1. Allan B. I. Bernardo De La Salle University , Philippines
PUBLISHING IN INTERNATIONAL REFEREED JOURNALS IN EDUCATION: GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Allan B. I. Bernardo
De La Salle University , Philippines

2. Objectives To provide participants:
an introduction to the refereeing or peer- review process in education and social science journals
a discussion of some of the broad and basic considerations for publishing research in refereed journals.
pointers in how to improve chances of being published in refereed journals in education

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. 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 and intersubjective processes involved

6. 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. Top Ranked Education Journals according to JCR 2010 (top 10)
Journal Title
Impact Factor
Education Researcher
3.774
Review of Educational Research
3.127
Learning and Instruction
2.768
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
2.728
Computers & Education
2.617
Acad of the Manag of Learning and Education
2.533
American Educational Research Journal
2.479
Physics Review Special Topics-PH
2.302
Journal of English Education
2.219
Early Childhood Research Quarterly
2.192

8. Top Ranked Education Journals according to JCR 2010 (#11-20)
Journal Title
Impact Factor
British Journal of Educational Technology
2.139
Metacognition and Learning
2.038
Scientific Studies in Reading
1.973
Educational Evaluation and Policy Annual
1.919
Review of Research in Education
1.909
Science Education
1.900
Internet in Higher Education
1.896
Journal of Teacher Education
1.891
Health Education Research
1.889
Reading Research Quarterly
1.833

9. Impact factors in education journals
184 journals listed in “Education and Education Research”
Modal impact factor in education journals (over the years) is around .500
Generally, impact factors in education journals are lower compared to the natural sciences and related social sciences (e.g., psychology)

10. Impact factors of Asian regional education journals
Journal Title
Impact Factor
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education
.644
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher
.632
KEDI Journal of Educational Policy
.269
Asia Pacific Journal of Education
.119
Asia Pacific Education Review
.112

11. JCR Reports You need to subscribe to the JCR to get impact factors.
You can also check out the journal’s webpage:
cription.cws_home/347/description
2.html
66X.asp

12. Preparing the Manuscript
Deciding what to write about
Selecting a journal
Writing the paper

13. From Montiel (2006) PUBLICATION 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

14. Deciding what to write about
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!

15. Diverse Epistemologies in Education Research
Positivism
Post-positivism
Constructivism / Interpretivism
Critical / Ideological perspective
Quantitative vs. Qualitative approaches

16. 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

17. 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)

18. 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.

19. Insignificant or Bad Contributions
saying something obvious or that everyone already knows
saying irrelevant, off-track, or even misleading things
just presenting findings without linking these to some aspect of the current knowledge (or linking to outdated knowledge)

20. 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)

21. 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.

22. Contributions to knowledge
Bottom line: THE QUALITY OF YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE DEPENDS ON THE QUALITY OF RESEARCH THAT YOU CONCEPTUALIZED AND COMPLETED

23. From Montiel (2006) PUBLICATION 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

24. Three important components of a contribution:
THEORY
DATA
METHODS

25. The Role of Theory may be explicit or implicit set of assumptions
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.

26. The Role of Data What is you epistemology?
Evidence: supportive, clarificatory, illustrative, or contradictory
What makes data useful in conversations? Credibility? Reliability? Validity? Relevance? Replicability? Representativeness?

27. The Role of Data-Gathering and Data-Analytic Methods
What is your epistemology?
Quality of data: relevance? representativeness? accuracy? verifiability? completeness?
Quality of analysis: updated techniques; logic in inference; rationality; persuasiveness; vividness; emotional appeals; usefulness, practical, political & ethical dimensions

28. 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?

29. Thinking about one’s contribution(s)?
Most scholars in my field/subfield now think/say that ______________
_____________________________
___________________________.
My research shows that _________
_____________________________.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. “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

33. 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.

34. 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!

35. 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

36. 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

37. Preparing the manuscript
Be clear about what “contributions” you will highlight in the manuscript.
Your “contributions” may not be the same as you had planned in your research proposal.

