Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Ian White, Routledge and Dr Karen Smith, University of Greenwich.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Ian White, Routledge and Dr Karen Smith, University of Greenwich."— Presentation transcript:

1 Ian White, Routledge and Dr Karen Smith, University of Greenwich

2 We will cover: the mechanics of getting published in journals how to choose the right journal working with other people; gaining and using their feedback identifying the differences between writing for journals and other forms of writing with which you may be more familiar 2

3 3 1. Idea 2. Choose Journal 3. Read back issues 4. Write first draft 5. Use critical friend 6. Refine further drafts 7. Check notes for contributo rs 8. Proof- read and submit

4 An interesting topic (to you and others) Something new Not been researched before Not been researched before in that way (different methods and methodology; different context) Extends / builds on previous work A thesis chapter, dissertation or conference paper that has received good feedback from others What are your ideas? 4

5 Which higher education journals are you familiar with? 5

6 Discipline specific Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education Journal of Nursing Education Law Teacher Themed Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education Journal of Online Learning and Teaching General higher education Teaching in Higher Education Studies in Higher Education General education British Journal of Sociology of Education Research Papers in Education Routledge list 6

7 Ask other people See where the people you read publish Read other articles in that publication Track key issues/topics, and see where they are published set up content alerts use social media (twitter, linkedin) Contact the editor Look at the journals aims and scope (or calls for special editions) Think about the audience Consider the quality of the journal Adapted from Black et al (1998, pp.86-87) 7

8 In pairs, look at a few examples of higher education research articles. Consider the following questions: Can you identify common structures in these articles? How does these compare to the forms of writing you are more familiar with (research in other disciplines, essays, chapters)? 8

9 the shape Most research papers look like this. The introduction moves from a general discussion of your topic, to the more specific question or hypothesis you will investigate. The discussion section becomes increasingly more generalised. Introductory sections Methods Results Discussion General Specific General From Swales & Feak (2007, p.222) 9

10 Introductory sections Provides rationale for the paper – moves from general overview of the topic to the specifics of your question. MethodDescribes the methodology, materials (or subjects) and procedures. ResultsThe findings are described, accompanied by commentary. DiscussionOffers an increasingly generalised account of what has been found out in the study. Adapted from Swales & Feak (2007, p.222-223) 10

11 Educational Studies offers author guidance on what it expects from submissions in terms of: General advice Abstract Introduction / literature review Measures of assessment Sampling Data collection Interpretation of findings References 11 It is based on a model of empirical research – but it might offer a useful checklist: (instructions for authors)

12 Focussed literature review / background stating a claim for the need for the study Clear structure to argument Concise overview of methodology Discussion of findings in relation to existing knowledge / research Accurately referenced Bound by (often) tight word count 12

13 What is a critical friend? Why might you need one? Choosing the right one In the same field? Specialist Generalist Experienced writer Proof reader 13

14 Check youve followed the authors instructions (word count, page layout, referencing, figures etc.) - Thank you for submitting your manuscript, "International Students first encounters with exams in the UK: superficially similar but deeply different," to IJTLHE. Unfortunately, the manuscript is not being considered for publication within IJTLHE. After an initial review, it was determined that your manuscript did not meet the submission guidelines described by IJTLHE at Submission is increasingly online – be ready to register – exampleexample 14

15 15 1. Editor receives manuscript 2. Reviewers 3. Accept Minor amendments Major amendments Reject 4. Feedback to author 5. Amend 6. Publisher proof stage 7. Article Published!

16 Aug 2009Notification of project funding May 2011Start to draft paper Aug 2011Submit paper to British Journal of Research into Education Sept 2011Reviewers comments (rejected) Sept 2011Submit paper to Studies in Higher Education Oct 2011Reviewers comments (corrections) Nov 2011Re-submit final draft Nov 2011Receive acceptance email Feb 2012Published on journal web site Sept 2014Print published 16

17 Acceptance 98% not immediately accepted/2% accepted on receipt Rejection Reasons for Revision Reviewers mediated response(s) detail Major, minor amendments 17

18 18

19 1 Sent to the wrong journal, does not fit the journals aims and scope/fails to engage with the issues addressed by the journal. 2 Not a proper journal article (i.e. too journalistic, or clearly a thesis chapter, or a consultancy report). 3 Too long (ignoring word limits for the particular journal) or too short. 4 Poor regard to the conventions of the journal (failure to consult Notes for Contributors) or to conventions of academic writing generally. 5 Bad style, grammar, punctuation; poor English (not corrected by native speaker). Continued… 19

20 6 Fails to say anything of significance (i.e. makes no new contribution to the subject) or states the obvious at tedious length. 7 Not properly contextualised (e.g. concentrates on parochial interests and ignores the needs of an international or generally wider readership). 8 Poor theoretical framework (including references to relevant literature). 9 Scrappily presented and clearly not proofread. 10 Libellous, unethical, rude. 20

21 Accept feedback with good grace Revise as requested If you cant – admit it, and explain why Turn the paper round on time Thank the referees for their time Adapted from Black et al (1998, pp.98-99) 21

22 Be specific Exemplify e.g. authors response to Reviewers comments Defend your position Re-submit within the given timeframe n.b. version control 22

23 Article Proofs (CATS) Copyright Author Rights Publication Online (iFirst) Print Promotion Publisher What can you do? 23

24 Reading lists Departmental web pages or personal website Social and academic networking Twitter, facebook, Linkedin, MyNetResearch, Academici, CiteULike Discussion lists Blogs Library recommendations Free sample copy Email signature 24

25 We have a new Author Services website The site contains audio interviews with academic editors providing advice on how to get published and how to write a research paper. Guidance is also available on: writing an article, editing or language polishing, translating, checking references, artwork, providing supplementary data, how to choose a journal; systems and interfaces (ScholarOne Manuscripts, CATS, Rightslink); the review process and what to expect; the production process and checking proofs; post-publication, errata, reprints, optimising citations; article versions and institutional repositories: what authors can and cant do with their articles. We are particularly aware of increased demand from Chinese authors. Our Authors Newsletter is freely available online. 25

26 26

27 Black, D.; Brown, S.; Day, A.; & Race, P. (1998) 500 Tips for Getting Published, London: Kogan Page Swales, J.M & Feak, C.B. (2007) Academic Writing for Graduate Students, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press 27

Download ppt "Ian White, Routledge and Dr Karen Smith, University of Greenwich."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google