6912ebook

Ed T&L 6912 Issues in Academic Writing: Publishing your Research

1

CREATIVE COMMONS REMIX, REUSE, REPURPOSE BUT PLEASE ATTRIBUTE AND SHARE ALIKE

This book is a companion to ED T&L 6912, which is a course in publishing for international students at the Ohio State University. Students can use the book to review course discussions or read additional articles about publishing. If you miss a lecture or are still confused about the topic, please consult the textbook. There is a short lecture and addtional materials for each topic. For those of you outside of Ohio State, the book is copyrighted so that you can use it, remix it, resuse it or retain. You should not use the book or any materials for commercial purpose.

However, if you use it, I would like you to attribute to Joel Bloch. If you have any questions, you can contact me at jbloch10@gmail.com.

2

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

3

Welcome to 6912 The Course 6912 is the publishing course for international students at Ohio State University. The course is divided into two parts: a class discussion that deals with various issues related to publishing and an individual tutorial where we discuss your writing. Our goal is to help students understand the publishing process and the related forms of writing: papers, grants, conference presentations, communications, and job applications.

5

Contents of Book Introduction to Course Overview of Course Becoming an Author The Publication Process How to Publish in Scholary Journals New Types of Journals Publishing in Gated Journals Journal Guidelines The Impact Factor Becoming an Author How to Get Published Book Proposals The Peer Review Process How to Respond to Peer Reviews Peer Review and Post-Publication Journal Standards Changes in the Publication Process Traditional Publishing and Open Access Changes in Publication and Peer Review Auxiliary Forms of Writing Summaries and Abstracts Cover Letters Acknowledgements Revision Letters Complaint Letters Grant Writing Preparing for Conferences Poster Sessions Book Reviews Writing for Jobs Plagiarism, Academic Misconduct, and Ethics Intellectual Property Policy Fair Use Creative Commons Grammar

Ed T&L 6912 Joel Bloch Jbloch10@gmail.com COURSE GOALS The primary goal of this course is to help you publish your research. As you shift from being a graduate student to be a published author, you will be moving into a community of practice where you may not be appreciated or supported. You will inevitably experience failure and rejection. It is the goal of this course to help you understand the publishing process, choosing a journal, dealing with peer reviews, and understand the legal and ethical issues related to publishing. In addition, you will be working on papers related to publishing: grants, proposals, and CVs. You should all be working on a research paper that may be publishable. You may be working with your advisor, your colleagues, or your friends. Unless you are studying composition and rhetoric, my role will be that of a “broker� to help you publish and provide another perspective on you work.

The textbook for this course is free and open. You can find it here. You may refer to it when you want more information about the topic.

COURSE ORGANIZATION The course is divided into two parts. On Wednesday, we will have a class session discussion the various aspects of the publishing process. The publishing process is viewed in its largest sense: writing a paper, choosing a journal, submitting it to a journal, dealing with the peer reviews, discussing the research at conferences, raising money to continue research, and creating CVs and resumes to search for jobs.

Once a week, we will meet individually to go over your paper, discuss your plans, or analyze academic writing in your field. At each of these tutorials, you need to bring your paper, a copy of the journal or journals you are considering or at least some articles from a journal, and the guidelines for author.

I will send you a schedule for reserving a weekly time for your tutorial. Every week, we will meet at the same time. You can cancel a tutorial, change tutorial times, or schedule an extra tutorial on this schedule. I would appreciate you emailing me if you do cancel.

The course will meet in the scheduled room once a week. Unfortunately, because personal problems, the tutorials will be at the Panera on Lane.

We will try to cover the following topics during the semester. Most will take an entire period; the others more or less. Each week, I will try to cover a short grammar topic depending upon what is discussed in tutorial I may change the order as necessary. The topics will include . Turning your research into publishable papers . The Publication Process

. The Role of Journals . Peer Review . The Future of Publishing . Predatory Publicizing . Ethics of Publishing . Intellectual Property . Grants . CVs and resumes . Conference Abstracts . Conference Presentations This is a satisfactory/unsatisfactory course. To receive credit, you need to attend ½ of the lectures and ½ of the tutorials. If you are going to miss a tutorial, I would appreciate you letting me know. There are three assignments you need to complete: 1. The paper you are working on 2. An annotated version of an article from the journal you have chosen to publish in 3. A grant application You should send these assignments together by May 3.

The first assignment is to submit the paper you have been working on this summer. It doesn’t need to be finished. The second assignment is to annotate a journal article from the journal you plan to publish. For the tutorials, you need to choose a journal to publish in and each week bring some articles from the journal. Your assignment is to answer the following questions about one article: 1. What is the topic of the paper and why is the topic important?

2. What problem is the paper addressing: What is the goal and what is the current state?

3. What is the significance of this problem?

4. What are the criteria for solving this problem?

5. What issues is the paper going to address?

6. What is the significance of the current research the paper is addressing?

7. How is the literature used in relationship to the problem? Show some examples.

8. What makes the methodology appropriate? How is it related to the research questions?

9. Are the results and discussions appropriately discussed? What kinds of hedging do the authors use? How do they use literature to support their claims?

10.What suggestions and limitations do the authors suggest?

11. How does this paper address its audience? What adaptations are made to mee the needs of its audience?

The third assignment is to write a grant. You can choose any grant you are interested in. If you are not sure, check out the Council of Graduate Students website (https://cgs.osu.edu/ ) for some suggestions (We hope that you will send in this grant. In the past, students have made a lot of money from this assignment.

“The University strives to make all learning experiences as accessible as possible. If you anticipate or experience academic barriers based on your documented disability, please let me know immediately so that we can privately discuss options. To establish reasonable accommodations, I will request that you register with Student Life Disability Services. After registration, make arrangements as soon as possible to discuss your accommodations with me so that they may be implemented in a timely fashion. SLDS contact information: slds@osu.edu; 614-292-3307; slds.osu.edu; 098 Baker Hall, 113 W. 12th Avenue.”

Week

Discussion Topics

Jan. 8 Jan 15

Introduction of Syllabus Getting Started in Publishing • Becoming an The Publication Process • Issues in Publication • How go Publish in Scholarly Journals • Cover Letters Choice of Journal • Gated vs. Open Journals • New Types of Journals • Journal Guidelines • Impact Factors • Book Proposals • Book Reviews Peer Review • The Peer Review Process Responding to Reviewers • Revise and Resubmit • Responding to Peer Reviewers • Revision Letters Changes in the Publication Process • Open Standards • Open Access • Journal Standards • Pay to Publish • The Changing Nature of Peer Review • Peer Review and Post Publication Publishing and Ethics • Journals • Peer Review Intellectual Property & Plagiarism • Academic Misconduct • Predatory Journals • Creative Commons and Fair Use • OSU’s Intellectual Property Policy • Creative Commons and Fair Use Conferences and Proposals • Summaries & Abstracts • Proposals • Getting the most out of conferences • posters Grants Abstracts for grants CVs and Cover letters Academic Communication Grammar Review and Rhetoric Review

Jan 22

Jan 20

Feb 5 Feb 12

Feb 19

Feb 26 Mar 11

Mar 18

Mar 25 Apr 1 Apr 8 Apr 15

Textbook References Thumbna il Syllabus 6-8 Becoming a published 14-28 author How to Get Published 29-34

The Scholar Journal

35-131

The Peer Review Process Revise and Resubmit

132-219

Changes in the Publication Process

230-258

Ethics

259-292

Intellectual Property & Plagiarism

293-357

220-229

359-409

410-436 437-456 457-468 459-473

Introduction to the Course: The Publishing Process

9

OVERVIEW OF THE COURSE

Click on image to see video

GETTING STARTED ON PUBLISHING THE PSCHYOLOGY OF THE PUBLISHING PROCESS You as an author have to go through a number of steps during the publishing process that involve a great deal of time and pressure. Therefore, you need to be able to mentally prepare yourself for publishing.

1. Create: Normally at this stage of your career, much of your publishing is related to your dissertation. Therefore, you need to organize your dissertation so that one or more papers can be published or cut up your dissertation into different parts to try to publish as many parts as possible. Some departments are requiring students to write papers first and then put them together as a dissertation so they can be easily separated. Other students have to go through the salami cutting process to prepare for publication, so great care has to be taken that each paper can stand on its own and is interesting by itself.

2. Present: This course structures the time you need to prepare your publication. You need not finish the publication by the end of the semester but you should make substantial progress on it. The course provides an instructor to work with you each week. The instructor may or may not know a lot about your topic but is trained in asking questions and understanding the nature of writing to help guide you. You also have your advisor and possibly classmates and colleagues who can help you develop your paper. You may also have the opportunity to present your research at a conference so that you can get feedback on your research before submitting it for publication.

3. Submit: Submitting your paper for publication can be a trying experience. For the course you need a choose a journal and analyze its guidelines before deciding whether that journal is the appropriate one for your paper. You need to consider whether the journal publishes papers on the topic you are interested in as well as the research methods you have used. You also need to consider the status of the journal, as sometimes measured by its impact factor or its rejection rate. Nowadays, you also have to consider whether the journal is authentic or “predatory.”

Once you make all these decisions, you need to submit your paper and then wait until you hear a decision.

4. Revise: Most of the time, you will need some revision on your paper, sometimes minor and sometimes extensive. Here you need to decide whether you will just make the decisions the reviewers want or challenge them. You may find that the suggestions are useful, useless, or impossible to meet. But each one you have to consider and often document in a letter to the editor. Then you need to learn to wait for the thrill of acceptance or the agony of rejection. If you are rejected to need to have a plan what you are going to do next.

10

2Â 11

12

BECOMING AN AUTHOR THE PROCESS OF WRITING A PUBLISHABLE PAPER

You need to think about publishing before you ever sit downs to write. Your dissertation, class papers, candidacy exams may all become staring points in the publishing process. Many of your papers will come from your dissertations so it is important to consider the possibility of publishing as well as the organization of your dissertation as a potential source for published papers.

This course is organized around the idea that publishing is part of a network. You may need money and time to write, so you will need to write grants. You may want to attend conferences to share your research and network with others in your field, so you will need to write conference abstracts. You may want to look for a job, both inside and outside the university, so you will need to write CVs, resumes, and cover letters. Your published papers include other forms of writing include letters to the editor or the peer reviewers.

The pressure for publication has increased the number of papers graduate students may need to produce before graduation. Therefore, it has become more important to publish as many papers as possible from each research project. However, this process can be dangerous since chopping larger projects into publishable papers can mean that some papers are more interesting than others or that the paper may lack support because the research is intended for another paper. Therefore, great care must be taken in planning how to “chop” up one’s research into more than one paper.

The course will help you structure you time for writing. Hopefully, you will be able to write something or revise something each week before coming to tutorial. But it is up to you to decide what you want to write about and how much time you can spend on your writing.

13

Who Is Competing to Own Researcher Identity?

By

ROGER C. SCHONFELD | JAN 6, 2020

BUSINESS MODELS METRICS AND ANALYTICS TECHNOLOGY TOOLS

The largest scholarly publishers today are driven by one major near-term strategic concern — to reduce leakage (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/03/07/value-big-deal-leakage/) and thereby bolster the value of the subscription bundle. But while they work belatedly to address this priority through Seamless Access (RA21), GetFTR (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/12/03/publishers-announce-plug-leakage/), and even partnerships with ResearchGate (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/07/16/diverting-leakage-to-subscription/), the savviest of them are keeping their eyes on the true structural transformation that the internet has wrought. We are witnessing the transformation away from a journal-centric model of scholarly publishing towards a researcher-centric model of scholarly communication. Success in this new environment requires engagement with researcher identity, which is a struggle even for most of the largest publishing houses. Who is competing to own researcher identity and how can other publishers engage this vital role?

/

(https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/01/06/competing-researcher-identity/s3_v0022000_v0022962/)

Adam names the animals in the Garden of Eden. Wellcome Collection (https://wellcomecollection.org/works/q6hw2nrg).

Centering Researchers The researcher-centric model of scholarly communication has been emerging gradually and growing steadily.

Researcher-centric scholarly communication enables collaboration, supports workflow, and provides personalization.

The evidence of the shift to a researcher-centric approach is everywhere. Discovery of the scholarly literature has moved away from browsing individual journal titles and towards searches, feeds, and alerts, among other mechanisms that are increasingly personalized and that look across the literature as a whole. Open access is driving publishers to focus on author relations when in the past library relations took greater primacy. Scholars are adopting an array of tools for managing the research enterprise, seeking tools that enable laboratory-based team science and cross-institutional collaborations, including lab notebooks and other types of sharing and collaboration spaces.

Universities are looking to showcase scholars as universities compete with one another for research funding and assess scholars for their potential to contribute to this competition.

Each of these dynamics, and others like them, may seem to the publisher as requiring a slight adaptation, but collectively they suggest the emergence of a new type of model. This new model provides services based on extensive information about the researcher and the connections among individual researchers. /

To be sure, the impact factor and the journal title remain important, more important than some would like. But, let’s acknowledge the reality that the actual version of record has declined in comparative importance. In its place we are seeing a growth in the importance of other kinds of research artifacts, not only preprints but also everything from datasets to protocols. It is possible to imagine these artifacts grouped tidily by existing publishers, titles, and articles — but the reality of the scientific process is that these artifacts are more likely project-based, laboratory-based, or researcher-based, not publisher-based.

At this point, we have not seen a complete transition away from journal-centric publishing. Instead, this is a hybrid period, perhaps one that will ultimately have been transitional, that includes traditional journal-centric publishing alongside these newer approaches that increasingly center on the researcher.

To compete in this emerging arena of researcher-centric tools, platforms, and analytics requires the ability to embrace researchers’ natural workflows and collaborations. And to do that requires that publishers and other providers find ways to center their work, in a technical sense, on the researchers themselves.

Researcher Identity The key enabling factor in this transformation is researcher identity. Researcher identity, as I use the term, has two common elements.

First, there is a mechanism for individual researchers to express and ideally control aspects of their identity. This includes possessing some kind of user account, enabling data about the researcher’s interests and practices to be associated with them. The user account can ultimately be associated with a variety of tools and dashboards that are customized to them.

Second, there is the potential to link individual identities together in ways that express a network of one’s professional and scientific connections. This can include co-authors, laboratory members, collaborators elsewhere, others interested in the same research topics, and so forth. This social graph will typically be both inter-institutional and intra-institutional — put another way, it is largely non-institutional and certainly it is not publisher-specific.

Together, the user accounts and social graphs can follow a variety of formats and be subject to a variety of different controls. There are many different instances of standard format and control. For example, Google controls an enormous identity instance for all of its consumer Google accounts (enabling the use of Gmail, Google Docs, etc).

At the same time, it also allows companies and schools to utilize their own identity instances for their employees and students through GSuite (enabling the use of Gmail, Docs, etc, in an institutionally controlled environment).

Identity instances enable the kind of researcher-centricity discussed above, and they can contain and manage an enormous amount of user data. As a result, the control of identity instances, and how, if at all, they interoperate is a strategic issue. It is possible for identity instances to follow open models and for multiple identity instances to be interoperable. Yet it is often the case that the organization that controls one identity instance feels responsibility for — or value in — maintaining a stronger degree of control. /

As we now turn to reviewing some of the identity instances for researcher identity, it will become clear that what might be best for researchers is not the same as what is emerging in the marketplace.

Decentralization Serves Researchers A decentralized approach to managing researcher identity would be in the best interest of researchers themselves. At its essence, a decentralized approach would provide user accounts controlled by the researchers themselves and made available to a platform provider on an opt-in and as-needed basis. I wrote in 2015 about the benefits of a single user account (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/07/29/a-single-user-account/), providing a researcher identity instance that would be cross-university and cross-publisher, combining authorization as well as personalization. The technical architecture exists to develop this kind of research identity instance (http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/01/04/improving-privacy-by-rethinking-architecture/), as scholarly communication visionary Herbert Van de Sompel has recognized (https://www.cni.org/news/video-herbert-van-desompel-on-the-decentralized-web-movement), but decentralization adds a challenging sociopolitical impediment (https://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2019/12/your-identity-your-library.html).

BYU has led some efforts to bring a version of this approach into being for its students through what it has called a personal API (https://campustechnology.com/Articles/2017/04/13/Building-APIs-for-the-University-and-theStudent.aspx?Page=3). Unfortunately, we have yet to establish the standards and capabilities needed to enable decentralized researcher identity. The parties that would have been most likely to have seen this approach as aligned with their own values and interests — universities and their libraries — do not seem to see a strategic importance in taking leadership for researcher identity.

The Seamless Access (RA21) initiative builds on the institutional nature of identity management, through existing university controlled platforms. It ensures that, even though identity is everything (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/01/22/identity-everything/), a truly researcher-centric alternative is not developed as part of the current efforts to address piracy.

Instead, identity instances for researchers are being developed in the marketplace. While no single provider covers 100% of scientists and other scholars, and while the potential for these identity instances and their control still remains unclear, it seems increasingly likely to rest with a profit-seeking corporation such as ResearchGate, Elsevier, or Clarivate.

ResearchGate To date, ResearchGate appears to be winning the battle to build a sector-wide identity instance for researchers, regardless of university or publisher, with Academia.edu as its primary competition. Though many have predicted the demise of these academic social networks, their continued growth cannot be dismissed.

/

ResearchGate reports having 15 million members worldwide (https://www.researchgate.net/about). Some portion of these “members” are presumably inactive, or active only in limited ways. Even so, there is reason to believe that ResearchGate represents a substantial share of the global scientific community. While it is difficult to know exactly what its members are doing (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/12/08/guest-post-jose-luis-ortega-academicsocial-networks-collaborative-environments-or-diogenes-clubs/) on the platform — anything from reading articles to engaging with collaborators to searching for jobs — the amount of traffic they generate is enormous. According to data from SimilarWeb, in a recent three month period, ResearchGate’s traffic was nearly equal to that of ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and Nature.com combined. Or, to provide another comparative, ResearchGate’s usage was almost equivalent to that of a basket of major Elsevier properties, including ScienceDirect and all its other major STM properties, including Mendeley, bepress, SSRN, and Pure.

