Theme 3 - Publishing 'Dissemination as a PhD Student' by David Grant

7/31/2019 Theme 3 - Publishing 'Dissemination as a PhD Student' by David Grant

1/10

Professor David B. GrantThe University of Hull 1

Dissemination as a PhD Student:

Journal and Conference Papers; Posters;

Reviewing; and Presenting at a Conference

Professor David B. GrantDirector , Logistics Inst itute

Agenda

Why and what we publish...

r ng a paper...

The review process...

Conference posters...

...

Presenting at a conference...


2/10


Why do we publish?

Career enhancement; improve CV; to get promoted

Sharing; communicating; disseminating

Joining the research community

Vanity; self-esteem or self-fulfilment

Aresponsibility for which you are accountable; i.e.your job

Financial reward

A polemic; challenging a published viewpoint or orthodoxy

Getting you to a conference in nice places

Adapted from Jerry Wellington (2003) Getting Published, London: RoutledgeFalmer.

What do we publish?

Wellington (2003: 19)


3/10


Writing the paper...

Assume you have correctly targeted the appropriate journal...!

Start with one central and novel contribution in the introduction

Get to the central result as quickly as possible; i.e. there shouldntbe anything before it that the reader does not need to know

Conclusions should be short and sweet and not restate thefindings

ca e av our: su m o on y one ourna a a me... so,do not undertake salami-slicing to overcome issues of publish orperish...!

Adapted from John H. Cochrane (2005) W riting Tips for Ph.D. Students ,http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/phd_paper_writing.pdf

The publishers perspective...


4/10


The editors review process

Papersubmitted>50%rejectedatthisstage!

Majormods.

Rewrite and resubmit

Reject Majormods. Accept80%publication

probabilityatthis

Publish!!!

Rewrite

Reject

s age

Accept

Reasons to accept / reject

Initial submission

Fit with journal Nature / extent of contribution Novelty of findings General presentation

First review

Theoretically weak Poor description of / inappropriate methods

ac o ntegrat on or nove tyWeak contribution

...from Professor Timothy Clark, Durham University,Former Editor ofJour nal of M an ag em ent S tu dies


5/10


Submitting to/getting a response

Look for acknowledgement of receipt of paper

After you get a review back, skim-read it and then putit and the paper away for a few days to cool down...!

Answer the reviewers concerns objectively andprofessionally...!

Kee in touch with the editor and meet all his her

needs for communication, formatting, reference style,etc.

Responding to reviewers/timescales

Read the reviews and note all the points

Write the editor if clarification is needed

It is ok to disagree with the reviewers, be firm but polite

Initial response one month

-

Be aware of timeframe to respond

Write a detailed response

Pay attention to detail

-

Resubmission 6-8 months

Receipts of reviews and decision 3-4 months

Acceptance to publication 6-12 months

only averages...


6/10


Becoming a reviewer...

It is an honour to be selected as a peer reviewerfor an academic journal

arrived within the academic community

But such an honour implies certain

responsibilities:

Ob ectivit

Reliability

Timeliness

Ethical behaviour

The reviewing process...

Im m ediately skim-read the package sent by the editor todetermine:

Whether you are capable of reviewing the work Whether you might know the author(s) despite blind process

If the answer is no to any of the first two and yes to the third,

send it back right aw ay !

If the answer is yes to both of the first two and no to the third :

Contact the author to advise you will do it a e sure you are aware o e ourna s o ec ves, po c es an

procedures Make a review plan in order to accomplish all the necessary tasks

within the time available Start to review and enjoy! Remember, you are likely the first person

seeing this cutting-edge research within your discipline!


7/10


What do I do as a reviewer...?

First, I read the paper as if I were reading the journal to get asense of what it is all about; do I understand what the author(s)are trying to tell me?

Second I re-read the a er a more full and dee l to check thepapers flow and the references to look for obvious issues / errors/ inconsistencies in the entire piece. I make notes right on thepaper as I go along to guide my write-up and comments in step 4.

Third, I think about what the paper is all about and whether theauthor(s) have presented a cogent, complete and logicalargument within it.

Fourth, I make a report based on what I have determined bysteps 1-3 and come to a recommendation.

Lastly, I complete all the necessary paperwork and returneverything to the editor.

A conference presentation

The goal of a conference presentation is to make the audience want to readyour paper; the presentation does not replace orpresent the paper.

A good first step is to create a presentation outline to determine the goal ofyour presentation. The goal is what you want the audience to know at the endof the presentation. Lay out the 4-6 major steps you will take to get youraudience from where they are to the goal of your presentation by the time itends.

Know your audience; they cant re-read when they are confused. At aconference, the audience will see 20-30 presentations in 2-3 days: manyaudience members are looking for an excuse to stop listening to you and readtheir email dont give it to them!

Repeat key insights: tell them what youre going to tell them (forecast), tellthem, and tell them what you told them (summary).

Adapted from Mike Dahlin (2006) Giving a Good Conference Ta lk,http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/dahlin/professional/goodTalk.pdf; and

David Paradi (2003) Chronology of Your Successful Conferen ce Presenta tion,http://www.communicateusingtechnology.com


8/10


A conference presentation

Be ruthless with materials: presentations that try to make toomany points are almost always forgettable and forgotten.

Most good speakers average two minutes per slide (notcounting title and agenda slides) and thus use a dozen slidestotal for a twenty minute presentation.

Do not use font sizes less than 20 point and do not put toomany lines on one slide.

Be prepared for the event, read the rules and procedures from

the conference organiser, prepare the appropriate technology,and back-up your materials.

Adapted from Dahlin (2006) and Paradi (2003)

Dealing with questions

Let the questioner finish asking the question before youanswer. A simple concept but many times it isnt done...

.makes sure everyone heard the question, allows you torephrase the question to a crisper version, allows you to make

sure you understood the question, and gives you a moment tothink about the question.

Think about the question before answering it and perhapsthink throu h a uick outline of our answer before ou starttalking. It is OK to pause for 5 seconds before answering ahard question.

If you dont know, say so. Dont bluff...

Adapted from Dahlin (2006) and Paradi (2003)


9/10


What is a poster presentation...?

Posters are a key com ponent of com m unicating y our

science and an im portan t element in a successful scientific

career.

Posters, w hile delivering the sam e high-quality science,

offer a different m edium from either oral presentations or

published papers, and should be t reat ed accordingly .

Posters should be considered a snap shot of your w ork

intended to engage colleagues in a dialog about the w ork,

, ,

encourage the reader to w ant to learn m ore.

Thomas C. Erren and Philip E. Bourne (2005) Ten simple rules for a good posterpresentations, PLoS Com putat ional Biology, Vol. 3 No. 5, 777-778.

Layout of a typical poster...

David C. Shelledy (2004) How to make an effective poster,Respirat ory Care,Vol. 49 No. 10, 1213-1216.


10/10


Poster example from PhD workshop...

Thank y ou; any questions or com m ents...?

For further inform ation:

[email protected]

Theme 3 - Publishing 'Dissemination as a PhD Student' by David Grant

Documents

Transcript of Theme 3 - Publishing 'Dissemination as a PhD Student' by David Grant