38. Getting started in writing

39. Organizing the Manuscript
Keep in mind what your “contribution” is.
Write your manuscript so that every part of the paper points to your “contribution”
Know the audience you are writing for; think of the journal you are writing for.

40. Organizing the Manuscript
Write your manuscript so that every part of the paper points to your “contribution”
Abstract should highlight the contribution
Introduction should clearly show the significance of the contribution
Review of literature should point to the gaps or unresolved issues that your contributions would address
Research questions should be aligned to the contributions

41. Organizing the Manuscript
Write your manuscript so that every part of the paper points to your “contribution”
Methods should convince readers that contributions are based on sound research approaches
Results should be presented to highlight the contributions in a credible way
Discussions should focus on limitations and significance of the contributions

42. Organizing the Manuscript
Look at the overall balance of the different parts of the paper and ensure that it favors an appreciation of your contribution.
Avoid: excessively long introduction and review of literature, with a skimpy discussion of results.

43. Thesis format vs Journal format
The thesis/dissertation format was designed for pedagogical purposes.
The journal format was designed for developing an argument.
Do NOT make the mistake of simply transplanting the parts of your thesis to your journal manuscript.
Journal editors and reviewers will easily see that you are an amateur.

44. Writing the Manuscript
Two main goals for writing for peer- reviewed journals:
Convince referees that your contributions are important
Display the right level of expertise to impress the referees
Recall: gate-keeping function of peer reviewers

45. Writing the Manuscript
Two key principles in preparing your report: clarity and accuracy.
The two principles are important because your readers will be assessing whether they will believe what you are writing. So don’t be vague, obscure, or intentionally misleading.

46. The importance of the first paragraph / first page
“Page-one-writer”
First paragraph should clearly communicate to the referee the breadth and depth of your research and what you have to contribute
First paragraph should also display enough of your expertise in the field (e.g., refer to “right” issues, theories, publications, authors, etc.)

47. Writing the introductory section
Start with the big picture; talk about something that readers will understand in concrete terms.
Begin limiting the problem, gradually focusing on your topic.
In gradually focusing on your topic, you should already be discussing the significance of your topic.
State your research problem in broad terms; if possible, in one question.

48. Writing the introductory sections
Discuss what other researchers have said in relation to the problem.
This review of literature should not be enumerative & need not be comprehensive; it should be selective but representative.
Review should point to what the gaps or unresolved issues are
I.e., it describes the current research context in which you want to make a contribution.

49. Writing the introductory sections
When citing the literature…
cite recent literature in other refereed journals
avoid citing unpublished works or publications in the gray literature
be aware if journal has limits on number of citations
sometimes, editors select reviewers from authors in cited literature

50. Writing the introductory sections
In the review, be explicit about how you define & use important terms or concepts.
If appropriate, your review should clearly state your theoretical premises.
End the section with a brief but detailed articulation of your research problem, variables, (& if appropriate, hypotheses), being explicit about how it relates to the existing literature.

51. Writing the methods sections
This section should be very detailed and accurate, without being too detailed.
Detail should be sufficient to allow readers to adequately assess the sufficiency of the methods.
Refer to similar types of articles that have been published in terms of how to organize this section.
Try writing this section following a clear and linear narrative style.

52. Writing the results section
Preface the presentation of results with a reminder of the research questions, and if appropriate, the hypothesis.
Organize the results in ways the clearly allow the readers to see the answers to the research questions.
Provide the “conceptual” answers to questions before giving the details of the results and analysis.

53. Writing the results section
Use the conventional forms of reporting data (e.g., tables, figures, statistical analysis); if necessary refer to published papers in your intended journal.
Do not be redundant in data presentation; choose the most effective way of presenting your data
When describing large data sets, provide summaries after subsections.