There is power to this scale. ResearchGate has been able to associate much of the scientific literature with its authors, enabling a variety of analytics that it is able to turn into services and in some cases to monetize. Even though ResearchGate is one of the largest sources of leakage and is therefore being sued by an array of the major publishing houses, the power of ResearchGate’s data has been sufficient to enable it to develop a partnership with Springer Nature, at least on a pilot basis, in which Springer Nature content is freely distributed on ResearchGate (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/03/01/springer-nature-syndicates-content-to-researchgate/).

Elsevier Of the primary publishers, Elsevier is the only one that has adopted a strategy that requires it to take on the role of managing researcher identity. Elsevier has acquired and developed an array of collaboration, discovery, analytics, showcasing, and assessment tools, including Pure, Mendeley, Hivebench, and bepress, among others. All of these are, to a greater or lesser degree, centered around the researchers themselves. As they are woven together into a workflow, with data and dashboards building connections across them, they require a single researcher identity instance. And for this reason, Elsevier has been steadily integrating these properties by combining user accounts at the identity and data layer even while maintaining distinctive brands.

There are some reasons to suspect that implementation is lagging on the integration side — specifically, Mendeley as the individual dashboard should be more interoperable with Pure as the institutional dashboard. But researcher identity is at the heart of Elsevier’s pivot beyond primary publishing and towards its future as what it calls an information analytics business. And, in that respect, no primary publisher has made greater inroads in researcher identity than Elsevier, and none has developed an identity instance as robust as Elsevier’s. This instance is a major asset that Elsevier is working to develop and prepared to defend. If other publishers could see fit to trust Elsevier to act neutrally with respect to its primary publishing business, it is possible that Elsevier’s identity instance could be offered as the basis for cross-publisher services offered by Elsevier (for example, publication services (https://lisahinchliffe.com/2017/02/06/elsevier-predictions/)) or ones that could be offered by others.

Clarivate /

Clarivate has taken a very different approach to researcher identity. On the one hand, Clarivate does not have the legacy of a primary publishing business. Yet, its legacy is equally tied to the journal-centricity of those businesses, through properties like its flagship Journal Impact Factor as well as ScholarOne. But the strategy that Clarivate pursued in recent years — though unclear how it will evolve following Annette Thomas’s departure (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/09/23/annette-thomas-leaves-clarivate/) — has also relied notably on researcher identity.

When Web of Science was still owned by Thomson Reuters, it created ResearcherID (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearcherID), a researcher identifier. After becoming a component of Clarivate, it purchased Publons (https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/blog/clarivate-analytics-acquires-publons/), a service to provide credit to peer reviewers. More recently, it has merged the two together, creating a single dashboard for tracking one’s work as an author and reviewer across many publishers. Today, the Clarivate Web of Science group maintains a single identity instance enabling the use of its Publons, EndNote, and Web of Science properties. Over time, we may expect to see it combine Kopernio and other properties into this identity instance, enabling increased seamlessness on the user side. Given Clarivate’s positioning as “publisher neutral,” its identity instance could serve as the underpinning for a variety of cross-publisher initiatives that could over time challenge Elsevier’s efforts at analytics dominance.

ORCID While the corporate players continue to parry, ORCID represents a community based alternative that could grow from what it is now — principally a researcher identifier — into more of an identity instance for researchers. Indeed, it is already showing some evidence of this, providing social login support for other services.

It is possible to imagine the ORCID functionality being enhanced to become a more robust identity instance, covering not only authors and contributors but potentially a wider array of researchers and users and developing the elements of a social graph. Such an ORCID identity instance might offer centralized versions of certain core features. But, it might also adopt some of the core information ownership/control principles of the decentralized model discussed above. In such a scenario, it would allow its users to port their identity, on an opt-in basis, into a variety of services across the community — and remove their information from those services with equal ease. But, bearing in mind the current debates about CrossRef and its future directions (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/10/22/crossref-at-a-crossroads-all-roads-lead-to-crossref/), it is very difficult to imagine community members like Elsevier and Clarivate supporting ORCID expanding its role to become a full fledged research identity instance.

Consumer Companies While ResearchGate may have developed a strong position as an identity instance for researchers, from a consumer perspective ResearchGate is a “niche” social network (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ilkerkoksal/2019/12/21/therise-of-niche-and-vertical-social-networks/). That is to say, if one of the major consumer identity instances were to decide to develop its position in academic research, that could really change everything. /

Google is an obvious candidate. An enormous number of researchers have accounts with Google’s consumer identity instance, and Google offers an array of services through its GSuite to many universities. Google Scholar is a very important discovery service for scientific research, while its Classroom has suggested a more recent willingness to develop educational tools and platforms. Its offerings may be too fractured, ultimately, to enable it to compete in what must be, from its perspective, a very small market. If it were to develop links between its GSuite for Education services and Google Scholar, that might be a sign of something afoot.

Facebook, like its philanthropic sibling CZI, is directly controlled by the Zuckerberg family. For this reason, it may be important to consider Facebook’s strengths as a social graph in combination with CZI’s acquisition of Meta and support of bioRxiv, each of which takes scholarly communication in the direction of researcher centricity. If Facebook’s enterprise product Facebook for Work, or something similar to it, begins to develop towards higher education and scientific research, that might be a sign of something afoot.

Other consumer players, including LinkedIn and Microsoft, have had less interest or less success in the scholarly communication space but could develop in these directions.

Looking Ahead The control of researcher identity, and the management of the identity instances, should properly be seen as a major strategic dilemma for publishers, universities, and others. It is clear that the development of researcher-centric services has been hamstrung by too many publishers and other providers offering their own user accounts. Because these have not scaled, the nature of the services that can be offered remains limited. Network effects suggest we will over time draw down to a smaller number of stronger offerings for identity management. But whose interests will win out?

Perhaps the most important point of competition is between Elsevier and ResearchGate. Many publishers are in a battle royale against ResearchGate, angered by the leakage they see ResearchGate fostering. But Elsevier, which has a competing identity instance and researcher-centric set of services, has a unique rationale for leading the battle against ResearchGate — to promote its investment in analytics and defend against its most significant competition.

In contrast, SpringerNature publicly, and others more privately, have examined opportunities to collaborate with ResearchGate. While no major publishing house would likely wish to rely on ResearchGate as the exclusive intermediary for its interactions with researchers, Elsevier has had a particular competitive rationale for pursuing the copyright litigation.

In this competition, however, it may be that the interests of the other major publishers, let alone the longer tail, are being ignored. None of them individually has the scale to create an alternative.

If they were to choose to do so, other publishers might be able to negotiate terms to use Elsevier’s identity instance.

There are recurring rumors about ways that Elsevier has offered competing publishers opportunities to “plug into” its platform and analytics businesses. Is there a set of terms that could meet the business needs both of Elsevier and its publisher competitors? /

On the other hand, it is not clear exactly what Clarivate intends in building a “publisher neutral” identity instance. In one way of thinking, Clarivate is building a portfolio of platforms, workflow, and analytics services that compete directly with Elsevier’s; i.e., Web of Science vs. Scopus; EndNote and Publons vs. Mendeley; Converis vs. Pure; ScholarOne vs. Aries. Is there a model in which Clarivate in essence becomes allied with all the major publishing houses other than Elsevier and its identity instance is shared with them?

ORCID faces the dilemmas of a poorly capitalized membership organization. As with CrossRef, many of the most exciting features that these community entities can build next might compete with one or more of their members.

Can ORCID develop beyond a valuable identifier and towards more of an identity instance in ways that do not lead to unsustainable clashes with its members?

At the same time, the higher education sector remains absent from this landscape. The most prominent engagements from librarians about identity management have focused on opposing publisher efforts out of understandable concern for the protection of privacy and data security. But, we have seen no groundswell of effort to develop decentralized and/or community-controlled infrastructures to enable researcher-centric solutions.

If in the long run there is to be only one researcher identity instance, which will it be? And whose interests will it advance? Researchers strangely seem to have the least voice in the matter.

Roger C. Schonfeld @RSCHON

Roger C. Schonfeld is director of Libraries, Scholarly Communication, and Museums for Ithaka S+R. Roger leads a team of subject matter and methodological experts and analysts who conduct research and provide advisory services to drive evidence-based innovation and leadership among libraries, publishers, and museums to foster research, learning, and preservation. Previously, Roger was a research associate at The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

Discussion

18 THOUGHTS ON "WHO IS COMPETING TO OWN RESEARCHER IDENTITY?" Interesting blog post!

Frontiers “Loop” is yet another example of what they themselves call an “Open Science Research Network”. /

2Â 14

Becoming a Writer

Correspondences Becoming a published writer involves establishing several interactions between you and the editor and you and the peer reviewers. You can contact the editor before you submit a paper to decide whether your paper fits the journal. When you submit the paper, you only need to discuss the issues in the author guidelines: whether your paper is currently being considered by another author, whether all the authors are responsible for the contents, and whether there are any conflicts of interest, such as who is supporting your research. Determining whether your paper is appropriate for a journal may involve establishing a relationship with the editor often using email and then an often more complex relationship with the usually unknown peer reviewers. With the peer reviewers

4/30/2019

21 Dos and Don’ts for Journal Writers and Reviewers | ChronicleVitae

21 Dos and Don’ts for Journal Writers and Reviewers

April 29, 2019

Photo by Nick Morrison on Unsplash

By Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan and Wendy Troop-Gordon We don’t like to think of ourselves as old, but — submitting our first publication in graduate school entailed making five photocopies of the manuscript, printing and hand-signing a cover letter on campus letterhead, sealing both into a large manila envelope, and dropping it into a mailbox.

The world of academic publishing is far different today. In many areas of study — like ours in the social sciences — the number of journals has mushroomed and the use of online submission portals is nearly universal. Accompanying those changes is an ever-increasing pressure on Ph.D.s to publish more articles in higher-quality journals that will increase one’s total citations — all while avoiding the associated temptations to skirt the edges of academic integrity and ethical behavior.

There are plenty of excellent field-specific guides out there on how to write and review scholarship in academe. Our purpose here is not to replace them, but rather to highlight a few key dos and don’ts from our combined perspective and experience. The following advice is https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2190-21-dos-and-don-ts-for-journal-writers-and-reviewers?cid=VTEVPMSED1

1/5

4/30/2019

21 Dos and Don’ts for Journal Writers and Reviewers | ChronicleVitae

based on years of evaluating submissions as editors of three major journals, serving on the editorial boards of eight leading journals, and writing (between us) more than 125 peerreviewed articles.

For writers. First up, some dos and don’ts for graduate students and faculty members on navigating the submission process.

Don’t waste your time carefully drafting a lengthy and compelling cover letter to accompany the first submission of a manuscript. No one reads long cover letters. Instead, send a brief cover letter with the information the journal asks you for. Then take that time you saved and spend it polishing your article’s abstract. Make sure it describes the paper’s contribution to the field in a clear and compelling manner.

Do make it clear — in both the cover letter and the manuscript — if your paper uses previously published data from articles on a similar topic. Name the studies that used the same data set, and show how your submission offers a novel and significant-enough contribution to warrant publication.

Don’t assume that a sloppy paper will automatically receive an invitation to revise and resubmit, just because you are a well-known or senior scholar. Good editors will reject it: sorry, not sorry. You are subject to the same criteria as everyone else.

Do contact the editorial office with a brief, cordial email inquiring about the status of your paper if you have not received a decision in three months (or whatever amount of time is considered reasonable in your field). Done well, the review process takes time, but it shouldn’t take forever.

Don’t lobby the editor to change a rejection. Unless the reviewers or the editor made a fundamental error in evaluating your manuscript (and by fundamental, we mean something like misreading a key statistic upon which the publishing decision hinged), this kind of request is not the solution. Strong editors are unlikely to reverse their decision; less-experienced editors may feel bullied. Best to let it go and move on. There are many other journals out there that would be respectable and appropriate outlets for your work.

Do be polite if you choose to disregard that last piece of advice and appeal a rejection.

Tread carefully, and adopt a respectful tone. The editors who made the decision will undoubtedly see your appeal, and if you rudely question their expertise or call them nasty names, they won’t soon forget.

Do contact the editors if you are not sure about (a) what their decision means or (b) how to deal with reviewers’ comments. Sometimes a phone conversation or a brief email exchange with the editor can help make sense of vague or contradictory feedback. Contacting editors may seem intimidating to a junior scholar, but many are responsive and willing to help.

And even if the editor is not helpful, you’re no worse off than where you started.

Don’t be ashamed about feeling bad after a rejection. We have been publishing for 20 years, and still feel sad and angry about rejections. The feelings are normal, and suggest https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2190-21-dos-and-don-ts-for-journal-writers-and-reviewers?cid=VTEVPMSED1

2/5

4/30/2019

21 Dos and Don’ts for Journal Writers and Reviewers | ChronicleVitae

you care about your work.

Do take some time to mourn your manuscript losses, and then form a plan for moving forward. (By the way, "some time" should be measured in days or weeks, not months or years.)

Don’t immediately send out a rejected paper to a new journal without first considering the negative reviews and making changes to strengthen it. Submitting the same untouched manuscript to another outlet compromises the scientific process and shows blatant disregard for the time and effort people spent reviewing your work. A new editor might even send your paper to one or more of the same reviewers who rejected it on the first goround. They will be cursing under their breath as they are charged with giving the same disregarded feedback — again. It doesn’t require a Ph.D. to realize that this is not a good situation for you or your paper. And in fact, listening to the reviewers and revising as necessary — before submitting it to a new venue — could well lead to a better paper and faster acceptance.

Do provide a detailed letter to the editor when you resubmit your manuscript (assuming you were invited to do so); however, it does not need to be a tome. No one wants to read a 25-page, single-spaced letter explaining what you changed. It is perfectly appropriate to summarize reviewers’ comments instead of repeating them word for word. Summarizing can also take the sting out of nasty comments, and avoid the awkwardness of repeating text from reviewers that is ungrammatical or nonsensical. At the same time, do not skirt an important issue raised by a reviewer by omitting the comment or intentionally misinterpreting it. Reviewers pay close attention to whether an author took their feedback seriously.

For reviewers. Now some dos and don’ts to guide your service to the profession in evaluating your colleagues’ manuscripts.

Do recommend rejection even when you may not want to. Good reasons include major conceptual or methodological weaknesses, or doubts about whether the author(s) can fix the problems. If the article is deeply flawed, an invitation to revise and resubmit — followed by the inevitably unsuccessful revision — is a waste of everyone’s time, and tends (understandably) to piss off authors.

Do provide a strong rationale in your critique. The author will see your comments about the manuscript, but typically only the editor sees your recommendation on whether or not to publish the paper. So don’t sugarcoat the paper’s problems in the comments as you recommend rejection to the editor. That only puts the journal editor in the awkward position of sending a rejection letter based on reviews filled with bunnies, kittens, and rainbows — which will confuse and frustrate the author.

Don’t take on more reviews than you can handle. Colleagues’ careers and livelihoods may hang in the balance, so return your reviews as quickly as possible. https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2190-21-dos-and-don-ts-for-journal-writers-and-reviewers?cid=VTEVPMSED1

3/5

4/30/2019

21 Dos and Don’ts for Journal Writers and Reviewers | ChronicleVitae

Do be selective about the articles you agree to evaluate. If reviewing is taking over your life, there’s something wrong. Don’t you have Netflix shows to binge-watch? Partners, children, or pets to interact with? Seriously, you don’t want to devote too much of your work time to a service duty that many institutions do not value as much as they should.

Don’t, however, use zero-sum calculations ("What is the minimum number of papers I must review to pay back the profession for the reviews of my work?") to determine whether or not to review an article. Your decision should be based on whether you have the relevant expertise and whether you can complete the review in a reasonable period of time, in light of your other obligations. Remember that reviewing papers in your subfield is one way to stay abreast of the current literature — an increasingly difficult task in today’s fast-paced academic world.

Do agree to re-review a revised manuscript whenever possible (unless, of course, you are trapped under something heavy). Few things are more frustrating for an author than having a paper reviewed by different people each time it is resubmitted to the same publisher.

Do provide four or five key criticisms or suggestions that are most significant for the paper, and feel free to make general comments about its organization and style. But don’t seek out and report every minor typo, language, or formatting problem, especially on the first submission. If the decision is to revise and resubmit, you will probably have a chance to identify and fix those minor issues in subsequent rounds. If the decision is to reject, you have saved yourself valuable time by focusing on the most significant problems.

Don’t put concerns about scientific integrity or plagiarism in the text of your review. Pick up the phone (an ancient communication device, we know), and call the editor right away to discuss your concerns. If there is a significant problem, it can be dealt with immediately — before the review process proceeds. If your concerns are not substantiated, the author (who may be a student) will not be traumatized by an accusation of academic misconduct.

Don’t (with few exceptions) recommend that an author cite your papers. We don’t care who else does it. It’s tacky. Reviews are not a means to increase your citation count. If a paper’s literature review is inadequate, describe the specific areas that need to be updated or expanded. If you must recommend particular articles that you think should be cited, include several key papers (not necessarily or only your own). However, if a paper presents an idea or approach extremely similar to your own published work without attribution, that is a serious concern best handled by a phone conversation with the editor.

Do be constructive in your comments to the author. Refrain from unnecessarily negative or exaggerated language. It may be disappointing to hear this, but reviewing papers is not your opportunity to show everyone how much smarter you are than everyone else. You will have to save that for Twitter.

https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2190-21-dos-and-don-ts-for-journal-writers-and-reviewers?cid=VTEVPMSED1

4/5

4/30/2019

21 Dos and Don’ts for Journal Writers and Reviewers | ChronicleVitae

We hope this advice sparks impassioned discussions and differences of opinion — with the ultimate goal of improving, both for writers and reviewers, the inherently imperfect peer-review process.

