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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

JCR Reports You need to subscribe to the JCR to get impact factors. You can also check out the journal’s webpage: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldes cription.cws_home/347/description http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/tf/0022027 2.html http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13598 66X.asp

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

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

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!

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

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

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)

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.

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)

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)

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.

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

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

Three important components of a contribution: THEORY DATA METHODS

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.

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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.

“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

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.

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!

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

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

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.

Getting started in writing

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Submission Most reputable journals now only accept submissions online through the website First, study all the “Instructions for Authors” found in the website http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldes cription.cws_home/603/authorinstructions http://www.bpsjournals.co.uk/authors/authors _home.cfm

Submission Second, create an account for submitting your manuscript http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajsp http://ees.elsevier.com/paid/ http://www.editorialmanager.com/ajcp/ 

Submission Third, follow instructions for uploading your manuscript http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajsp http://ees.elsevier.com/paid/ http://www.editorialmanager.com/ajcp/ 

Acknowledgement You should get an acknowledgement email, 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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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.

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.

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-09- 00002.fdf

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.

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

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

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.

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

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_46-04-27 copyright_Signed.doc