Doctoral Training Workshops Getting published and the reviewing process Steve Potter and Sue Oreszczyn January 2015.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Publish or be damned… building your publication record John Germov Zlatko Skrbis.
Advertisements

A Guide to Writing Research Papers Rob Briner Organizational Psychology Birkbeck.
What happens after submission? Sadeghi Ramin, MD Nuclear Medicine Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences.
Writing a conference paper Lin Norton Faculty of Education Liverpool Hope University 14 March
Postgraduate Research Forum “The viva examination – a personal reflection.” 18 May 2011 Dr. Andrew Scott Crines -
Professor Ian Richards University of South Australia.
Doctoral Training Workshops Getting published and the reviewing process Steve Potter, Alex Borda-Rodriguez, Sue Oreszczyn and Julius Mugwagwa February.
Webinar January 30, 2012 Dr. Rhonda Phillips Editor, Community Development.
Planning and Writing a Literature Review Stephen Potter.
School of Town and Regional Planning Professor Jenny Dixon Presentation to The Geddes Institute PhD Seminar Series 3 November 2005 GETTING PUBLISHED.
The Rosabeth Moss Kanter Award Module 2, Class 2 A Teaching Module Developed by the Curriculum Task Force of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network.
Reviewing Papers: What Reviewers Look For Session 19 C507 Scientific Writing.
Critical Appraisal Dr Samira Alsenany Dr SA 2012 Dr Samira alsenany.
Responsible Conduct of Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities Peer Review Responsible Conduct of Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities.
School of something FACULTY OF OTHER Publications Master Class Marge Wilson (Pro-Dean for Research in Environment & Alan Haywood (Postgraduate Research.
Donald N.S. Unger, PhD Writing Across the Curriculum Spring 2008 The CI-M Side of Lab 2: Writing the Design Report.
Experiences from Editing a Journal: Case EJOR Jyrki Wallenius Helsinki School of Economics EJOR Editor Outgoing Editor till June 30, 2005 EJOR.
H E L S I N G I N K A U P P A K O R K E A K O U L U H E L S I N K I S C H O O L O F E C O N O M I C S Orientaatiopäivät 1 Writing Scientific.
R ESEARCH D ESIGN KNR 164. THE GOAL 1. To learn how to select, read, understand, and critically review a research article a. What is (should be) in one.
Critical Appraisal of an Article by Dr. I. Selvaraj B. SC. ,M. B. B. S
Dr Chris
一般科技论文写作 将科技论文发表在好杂志 2009: as of August 31 Manuscripts from China 2004 – 2009 Advanced Materials.
Getting published (during your PhD studies) Professor Jennifer Rowley Department of Information and Communications Manchester Metropolitan University.
Writing a Good Journal Paper Cecilia Wong Professor of Spatial Planning and Director of Centre for Urban Policy Studies The University of Manchester
Doctoral Training Workshops The PhD, Probation and MRes Viva Stephen Potter and John Richardson.
The Submission Process Jane Pritchard Learning and Teaching Advisor.
Writing a research paper in science/physics education The first episode! Apisit Tongchai.
Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 1 … 4 The review process  Overview  The author’s role  The referee’s role  The editor’s.
Ginny Smith Managing Editor: Planning and Urban Studies Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Passive vs. Active voice Carolyn Brown Taller especializado de inglés científico para publicaciones académicas D.F., México de junio de 2013 UNDERSTANDING.
Software Engineering Experimentation Rules for Reviewing Papers Jeff Offutt See my editorials 17(3) and 17(4) in STVR
Editorial Strategies and Developments Richard Delahunty Managing Editor Politics and International Relations UKSG Seminar, Oxford, 21st January Web:
Quality Assessment July 31, 2006 Informing Practice.
Successful publishing managing the review process Professor Janet R. McColl-Kennedy, PhD 2004 Services Doctoral Consortium Miami, Florida 28 October.
Research Methods and Techniques Lecture 8 Technical Writing 1 © 2004, J S Sventek, University of Glasgow.
Preparing for a Viva Tristram Hooley Postgraduate Training Co-ordinator Student Learning Centre.
Ian White Publisher, Journals (Education) Routledge/Taylor & Francis
MedEdPORTAL Reviewer Tutorial Contact MedEdPORTAL
BS 3992 Researching Contemporary Management Issues -an alternative to the Final Year Project Dr Adam Palmer Dr Beverley Hill.
Page 1 Improving Research Publication Quality at GCU Professor John Marshall Director Academic Research Development.
REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS TIPS FOR REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS Bruce Lubotsky Levin, DrPH, MPH Associate Professor & Head Dept. of Community.
How to Satisfy Reviewer B and Other Thoughts on the Publication Process: Reviewers’ Perspectives Don Roy Past Editor, Marketing Management Journal.
Tackling the Complexities of Source Evaluation: Active Learning Exercises That Foster Students’ Critical Thinking Juliet Rumble & Toni Carter Auburn University.
Critically reviewing a journal Paper Using the Rees Model
INANE Meeting –Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing Charon Pierson Geraldine Pearson August 5, 2015.
FEMS Microbiology Ecology Getting Your Work Published Telling a Compelling Story Working with Editors and Reviewers Jim Prosser Chief Editor FEMS Microbiology.
Disseminate new knowledge Improve theory and practice Join the scholarly conversation Enhance career prospects Contribute to institution’s reputation.
Guide for AWS Reviewers Lois A. Killewich, MD PhD AWS AJS Editorial Board.
Doctoral Training Workshops An interdepartmental programme organised by MCT for the Research Careers Development Team Organised by Sue Oreszczyn, Dave.
Proposal Writing. # 1:The title Choose a title that conveys information about your project. Avoid acronyms that have negative connotations. Make it Brief.
Validity and utility of theoretical tools - does the systematic review process from clinical medicine have a use in conservation? Ioan Fazey & David Lindenmayer.
Writing Reports Workshop. 1. To share and build on good practice 2. To improve the quality of reports and meeting milestones 3. To develop guidelines.
How to get a paper published Derek Eamus Department of Environmental Sciences.
How To Be A Constructive Reviewer Publish, Not Perish: How To Survive The Peer Review Process Experimental Biology 2010 Anaheim, CA Michael J. Ryan, Ph.D.
Dr Karen Smith Educational Development Unit. We will (briefly) cover:  the mechanics of getting published in journals  how to choose the right journal.
Writing Case Reports Michael A. Weiser CORE Research Editor/Writer Doctors Hospital – Case Reports January 16, 2007.
Abstract  An abstract is a concise summary of a larger project (a thesis, research report, performance, service project, etc.) that concisely describes.
REPORTING YOUR PROJECT OUTCOMES HELEN MCBURNEY. PROGRAM FOR TODAY: Report Reporting to local colleagues Reporting to the Organisation Tips for abstract.
Reporting your Project Outcomes Helen McBurney. Program for today: Report Reporting to local colleagues Reporting to the Organisation Tips for abstract.
Publishing research in a peer review journal: Strategies for success
Agenda for today’s presentation
Journeys into journals: publishing for the new professional
Critically Appraising a Medical Journal Article
Publishing a paper.
Literature review Lit. review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. Mostly it is part of a thesis.
How to publish from your MEd or PhD research
Scholarly Writing: Term Papers to Publication
Presentation transcript:

Doctoral Training Workshops Getting published and the reviewing process Steve Potter and Sue Oreszczyn January 2015

Todays session will focus on the process of getting published and a key aspect - demonstrating rigour in your research. Slides will be placed on the VRE Rigour: applies to all your academic outputs is always assessed in publications will be assessed in your viva is something you need to consider throughout your academic career

Rigour in Birdsong Studies BBC News Magazine 8 May Birds await proof of the medical benefits of their song It's obvious… vs Clinical measures of stress levels and neurological well-being to try and tease out whether it's going for a walk in the countryside or the birdsong itself that makes the difference. PhD student Ellie Ratcliffe

Activity: What is Rigour? In small groups consider: What do you understand by rigour?

You need to: show that you have evidence to: justify your conclusions; that the evidence has been obtained properly that contrary evidence has been sought, but was either not found or found to be relatively unconvincing. ( From Research skills for policy: Finding Out Fast. A. Thomas and G. Mohan, 2007 )

Validity and Reliability Rigour involves the principles of Validity and Reliability Validity is about the design of the research and analysis – the use of an appropriate method, the sample or cases used etc. Are you actually measuring or studying the right thing to draw the conclusions you do? Reliability is about the accuracy and consistency of the research results. If your study were repeated would the outcome be the same?

Indicators of rigorous research Clear goals, well defined and feasible Choice of valid methods for the study Study conducted in a reliable manner Significance of the results: positioning your findings in the field of knowledge Effective communication: sharing work with others with a plan for reporting and dissemination A reflective critique in which one’s own learning is developed.

Activity: My rigour What are the main ways that you will demonstrate rigour in your research?

Thinking about papers early on as a well as later Conferences Reports Blogs The Conversation [OU comms. Wojtek.Lubowiecki

Where to Publish

Open Access Publishing “Making research literature available online without price barriers and without most permission barriers” Green Open Access - eg. Institutional or subject repository, personal web site Gold Open Access – peer reviewed Journal open access - journals charge authors – requires a publication budget

Before submission What are the recent lines of thought or arguments in the journal? – can your work tap into these? Take a look at the information pages for authors What are the aims of the journal? Are you familiar with the work of the people on the editorial board? Make sure you send the paper off in the required format and have checked the refs.

How Reviews are done Usually electronically via journal’s website with invitation 2 or 3 referees appointed Blind vs. Revealed reviewing Forms usually have section for editor and for comments to authors Decisions are 1) Publish; 2) Amend (minor or major); 3) Not yet ready, and 4) Reject Review process and revisions can take a good deal of time Special Issues – Often 2 stages (e.g. select conference papers that then go to reviewers)

Evaluating Papers (and thesis) It is essential that you do not make the reader work too hard. Clear structure, easy to read, good English, diagrams easy to understand, good signposting.

Activity In groups of 3-4 come up with 10 questions that a reviewer might ask in reviewing a paper.