Most academics we have worked with on this front have provided insightful, respectful, and constructive reviews. But for those folks who approach the peer-review process as an opportunity for a power trip, a means to feed the ego, or a game to be exploited, do get the heck out of our ivory tower, and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan is a professor of psychology at Ohio State University, and Wendy Troop-Gordon is an associate professor of human development and family studies at Auburn University

This article relates to… writing publishing peer review research

https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2190-21-dos-and-don-ts-for-journal-writers-and-reviewers?cid=VTEVPMSED1

5/5

8/13/2019

Quality Criteria in Scholarship and Science: Proposing a Visualization of Their Interactions - The Scholarly Kitchen

Quality Criteria in Scholarship and Science: Proposing a Visualization of Their Interactions By

RICK ANDERSON | AUG 13, 2019

AUTHORITY CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS COPYRIGHT METRICS AND ANALYTICS OPEN ACCESS READING RESEARCH

This posting represents an attempt to sort out the various ways in which particular characteristics of research and of written research reports interact with each other, and in particular the ways that those characteristics affect a paper’s impact on the real world.

My conclusions are represented in this Euler diagram:

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/13/quality-criteria-in-scholarship-and-science-proposing-a-visualization-of-their-interactions/?informz=1

1/7

8/13/2019

Quality Criteria in Scholarship and Science: Proposing a Visualization of Their Interactions - The Scholarly Kitchen

What follows is an explanation of the argument represented by the diagram—first, a quick list of provisional definitions for the terms used, and then a discussion of those terms’ implications in the context of the diagram.

Definitions Rigor: the intrinsic scholarly or scientific soundness and intellectual honesty of the underlying research.

Impact: the effect, for good or ill, that a piece of scholarship actually has in the real world.

Significance: the article’s potential for impact.

Openness: the availability of the paper for reading and reuse.

Cogency: the rigor, accuracy, and clarity of the writing.

Accessibility*: the comprehensibility of the paper to the general reader.

RIGOR https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/13/quality-criteria-in-scholarship-and-science-proposing-a-visualization-of-their-interactions/?informz=1

2/7

8/13/2019

Quality Criteria in Scholarship and Science: Proposing a Visualization of Their Interactions - The Scholarly Kitchen

I’ve reviewed many scholarly papers, and when doing so I find that I’m invariably asked to answer questions like these: Is the research method scientifically or logically sound, and does it control for intervening or confounding variables?

Was the data gathered rigorously and according to the method?

Are the author’s arguments supported by the data?

Does the author avoid making arguments not supported by the data?

Does the author exaggerate the significance or strength of the findings?

Is the article clearly and cogently written?

Unsurprisingly, most of these criteria map closely to the general rules of the scientific method: in other words, “rigor” questions tend to revolve around the issue of how well the research conforms to the rules of scientific inquiry.

Now, one might immediately respond, “Wait, but what about humanistic research?”. But in fact, humanists generally expect each other to adhere to the basic rules of scientific method as well: historians are expected to adduce evidence for their arguments about what happened in the past, not simply assert that events took place; scholars of literature expect each other to offer evidential support for their arguments about the influence of one writer on another, etc. The rules may not always apply in exactly the same ways from discipline to discipline, but the fundamentals are reasonably universal: whatever the discipline, scholarship requires evidence, honestly and rigorously gathered, and also requires that assertions take the form of conclusions that follow logically from such evidence.

Rigor has a bearing on both significance and impact because the more rigorous the research, the more likely it is to have resulted in valid findings — and valid findings are more likely to have genuine real-world implications than false ones.

IMPACT The real-world impact of any piece of research will depend on many things: the number of disciplines for which it has implications (breadth); the significance of those implications for any particular discipline (depth); the effectiveness of its distribution within the population of those potentially affected by the findings, etc. This means that impact is, to a significant degree, a function of both the significance of the research and the openness of any reporting on it — and we can expect that both the accessibility and the cogency of the report’s content will affect its impact as well.

Obviously, this isn’t to say that a relatively closed and/or inaccessible paper can’t have a significant impact: for example, if a cure for cancer were found and a resulting highly technical (thus, less accessible) paper were published in a very expensive toll-access (thus, less open) journal, we could expect that its impact in the world would be small — unless the privileged few who are able to read it are practicing oncologists, in which case the impact of the article would be felt by a great many people regardless of it being less open and less accessible.

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/13/quality-criteria-in-scholarship-and-science-proposing-a-visualization-of-their-interactions/?informz=1

3/7

8/13/2019

Quality Criteria in Scholarship and Science: Proposing a Visualization of Their Interactions - The Scholarly Kitchen

But just because openness doesn’t determine impact doesn’t mean that there’s no connection between them. It’s obvious that a paper has more capacity to affect people and systems if it’s more broadly available, even if not everyone who has access to it is equipped to take full advantage of the content; if everything about the above cancerjournal scenario were the same except that the journal were open access (OA), there’s no rational reason for its openness to decrease the impact of the findings; if anything, it should increase the impact. (Could its openness have an irrational, or at least non-rational, negative effect on the paper’s impact? Yes — if, for example, the findings were dismissed by some oncologists simply because they were published in an OA journal. But in that scenario it’s ignorance, not openness, that lessens the paper’s impact — and even that effect would, I think, inevitably be shortlived. Eventually it would become clear that the cancer cure works. This effect could be more long-lived in other fields and disciplines, of course. And of course it’s also important to bear in mind that “impact” doesn’t necessarily mean “positive impact.” In the case of a paper that promotes dangerous and ineffective cancer “cure,” the more open it is the more negative its likely impact will be.)

What about the effect of quality on impact? In a perfect world, of course, the lower the quality of a piece of research, the less impact it would have. Unfortunately, our world is not perfect, and low-quality research regularly does have an impact in the world. Again, these are two characteristics that interact, though one may not strictly cause the other.

SIGNIFICANCE Since significance can be an ambiguous term, I’m giving it a provisional definition for the purposes of this model.

That definition is “the article’s potential for creating impact.” The degree to which it realizes that potential will determine how much impact it actually has, obviously.

Is the content of an article more or less significant depending on how open it is? This depends on whether one considers significance a function of potential or actual real-world impact.

For example: suppose I discover a cure for cancer, but never tell anyone. Was my discovery significant? Arguably yes, on its intrinsic merits. If all that counts for significance is the potential impact and importance of the finding, then my article is equally significant whether it’s never published at all, or published in a toll-access journal read only by specialists, or made freely available in an online repository. However, if significance is measured by actual real-world impact, then my article will have no significance at all if I don’t share its findings with anyone else (and don’t use the information myself to cure anyone’s cancer).

The real — but not complete — overlap between significance and quality in this model suggests that there’s meaningful interaction between the validity of findings (as measured by the paper’s intrinsic scholarly quality) and the real-world implications of those findings (as measured by the paper’s intrinsic significance). In other words, a paper that reports the discovery of a cure for cancer is much less significant if the findings are fraudulent and the cure isn’t real. The false findings may create a large public reaction, and therefore appear to have significance, but this model doesn’t address “significance” in the public-relations sense, but rather in the intrinsic scholarly and scientific sense — according to which a finding is only significant if it’s real.

OPENNESS https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/13/quality-criteria-in-scholarship-and-science-proposing-a-visualization-of-their-interactions/?informz=1

4/7

8/13/2019

Quality Criteria in Scholarship and Science: Proposing a Visualization of Their Interactions - The Scholarly Kitchen

Openness — public availability of an article for reading and reuse — has some effect on the ability of an article to create impact, but doesn’t interact with any of the other variables. Why? Because a high-quality or high-significance article has the same intrinsic qualities regardless of the venue or manner of its publication. It may be published in the Lancet or in a fraudulent predatory journal; if it reports cogently on significant and rigorous research, its intrinsic qualities are the same. Similarly, an article will be equally accessible in the sense the term is used here (“easily comprehensible to the general reader”) and equally cogent (“rigorously and clearly written”) no matter where it’s published or under what copyright terms.

This is a really important point, because it goes against what seems to be an increasingly popular idea: that openness should be considered integral to quality. This attitude is reflected, for example, in the current policy at the University of Liège (https://www.recherche.uliege.be/cms/c_9194435/en/open-access), under which publications will only be considered in a faculty member’s bid for tenure if they are deposited in the University’s institutional repository. Such policies make academic rigor and significance secondary to support for a particular mode of publishing and distribution. The logical conclusion of such a policy is that if a faculty member discovers a cure for cancer, publishes it in a toll-access journal, and fails to deposit it in the IR, her discovery of the cancer cure may not be considered when she applies for tenure. Obviously, this is absurd; it means that the researcher’s genuine scientific accomplishments and contributions matter less to the institution than the choices she makes about how and where to publish her work.

In this context it’s important to note that openness isn’t only a characteristic of written research reports, but also of research processes and practices themselves. Research conducted using electronic lab notebooks that make data publicly available in real time as it is produced is more open, for example. This is an example of the difference between open science and the more narrow concept of open access.

COGENCY Cogency has to do with the quality of the writing, and therefore applies only to the written report of a piece of research, not to the research itself. Here it’s important to note that quality of writing isn’t a frill — it’s not frosting on the cake of good science or scholarship. If the writing isn’t logical, coherent, and honest, that fact significantly undermines the value of the article. Cogency of writing has no effect on the intrinsic rigor and validity of the research itself, obviously; solid research is solid research, and the results are the results. Or, to put it another way: if you discover a cure for cancer and do a poor or dishonest job of writing up your findings, that doesn’t make the cure less effective. But misrepresenting the research — through either intellectual sloppiness or conscious deceit — imposes a damaging layer of obfuscation between the research results and the community that could benefit from knowing about and understanding them. Cogency shouldn’t be confused with accessibility, but the connection between them is obvious.

ACCESSIBILITY Bearing in mind that for our purposes accessibility means “comprehensibility to the average reader,” it’s obvious that cogency and accessibility interact both with each other and with impact: research that is widely understood has more of a chance to impact the world than research that is understood only by a few specialists — though, again, research that is understood only by a few specialists can still have very significant impacts on the world — and research that is cogently written up is more likely to have impact than that which is written up poorly or misleadingly (all other things being equal). https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/13/quality-criteria-in-scholarship-and-science-proposing-a-visualization-of-their-interactions/?informz=1

5/7

8/13/2019

Quality Criteria in Scholarship and Science: Proposing a Visualization of Their Interactions - The Scholarly Kitchen

That said, though, it really is important to bear in mind that cogency and accessibility aren’t the same thing. As I argued in a previous posting (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/11/06/access-vs-accessibility-scholarshipscience/), the cogent presentation of highly technical scholarly material may be unavoidably inaccessible to those who don’t have the foundational knowledge necessary to understand it — and since no one has the time to gain foundational knowledge of every discipline, there will always be articles that can’t be made easily comprehensible to every member of the general public without a meaningful loss of content or accuracy.

Another very important thing to bear in mind — and this basic fact is very often lost in the public discourse on openness in scholarly communication — is that we don’t, for the most part, live in a binary world. When it comes to openness, for example, it’s not generally true to characterize scholarship as either “closed” (“locked up,” “locked down”) or “open.” There exists a broad spectrum of openness and closedness, and virtually all articles fall somewhere between the poles of that spectrum. An article that is written but never published or otherwise distributed at all may be said to be completely closed. An article published in an expensive toll-access journal that allows no self-archiving is more closed than one published in a more affordable toll-access journal that allows its authors to self-archive without embargo. An article that is published in a free-to-read journal under a CC-BY-NC-ND license is more open than those, but is less open than one published under a CC BY license, etc. Ignoring the spectrum nature of openness and characterizing as “closed” every manifestation of publishing that is not fully open in every respect may be rhetorically stirring, but it gets in the way of advancing understanding of these important issues. (For a good discussion of this dynamic, see the Open Scholarship Initiative’s work on the “DART Framework” here (http://osiglobal.org/2018/06/08/is-the-open-spectrum-a-better-way-to-get-open/).)

The same is true of all other characteristics discussed here. Accessibility, cogency, impact, significance—all of these are spectrum values, not binary ones.

And this brings up one final, but very important point: while we often use “impact” as a term with a very specific meaning in the context of scholarly communication, it is also a term the colloquial meaning of which matters very much. The significance of a paper for one person or group will be different than it is for another; the ways in which openness affects impact will vary from one publication to another. This diagram attempts to show areas in which the various properties of a publication interact with each other, but the nature of those interactions will be pretty variable from case to case.

* N.B. — There is another important dimension of “accessibility,” and that is the sense of “accessible to people with perceptual challenges of various kinds.” For our purposes, I’m including that sense of the term in the idea of “comprehensibility to the general reader.” For example, an article may be less comprehensible to an individual because it’s densely and technically written, or because the reader has dyslexia, or because the article is rendered in a font that is difficult for that person to see. In any of those cases, the result is that the document’s content is less accessible to that person (regardless of how openly available the document is). This means, among other things, that “accessibility” (unlike, say, rigor, openness, and maybe cogency) can never be a completely objective measure.

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/13/quality-criteria-in-scholarship-and-science-proposing-a-visualization-of-their-interactions/?informz=1

6/7

HOW TO GET PUBLISHED

THE PUBLICATION PROCESS WRITING TO GET PUBLISHED This course covers the publication process. Publishing can be very important for graduate students in helping them get their careers started. Even trying to publish can beneficial in the job search.

Traditionally, graduate students learned to publish through a mentorship with their advisor. However sometimes, the process breaks down in some phases of the process, which has been the motivation for this course.

There are many areas where you can publish: journals, books, blogs, and conference proceedings. Each has a different value for your career. Demonstrating that you know how to publish, for example, may help you get a job, but publishing in a high prestigious journal may help you keep that job. Articles submitted for journals, as well as book chapters, can involve you in the review process. This process can be disheartening when you get rejected, but it can also provide you with valuable areas of feedback.

There are many different types of journals. Some journals focus on a large subject area; others are more narrowly focused. Often as a field of inquiry develops, more and more specialized journals develop. Are language differences. Many journals are published in English, but there are journals in many languages, whose audience often depends on how widespread the language is spoken. There are journals aimed at specific regions of the world, and there are journals aimed at international audiences.

There are differences in who sponsors journals: sometimes they are owned by large corporation and sometimes by academic societies or universities. The rank of journals is often determined by their impact factor, which measures the importance of their citations, downloads of articles, or circulation rates. One of the newest developments has open access journals. These journals, which usually look like regular journals, are free to read, which is important for researchers who work outside of wealthy universities that can afford the expensive subscriptions.

There are other types of writing related to publishing. For example, to pursue your research you may need to write a grant to obtain money. To get feedback for your research, you may need to write a proposal to a conference. You often have to write letters or send email when submitting your research or responding to peer review.

There are many things to consider before submitting a paper to a journal. Perhaps, most importantly, you should read the guidelines for submissions that every journal publishes. These guidelines can give specific details of everything from length to style considerations that you need to follow. Rejection is very common, so you need to know how to respond. If you are asked to “revise and resubmit,� it is important that you understand the process for doing so.

15

ISSUES IN PUBLICATION THE EVOLUTION OF THE PUBLISHING PROCESS Publication is an evolving process and will undoubtably change greatly over the years. Not only technologies but also new approaches to traditional problems may greatly change the publishing process. Some of which we discuss in this course is changing as we speak. Technology has changed how research is published, how it is distributed, and how it is reviewed.

The first issue you will need to think about is how you will turn your exisitng work into a published paper. Some of you may already have a paper ready to publish but others may need to convert exisitng research into a publishable paper. That may include dissertations, exams, and even course papers. So you need to first focus on what research do you think you want to work on this semester.

Additional Readings 

PRAGMATISM VS. IDEALISM AND THE IDENTITY CRISIS OF OER ADVOCACY

16

Essay on publishing in the social sciences @insidehighered

Jump to Navigation

SUBSCRIBE SEARCH JOBS June 27, 2014

Enter your keywords

ADVERTISE ABOUT CONTACT Search

News Views Career Advice Blog U Surveys Webinars Events & People Jobs ADMISSIONS BOOKS TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITY COLLEGES DIVERSITY TEACHING & LEARNING GLOBAL AUDIO BOOKLETS MORE

Career Advice ›

SHARE

How to Get Published June 27, 2014 By

Maureen A. Pirog

How do you get your work published? I recently offered Print

Essay on publishing in the social sciences

readers of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (JPAM) a top 10 list of things to do and not do if you want your work published in peer-reviewed journals. It was based on my experience as a senior scholar and the editor-in-chief

RELATED ARTICLES

of JPAM for the past decade. This advice is directly relevant for scholars in business and the social sciences, but some of the advice is less germane for scholars in the fine arts and humanities. This is a condensed version of a more detailed

The Back-Up Plan

article that is available online.

Journal Submissions Essay on the importance of rejection to academic careers Five Secrets to Publishing Success From Review to Publication

ADVERTISEMENT

Think globally. Even if your research is local, based on a small geographic area, or tiny country, you need to think globally. Keep track of global trends. For example, because of medical advances and declining fertility, the world's population is aging. This has ramifications for government funding of pensions, healthcare needs, public healthcare expenditures, and poverty among the elderly. So if you are writing on any of these issues, even if you are using local data, the research has broad salience. It is important to understand global and national trends to place your work in that context and motivate your research.

Create a good research team. Scholarly research is tackling increasingly complex issues. Publishable research requires a strong theoretical foundation, solid research design, defensible data, measures and methods, and an ability to motivate your work. Additionally, the tsunami of big data and push for interdisciplinary research mean that writing strong papers often exceeds the capacity of one person. During my editorship (2004-2014), the percentage of single-authored articles fell from 36 to 10 percent, simply reflecting the characteristics of successful submissions.

