Presentation on theme: "Carlo Magno, PhD. De La Salle University, Manila."— Presentation transcript:
Carlo Magno, PhD. De La Salle University, Manila
The purpose of higher education is to generate and preserve knowledge. Scholars and experts need to expand the body of knowledge for further development. Generate theories Solve problems Propose action plans Maintain quality A functional higher education system continuously produce scholarly and scientific work.
CHED RA 7722: Ensure and protect academic freedom for the continuing intellectual growth, the advancement of learning and research, the development of responsible and effective leadership, the education of high level professionals, and the enrichment of historical and cultural heritage.
Medium Term Development Plan: Mobilizing knowledge to improve productivity through generation, transfer and utilization of research outputs/technologies
Scholarly Journals Learning Edge (local) Philippine Journal of Psychology (local) Philippine Journal of Counseling Psychology (local) Guidance Journal (local) Social Science Review (international) Educational Measurement and Evaluation Review (International) Asia-Pacific Education Researcher (International, ISI)
Scholarly: Published empirical/scientific papers Periodical: Each volume is a series of scientific papers Publish research reports Abstracted: Knowledge presented is acceptable in the standards of a scientific community
Check Library (periodical section) Subscription from publishers Open Access Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ) Google Scholar Philippine Journals On-line On-line subscription Psycarticles (IVID, EBSCO) Proquest Science Direct JSTOR
Empirical studies (research/studies) Literature reviews Metanalysis Book reviews Empirical essays
Presence of an abstract Seriated: Volume no. and issue no. Previous works are cited Ex. Other psychologists have focused on similar concepts such as positive and negative dependence (Glasser, 1976) and addiction (e.g., Sachs, 1981) to activities people like. Introduction, method, results, discussion, references (for empirical studies)
Publication Public Presentation Write reports Our work is reviewed by a panel of experts Our work is evaluated whether we are contributing to theory
ISI abstracted Journals Abstracted journal International Journal Local journal Conference proceeding In house publication
The Asia Pacific Education Researcher Philippine Political Science Journal Philosophia Asian and Pacific Migration Journal Philippine Agricultural Scientist Philippine Journal of Veterinary Medicine Philippine Journal of Crop Science
According to Bernardo (2009) Publication makes your research findings public, that is, opening to the examination and use by other scholars and knowledge users. Research is a social dimension A group of people are taking turns in advancing ideas There are participants in the conversation with a common goal; the goal changes as the conversation progresses. Participants decide on norms and standards of the conversation.
STUDIES THAT WILL BE PUBLISHED SHOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS New argument or conjecture New definition Clarification illustration or exemplar Elaboration refutation or rebuttal rephrasing Rebuttal of question Recasting of question Evaluation of an earlier assertion New or alternative interpretation Supportive evidence Contrary evidence
According to Bernardo (2009) push the conversation 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 conversation.
Ask your self the question: IS MY RESEARCH WORTH PUBLISHINGor IS MY RESEARCH REPORT DESCRIBING AN ORIGINAL AND SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE RESEARCH LITERATURE IN MY FIELD/SUBFIELD?
Select the journal that you want to publish your report Read the scope of the journal to determine if your work can be included Read the editorial policy and procedure Read the guidelines for preparing the manuscript APA format References Length of the manuscript Location for tables and figures
Read examples of articles published in the journal you selected Read the guidelines for submission Before submitting you may want to ask a colleague to review your work: A colleague that has experience in publishing Somebody who has experienced in publishing in the journal you selected Somebody whose work is related to yours An English major who would want to edit our work
Shape your article based on the editorial guidelines of the journal you have selected. It is advisable to follow the style and pattern of reports published in the journal you selected. If you think you are ready, then submit your manuscript. You get an acknowledgement that your work was received.
Then you wait… The editor sends back the manuscript for some feedback The review comes Reject Revise and resubmit
Respond to the reviewers comments: Process the comments well Need to think of an action to address the comments of the reviewer Do not take the comments personally If the reviewer do not understand some parts of your paper then you did not make yourself clear in the paper. Show example of a review
In case of resending Carefully address all comments of the reviewer in a letter. Point out specifically how was your work improved.
Follow the specified format and total number of words from the editorial guidelines Most journals follow the latest edition of the APA Letter of submission Title page Abstract Introduction Method Results Discussion References Appendices
Show example of letter of submission Abstract 150-200 words that summarizes the study State the main purpose Some short background or hypothesis Pertinent method Findings
Introduction Includes background, related reviews, framework, purpose, and hypothesis. Set the background of the study by explaining relevant information directly leading to the proposed research questions. Describe the status of past research in the area under investigation that will eventually lead to the present research questions. The variables under study can be defined and a description on how the variables related to each other.
Justify why is there a need to conduct the present study. Present gaps from past research. Mention the contradictory findings. Explain the rationale why the variables need further investigation. End the introduction deductively by mentioning what will be done in the present study.
Method Design Participants Instruments What does it measure? What are the factors? Scaling technique? Reliability Validity Procedure Data Analysis
Start the results section by informing readers the hypothesis of the study and what statistical analysis will be presented in the section. Report the data collected and its statistical treatment through tables and figures. The order of the presentation of the results should follow with the statement of the problem.
Use Tables and figures to organize the results: Report exact values and illustrate main effects (for experiments) Always tell the reader what to look for in the tables and figures Lead the readers specifically to the point what to look at in the table Provide sufficient explanation to make tables and figures readily intelligible
Tips in making interpretation on the results: 1. Begin with the central findings, and then move to more peripheral ones. 2. Remind the conceptual hypothesis or question being asked 3. Tell the answer immediately and in English As table 1 reveals, men do, in fact, cry more profusely than women.
4. Then speak in numbers Thus, the men in all four conditions produced an average of 1.4 cc more tears than the women, F(1, 112) = 5.79, p<1.025 5. Elaborate or qualify the overall conclusion if necessary Only in the father-watching condition did the men fail to produce more tears than the women, but a specific test of this effect failed to reach significance, t = 1.53, p<.12
6. End each section of results with a summary of where things stand Thus, except for the father- watching condition, which will be discussed below, the hypothesis that men cry more that women in response to visually depicted grief appears to receive strong support.
Discussion Evaluate, interpret, examine the implications and draw inferences from the results Emphasize theoretical consequences Open the discussion with a support or non- support of your alternative hypothesis. Repost the similarities and differences between your results and the work of others should clarify and confirm your solutions Negative results should be accepted as such without an undue attempt to explain them away Identify the practical and theoretical implications of your study
Things to be asked in the discussion: What have I contributed here? How has my study helped to resolve the original problem? What conclusions and theoretical implications can I draw from my study?
Target Journal Title Research Questions Theory supporting your research Method Participants Instruments Procedure Data Analysis How is your work different with previous studies? Why is your work publishable?