54. Writing the discussion section
Before embarking on discussion:
very briefly summarize your findings, highlight how your findings relate to existing literature.
state possible caveats in your conclusions brought about by limitations of the study.
Start discussing your findings: discuss similarities differences with other research, theoretical and/or practical implications, educated speculations, etc.
NOTE: align discussion with focus of journal

55. Writing the discussion section
Be careful not to overreach with your discussion and conclusions.
Do not end with “future research” or “limitations.”
End with a bang. Make sure your readers feel they got something from your report.

56. Some reminders on writing
Be very strict in following all prescriptions of the journal editors (e.g., citations, headings, tables, figures, etc.)
You conversational academic style of language. Avoid being abstruse and too formal (e.g., use of third person).
Use repeated and parallel construction.
Use active voice unless the content dictates otherwise. Avoid self-references.

57. Some reminders on writing
Keep sentences short (one thought)
Keep paragraphs short (one main idea)
Be sure your tone or style is consistent throughout (within paragraphs and across paragraphs)
You are writing for an international audience, so be mindful of local language usage or parochial references
Grammar and idiomatic expressions

58. Some reminders on writing
Be meticulous in all the details.
Be concise. Make sure every word is absolutely necessary.
Don’t be offensive. Avoid bias (i.e., gender, stereotyping, prejudice, etc.)
Avoid jargon. If you need to, define it first in concrete terms & use an example.
Proofread.

59. Important reminders on writing
Think of your reader -- one who is fairly intelligent, with enough background in the field, but is not a specialist.
Write as if you are teaching your reader.
Revise

60. Closing suggestions
Read and model the articles published in ISI journals (focus on form-substance connections)
Try to use ISI journals as models for writing each section of your manuscript, and even for the organization of your manuscript
Find out what writing styles, behaviors, and practices work for you, and stick to them

61. Closing suggestions
Try to find long blocks of time for writing (give it importance)
Be courageous and be willing to stick your neck out (and make mistakes)
Set high expectations of yourself, work hard and always try to do your best.
Don’t ever take the negative outcomes personally.
Never give up. Because we can all do it.

62. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!
Allan B. I. Bernardo, Ph.D.
De La Salle University-Manila

63. The Peer-Review Process
Submission and acknowledgement
Peer Review
Editorial Decision
Revisions
Acceptance
Preparation for publication

64. Submission
Most reputable journals now only accept submissions online through the website
First, study all the “Instructions for Authors” found in the website
cription.cws_home/603/authorinstructions
_home.cfm

65. Submission Second, create an account for submitting your manuscript

67. Submission Third, follow instructions for uploading your manuscript

69. Acknowledgement
You should get an acknowledgement , 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)

71. 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)

72. 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)

73. Editorial Decision
You will get an editorial decision letter, also via .
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.

74. Editorial Decision Accepted without revisions (routine copyediting)
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

75. Sample decision letters
Decision letter #1: D:\PAP Writing Workshop\JEdPsych Sample\Sample Rejection Letter.pdf
Decision letter #2: D:\PAP Writing Workshop\Dev Psych Sample\Sample Decision Letter Revise 01.pdf
Decision letter #3: D:\PAP Writing Workshop\Dev Psych Sample\Sample Decision Letter Revise 02.pdf

76. 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.

77. 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.

78. Sample revision letters
Revision letter #1: D:\PAP Writing Workshop\Dev Psych Sample\DevPsych Sample V2.pdf
Revision letter #2: D:\CURRENT TASKS\Response to reviews JASP.pdf
Revision letter #3: D:\CURRENT TASKS\JADP-D fdf

79. 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.

80. 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

81. Acceptance
You will get a decision letter stating your manuscript has been accepted.
Sample acceptance letter: D:\CURRENT TASKS\PsychReports Revision\Acceptance letter.pdf

82. Acceptance 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.

83. 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

84. Sample instructions, proofs, etc.
Sample #1: D:\Reference Library\Conceptions of Motivation\Van etten et al proof JEP.pdf
Sample #2: D:\From CEPD Desktop\PAID_4738_with reply.pdf
Sample #3: D:\Copyright-Assign Ammons Scientific.pdf
Sample #4: D:\Reference Library\BernardoPubs\JGeneticPsych_ copyright_Signed.doc