54

http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2014/06/27/essay-publishing-social-sciences[6/27/2014 5:00:16 PM]

ADVERTISEMENT

SEARCH CAREERS Search careers

Search

We have 10,038+ jobs to browse Post a Job Browse All RELATED JOBS

Assistant Professor of Sociology and Anthropology

Posted Today University of Puget Sound Tacoma, WA View

Essay on publishing in the social sciences @insidehighered

Create a team of researchers whose skills complement your own.

Select a strong research design. Research design trumps statistics, econometrics and stellar writing. It is not possible to resuscitate a weak or flawed research design. For causal research, the gold standard, at least in the United States, is the randomized experiment. This methodology used to be employed almost exclusively by the large research firms and bench scientists. But that has changed dramatically over the past decade. Regardless of your discipline, for the purposes of publishing, you should select and frame research questions so that you can construct a strong research design.

Use good data and measures. Data are widely available, but they vary in quality. There is more easily accessed, ADVERTISEMENT

high-quality data available now than ever before. You can choose to use these data or collect your own.

Should you decide to collect your own data, then you need to consider the measures you collect carefully. Whenever possible, unless it really does not fit the needs of your study, you should give strong consideration to measures that already have been validated. Many government agencies put substantial effort and resources into measurement and you may not need to reinvent the wheel.

If your paper has flaws, do not ignore them. There is a world of difference between making a long list of all of the heinous problems with your work for referees and pretending that problems do not exist at all! Do not list the problems and do nothing about them, or conversely, ignore the existence of problems. Neither approach works well.

Remember, it is a key part of the job of journal referees to find shortcomings in your submissions. If you have swept issues under the carpet, they will lift the carpet. Good referees will do this constructively. Others will have a bit of fun at your expense. If you are forced by data limitations or other circumstances to make choices that are subject to criticism, explain the constraints and the reasoning that motivated your choices. Understanding why you made these choices or measured tradeoffs will deflect a great deal of criticism from referees.

Get to the point and write clearly and compellingly.

Get to the point right away. Tell us your research question, the contribution to knowledge, and why we should care in the abstract and then repeat it again in the first paragraph.

There are different cultural norms based and styles of education across the globe. For a U.S.-based journal, modesty about your contribution is self-defeating. You need to be explicit about your contributions. Starting with Plato and Socrates and working your way slowly to Karl Marx and finally telling us your research question on page 35 is also self-defeating. You will have used up a good amount of the referees’ time unnecessarily, and they will not be happy. The directness found in U.S. journals simply reflects our cultural 55you norms, but fair warning, this is very likely different if

http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2014/06/27/essay-publishing-social-sciences[6/27/2014 5:00:16 PM]

PT Department Faculty

Posted Today The Chicago School of Professional Psychology Los Angeles, CA View ADJUNCT FACULTY IN SOCIOLOGY - Rancho Cordova, CA Verizon Campus

Posted Today Strayer University Sacramento, CA View ADJUNCT FACULTY IN SOCIOLOGY Chesterfield, VA Campus

Posted Today Strayer University Richmond, VA View ADJUNCT FACULTY IN SOCIOLOGY Chesapeake, VA Campus

Posted Today Strayer University Hampton Roads, VA View ADJUNCT FACULTY IN POLITICAL Sci. Birmingham, AL Campus

Posted Today Strayer University Birmingham, AL View FULL TIME FACULTY IN ECONOMICS Piscataway, NJ Campus

Posted Today Strayer University Piscataway, NJ View

View All

Willamette University

Willamette is a nationally renowned, highly selective private liberal arts university in Salem, Oregon...

Polk State College

For nearly 50 years, Polk State College has provided affordable, accessible, workforce-specific degree options to its community...

MOST Viewed Commented Past: Day Week Month Year "\u003Cdiv class=\u0022itemlist\u0022\u003E\u003Cul class=\u0022mostpopular-items\u0022\u003E\u003Cli class=\u0022first\u0022\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\u0022mostpopular-item\u0022 \u003E\r\n u003Ca ref=\u0022http:\/\/www.insidehighered.com\/news\/2014\/06\/26\/corinthians-f ailure-and-us-role-it-fuels-profit-c ritics\u0022\u003E\r\n \ 3Cspan cla

Essay on publishing in the social sciences @insidehighered

are submitting to journals based outside the U.S. Constructive feedback is your friend, especially before you submit your manuscript to a journal. Whenever your work is close to being ready for journal submission, start presenting that paper. It does not matter if it is at your university, at a conference, or another venue. When someone makes a good suggestion after your presentation, write it down. When you go back to your office, make the recommended changes.

Be strategic. Look at the journal to which you are submitting your paper. Find articles that are related to yours. If there are none, this should give you pause. If you find related papers, cite them in your submission. Your work might improve on these papers or provide new insights on their findings. Some of these authors are likely to be your referees. Failing to acknowledge their contributions, particularly in the same journal to which you are submitting, just makes your referees unhappy.

Get it off your desk. Constructive feedback is great, but after a point it should not become an excuse for failing to submit your paper to a journal. One hundred percent of the papers on your desk and in your files or on your floor will not be published. You will never make a difference in the world or get a job or tenure or that cherished promotion because you have a big stack of papers.

Eventually, you will receive a decision letter about your submission. It is pretty much impossible to get a conditional acceptance or an acceptance the first time you submit your paper to any highly competitive journal. The best you can normally hope for is a request for revisions. If you get a request for revisions, the editor has opened the door!

Rejection may mean your research was a poor fit for the journal and/or there are problems with your research. Fix all problems, find a journal that is a better fit, and resubmit.

BIOMaureen A. Pirog is Rudy Professor at the Indiana University at Bloomington School of Public and Environmental Affairs; affiliate professor at the Evans School of Public Affairs of the University of Washington; and research adviser at the Sanlam Center for Public Management and Governance of the University of Johannesburg, in South Africa.

s=\u0022title\u0022\u003ECorinthian\u0026#039;s fai ure (and U.S. role in it) fuels for-prof it critics \u003C\/span\u003E\r\n \u0 \u003E\r\n\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\u 022mostpopular-item\u0022 \u003E\r n \u003Ca hef=\u00 2http:\/\/www.insidehighered.com\/news\/2014\/06\/27\/amusing-video-hasprofessors-read-aloud-harsh-student-re views\u0022\u003E\r\n \u003Cspa ass=\u0022 itle\u0022\u003EAmusing video has pr fessors read aloud harsh student revi ws\u003C\/span\u003E\r\n \u003C\/a\u0 n\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\u0022mostp pular-item\u0022 \u003E\r\n \u003C href=\u002http:\/ /www.insidehighered.com\/news\/2014\/06\/26\/book-focuses-human-aspec ts-graduate-advising\u0022\u003 E\r\n \u003Cspan class=\u2title\u00 2\u003EBook focuses on human aspe ts of graduate advising\u003C\/span\ 003E\r\n \u003C\/a\u003E\r\n\u div\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\u0022mostpopular-it m\u0022 \u003E\r\n \u003Ca href=\u 022http:\/\ www.ins dehighered.com\/news\/2014\/06\/27\/should-expulsion-be-default-discipl ine-policy-students-accused-sexual-assa ult\u0022\u003E\r\n \u00 3Cspan class=\u0022title 022\u003ES ould expulsion be the default disci line policy for students accused of sexual assault?\u003C\/span\u003E\r\n \u003C\/ a\u003E\r\n\u003C\/div \u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli class=\u0022last\u0022\u003E\u003Cd v class=\u0022mostpopular-item\u0022 u003E\r\n \u003Ca href=\u0022http: /\/www.insi ehigher d.com\/views\/2014\/06\/25\/essay-argues-colleges-are-better-old-styledormitories-apartment-facilities\u002 2\u003E\r\n \u003Cspan Essay argu class=\u0022title\u0022\u0 s that colleges are better with ol -style dormitories than apartment-like fa cilities\u003C\/span\u003E\r\n \u003C /a\u003E\r\n\u003C\/div\u003E\u0 i\u003E\n\u003C\/ul\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E"E"ꗷ殒ꓟම傉䝎਍ਚø

Please review our commenting policy here.

Back to Top Inside Higher Ed 1015 18th Street NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Ph: 1-202-659-9208 Fax: 1-202-659-9381

Contact Us About Us Share our content

SUBSCRIBE

http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2014/06/27/essay-publishing-social-sciences[6/27/2014 5:00:16 PM]

For Employers

Advertise

SUBMIT

Work For Us

Testimonials

56

Rights and Permissions

Privacy

Support

s଀

THE SCHOLARY JOURNAL There are many places to publish. One of the biggest issues for students in this course is where to publish and in what language to publish in. Although the focus of this course is on publishing in English, in reality authors have many choices of where to publish. However, the publishing in a scholarly journal remains an important area for measuring the importance of your research and your own position in the community.

One of the first things you need to do for this course is to choose a journal to publish in. You may have already decided on where to publish or you may have to decide for yourself. Considerations for choosing a journal may be in its prestige, its easy of publication, open versus closed, regional vs. international, as well as the language issues mentioned above.

To choose a journal, and know that it is reputable, you can ask the advice of your advisor, colleagues, or consult your reference lists and see where the authors you are citing are published.

Also remember that when you leave the university, the peer review process may become the primary source of feedback you receive on what you write, so it can be important to choose a journal where you are most likely to get the best feedback.

There are many factors that determine the status of a journal. The impact factor, rejection rates, and status of the editor and editorial board are some of the factors you can use to determine where to publish.

1/2/2019

Selecting the Right Academic Journal for Your Manuscript

(https://www.aclang.com/)

ENG (https://ww

TIPS FOR SELECTING THE RIGHT ACADEMIC JOURNAL FOR YOUR MANUSCRIPT < (HTTPS://WWW.ACLANG.COM/BLOG/)

JOURNAL EDITING, IMPACT FACTOR, SCOPE, ACCEPTANCE PERCENTAGE AND MORE! WRITTEN BY: AVI STAIMAN. OCT. 7, 2018 After months of hard work, late nights, and hours bent over the keyboard writing and revising, not to mention the time and resources spent on journal editing, you finally submit your manuscript to a scholarly journal. Whether the study represents the painstaking efforts of an international team of dozens of researchers or just the work of a single author, the buildup to this moment is both satisfying and exhausting. But the wait for the editor’s decision can make the process tedious and frustrating. Maybe the editor accepts the manuscript for review, but then the second, longer waiting game begins. Months can elapse before the reviews are returned. What will reviewer one think? What about reviewer two? And of course, everyone hopes there is no reviewer three—that individual is always bad news.

If you are lucky, a paper might be conditionally accepted by the end of this first review process, but more often than not, the story ends in disappointment. This does not necessarily negatively reflect on the quality of the research but is simply the brutal reality of academic publishing.

The Competitive World of Journal Submission While the internet has enabled an explosion of hyperspecialized journals and innovations such as open access, academic publishing models have remained relatively static and demoralizing. Submissions to top-tier journals have skyrocketed, intensifying competition for both publication as well as the time of busy journal editors and reviewers.

Creative solutions to expedite the review process are suggested all the time, including everything from divorcing peer review from academic publishers to formally acknowledge the efforts of peer reviewers. But until these https://www.aclang.com/blog/right-academic-journal/

1/5

1/2/2019

Selecting the Right Academic Journal for Your Manuscript

imaginative remedies are tested and implemented, rejection is the norm. And when your manuscript is rejected, you must simply submit to your second, third, fourth, or even fifth choice journal. ENG

(https://ww (https://www.aclang.com/) Everyone wants their work published in the best journals possible, but it is just as important to publish quickly in order to move on to the next project and continue research. After all, each publication may form the foundation for progressively more prestigious publications, and a continued focus on rewriting and revisions precludes actual research. This delicate balancing act is driven in equal parts by the publish-or-perish culture (https://www.aclang.com/blog/5-simple-tipsfor-getting-your-article-published-in-a-prestegious-academic-journal/) and the natural drive of productive individuals to finish the tasks they begin.

Tips for Efficient Publication Target a journal that strikes a balance between impact factor and appropriate scope.

If your latest results demand a fundamental reevaluation of your field, then you should absolutely shoot for a top journal with a stratospheric impact factor. If your work is destined to become a widely cited example, then you may want to aim just as high. However, for less earth-shattering work, you may want to consider niche journals with a lower impact factor ranking. If landing a new position or securing tenure are in your near-term plans, then perhaps you should prioritize submission to journals that offer more immediate response times. (Ironically, many journals now tout their rapid decision times.)

Be aware that impact factor and rejection rate do not necessarily go hand-in-hand.

While many journals pride themselves on high rejection rates as a means of boosting their Science Citation Index impact factors or similar metrics, be aware that rejection rates and impact factors might be unlinked. Pascal Rocha da Silva at Frontiers Blog found no correlation between rejection rate and impact factor (https://blog.frontiersin.org/2015/12/21/4782/) using data from 570 randomly selected journals across the sciences. (And in a follow-up analysis, no relationships were observed within broad research areas such as the life sciences and social sciences.) Accordingly, your best bet for publishing quickly while reaching a big audience may be submission to high impact journals with relatively low rejection rates.

Prepare yourself for multiple journal submissions.

When preparing a publication (https://www.aclang.com/blog/Preparing-Your-Academic/) , it is obviously best to prepare and format your article to suit a specific target journal or send to a professional journal editing service. However, you should also consider your second and third choice journals. Specialized tools like FindMyJournal and Edanz Journal Selector can help you identify other appropriate journals. Furthermore, one can always find inspiration with more generalized tools like Web of Science and Google Scholar as well as more ancient techniques such as looking through journals mentioned in your reference section or speaking to colleagues in the field.

If you use citation management software like EndNote, it takes only a couple of clicks to reformat your references, but it is much harder to restructure your introduction or figures. Accordingly, you may want to consider ranking your top target journals based on similarity of requirements or

https://www.aclang.com/blog/right-academic-journal/

2/5

1/2/2019

Selecting the Right Academic Journal for Your Manuscript

subject matter. Many journals are also able to redirect submitted manuscripts to sister journals, ENG which makes submission to these publications especially appealing. The less you need to rework a manuscript after rejection, the quicker you can get that eventual paper back into peer review. (https://ww (https://www.aclang.com/)

Reach out to the editor Let’s be honest, sometimes it is not just what you know, but who you know. Editors can’t bend the rules about what gets published, but they sure can let you know what is likely to get published and what isn’t. When you are finishing up a manuscript, it never hurts to get in touch with colleagues who happen to be journal editors. If nothing else, they may indicate that a submission would be a waste of your time. Similarly, you should strongly consider reaching out to journals that offer presubmission inquiries. This increasingly common feature of high-impact science journals permits busy researchers to promptly determine if their manuscript is appropriate for review. In other words, presubmission inquiries give all researchers the same convenience and courtesy that was once informally extended to colleagues and associates of established journal editors.

Subscribe to our updates

Choosing a Journal Editing and Academic Proofreading Service In brief, it is important to consider how you will react to rejection: have a plan, stick to it, and don’t become concerned if your first choice journal declines to publish your article. When you work with a reliable academic editing, proofreading and formatting company such as Academic Language Experts, you have a lot less to worry about. With our advanced editing services, you can be confident that the language and formatting of your manuscript will meet any journal requirements.

All you have to do is make sure your research is sound, and our expert academic editors will take care of the rest. It is important to keep in mind that a rejected manuscript is not a dead end, but rather a temporary setback on the way to publication. By choosing the right journals ahead of time, you can minimize the number of rejections you receive and progress with your next, innovative research project.

Are you ready to start looking for a journal? Be sure to visit our 'Tools for Finding the Best Journal for Your Research Article (https://www.aclang.com/journal-for-research/)'.

Tags:

Academic Publication (https://www.aclang.com/blog/?tag=academic-publication)

Scholarly Journal (https://www.aclang.com/blog/?tag=scholarly-journal) Publish Or Perish (https://www.aclang.com/blog/?tag=publish-or-perish)

https://www.aclang.com/blog/right-academic-journal/

3/5

Conference Proceedings

Conference proceedings are sometimes published before a conference and sometimes afterward. They can also be published in different ways, sometimes in the same way journals and books are published and sometimes as simply collections so that they can be quickly read by other participants. This article on conference proceedings raises important questions to consider about publishing: whether publishing in a proceedings will count as a publication and whether the publication will count as much as a journal article. The article doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t answer these questions but does show the differences in the prevalence of conference proceedings across different disciplines, which could give you a clue as to how they are valued, particularly if they are reviewed in the same way journal articles are.

Guest Post — Everything* You Ever Wanted to Know about Conference Proceedings But Were Afraid to Ask By

SCHOLARLY KITCHEN | JAN 30, 2020

BOOKS HISTORICAL RESEARCH TOOLS

Editor’s Note: Aliaksandr (Alex) Birukou is an Editorial Director at Springer Nature. His team in Computer Science (CS) Editorial publishes the conference proceedings in CS (~850 volumes/year, including the Lecture Notes in Computer Science, LNCS, series). Alex’s other team runs the portfolio of roughly 200 journals in different disciplines, translated from Russian into English. Apart from editorial work Alex represents editorial in several internal and external R&D projects dealing with optimization or innovation of scientific publishing.

This blog post is inspired by many questions from colleagues about what exactly conference proceedings are, and why they are so important in some disciplines. Although this is not a comprehensive overview (*the “everything” of the title is a little ambitious!), I will try to explain the critical role that conference proceedings play specifically in computer science, and I invite other colleagues to share information about how proceedings work in their disciplines, either in the comments or as a separate blog post.

/

Old geodetic conference proceedings from the 19th and early 20th century in a library. Image used under CC BY license via Bibliothek Wissenschaftspark Albert Einstein.

So, what are conference proceedings?

Proceedings are not a book of abstracts. Papers in conference proceedings contain original/primary research results, published as full or short papers. These papers are peer reviewed by the conference program committee, normally using single- or double-blind peer review. Some communities are experimenting with open or transparent peer review, but to date the uptake has been slow.

