignificant or Bad Contributions

7/1/13

13

What about studies that simply describe a phenomenon in

Malaysia or a specific Malaysian context/community?

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.

7/1/13

14

Contributions to knowledge

Bottom line: THE QUALITY OF YOUR

CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE DEPENDS ON THE QUALITY OF

RESEARCH THAT YOU CONCEPTUALIZED AND COMPLETED

THEORY

DATA

METHODS

Three important components that reviewers and editors refer to in assessing your contribution:

7/1/13

15

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?  Positivist/post-positivist

research: Data as evidence: supportive of hypothesis, clarifies different hypotheses or models, illustrative or contradictory of a particular model

7/1/13

16

The Role of Data  What is you epistemology?  Interpretive/constructivist

research: data are exemplars of meanings and experiences of participants

 Critical research: Data as illustrative of critical argument or position

The Role of Data  What makes data useful in

conversations?  Replicability?

Representativeness? Breadth and depth of data?Reliability? Validity?

 Credibility? Relevance? Richness? Perspective?

7/1/13

17

The Role of Data-Gathering and Data-Analytic Methods

 What is your epistemology?  Quality of analysis:  Quantitative: updated

techniques; logic in inference; rationality;

 Qualitative: 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?

7/1/13

18

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.

7/1/13

19

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 non-representative sample

✗ Descriptive study w/non-representative sample ✗ Qualitative data that were analyzed superficially

7/1/13

20

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!

7/1/13

21

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

7/1/13

22

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/

journaldescription.cws_home/347/authorinstructions

  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2044-8279/homepage/ForAuthors.html

7/1/13

23

Submission  Second, create an account for

submitting your manuscript  http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajsp  http://ees.elsevier.com/paid/  http://www.editorialmanager.com/

ajcp/ 

7/1/13

24

Submission  Third, follow instructions for uploading

your manuscript  http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajsp  http://ees.elsevier.com/paid/  http://www.editorialmanager.com/

ajcp/ 

7/1/13

25

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)

7/1/13

26

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)

7/1/13

27

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

7/1/13

28

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 peer-review again. If so, you will have to wait again.

7/1/13

29

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

7/1/13

30

Acceptance   You will get a decision letter stating your

manuscript has been accepted.   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