The Agenda
Making the decision to write: Considerations and decisions
Conceptions of ‘good’ research writing
The act and art of writing
Making the decision to write
• I have a point of view that I feel compelled to communicate to
others – and that I can support with convincing evidence
and/or arguments.
• I can state the point of view and related ideas clearly and
precisely
• I know whom I want to communicate to.
Making the decision to write
• I have identified a journal that is an appropriate
publication option with respect to my topic and the
format and style of article that I wish to write.
I have read the aims, editorial policy, author guidelines
I have assessed the journal’s reputation (e.g. impact factor)
I have read a sample of articles
Making the decision to write
My point of view
My audience is ………….
My target publication
Personal review - and writing (the point of view)
Share and compare – fine tune
Conference Presentations
Oral Presentation - Refereed Paper – Poster
An opportunity to try out, obtain feedback, rehearse language, make contacts
Pros and cons of conference papers
Haigh, N. J. (2009). Engendering ripple effects when improving learning and teaching. In Annual Conference of Tertiary Education Research in New Zealand (TERNZ). Auckland, New Zealand. Haigh, N. J. (2010). The case for and insights into engendering ripple effects from SoTL projects. In Annual Conference of the International Society of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Liverpool, UK.
Reviewer and Editor Conceptions of ‘Good’ Research Writing
The paper provides an important critical and/or analytical insight that contributes
something new to the field (of higher education studies).
The issue/problem is well situated in an appropriate literature.
The paper demonstrates methodological soundness.
The conclusion is well supported and persuasively argued.
The paper is succinct and coherent.
Overall, the paper reads well and will engage an international (higher education)
audience.
All papers must make it clear how the findings advance understanding of the
issue under study. (Higher Education Research and Development)
Reviewer and Editor Conceptions of ‘Good’ Research Writing
Examples of reviewer criteria - See handouts
‘Guidance for reviewer decisions on papers’
Accept - Minor Revision - Major Revision – Reject
International Journal for Academic Development (IJAD)
‘Questions that reviewers will ask of your article’ International Journal for Art and design Education (IJADE)
‘Review Guidelines’ International Journal of Design
Reviewer and Editor Conceptions of ‘Good’ Research Writing
See alsoRefereeing a journal article parts 1 and 2
http://patthomson.net/2012/01/07/refereeing-a-journal-article-part-1-reading/
http://patthomson.net/2012/01/13/refereeing-a-journal-article-part-2-making-a-
recommendation/
How to get published in an academic journal: top tips from editors
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jan/03/how-to-get-published-in-an-
academic-journal-top-tips-from-editors
Publishing tips from a journal editor: selecting the right journal
http://blog.oup.com/2014/08/publishing-tips-journal-editor/
The act and art of writing
Writing task:
In a nutshell – (10 minutes sustained writing)
Immediate reactions to experience
Share – compare – 2 commendations & 2 suggestions
For an activity to be designated as scholarship, it should manifest at least three
key characteristics: it should be
public,
susceptible to critical review and evaluation,
accessible for exchange and use by other member’s of one’s scholarly community
Shulman, 1998
Ways of Being a Writer: Some Perspectives
• diver, patchwork writer, grand planner, architect
(Crème and Lea)
• architects, bricklayers, oil painters, water colourists
(Chandler)
• time of day
• preferred environment – the introversion/extraversion
factor
• soloist – collaborator
Diver Writer?
Starts writing - to find out what wants to say.
Starts anywhere - sees what emerges -
before developing a plan.
Makes several dives - before considers tying
together what written.
Writing considered a part of thinking process
Patchwork Writer?
First - decides on some subtopics - writes
about them
While writing - decides whether subtopics
relevant – whether/how can be
combined.
Later - combines subtopics with linking
ideas and words.
Writing is an aid to thinking.
Grand Plan Writer?
Reads, makes notes, thinks
Does not write until has plan for ‘what
to write’.
Can’t say what plan is until write it
down.
Then plan comes out nearly complete
= an epiphany.
Writing is an outcome of thinking
Architect Writer?
First - makes lots of notes, sketches out
many ideas.
Has sense of structure almost before
content.
Produces complex plan/‘map’ early in
process.
Sees writing as – communicating ideas
already clear in mind.
?
Which way is most like your own?
How stable is your way?
Have you changed over time?
How do you think your way is different?
What might be advantages and disadvantages of these
different ways?
Might there benefits from adjusting your way?
Architects
• Have conscious planning and design processes for writing.
• Less likely to see writing as – a way of thinking
• Generally follow classic plan – write – edit sequence
• More likely to leave and come back to writing.
Bricklayers
• Built up text slowly
• Every sentence/paragraph polished before go on.
• More likely to leave and come back to writing.
• Usually have clear idea of what they want to say.
• Thinking leads to writing.
Oil painters
• Work fairly slowly
• Keep making alterations (over paint)
• Tendency – minimal planning + maximum alteration
• May be too writer-centred - not sufficiently reader-oriented
Water colourists
• Work quickly (once paint dried, picture cannot be altered).
• Minimal alterations
• In single attempt – produce near perfect product
• May be insufficiently attentive to readers
• If word processing skills limited may feel
– cannot work fast enough
– and dissatisfied.
When and Where?
• Do you have preferred times of day for writing?
– circadian rhythms
– am or pm person?
• Do you have a preferred environment – the introversion/extraversion factor?
Some of my thoughts – when writing
Are my thoughts clear enough – to write clearly about?
Should I think, read, talk more – before writing?
What story am I telling about my point of view?
e.g.
origins of the view – the context and case for my attention to this view – the questions I asked - how I answered the questions – the answers – the evidence and arguments for my view - my claims now re the status of the view – research and practical implications
Some of my thoughts – when writing
Will this story be clear and coherent- to them?
-Will these words be familiar, accessible – is translation required?
-Am I writing ‘clear’ statements?
-Am I helping them ‘follow the story’ by- Using an appropriate structure for telling the story- Proving an overview of the structure- Providing sufficient and appropriate navigational cues.
Some of my thoughts – when writing
Should I turn off the editor until later - produce
rather than polish?
Do I need large chunks or small slivers of writing time – to make progress?
Do I needs someone else’s perspective now – on the content/the writing?
Is the text free of grammar and spelling errors?
Am I following the author guidelines?
Time to submit
• Revisit submission process (usually on-line).
• Prepare copy‘for review.
Remove all references to your own previous publications, or statements that would allow your identification.
Submit both ‘for review’ and ‘not for review’ copies.
Receiving and responding to the editor and reviewer feedback
• Read, react, re-read, sleep on it, discuss, decide on response
• There will almost always be some negative critique and variation across reviewers.
• Editor may highlight priorities for revision and correction.
• Decide how to respond to feedback and suggestions – do, challenge, not do.
• Do the rewriting ASAP. There will be a timeframe.
• Take the opportunity (looking back) to polish the original further.
Receiving and responding to the editor and reviewer feedback
• Write a cover letter detailing how you have responded to/
addressed the reviewers’ comments.
• Re-submit
• May, or may not, go back to original reviewers. Sometimes
another reviewers’ opinion sought.
Its accepted!!
• Publisher receives article and does another proof-read.
• Sends a proof with queries and requests
• Complete copyright transfer form.
• On-line publication, then hard-copy publication.
Top Related