They differ from monographs or textbooks, where proposals for the entire book are reviewed rather than individual chapters. And they differ from journals because the review process has clear deadlines for submission, notification to the authors (which is final, i.e., there are no revisions), and submission of the camera-ready paper.

This is because most of the conferences prefer to have their proceedings published before the conference, to guarantee a timely record of the research presented. Some conferences like to carry out an additional round of reviewing after the event, or to give authors the opportunity to update their papers with the insights they have gleaned from the meeting. In these cases, the proceedings are published after the event.

/

In Springer Natureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s computer science editorial group, we select conferences for publication using the editorial boards of or via trusted partner societies. We look at the topics, people involved, past history, and the peer review process.

Are proceedings books or journals?

This is the most frequently asked question. Those of you familiar with the German language know that it has three genders: feminine, masculine, and neutral. The books/journals dichotomy is like asking, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Do you think neutral is more feminine or masculine?â&#x20AC;&#x153; Crossref lists proceedings as a separate genre (https://www.crossref.org/titleList/), as do IEEE and ACM, both of whom publish a large number of proceedings.

However, for historical reasons, some publishers and some disciplines publish conference proceedings in journals (BMC Proceedings (https://bmcproc.biomedcentral.com/), Elsevier Procedia CS (https://www.journals.elsevier.com/procedia-computer-science)), while others (IOS Press (https://www.iospress.nl/book/proceedings-of-the-17th-international-conference-on-soil-mechanics-andgeotechnical-engineering/)), publish them as books. Springer happily contributes to the confusion, as the Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS (https://link.springer.com/bookseries/558)) series started as a book series in 1973, well before Crossref was created and we have never adjusted since.

Summa summarum, conference proceedings are not journals or books, but for historical reasons some are published as one or the other of these:.

1. (similar to journals) Papers in conference proceedings contain original/primary research results, and therefore enjoy pre-print and copyright policies aligned with journals.

2. (similar to journals) This also means that the research integrity should be checked (is there plagiarism or peer review manipulation?).

3. (similar to journals) Conferences take place regularly (often annually) and continue publishing proceedings, which makes them a periodical. For instance, see the example of the International Workshop on Graph/

Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science (https://link.springer.com/conference/wg), which has been publishing with Springer since 1980, and, 1975-79, was published by Hanser (https://dblp.org/db/conf/wg/).

4. (similar to books) Proceedings published with Springer Nature are also available as EPUB, as well as PDF/HTML. 5. (similar to books) Proceedings are available on Amazon, Google Books, etc.

In which disciplines do researchers publish in conference proceedings?

Let us look at the numbers from Scopus (11 October 2019), which I chose for two reasons. First, it does a great job of indexing conference papers, even if they appear in journals or books; second, the coverage of conference proceedings in the Web of Science is less predictable, with fewer proceedings covered.

Engineering: 5,062,696 documents Computer Science: 3,375,491 Physics and Astronomy: 1,518,203 Mathematics: 1,228,209 Materials Science: 1,167,538 Medicine: 657,272 Energy: 532,052 Earth and Planetary Sciences: 452,405 Environmental Science: 391,478 Social Sciences: 363,848 Note that Scopus assigns the same paper to several categories, so most computer science papers appear in the engineering or mathematics categories as well.

And, using SpringerLink (https://link.springer.com/search?facet-content-type=%22ConferencePaper%22) to compare how this overall picture compares with the distribution of topics at Springer, we see: Computer Science: 507,337 Engineering: 189,485 Medicine & Public Health: 114,817 Physics: 85,027 Mathematics: 48,403 Business and Management: 30,936 Life Sciences: 28,519 Earth Sciences: 18,859 /

Chemistry: 18,487 Biomedicine: 17,630 Materials Science: 11,886 As you can see, Springer has less engineering content and the share of medicine is higher than in Scopus. Still, the top areas in both databases are computer science, engineering, physics, and mathematics.

Why are proceedings so important in computer science?

Authors of primary research in computer science often favor conference proceedings over journals because the format helps them get their work out to the global community faster. In fact, conferences are pivotal to the entire research lifecycle in this field, with the commissioning process, ongoing exchange of ideas, and publishing schedules closely tied to large international events. When we analyzed primary research in computer science in Scopus for 2012-2016 we found that 63% of original research results are published in conference proceedings, with only 37% published in journals.

In a viewpoint published (http://doi.org/10.1145/1536616.1536631) in Communications of ACM, Lance Fortnow explains that computer science emerged in the 1950s as a new field. It was easier to start from scratch in terms of how research was communicated, and the conference system therefore developed as a vehicle for the rapid dissemination of research papers through conference proceedings, fast reviews, and community get-togethers. It was natural that publishers and societies then started publishing the resulting conference proceedings, and that these are recognized as valuable contributions to the field. In 2013, for example, the ACM Distinguished Service Award (https://awards.acm.org/award-winners/HARTMANIS_1059260) was given to Gerhard Goos, Juris Hartmanis, and Jan van Leeuwen, the founding editors of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) series.

Conference proceedings play a key role in the dissemination of research results in computer science and electrical engineering. Serving on program committees, reviewing papers, and publishing in proceedings has significant benefits for oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s career as a scientist. In recognition of this, and in order to better track conferences and related scientific activities, in 2018, Crossref and DataCite launched a Working Group (https://www.crossref.org/workinggroups/conferences-projects/) on Persistent Conference IDs and CrossMark for proceedings. Stay tuned for more updates on this vibrant field!

Now itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s your turn! What role do proceedings play in your discipline / publishing program? Are they published as books, journals or proceedings? Could you please share your experience in the comments?

Disclaimer: opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect that of my employer Springer Nature

/

Scholarly Kitchen @SCHOLARLYKITCHN

Posts by guest authors or group posts written by multiple Scholarly Kitchen Chefs are grouped together under the Scholarly Kitchen byline.

Discussion

2 THOUGHTS ON "GUEST POST â&#x20AC;&#x201D; EVERYTHING* YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK" Thank you for this. It reminds me of the distinction between research and review journals, which has a fuzzy boundary.

My own recent experience is in oncology, publishing books which are designed to assist clinicians in their work. Not research. But I perceive that research is published in both journals and conference proceedings by the same people. The opportunity to share results of trials swiftly makes conference presentation attractive and therefore proceedings important. Papers in journals are more considered and discursive, as befits review journals. It would be interesting to hear how people decide as authors to present their work, as well as what we publishers intend them to do!

By

DUNCAN ENRIGHT | JAN 30, 2020, 5:56 AM

Thanks for raising this important topic.

In fact, we have a HUGE problem with conference papers, including those published by Springer and other major firms. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rooted in crude evaluation schemes, which fuel the demand for WoS and Scopus publication counts. Nowadays conferences have almost superceded predatory\weak journals as means of getting those precious wos\scopus publication counts, especially on the university level.

/

Currently the vast majority of Russian conference papers in WoS\Scopus are either proceedings of conferences organized in Russia with almost no international participation, or (especially in the case of SSH) predatory conferences with “virtual presentations”. The first route is enabled by for-profit publishers which agree to publish essentially anything and do not check the quality of peer review. For example, in 2018 Moscow Intitute of Civil Engineering has organized a conference, published it via IOP and almost instantly got 224 WoS-indexed papers by its faculty. In the same year this organization has published only 41 WoS-indexed journal articles (not counting ESCI limbo).

Overall the total number of WoS-indexed proceedings papers with Russian affiliations grew from 4087 in 2011 to 21148 in 2017, or from 1,3% of the World totals to 5%. And in Social sciences and humanities it grew from 1% to 8%, and preliminary data for 2019 is staggering 13% of the World totals. Just go to WoS\Scopus and see for yourself.

This is a very serious issue and should be dealt with immediately, mainly by the majors who argee to publish local proceedings without proper checks, and by officials introducing bad metrics. WoS\Scopus can’t evaluate the quality of hundreds of individual conferences published by these major presses, so their only options are to delist the whole volumes. Elsevier has blacklisted EDP Sciences’ conference proceedinds becaus of these quality issues and could proceed with delisting volumes by Springer, IOP etc.

They even delisted a bunch of their own Procedia series, but this crude solution harms the legitimate and reputable conferences.

And of course not only Russia is affected. For example, in 2009-2019 Wuhan university of technology has published 2500+ conference papers in WoS CPCI-SSH , while the whole University of California system has published only 1788. And Bucharest University of Economic Studies has published 3962. By the way, the latter Romanian case is well-known to Clarivate and they’ve tried to do something about it but evidently failed.

Proceedings papers quality and indexing needs to be urgently discussed by the triad of publishers, database providers and indicator designers with the help of general academic community before it becomes too big.

By

IVAN STERLIGOV | JAN 30, 2020, 7:10 AM

/

The mission of the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) is to advance scholarly publishing and communication, and the professional development of its members through education, collaboration, and networking. SSP established The Scholarly Kitchen blog in February 2008 to keep SSP members and interested parties aware of new developments in publishing.

The Scholarly Kitchen is a moderated and independent blog. Opinions on The Scholarly Kitchen are those of the authors. They are not necessarily those held by the Society for Scholarly Publishing nor by their respective employers.

/

ED T&L 6912

Publishing Your Paper

[]This phamplet describes the publishing process from preparing your paper for publication, choosing a journal, submitting the paper, what to do after acceptance, and promoting your work. The phamplet was published by Elsivier, the largest publisher of academic journals., and reflects their perspective.

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS

How to publish in scholarly journals

elsevier.com/authors

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS

How to publish in scholarly journals CONTENTS 1 Introduction ..................................................................... 4 2 Find the right journal ...................................................... 5 2.1 Introduction ................................................................ 5 2.2 Journal Finder ............................................................. 5 2.3 Journal metrics ............................................................ 5 2.4 Open access options ................................................... 6 3 Prepare your paper .......................................................... 7 3.1 Your manuscript .......................................................... 7 3.2 Language quality ......................................................... 9 3.3 Illustrations ................................................................. 10 3.4 Enrich your article ....................................................... 10 3.4.1 AudioSlides .......................................................... 10 3.4.2 Graphical Abstracts .............................................. 10 3.5 Adding data ................................................................. 11 3.6 Ethics ........................................................................... 11 3.7 SEO your article .......................................................... 11 4 Submit and revise your paper.......................................... 12 4.1 How to submit a paper? .............................................. 12 4.2 Peer review .................................................................. 12 4.3 Article Transfer Service ................................................ 12 4.4 Check the status of your paper ................................... 12 5 After acceptance ............................................................... 13 5.1 Article in press ............................................................. 13 5.2 Proofing ...................................................................... 13 5.3 Share Link & offprints ................................................. 13 6 Copyright .......................................................................... 14 7 Promote your work .......................................................... 15 7.1 Share your paper ......................................................... 15 7.2 Be discovered online ................................................... 15 7.3 Conferences ................................................................. 15 7.4 Social media ................................................................ 16 7.5 Scholarly collaboration networks ................................ 16 7.6 Media relations ........................................................... 16 8 Montor your impact ......................................................... 17 8.1 Introduction ................................................................ 17 8.2 Mendeley Stats ........................................................... 17 8.3 Article metrics ............................................................. 18 9 Why publish with Elsevier ............................................... 19 9.1 Introduction ................................................................ 19 9.2 Innovation ................................................................... 19 9.3 ScienceDirect .............................................................. 19 9.4 Scopus ......................................................................... 19 9.5 Mendeley ..................................................................... 20 10 Further information and training ................................... 21 10.1 Publishing Campus.................................................... 21 10.2 Authorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Update ........................................................ 21 10.3 Postdoc Free Access Program ................................... 21

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

3

scholarly journal UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS

How to publish in scholarly journals Introduction

|1

As researchers, you make huge strides in advancing essential knowledge.

Your achievements can save lives and improve the way we live. If you’re ready to share your knowledge with the world, this booklet outlines the best opportunities for publishing your research – and for seeing it shared globally.

The first question to ask yourself is, ‘do I have a story to tell?’. Editors and reviewers look for original and innovative research that adds to their field of study, or immediately impacts patient care. This means that your conclusions must be sound and based on sufficiently robust data.

Secondly, ask yourself, ‘is there an audience for my research findings?’.

The more original and innovative your research, the more people will be interested. Consider whether your research is of interest to a local, regional or international audience. Identifying your audience is a major factor in selecting the right journal to submit your manuscript to. You can read more about selecting a journal in section 2.2.

elsevier.com/authors

There are several types of research articles: 1. Letters and rapid or short communications are intended for the quick and early communication of significant or original advances, without including too much data or detail.

2. Review papers summarize recent developments on a specific topic, without introducing new data.

3. Full articles contain significant data, detail, developments and outcomes.

4. Research elements enable you to publish research output, such as data, software, methods, videos and much more, in brief, citable articles.

If you’re unsure which type of article to write, discuss your options with your supervisor or colleagues. For the purposes of this booklet, we offer guidance for writing and publishing a full article. Once you’ve decided to write a full article, follow the guidelines of your chosen journal, and the general guidelines for scientific writing outlined in the following sections.

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

4

Find the right journal

|2

2.1 INTRODUCTION Finding the right journal for your article can be key to reaching your target audience.

• Take into consideration the type of article you’d like to publish (full length, letter, review, research output).

• Check the references in your article, to give an indication of possible journals of interest.

• Read the journal’s aims and scope on the journal homepage on elsevier.com.

• Read or download the journal’s Guide for Authors.

• Check if the journal is invitation-only; some journals only accept articles after inviting the author to submit.

• Check the journal’s performance for review and publication timelines (see 2.3).

• If you need to publish open access, remember that most Elsevier journals explain their open access options on the journal homepage (see 2.4).

• Submit your paper to only one journal at a time (see 3.6, on ethics).

2.2 JOURNAL FINDER The Journal Finder tool locates Elsevier journals that most closely match your abstracts. An Elsevier journal will be recommended if it has published articles that are highly similar to your article. A list of relevant articles is generated, and the tool can filter on your preferred criteria, such as open access options, journal metrics, review time, acceptance rate and production time. See journalfinder.elsevier.com.

2.3 JOURNAL METRICS Journal metrics are at your disposal to help you select the most appropriate journal for your article. When used alongside information about the journal’s scope, editorial board, international outlook and audience, they can help you to find the best destination for your research.

Different types of journal metrics It’s good practice to look at more than one metric to help you make your decision. You’ll find a dedicated Journal Insights section on many of the journal homepages on elsevier.com, giving information about the journal’s: • Speed – review speed and online publication time • Reach – geographic location of corresponding authors and journal usage • Impact – impact metrics based on citations received by articles Citation-based impact metrics The average impact of all the articles in a journal is often used as a proxy for the impact of a specific article – especially when the article hasn’t yet had time to accumulate its own citations. It’s important to take this kind of proxy metric into consideration.

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

5

The Journal Insights section on the Elsevier.com journal homepage has several impact metrics to be aware of: CiteScore*

SNIP

SJR

Impact Factor

Full name

CiteScore

Source-Normalized Impact per Paper

SCImago Journal Rank

–

Measures

Average number of citations received in a calendar year by all items published in that journal in the preceding three years.

Citations relative to average for discipline; SNIP > 1 means journal is cited more than average for field

Average prestige per publication, depending on the SJR of the citing journal

Average citations per publication

Accounts for varying journal size?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Accounts for varying behaviour between disciplines?

N

Y

Y

N

Availability

CiteScore, SNIP and SJR are available on Scopus and can be accessed freely

Thomson Reuters

Free of charge at journalmetrics.scopus.com

Free of charge via individual journal homepages: Journal Insights.

Free of charge via individual journal homepages: Journal Insights *NEW: CiteScore is a simple way of measuring the citation impact of serial titles such as journals. Serial titles are defined as titles which publish on a regular basis (i.e. one or more volumes per year).

CiteScore calculates the average number of citations received in a calendar year by all items published in that journal in the preceding three years.

2.4 OPEN ACCESS OPTIONS In general, open access indicates free and permanent access to published research, combined with clear guidelines for readers to share and use the content. There are two main types of open access: gold and green.

What is the difference between gold and green?

EBiomedicine is a new open access journal that bridges basic science & patient care in collaboration with Cell and The Lancet. It’s one of the many open access journals Elsevier publishes.

GOLD OPEN ACCESS

GREEN OPEN ACCESS

Access

• Free public access to the final published article • Access is immediate and permanent

• Free public access to a version of your article • Time delay may apply (embargo period)

Fee

• Open access fee is paid by the author, or on their behalf (for example by a funding body)

• No fee is payable by the author, as costs are covered by library subscriptions

Use

• Determined by your user license

• Authors retain the right to use their articles for a wide range of purposes.

All open versions of your article should have a user license attached

Options

1. Publish in an open access journal 2. Publish in a journal that supports open access (also known as a hybrid journal)

1. Link to your article 2. For selected journals Elsevier makes the articles freely available after an embargo period in the open archives 3. Self-archive your manuscript

Some funding bodies or institutions have a policy on public access to research. It’s important to know the open access policy of your institution or funding body before you decide whether or not to publish open access. Elsevier offers a wide range of publication options for your research to comply with funding policy or institutional mandates.

Elsevier publishes more than 400+ gold open access journals and offers options to publish open access in more than 1,600 subscription journals. For more information on your open access options, see elsevier.com/openaccessoptions.

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

6

Prepare your paper

|3

3.1 YOUR MANUSCRIPT Title The title is the main advertisement for your article. A great title entices the audience to read on; a poorly-titled article may never reach its target readers.

Your article’s title should reflect its content clearly, enabling readers to decide whether it’s relevant for them. Make the title catchy and keep it specific. Leave out phrases such as ‘a study of ’, ‘investigations into’, ‘observations on’; and avoid using abbreviations and jargon.

Remember, too, that abstracting and indexing services depend on accurate titles; they extract keywords from them for cross-referencing.

