1. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 How To Get Published: Guidance From Emerging and Senior Scholars Ethical Issues and Understanding the Review Process Patricia B. Elmore Southern Illinois University April 16, 2012 Vancouver, BC, CANADA

2. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 Editing and Reviewing Experience Editor or Co-Editor Educational Researcher Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research Editorial Boards American Educational Research Journal – Section on Teaching Learning and Human Development Applied Measurement in Education Educational and Psychological Measurement Journal of Educational Psychology Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development

3. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 Strategies for Getting Published Ethical Issues & Reporting Standards The Review Process 1. Submitting a Manuscript 2. Understanding the Review Process 3. Deciphering the Editor’s Letter 4. Revising and Resubmitting the Manuscript 5. Regrouping after Rejection

4. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 What You Need to Know About Ethical Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper “Ethical Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper”  American Physiological Society, 2008

5. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 What You Need to Know About Ethical Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper “Ethical Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper”  American Physiological Society, 2008

6. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 What You Need to Know About Ethical Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper “Ethical Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper”  American Physiological Society, 2008

7. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 AERA Code of Ethics American Educational Research Association. (2011). Code of Ethics. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 145- 156.

8. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33- 40. AERA Standards Reporting Research Findings

9. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 Two overarching principles: “First, reports of empirical research should be warranted; that is, adequate evidence should be provided to justify the results and conclusions” (p. 33) AERA Standards Reporting Research Findings

10. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 “Second, reports of empirical research should be transparent; that is, reporting should make explicit the logic of inquiry and activities that led from the development of the initial interest topic, problem or research question; through the definition, collection, and analysis of empirical data or evidence; the articulated outcomes of the study” (p. 33) AERA Standards Reporting Research Findings

11. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 American Educational Research Association. (2009). Standards for reporting on humanities-oriented research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 38(6), 481- 486. AERA Standards Reporting Research Findings

12. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 Journal Guidelines Do NOT Deviate from Published Manuscript Submission Guidelines Style Specified—APA, MLA, Chicago Manuscript Length—Word Count Abstract Length and Form Tables, Figures, and Illustrations

13. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. APA Publication Manual

14. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 Understanding the Review Process Basic Structure of Most Journals Selection of Editors Appointment of Editorial Board Members Professional Associations Sponsoring Journals Provide Guidelines for Editors and Authors Ethical Standards of Association Publication Committee for Oversight

15. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 Understanding the Review Process Manuscripts Assigned to Reviewers Length of Time Between Receipt of Manuscript and Assignment to Reviewers Assignment to Reviewers and Receipt of Review Receipt of Review and Editor’s Decision

16. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 Understanding the Review Process Complications Mean Delays Reviewers Agree to Review But Ignore Reminders Send Review Weeks or Months Late Never Complete Review Inconsistent Recommendations by Reviewers May Require Assignment to New Reviewers

17. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 Deciphering the Editor’s Letter Editor’s Decision Accept Accept with Minor Revisions Usually for Editor’s Review Revise and Resubmit For Editor’s Review For Re-review by Same or Different Reviewers Reject

18. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 Revising and Resubmitting the Manuscript Read the Editor’s Letter Carefully Follow the Editor’s Recommendations Whether to Submit a Revision Timeline Process Recommended Discretion Provided the Author Revisions Required and Not Negotiable Revise Manuscript and Resubmit ASAP

19. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 Letter to Editor NEVER be Defensive Thank the Reviewers Indicate where Reviewers’ Comments Improved the Manuscript Provide a Detailed Enumerated List of Changes Referencing Page Numbers and Editor and Reviewer Comments Revising and Resubmitting the Manuscript

20. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 Return to Targeting a Journal Submit Rejected Manuscript Immediately to Different Journal Incorporate Changes Only if YOU Judge the Recommended Changes Are Appropriate Regrouping after Rejection

21. AERA Annual Meeting, April 16, 2012 REMEMBER ONLY SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPTS GET PUBLISHED THANK YOU!