Presentation on theme: "Improving Learning, Persistence, and Transparency by Writing for the NASPA Journal Dr. Cary Anderson, Editor, NASPA Journal Kiersten Feeney, Editorial."— Presentation transcript:
Improving Learning, Persistence, and Transparency by Writing for the NASPA Journal Dr. Cary Anderson, Editor, NASPA Journal Kiersten Feeney, Editorial Assistant, NASPA Journal
NASPA Journal Macro Level: Sharing information regarding assessment and retention can improve campus-based learning, persistence, and transparency. Self-Serving Level: Participants at this conference are a great resource
Program Overview Review and publishing process Tips from a reviewer’s perspective Discussion of ideas for manuscripts
Journal Purpose Publication outlet for contemporary scholarship in student affairs administration, research, and practice. For generalist with broad responsibility for educational leadership, policy, staff development, and management. Specialized topics provide the generalist with an understanding of the importance of the program to student affairs areas. Research articles should stress the underlying issues or problems that stimulated the research; treat the methodology concisely; and offer a full discussion of results, implications, and conclusions.
Writing Guidelines Manuscripts should be ~ 6,000 - 7,000 words 25-30 pages double-spaced, including references, tables and figures. Use Publication Manual of the (APA), 5th Edition. Submit manuscripts not under consideration by other journals. Submissions use online submission process.
NASPA members should select “Membership”, “Members Only” on the NASPA website (www.naspa.org)www.naspa.org
Non-members access submission process by clicking “Publications” on NASPA home page Then select “Submit NASPA Journal Article”
Review & Publication Process Editorial Assistant ensures manuscript meets minimum requirements. Blind copy to 3 reviewers (blind peer-review process) Reviewers carefully consider: topic, level, implications, title, flow, grammar, abbreviations, methodology, references, tables, etc. Each reviewer recommends: Reject, Major Revisions Recommended, Accept Pending Minor Revisions, or Accept. Revised drafts are sent to the same three reviewers.
Review & Publication Process Editor makes decision regarding the status of manuscript upon receipt of all reviewer comments. Accepted manuscripts are forwarded to the Technical Editor. Editor, Editorial Assistant, and Technical Editor work with the Publisher to produce the issue.
Reviewers’ Expectations & Evaluations Topic Level Title Introduction Literature Review Methodology Qualitative and Quantitative Research Implications for Practice Assertion Support Concept Definition Flow / Writing Grammar APA Style Abbreviations References Tables
Reviewer Questions* Topic: Is the topic appropriate for the NASPA Journal? Is it timely? Level: Do authors address concerns, interests, & needs of the student affairs generalist? Does article contribute something new or unique to the current body of knowledge and the profession? Implications: Do authors demonstrate how their research might be relevant for student affairs faculty and/or practitioners? Do they succeed in connecting findings to larger areas of concern for the student affairs generalist, such as potential impact on policy decisions or practice? *(some questions adapted from : Pyrczak, F (2005). Evaluating research in academic journals: A practical guide to realistic evaluation. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Reviewer Questions Title: Is the title sufficiently specific & concise? Are primary variables referred to in the title? Abstract: Is the purpose clear? Research methodology and results highlighted? Is the theory mentioned? Introduction & Literature Review: Does researcher establish the importance of the problem area? Are underlying theories adequately described? Has researcher provided conceptual definitions of key terms? Is the literature review critical? Is current research cited? Evaluating Samples: Is the sample appropriate for generalizing? Has the researcher described the sample/population in sufficient detail?
Reviewer Questions Instrumentation: Are the actual items and questions (or at least a sample of them) provided? Overall, is instrumentation adequate? Analysis & Results: Quantitative Research: If any differences are statistically significant & small, have researchers noted? Analysis & Results: Qualitative Research: Does the researcher state specifically how the method was applied? Are Results adequately supported with examples? Was sufficient rigor employed? Discussion Section: Do researchers acknowledge specific methodological limitations? Have researchers avoided citing new references in the Discussion? Specific implications discussed? Suggestions for future research specified? Have researchers avoided speculation?
Reviewer Questions Flow: Are there transitions between sections? Grammar: Are the voice and tense consistent throughout? Overuse of key words? Excessive use of jargon, pronouns, abbreviations or acronyms? Language that could be construed as prejudiced, biased or disrespectful? References: Do references follow the APA Publication Manual (5th ed.)? Are references listed within the text of the manuscript? Are all references cited? Are references complete and accurate? Would I be proud to have my name on the research article as co-author?
NASPA Journal The NASPA Journal published online quarterly. All correspondence sent through Bepress and email. Accepted manuscripts are typically published within one year of final submission. 2007 acceptance rate is 28% The NASPA Journal can be accessed through the NASPA website at http://www.naspa.org.
Ideas for Manuscripts Where are the gaps in the assessment and retention literature? Feedback on individual manuscript ideas.
NASPA Journal Changes Possible Changes: Online & Print Title Change Editorial Change Behind the Scenes