Why ‘The effect of heating the albumen and vitellus of the Gallus gallus domesticus contained in calcium carbonate in H2O to 373.15 K’ when ‘Boiling a chicken egg in water’ says it?

Essentially, effective titles: • • • • •

Identify the article’s main issue.

Begin with the article’s subject matter.

Are accurate, unambiguous, specific and (when possible) complete.

Are as short as possible.

Are enticing and interesting; they make people want to read further.

Authors Only authors who’ve made an intellectual contribution to the research should be credited; those who’ll take responsibility for the data and conclusions, and who’ve approved the final manuscript. The order of credited names can vary between disciplines; the corresponding author may not always be the first author.

Keyword list Most journals request a list of keywords; important words that, along with those in the title, capture the research effectively. Keywords are used by abstracting and indexing services; choosing the right ones can increase the chances of your article being found by other researchers.

Many Elsevier journals also ask for a subject classification during the online submission process; this helps editors to select reviewers.

Abstract The abstract is your chance to describe your research in 200 words – so use it wisely. Together, the title and abstract should be able to fully represent your article, including for use by indexing services. Many authors write the abstract last, so it reflects the content accurately.

The abstract should summarize the problem or objective of your research, and its method, results, and conclusions. Usually an abstract doesn’t include references, figures or tables. It should mention each significant UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

7

section of the article, with enough detail for readers to decide whether or not to read the whole paper. While it’s great to make the abstract interesting, above all it should be accurate. Don’t promise more than your article delivers.

The body of the text Make the introduction brief. It should provide context and background, but not be a history lesson. It should state the problem being investigated, its contextual background, and the reasons for conducting the research. State the questions you’re answering and explain any findings of others that you’re challenging or furthering. Briefly and logically lead the reader to your hypotheses, research questions, and experimental design or method.

Method

(also called Materials and Methods or Experimental Methods)

This section should be detailed enough that readers can replicate your research, and assess whether the methods justify the conclusions. It’s advisable to use the past tense – it’s about what you did – and avoid using the first person, although this will vary from journal to journal.

Ultimately, you should explain how you studied the problem, identify the procedures you followed, and structure this information as logically as possible.

If your methods are new, you’ll need to explain them in detail. If they’ve been published before, cite the original work, including your amendments if you’ve made modifications. Identify the equipment and the materials you used, specifying their source. State the frequency of observations and what types of data were recorded. Give precise measurements, stating their strengths and weaknesses when necessary. Name any statistical tests, so your quantitative results can be judged.

If your research involved human participants, animals, stem cells or other biohazard materials, you’ll need to include certain information in the ethics statement, such as committee approvals and permission to publish. You should also explain your criteria for selecting participants.

Results This section should present your findings objectively, explaining them largely in text. It’s where you show how your results contribute to the body of scientific knowledge, so be clear and logical. And it’s important not to interpret your results – that comes in the Discussion & Conclusions section.

You can base the sequence of this text on the tables, figures and graphs that best present your findings. Emphasize any significant findings clearly. Tables and figures must be numbered separately; figures should have a brief but complete description – a legend – that reveals how the data was produced.

Discussion & Conclusions This is where you describe the meaning of your results, especially in the context of what was already known about the subject. You can present UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

8

general and specific conclusions, but take care not to summarize your article – that’s what the abstract is for.

You should link this section back to the introduction, referring to your questions or hypotheses, and cover how the results relate to your expectations and cited sources. Do the results support or contradict existing theories? Are there any limitations? You can also suggest further experiments, uses and extensions.

Above all, the discussion should explain how your research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward. Your conclusions must be supportable and not extend beyond your results, so avoid undue speculation and bold judgments about impact. This is also a good place to suggest practical applications for your results, and to outline what the next steps in your research will be.

To summarize, make sure that: • Your results directly support your conclusions.

• You use specific expressions and quantitative descriptions – ‘12 degrees higher’ instead of ‘a higher temperature’.

• You only discuss what you defined early in the paper – don’t introduce the reader to a whole new vocabulary. If you missed an important term, go back to the introduction and insert it.

• All interpretations and speculations are based on fact, not imagination.

Acknowledgments Keep acknowledgements brief, naming those who helped with your research; contributors, or suppliers who provided free materials. You should also disclose any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that could be seen to influence your results or interpretations.

References New research builds on previously published work, which should always be acknowledged. Any information that isn’t ‘common knowledge’, or generated by your experiments, must be recognized with a citation; and quoted text should be within quotation marks, and include a reference.

The format of citations and references varies, so you should refer to the Guide for Authors for the journal you’re submitting to.

3.2 LANGUAGE QUALITY A scientific article should report your findings and conclusions as clearly and concisely as possible. To achieve this: • Try to avoid unnecessary words or phrases – keep it simple.

• Use active writing when possible. For example, ‘Carbon dioxide was consumed by the plant’ is passive. Active writing shortens this phrase to, ‘The plant consumed carbon dioxide’ – which is much snappier.

• Tense is important. For known facts and hypotheses, use the present tense: ‘The average life expectancy of a honey bee is six weeks.’ But use the past tense when referring to experiments you’ve conducted: ‘All the honey bees were maintained in an environment with a consistent temperature of 23°C.’ And also use the past tense to describe results: ‘The average life span of bees in our contained environment was eight weeks.’

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

9

“We have submitted around 600 papers for language editing. More than 99% of our researchers are satisfied with the work of Elsevier.

Based on previous successful experiences with Elsevier, we encourage our researchers to use the language editing service before they submit their papers to a journal.”

PROF. CHEN JING,

Beijing Normal University, China

Elsevier has editing services to help ensure that your work is written in correct scientific English before submission, and that your paper is free of grammatical, spelling, and other common errors. Translation services are also available from or into Chinese, Portuguese, Spanish, Arabic, Turkish, Russian, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean and many more languages.

For more information see webshop.elsevier.com/languageservices.

3.3 ILLUSTRATIONS Submitting any illustrations, figures or other artwork – like multimedia and supplementary files – in an electronic format means that we can produce your work to the best possible standard, ensuring accuracy, clarity and a high level of detail. For specific details on how to format and submit artwork, check elsevier.com/artwork.

Our professional illustration services can create or polish images to match your exact needs. We support detailed full-color and photorealistic images from sketches, or convert existing images into more simplified line drawings. The delivery of detailed graphs and tables takes only 48 hours.

For more information see webshop.elsevier.com/illustrationservices.

3.4 ENRICH YOUR ARTICLE You can enrich your article with interactive visualizations and provide context by adding references to (external) information sources, such as Virtual Microscope, Interactive Map Viewer and 3D Molecular Models.

After publication, you can additionally prepare article enrichments which promote your research in alternative formats, such as a slide presentation, knowledge quiz or promotional video like AudioSlides.

“The reader also gets a quick grasp about the paper that cannot be explained in a short written abstract” TILBE GÖKSUN, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Koç University, Istanbul on creating her AudioSlides

Find out which options are available for journals in your research field, visit: elsevier.com/authors/author-services/enrichments.

3.4.1 AUDIOSLIDES AudioSlides are short, webcast-style presentations, which allow you to present your research in your own words. Elsevier offers you the option of creating your own unique AudioSlides presentation which complements your research and provides readers with a short, succinct overview of the article content. This appears alongside your article once it is published on Elsevier’s ScienceDirect platform, home to one-quarter of the world’s STM journal and book content. AudioSlides are free to access and easy to share, independently from the article, with colleagues, (influential) bloggers and on social media including YouTube. Make the most of your AudioSlides with our useful Tips and Tricks: elsevier.com/audioslides.

3.4.2 GRAPHICAL ABSTRACTS A Graphical Abstract is a visual summary of the main findings of the article that is placed as part of your article an ScienceDirect and will turn up in online search result lists. It will help people to understand the key point of your article at a glance. You can make use of our professional illustration services at the Elsevier webshop: webshop.elsevier.com.

Tweeted graphical abstracts

You can use your Graphical Abstract as a promotional tool by for example tweeting it, sharing it on social media or sending it to an (influential) blogger. Always add a link to your article.

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

10

“With Data in Brief, many developments in research can become more useful when data sources are shared.

We are excited and grateful for the opportunity to have our data accessible at no cost to the community.”

PROF. BARRAZA-LOPEZ, Department of Physics, University of Arkansas

3.5 ADDING DATA Research data forms the backbone of your research article and provides the foundation on which scientific, technical and medical knowledge is built.

As a researcher, you are increasingly encouraged, or even mandated, to make your research data available, accessible, discoverable and usable.

These ensure you receive credit for your work, while giving your readers deeper insights and supporting their work.

As an author, you can choose to store your data in a repository, like Mendeley Data: data.mendeley.com, to make your dataset independently citable and link it with your article: elsevier.com/authors/author-services/ research-data/data-base-linking.

These ensure you receive credit for your work, while making your research data accessible, giving your readers deeper insights and supporting their work.

3.6 ETHICS Understanding the boundaries in scientific research and publishing is a key step in making sure your work gets off to the best start. Scientific misconduct and breach of publishing ethics can take different forms, and be committed knowingly or unknowingly. Examples of misconduct and breaches include: • Authorship disputes – deliberately misrepresenting a scientist’s relationship with published work.

• Competing interests – not disclosing to a journal that you have a direct or indirect conflict which prevents you from being unbiased.

• Plagiarism – passing off another’s work or idea as your own.

• Simultaneous submission – submitting a paper to more than one publication at the same time.

• Research fraud – including fabrication (making up research data) and falsification (manipulating research data, tables or images).

• Salami slicing – the ‘slicing-up’ of research that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers.

The Ethics in Research & Publication Program is a collaboration between Elsevier and an independent panel of experts in research and publishing ethics. The program’s online resources and tools have been developed to help you feel confident that you’re doing the right things.

See publishingcampus.com/ethics.

3.7 SEO YOUR ARTICLE Search Engine Optimization (SEO) helps to ensure that your article appears higher in the results returned by search engines such as Google.

This can mean you attract more readers, gain higher visibility in the academic community, and potentially increase citations.

Tips for SEO include: • Use keywords, especially in the title and abstract.

• Add captions with keywords to all photographs, images, graphs and tables.

• Add titles or subheadings (with keywords) to the different sections of your article.

• Make sure you place links to your article from relevant websites e.g. your institute’s website, Wikipedia, LinkedIn, blogs and social media.

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

11

Submit and revise your paper

|4

Once you’ve checked (and re-checked!) your manuscript, you’re ready to submit it to the journal editor via the submission and peer review system.

4.1 HOW TO SUBMIT A PAPER? Elsevier’s Editorial System (EES) has transitioned to Evise®, a fully online workflow for article publication. Submission is simple: direct links for registration and log-in can be found in our journals’ Guide for Authors.

4.2 PEER REVIEW After submission, each manuscript is checked for plagiarism, and assessed carefully to determine if it fits the aims and scope of the journal.

If journal representatives are enthusiastic about the work, the journal editor will appoint reviewers.

What does the peer reviewer do?

Reviewers help determine the validity, significance and originality of the work, and can suggest improvements to the manuscript and the research.

On their recommendation, editors will accept, accept with revisions, or reject a manuscript.

To make good judgments, peer reviewers use their own checklists to evaluate the content for scientific value and originality, to see that articles adhere to general scientific practice as well as the journal’s specific guidelines, and to check that you’ve referenced correctly. The peer reviewer will look closely at your methodology and the validity of your data, and consider your ethical approach. They will then recommend changes before your manuscript is published. See elsevier.com/reviewers/home for more details.

Different types of peer review Type of review

Description

Single blind (most common)

Reviewer identity hidden from author; reviewer knows identity of authors

Double blind

Both reviewer and author remain anonymous to each other

Open

Reviewer and author are known to each other

4.3 ARTICLE TRANSFER SERVICE Several Elsevier journals operate a complimentary Article Transfer Service.

The editor will offer this service if they feel your article fits better with another Elsevier journal; with your approval, your submission will be transferred there.

4.4 CHECK THE STATUS OF YOUR PAPER After submission you can follow the status of your article in the Elsevier Editorial System (EES or Evise), using a reference number that you’ll receive by email.

If your paper is accepted for publication, you can follow the publication status through to completion using the ‘track your article’ feature. You’ll receive a reference number and link via email, after final decision.

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

12

After acceptance: article in press, proofing, share link and offprints

|5

Congratulations! Your article has been accepted!

There are a few more things to consider that can optimize the publication of your work. Elsevier will do everything it can to have your article published as quickly and accurately as possible.

5.1 ARTICLES IN PRESS Accepted articles are published online on ScienceDirect as an ‘article in press’, and assigned an issue at a later date. You can track your article and citations throughout this process.

5.2 PROOFING Accurate proofreading and clear marking of corrections are essential for the production of a quality article. As soon as your article has been typeset, you’ll receive an email with either a PDF attachment of your article or a link to it on our online proofing system.

5.3 SHARE LINK AND OFFPRINTS Most of our journals give authors a personalized link that provides 50 days’ free access to the final published version of their article on ScienceDirect. This link can also be used for sharing via email and social networks. For more information see elsevier.com/author-share-link.

Some journals provide offprints; an exact copy of the article published either on paper or as a PDF. You can order paper offprints before publication, using the provided Offprint Order Form. If your journal doesn’t issue paper offprints as standard, you’ll pay a small fee. Once you’ve submitted the order form, you should allow 30-60 days for delivery of the offprints.

After publication, you can order paper offprints from the Elsevier Author WebShop: webshop.elsevier.com. You can order from 50 to 250 offprints, in increments of 50, published on high-quality glossy paper and with optional covers.

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

13

|6

Copyright

When you publish with Elsevier, you enter into a legal agreement. This means that both we at Elsevier and you as an author agree to certain rights and responsibilities, and promise to act in a legally-sound manner.

Protecting author rights Copyright aims to protect the specific way the article has been written to describe the research and its results. Elsevier is committed to the protection and defense of its authors’ work and reputations. We take allegations of infringement, plagiarism, ethical disputes and fraud very seriously.

Publishing agreement In order for Elsevier to be able to publish and disseminate your article, we need certain publishing permissions. These permissions are defined by a publishing agreement between the author and the publisher. You’ll be asked to complete a journal publishing agreement or license during the time between your article’s acceptance and its final version. For more information, see elsevier.com/copyright.

End user license If you’ve chosen to publish your article gold open access, you also select an end user license to determine how readers can share and use your article without having to request permission. Elsevier offers a choice of commercial or non-commercial user licenses, so you can select the license which suits your type of research. (For Health & Medical Science journals there are different regulations; see elsevier.com/ openaccesslicenses.)

AUTHOR Retains copyright

PUBLISHER Grants publishing rights

USER LICENSE

Publishes article under the user license

What is the license process?

Step 1: Authors sign a publishing agreement where they will retain copyright but grant publishing rights to the publisher.

Step 2: Readers can use and share the article as defined by the user license.

READER/USER Granted rights to reuse the article

Step 3: The author grants the publisher the right to publish the article under the applicable license.

Step 4: The publisher makes the article available online with the author’s user license.

Before choosing an end user license, we recommend that you: • Understand what each user license permits, and the rights it grants to readers for using your article.

• Check if your funding body or institution has a policy requiring the use of a specific license.

• Read your journal’s Guide for Authors to ensure it offers the license you want to use.

• Visit the Creativecommons.org site for more information on what to consider before selecting a user license. (It’s important to note that you can’t revoke your chosen license.)

For more information, see elsevier.com/openaccesslicenses.

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

14

Promote your work

|7

More than one million scientific articles are published each year, and that number is rising. So it’s increasingly important for you to find ways to make your article stand out.

Promoting your research does not begin after your manuscript is finished and has been published online. It should be on your mind even whilst you are doing it and writing up your paper. Promoting your research also continues after it has been published and tracking the performance of your promotion activities will help drive results.

For more detailed guidelines see elsevier.com/promote-your-work.

“Once authors have published in an Elsevier journal, they come back because of the other things Elsevier does for them: Mendeley Stats, the support for how to get the word out, how do you deal with media, how do you look at the impact of what you’ve done.”

DR. BARBARA YAWN, Director, Department of Research, Olmsted Medical Center; Adjunct Professor, University of Minnesota; Chief Editor, Respiratory Medicine Case Reports

7.1 SHARE YOUR PAPER Sharing your research and findings can help you make a greater impact in your community, leading to better collaboration, new ideas and potential innovations. Millions of researchers have access to your formal publication hosted on ScienceDirect, enabling users to find, access, and cite your research in its best available version.

Elsevier will send you a ‘Share Link’: a personal, customized short link that you’ll receive after the final publication of your article. We encourage you to share this link on social media; anyone clicking on it gets 50 days’ free access to your newly published article on ScienceDirect.

The more links there are to your article from a range of websites, the more readers you’ll attract and the higher it will appear on search engine results.

Elsevier supports responsible sharing and we want to make it easy for you to share your research.

For the latest information on sharing your article see elsevier.com/sharing-articles.

7.2 BE DISCOVERED ONLINE It’s important people can find you and links to your publications online. There are a few easy tools to help you increase your online visibility.

If you have a personal page at your institute, include links to the final versions of your articles on that page. You should also ensure that your CV is available online, with links to your publications. You can do this on the popular networking site LinkedIn, or on a personal website or blog.

Finally, keep your SCOPUS and ORCID author profiles up-to-date so others can find your journal. You can now update both at orcid. scopusfeedback.com. Just follow the easy online steps.

7.3 CONFERENCES Presenting and networking personalizes your work, giving it a face and voice, and can create new opportunities for collaboration. Make sure you connect with other delegates on Facebook and LinkedIn, and direct them to your website or blog. If you create a poster for a conference, post it on

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

15

your website and provide links on your blog, social media profiles, online CV, or institutional page.

7.4 SOCIAL MEDIA Every day, scholarly articles receive thousands of new mentions across social media, news and blogs; it’s a powerful medium for reaching your potential readers! However, you don’t have to be active on all social media – it’s often best to find one or two channels which suit you and your purposes. Some of the most widely-used media are Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Build up a group of followers and share links to your publications.

You can enhance your posts with visuals and videos that attract more attention. And don’t forget to share your AudioSlides and Graphical Abstracts.

7.5 SHARING ON A SCHOLARLY COLLABORATION NETWORK (SCN), SUCH AS MENDELEY OR SCHOLAR UNIVERSE

Services such as SCNs enable authors to showcase their work, providing fast and effective ways to collaborate and disseminate research. A number of SCNs are working together with publishers to help to showcase your work by sharing links to published journal articles on author profiles.

We encourage authors to share their research responsibly on SCNs. You can share your preprint, article abstract or a link to your article.

Additional sharing options may be available, see elsevier.com/sharingpolicy.

7.6 MEDIA RELATIONS Elsevier promotes selected research papers to the global scientific media.

If you think your article is interesting for a wider audience, or you’d like more information about any of the promotional channels mentioned above, contact us at researchcomm@elsevier.com to explore the possibilities.

Remember to also get in touch with the press office at your institute to see what they can do to help you promote your paper.

Article by Vivian Kouri et al. published in open access journal EBiomedicine featured on CBS News

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

16

Monitor your impact

|8

8.1 INTRODUCTION It’s worth bearing in mind that your peers and tutors monitor your impact. Being aware of this helps you to submit your article to the most appropriate place (section 2.3), and also to position yourself by proactively supplying information about your own performance.

Just like when you’re considering where to publish, the best approach to monitoring your impact is to have multiple ways of assessing your performance.

If you’re at an early stage in your career, you can use metrics that don’t require longer timeframes: • Collaboration – how big is your network? What’s the status of colleagues in your network? Where in the world are they located?

• Scholarly output – how productive are you?

• Usage – how often have your publications been viewed?

• Article metrics – who’s talking about papers online and what’s being said?

• Journal status – what’s the status of the journals that have published your work? The average citation impact of all the articles in a journal is a useful proxy for the impact your articles will achieve when they’ve had time to accumulate citations.

When you’re at a later stage in your research career, with a sizeable output and an impressive number of citations, further metrics can then become useful: • Citation count – how many citations have your articles received?

• Outstanding articles – which of your articles are in the top percentile of comparable articles?

• h-index – this rates your entire publication career based on both output and citation impact. (An h-index of 11 indicates that 11 of a researcher’s articles have each received at least 11 citations.)

8.2 MENDELEY STATS Any author who has published at least one article with Elsevier within the last 10 years will be invited to register for a personalized dashboard, offering: • Early feedback on how your publications are being downloaded, shared and cited, based on ScienceDirect, Mendeley and Scopus.

• Data about the geographic locations and research disciplines of your readers.

• Detailed information about search terms used in ScienceDirect to find your publications.

• A comparison of the performance of your article with other articles.

Have you not been invited to register for your personal dashboard yet?

Don’t worry, as it will certainly happen soon. You can also easily register via mendeley.com/stats.

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

17

Publications

Citations

218

Views

4,394

Readers

164,886

3,790

Views & Citations count over time Mar ‘15

Apr ‘15

Last 12 months

May ‘15

Jun ‘15

Jul ‘15

Views

Aug ‘15

Sep ‘15

Oct ‘15

Nov ‘15

Dec ‘15

Jan ‘16

Citations

Feb ‘16

Historical view

Mendeley Stats: A personal and real time feedback service to authors. Combining metrics dating back 10 years. Including Elsevier and non-Elsevier publications.

8.3 ARTICLE METRICS Who’s talking about papers online and what’s being said? Article metrics allow you to track and analyze online activity around your article.

Online article mentions are monitored from social media sites (e.g.

Twitter, Facebook, Google+), science blogs, many mainstream media outlets (including the NY Times, The Guardian, non-English language publications like Die Zeit and Le Monde, and special interest publications like Scientific American, and New Scientist) and reference managers for mentions of academic papers.

Via our journal homepages we will show Top-10 lists of popular articles.

Any article covered on Scopus will both show article metrics and percentile comparisons to articles of the same type and age. Metrics will only be displayed if data is available.

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

18

PUBLISHING IN GATED JOURNALS WHY PUBLISH WITH ELSIVIER

Today, authors have a choice of publishing in open access journals, which are accessible to anyone with an Internet connection and usually do not take away the authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s copyright. However, gated publishers have responded to the challenge of open access with a variety of journals, all of which cost to publish, as well as the traditional gated journals where the reader or library must pay and remain free to publish with the usual transfer of copyright.

Gated journals are often more prestigious although there may be higher levels of citation in the open access journals. As a graduate student or a post-doc, the authors must decide at different stages of their careers where the most advantageous places is to publish, both in terms of job hunting and obtaining tenure as well as questions about how to obtain the most readers.

Why publish with Elsevier?

“Elsevier has a continuing pipeline of innovating products and ideas.”

DR. GREGORY POLAND, Editor-in-Chief Vaccine

“The idea that you can find and publish ‘hidden gems’ from your lab book really resonated with us.

It allowed us to publish a useful finding that may otherwise have stayed in the lab book or been buried in another manuscript.”

DR. KEIRA. MELICAN, author and a member of the MethodsX advisory board from Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden on the new microarticle journal MethodsX

|9

9.1 INTRODUCTION Of course, you’ll consider other publishers and journals for your article.

Why Elsevier? Well, chances are that the leading journal in your field of expertise – The Lancet if you’re a medical scientist – is published by Elsevier. We publish thousands of journals and books, including many of the world’s most renowned titles such as Cell and Tetrahedon Letters.

We also continue to launch leading open access journals, such as EBiomedicine and Heliyon.

9.2 INNOVATION As a global information analytics business, we also pride ourselves on our innovative approach, offering online services, article-based publishing and new types of open access publishing; including research elements, which allow you to publish research output such as data, software, methods, videos, and more. We’re constantly looking for ways to make your articles easier to find, and to facilitate collaboration between researchers and authors. Article Enrichment provides you with new tools to present your article: Share Link allows you to share your work with a wide audience; and Mendeley Stats lets you monitor your impact in a new and detailed way.

9.3 SCIENCEDIRECT Elsevier publishes your article on ScienceDirect, a leading information solution providing authoritative, full-text scientific, technical and medical content from Elsevier. By optimizing the platform and indexing all content, Elsevier works to ensure that your article is more visible and can be found more easily by search engines, library discovery services, A&I databases, and other search and discovery tools.

Your article will be accessible immediately after acceptance, and has a unique DOI (Digital Object Identifier) which will always link to the latest available version. Elsevier also participates in the multi-publisher initiative Crossref, which creates direct links between your article and those that cite you. The CrossMark logo in online PDF or HTML documents helps readers to verify that they’re using the most recent and reliable version of your work.

9.4 SCOPUS Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature – scientific journals, books and conferences – and features tools to track, analyze and visualize scholarly research. Its vast database contains abstracts and references from more than 21,000 titles, obtained from over 5,000 publishers worldwide, ensuring broad interdisciplinary coverage in the fields of science, technology, medicine, social sciences and the arts and humanities.

For authors, Scopus can simplify the search for relevant full-text content and potential research partners with advanced search functions and email alerts on specific topics, people and institutions.

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

19

Scopus lets you: • Search for relevant topics or articles during the literature review phase.

• Decide where, and with whom, to publish – analyze the top journals and authors in your discipline.

• Discover who is citing you, see their h-index and output information.

• Explore how many citations an article or author has received, and identify potential collaborators.

• Find information to support your grant or other applications.

Additionally, Scopus helps you manage your research output and monitor your reputation. Just sign up to receive citation alerts to track when your work is cited in other articles; and use the Scopus Author Profile page to view and analyze your output, including your h-index.

“Mendeley makes it much easier to share information with our overseas colleagues we can discuss research papers over time zones and if internet connections are unreliable.”

9.5 MENDELEY Mendeley is a powerful reference manager and a Scholarly Collaboration Network with more than 6 million users. Create a free account to discover relevant research, connect and collaborate with the global community.

Get started. Start a free account at mendeley.com and explore.

POLLY COMPSTON, Mendeley Research Advisor, The Brooke, London, UK

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

20

“Thank you for this excellent service. I have recommended it to my researchers. I am looking forward to the next events” PROF. DR. ANNE MARIE OUDESLUYS, Department of Pediatrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, on a Publishing Campus webinar.

“I used the access for writing a postdoctoral fellowship proposal, which successfully came through after the free-access period ended. Some of the Elsevier journals I could access during that time were very helpful for finding relevant literature. The free access has contributed to the success of the proposal” DR. CHRISTOPHER V. SYNATSCHKE, Feodor-Lynen Postdoctoral Fellow, Simpson Querrey Institute for BioNanotechnology, Northwestern University, USA

Further information and training

| 10

10.1 PUBLISHING CAMPUS The Elsevier Publishing Campus provides researchers all over the world with free access to valuable training and advice on applying for grants, planning their career or improving their publishing skills.

Divided into six colleges, the Campus offers online lectures, interactive training materials, videos and expert advice on a wide range of topics.

For every online lecture or interactive course completed, researchers are awarded an Elsevier certificate.

The College of Skills Training - the biggest and most widely used of the colleges - covers the whole academic publishing process. This college provides in-depth information and training on how to write, structure and submit a great article and improve authors’ chances of getting published. Key subjects such as ethics, author rights and open access options are included. Advice on successful grant writing can be looked up in the Research Funding section. The peer-review process, essential to improve the quality of articles, is also explained in detail – training not only includes how authors can work with reviewers’ comments, but courses on how to become a good peer reviewer.

For more information see publishingcampus.com.

10.2 AUTHORS’ UPDATE Our interactive Authors’ Update website has all the information you need to help you get published and promote your articles. Regular posts keep you in touch with industry developments and services designed to support your publishing efforts. You can also sign-up to receive free, regular email alerts.

For more information see elsevier.com/authors-update.

10.3 POSTDOC FREE ACCESS PROGRAM Elsevier’s Postdoc Free Access Program supports young scholars who are between jobs or looking for their first postdoctoral position. Qualified applicants are granted up to 12 months’ free access to all our journals and books on ScienceDirect, greatly benefitting their work on grant applications and research projects.

Certificate of Completion A. Researcher

has successfully completed the following

Publishers: origins, roles, and contributions on Thursday 26 May, 2016

For more information see elsevier.com/postdoc-free-access

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLISHING PROCESS | HOW TO PUBLISH IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS

21

Training. Advice. Discussion. Networking.

Packed with free online lectures and interactive courses, together with expert advice and resources, to help you on your way to publishing a world-class book or journal article.

College of

College of

Boost your publishing skills in journals and books

Discuss trending topics in publishing and academia

College of

College of

Make the most of every opportunity

Training for effective and efficient research skills

Skills Training

Networking

College of

Career Planning Get ahead in your academic career

publishingcampus.com

Big Ideas

Research Solutions

College of

Recommended Organizations Reach your potential with support from global resources

2Â

NEW TYPES OF JOURNALS Journals are constantly changing. In many fields, this is a new development. Even open access journals intially published a similar number of articles as did traditional journals, which made them look like traditional journas to give them more credibility.

However, online journals did not have the same cost structure since they used pdf files that had no cost. As peer review opened up, however, journals became more like a commons and less like a cathedral, to use Raymondâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s metaphor, so more and more articles could be published with the reader, not the peer reviewer becoming the final arbiter of the quality of the article.

Youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re Invited to Publish Your Research in Heliyon Heliyon is an open access journal from Elsevier publishing quality research papers across all disciplines. Our team of experts provides:

Editorial Excellence

Our dedicated in-house editorial team is committed to improving the researcher experience. Together with our editorial board of active researchers across all disciplines, we provide excellent editorial service to guide your paper to publication.

Fast Publication

Publishing your research quickly is one of our top priorities. We are examining every step of the publication process and creating new workflows to publish your paper as quickly as possible.

High Visibility

Your paper will be immediately available on both Heliyon.com and ScienceDirect upon publication, ensuring it reaches the widest possible relevant audience. Our focus on generating impact via press coverage and social media gives your paper the opportunity to be discovered.

LEARN MORE AT www.heliyon.com

Kitchen

Scholarly

The

Countering the Über-Brands: The Case for the Megajournal By

ALISON MUDDITT | JAN 18, 2018

BUSINESS MODELS CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS ECONOMICS INNOVATION OPEN ACCESS PEER REVIEW

We’re all familiar with the economic scarcity principle in which the limited supply of a good, coupled with a high demand, results in a mismatch between the usual balance of supply and demand. Think of the luxury Hermès Birkin bag, the almost mythical and obsessive quest for which is wittily described in Wednesday Martin’s anthropological study of the rich wives of the upper-east side, Primates of Park Avenue (http://www.simonandschuster.net/books/Primates-of-Park-Avenue/Wednesday-Martin/9781476762715). Its scarcity made Martin want one more than ever – owning a Birkin is a to be a member of an exclusive club – “Once you’re in, it makes you feel worthy. It gives you identity.” (https://www.npr.org/2015/12/31/461627675/with-the-birkin-baghermes-plays-hard-to-get)

For those who care about the future of science, it should be of central concern that a not entirely dissimilar set of incentives and rewards drive decisions about where and how to publish. In the early days of digital, we were led to believe that the economics of scarcity would be repealed by the removal of supply constraints in the digital world. But that hasn’t happened: behavior and reward are still driven by demand for prestige which in turn has the potential to undermine good science. This stranglehold is clearly taking much longer to break than many had hoped, but alongside initiatives such as DORA (http://www.ascb.org/dora/) and the TOP (https://cos.io/our-services/top-guidelines/) guidelines, megajournals represent a viable approach to change.

The first megajournal – PLOS ONE – was founded on the principle that properly executed science deserves publication and that work should be judged on the value of its own contribution, rather than the title of the journal in which it is published. (Full disclosure: I am the CEO of PLOS, publisher of PLOS ONE). For the past decade, new megajournals have continued to launch – some more and some less successfully. Yet they have clearly had relatively small impact on the grip of elite journals and at worst, are derided as dumping grounds for mediocre research.

Does this mean that we have hit “peak megajournal” and that the era of the megajournal will be short-lived? First and foremost, the data contradicts this. The number of megajournals continues to grow (with at least 20 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1117/full) now publishing), and their output continues to grow at a rapid rate, even if we just add together the publications of PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports as the most recently available data shows (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/mega-journals-future-stepping-stone-it-or-leapabyss).

But rather than spending time responding to critiques of the megajournal, I want to focus on the contributions that megajournals are making to improving research communication. And I want to move beyond the issue of access, although the open access (OA) model of course underpins the mission to more easily share discoveries with both peers and the public.

In spite of the incredible progress of modern science across many fields, there are core concerns that an “open” agenda seeks to address. In discussing his recent book The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology: A Manifesto for Reforming the Culture of Scientific Practice (https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10970.html), Chris Chambers describes his own science (https://press.princeton.edu/interviews/qa-10970) as one that “has now become a contest for shortterm prestige and career status, corrupted by biased research practices, bad incentives and occasionally even fraud.”

While it may seem pessimistic and even extreme, this growing unease across fields is being taken seriously by key players – especially funders – due to concerns that the current scientific culture is fostering bad practices. While not a panacea, megajournals have demonstrated an ability to make a major contribution to fostering open practices and strong, reproducible science: 1. The value of a peer review process that doesn’t rely on subjective assessments of significance. A methodology that is all-too-frequently dismissed as “peer review lite”, the soundness-only methodology for peer review differs in scope rather than rigor. The technical soundness review itself is rigorous and for most megajournals, involves a number of internal and external checks and assessments. Frequently coupled with forms of open review, it helps to disperse and make transparent assessments about what is significant to the scientific community as a whole both before and after publication. While there are heated debates about a perceived move from expert gatekeepers to the wisdom of the crowd, there’s also a strong case to be made for democratizing assessment and challenging reigning disciplinary power structures.

2. The importance of outlets for negative studies and replications. The most important part of a study for gaining acceptance into a high-impact journal is all too frequently the results – the one part of the study that should be beyond a scientist’s control. Many scientists have told the tales of pressure to make ambiguous results tell a compelling story, fearing that quality studies that produce negative or less conclusive results are unpublishable. Many megajournals not only accept but encourage replications and null results on a large scale, both of which are critical to moving science forward.

3. Moving beyond legacy models. This is not to say that only megajournals innovate – this is clearly not the case. But megajournals have been willing to experiment with models that challenge an entrenched status quo.

Think of the variants of open review at PeerJ or Collabra, or PeerJ’s leadership in the preprints space. Or PLOS ONE’s requirement to deposit data alongside a paper to support both assessment and replication. Key here has been scale and thus the ability to drive innovation beyond any individual title. Not only does PLOS ONE have more than 80,000 published data availability statements, but this scale has helped to change attitudes and practice more widely.

4. The value of an outlet that is broad enough for an era of “big science”. More and more science crosses boundaries both within the natural sciences and beyond – the biggest problems in our world cannot be solved by any single discipline. Megajournals are broad enough to accommodate that breadth and complexity, and to build networks across disciplines and national boundaries. Collaboration and team science is also another tenet of improving reproducibility: more collaborators bring greater theoretical and disciplinary perspectives.

Of course, such features are not all unique to megajournals but their breadth and openness makes them a critical player in moving towards an expanded research cycle and scientific culture that is collaborative, transparent and accessible.

The future of the megajournal So what of the future? Given demand, it doesn’t seem that the megajournal is going to disappear any time soon. The range of models, which already incorporate more focused journals (such as BMJ Open), arguably extends to include different models beyond STM such as Open Library for the Humanities, and perhaps even the megajournal-that-isn’t, F1000 Research. Growing diversity and evolution of the model is a strength, but none of this means that there aren’t some real challenges: The filtering function has always been a critical one for journals, and many have made the case that this is lost or at best watered down in megajournals. I’ve already made the case that screening hurdles and rejection rates demonstrate one form of filter. In terms of search and browse, PLOS ONE added overlays through PLOS Collections and PLOS Channels, through which content can be fed and curated, and other journals have clear content streams and filters. But as for all journals, there’s more work to be done to efficiently guide users to the research results likely to be of greatest value to them.

In focusing peer review on soundness, megajournals have also sought to supplement that with forms of postpublication and ongoing community review but as we know, to date crowdsourced review has not taken off (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/04/27/stop-commenting-already/). Various forms of altmetrics show how a paper is cited and discussed, but institutionalized reliance on a single, static review of a work’s qualities has inhibited the development of robust mechanisms of assessment that would give users of the literature an accurate and evolving picture of a published work’s reliability and significance throughout its useful lifetime.

Simple, easy-to-use tools, perhaps seeded with formal reviewer evaluation, would also help to address the filtering challenge.

Another key issue is price. One of the many disadvantages of high selectivity is its cost: the 10% of accepted papers also have to cover the cost of the 90% of rejected papers. A megajournal like PLOS ONE still has a 50% rejection rate and thus still bears significant cost for rejected papers, meaning that the hoped-for steady reduction in the cost of publishing has not materialized. Some combination of AI and machine-learning will likely be able to automate initial screening, but that won’t address the other side of this coin: it’s clear from APC pricing at Scientific Reports, PLOS ONE and PeerJ that scientists aren’t shopping around based on price.

Which brings us neatly back to where we started, and the perverse incentives to publish in high status outlets.

Clearly, the kind of broad changes in scientific practice and culture (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-0160021) that have been called for require action from many stakeholders over many years. But as the numbers show, megajournals are now a key player in the scholarly publishing landscape. While they may struggle to compete with the über-brands at their own game, they can play a significant role in challenging the status quo and facilitating a transition to open, transparent system of research communication.

Alison Mudditt

Alison Mudditt joined PLOS as Chief Executive Of cer in June, 2017, where her primary role is to ensure PLOS’s continuous innovation, bold leadership, and mission-driven differentiation in the eld of scienti c communication. She also serves on the Board of Directors of ALPSP.

Discussion

9 THOUGHTS ON "COUNTERING THE ÜBER-BRANDS: THE CASE FOR THE MEGAJOURNAL" I think OA and megajournals are all wonderful developments, but where I find myself not in agreement with many advocates is that I simply don’t see why anyone is being asked to choose OA and megajournals over, say, the careful editorial work at JAMA or Science. The traditional journals do something very well, the new (if maturing) OA journals do something very well. Why must someone who likes steak being told that you must not under any circumstances like the fish? To my mind the problem is not OA or traditional models but the discourse that has grown up around them, which is needlessly political in nature. It’s a big world; enjoy it all.

By

JOSEPH ESPOSITO | JAN 18, 2018, 9:40 AM

I was struck by similar comments you made on a previous post in SK, Joe, and agree with your basic point.

But OA advocates aren’t the only ones guilty of forcing a false choice by dismissing any value in other options. I think that PLOS’s portfolio – and others – demonstrate the value of a portfolio that also includes more selective titles alongside a megajournal.

By

ALISON MUDDITT | JAN 18, 2018, 10:11 AM

JOURNAL GUIDELINES HEADING 1

JOURNAL GUIDELINES THE IMPORTANCE OF GUIDELINES Every journal should have a set of guidelines for the authors to consult before submitting their papers.

It is important that authors carefully examine the guidelines before submitting a paper. Editors can disqualify a paper if they feel it does not meet the guidelines set out in the paper. Editors may also think that the author is a careless researcher if the guidelines are not met.

Guidelines can vary across journals even in the same discipline, so it is important for the author to read the guidelines for each journal being considered. Some journals go into great detail about what they expect and some provide little information, so it is still important to read the journal to see what kinds of papers are being accepted. Mostly, guidelines provide technical details such as the length of the paper and the type of formatting; however, sometimes they explicitly state what they are looking for.

Another piece of information that can be important is what is needed to be included in the cover letter submitted with the paper: this can include author permissions, prior publications, conflict of interests, and participant permissions.

19

JOURNAL GUIDELINES ANALYZING GUIDELINES

Journal editors place great importance on having authors follow their guidelines to demonstrate that the authors have taken the time to familiarize themselves with their journals. Journal guidelines tend to be very inconsistent; some journals have extensive guidelines and some less extensive. They may be continually being revised, so it is important the authors update themselves on the guidelines each time they submit a paper.

The guidelines usually contain information of formatting the paper, particularly the length of the paper, and how to organize the contents. There may be information on the submission process, the peer review process, particularly of importance is how long it usually takes, and information of issues related to intellectual property and ethical guidelines regarding submission, authorship, and possibly plagiarism.

If you deviate from any of the guidelines, it is important to include that in your cover letter to the editor.

Text & Talk An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies Instructions for Authors 1. Contributions (approx. 6000–8000 words) should be in English (American spelling).

Authors whose native language is not English are asked to have their article carefully checked

by

a

native

speaker.

Manuscripts

should

be

submitted

as email

attachments to TEXTandTALK@cardiff.ac.uk. No hard copies are required. The journal operates an anonymous peer review process.

2. The manuscript must be accompanied by a cover sheet listing, after ‘Submission for TEXT & TALK’: name(s) of the author(s); institutional address, telephone, fax numbers, and emailaddress of the main author; home telephone number; article title; short title (for running head); and character count (including punctuation, spaces, etc.).

3. On separate pages please supply: 1) bionote (brief academic biography of the author, maximum of 75 words, including correspondence address); 2) abstract (maximum of 200 words) summarizing the whole article, not just the conclusions; 3) six keywords.

4. Manuscripts must be prepared double-spaced in 12 point font and divided into sections with numbered headings. All pages must be numbered. Emphasized words or phrases should be italicized. Foreign words should also be italicized and followed by a translation in single quotation marks. Use single not double quotation marks throughout. Please avoid the use of boldface in the text. For data transcripts (with line numbers rather than turn numbers), use a maximum of 60 characters per line (including spaces).

5. Following formal acceptance, contributors are requested to submit the final version electronically to TEXTandTALK@cardiff.ac.uk both in the following two formats: MS Word and PDF (the latter as a point of reference for any special characters [e.g., diacritical marks] that appear in the manuscript).

1|2

6. Line drawings and photographs (called ‘Figures’ in the text) must be reproducible originals and should be submitted on separate pages and placed at the end of the manuscript.

A note should be placed in the text to indicate the approximate placement, e.g., ‘Figure 1 about here’. Figures should be numbered separately, i.e., Figure 1, 2, 3 etc. Captions for all figures should be typed on a separate page at the end of the article. All figures must be cited in the text.

7. Authors should refer to the De Gruyter Mouton journal style sheet, especially regarding the proper format for citations and reference entries.

8. Corrections. Authors are asked to check their manuscripts very carefully before submitting them in order to prevent delays and extra costs at the proof stage. Authors will receive PDF page proofs for correction which must be returned by dates given in the publication schedule.

9. Offprints. Upon publication, authors will receive electronic offprints (in PDF format) of their contribution. Guest editors of special issues will receive complimentary print copies of the issue.

2|2

Language Learning & Technology - Submission Guidelines

search...

Home Aims and Scope Editorial Staff Editorial Board Submission Guidelines Research Guidelines

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORS Articles LLT publishes articles of up to 8,500 words that report on original research or present an original framework that links second language acquisition theory, previous research, and language learning and teaching practices that utilize technology. Articles containing only descriptions of software, pedagogical procedures, or those presenting results of surveys without providing systematic empirical data and analysis on language learning outcomes or processes will not be considered.

General guidelines are available for conducting CALL research (see LLT editors CALICO 2011 Workshop slides) and for reporting on both quantitative and qualitative research (http://llt.msu.edu/research/index.html).

Manuscripts that have already been published, are being considered for publication elsewhere, or have been previously rejected by LLT will not be considered. If your submission is part of a larger study or if you have used the same data in whole or in part in other papers published or under review, you must write a cover letter stating where the paper is published/under review and describing how the current submission to LLT makes a different and distinct contribution to the field.

Action Research Column

Call for Papers

LLT publishes an Action Research Column that features articles of up to 5,000 words that report on studies conducted by one or more language educators for the purpose of improving their own instruction through better use of technology.

Permissions Previous Issues

For guidelines for conducting and reporting Action Research, please refer to: http://www.lab.brown.edu/pubs/themes_ed/act_research.pdf http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar/define.html Further information is available in the Call for Papers.

Commentaries

Future Issues

LLT publishes commentaries, short articles of 2,000-3,000 words, that discuss material either previously published in LLT or otherwise offering interesting opinions on issues related to language learning and technology.

Resources Contact Us

Reviews LLT publishes reviews of professional books and software related to the use of technology in language learning, teaching, and testing.

LLT does not accept unsolicited reviews.

Contact Review Editor Paige D. Ware (llted2@hawaii.edu) if you are interested in having material reviewed or in serving as a reviewer. Send materials you wish to be reviewed to: Paige D. Ware, Ph.D. Annette Caldwell Simmons School of Education and Human Development Southern Methodist University 3108 Fondren, Box 381 Dallas, TX 75275 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Submission process All submissions must be uploaded through our online management system at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/llt.

You will be asked to first register and log in to use the online system. Complete instructions are provided on the site. Please contact the Managing Editor (llt@hawaii.edu) if you experience difficulty.

The online management system will automatically convert your uploaded files into HTML and PDF formats. All article submissions must be properly anonymized and in Microsoft Word (.DOC) format. Images, tables, figures, appendices, and audio/video files should be uploaded separately. Images should be uploaded separately as .JPG, .TIF, .EPS, or .GIF files. More details can be found on http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/llt under User Tutorials.

List the names, institutions, e-mail addresses, and if applicable, WWW addresses (URLs), of all authors. Include a 50-word biographical statement for each author. This information will be temporarily removed during the blind review.

Articles should be no more than 8,500 words in length, including references and a 200-word abstract. Appendices should be limited to 1,500 words. Lengthy appendices should be included as hyperlinks and sent as separate files in .html or .pdf format. Titles should not exceed 10 words and should be adequately descriptive of the content of the article.

All submissions should conform to the requirements of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition). Authors are strongly encouraged to have their manuscripts proofread by an editor familiar with English academic prose and APA guidelines. Both American and British English spelling conventions are acceptable. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of all references and citations.

20 http://llt.msu.edu/guidelines/index.html[1/27/2013 3:25:14 PM]

Language Learning & Technology - Submission Guidelines

Authors are invited to take advantage of the electronic format by including hypermedia links to multimedia and other materials both within and outside the manuscript.

The editors of LLT reserve the right to make editorial changes to manuscripts accepted for publication for the sake of style or clarity. Authors will be consulted only if the changes are substantive.

Authors of accepted manuscripts will assign to LLT the permanent right to electronically distribute their articles, but will retain copyright.

Authors may republish their work (in print and/or electronic format) as long as they acknowledge LLT as the original publisher.

Minor edits will be made within 14 days after publication. Post-publication changes involving content will be made only if there is a problem with comprehensibility. Such changes will be accompanied by a note of revision. External links will be validated at the time of publication.

Broken links will be fixed at the author’s request. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Review process All articles and commentaries go through a two-step review process: 1. Internal Review. The editors first review each manuscript to see if it meets the basic requirements (i.e., that it reports on original research or presents an original framework linking previous research, second language acquisition theory, and teaching practices), and that it is of sufficient quality to merit external review. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements and are principally descriptions of classroom practices or software are not sent out for further review. The internal review generally takes 1-2 weeks. Following the internal review, authors are notified of the results.

2. External Review. Submissions which meet the basic requirements are then sent out for blind peer review by 3 experts in the field. The external review takes approximately 2-3 months. Following the external review, the authors are sent copies of the external reviewers’ comments and are notified as to the decision (accept as is, accept pending changes, revise and resubmit, or reject). Submission to the Action Research Column are reviewed internally by the journal editors or Action Research Column editor and are not typically sent out for external review. Responses (accept, reject, request of revision) are ordinarily sent to authors within one month of submission.

Copyright © 2013 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501.

Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.

Website Design by Scott Coble

http://llt.msu.edu/guidelines/index.html[1/27/2013 3:25:14 PM]

TESOL Quarterly Research Guidelines AHMAR MAHBOOB, BRIAN PALTRIDGE, AND AEK PHAKITI University of Sydney Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

ELVIS WAGNER Temple University Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States

SUE STARFIELD AND ANNE BURNS University of New South Wales Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

RODNEY H. JONES University of Reading Reading, England

PETER I. DE COSTA Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan, United States

This article provides research guidelines for authors intending to submit their manuscripts to TESOL Quarterly. These guidelines include information about the TESOL Quarterly review process, advice on converting a dissertation into a research article, broad introductions to a number of research methods, and a section on research ethics. The research methods discussed here are experimental research, survey research, ethnographic research, discourse analysis, and practitioner research. These are, of course, not the only methods that authors draw on for their submissions to TESOL Quarterly but ones we thought it would be helpful to provide advice on. Each of the sections on research methods includes a broad introduction to the method (or approach), a guide for preparing a manuscript using the particular method or approach, and an analysis of an article published in TESOL Quarterly using that method or approach. doi: 10.1002/tesq.288

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 0, No. 0, xxxxx 2016 Š 2016 TESOL International Association

21

1

T

hese TESOL Quarterly research guidelines are designed to provide guidance and support to researchers planning to submit manuscripts to TESOL Quarterly. The guidelines first provide information about the TESOL Quarterly review process and give some advice to authors who are converting their dissertations into research articles.

The guidelines then describe and exemplify a number of research approaches frequently adopted in articles published in TESOL Quarterly, including experimental research (written by Aek Phakiti), survey research (by Elvis Wagner), ethnographic research (by Sue Starfield), discourse analysis (by Rodney H. Jones), and practitioner research (by Anne Burns). In addition, the guidelines also include a discussion of research ethics (by Peter De Costa).

THE TESOL QUARTERLY REVIEW PROCESS TESOL Quarterly receives hundreds of manuscripts a year and only has space to publish a couple of dozen articles each year. Given this, only submissions that show potential of being published are sent out for external reviewing. The editors do not send out all submissions to external reviewers because good reviewers are a scarce resource, and we generally only want to ask reviewers to evaluate a submission when we think it has the potential to be published. All submissions are, however, internally evaluated by the editors. In order to be consistent, the editors use a checklist to evaluate if submissions are potentially publishable in TESOL Quarterly and should be sent out for review. This checklist is shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Checklist Used by TESOL Quarterly Editors for Initial In-House Review of Submissions 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Is TESOL Quarterly the correct journal for the submission?

Is the article of interest to the international readership of the journal?

Is textual similarity a problem with the submission?

Does the author relate the research to teaching and learning?

Does the article report on research?

Is it original?

Is it over the word length for submissions to the journal?

Is it under the word length for submissions to the journal?

Has it been prepared for blind review?

Has the author used American Psychological Association (APA, 2010) referencing?

Can the author be identified from the acknowledgments?

Are the sources referred to in the literature review up to date?

Are crucial sources omitted?

Does the author compare the results of the study to previous research on the topic so we see how the study moves the field forward?

15. Are all figures and tables attached?

2

TESOL QUARTERLY

22

TABLE 2 Review Criteria for TESOL Quarterly Submissions 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Does the manuscript contain new and significant information to justify publication?

Is the problem significant and concisely stated?

Are methodological and/or theoretical matters comprehensively described?

Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?

Is adequate reference made to other work in the field?

Does the manuscript appeal to the general interests of the TESOL Quarterly readership?

Does the manuscript strengthen the relationship between theory and practice?

If, on the basis of this in-house review, the editors think the manuscript is potentially publishable, it is sent to external reviewers. Otherwise, the editors may either (a) unsubmit the manuscript and request the author(s) make changes and resubmit their article, or (b) reject the manuscript without an option of resubmission to TESOL Quarterly.

This process allows the editors to give due attention to each submission and to monitor the quality of articles sent out to the reviewers.

When a manuscript is sent out for review, reviewers are asked to address the questions shown in Table 2 in their evaluations.

Once reviewers agree to review a manuscript, they are given six weeks to review manuscripts assigned to them. Sometimes it takes the editors quite a few attempts before they are able to identify appropriate and willing reviewers. The editors make their decision about a manuscript based on the reviews. In most cases, the editors either ask authors to revise their manuscripts based on the reviews, or reject the submission.

In some cases, where two reviewers have made different recommendations, the editors either carry out an in-depth review themselves or assign a third reviewer for the manuscript. If authors are asked to revise their manuscript, the revised manuscript may be sent out for further review(s)—often, but not always, to the original reviewers. In addition to the external reviewers, the editors also re-review the manuscripts once they come close to being accepted, and may ask authors to make additional revisions. The whole process—between the time that a manuscript is first received and is accepted for publication—can take 6–9 months, and sometimes more. Once accepted, the manuscript is handled by the TESOL Quarterly publishers, who copyedit the text, work on the layout, check references, and so forth. At this final stage, before an article is published, the author(s) work directly with the publishers and the editors typically do not interfere with the process.

Converting a Dissertation Into a Research Article In a competitive job market, where publications, especially in prestigious journals, can make a difference between being hired or not, it is TESOL QUARTERLY RESEARCH GUIDELINES

23

3

not a surprise that TESOL Quarterly is seeing a rise in the number of submissions by doctoral students and recent graduates. There are arguably a number of benefits for these new researchers to publish: it raises their profile, makes them more competitive in the job market, gives them experience of how the world of publishing works, and provides feedback on and engagement with their work. These are all sound reasons for considering publishing one’s doctoral research.

However, as with other submissions to the journal, although some of the papers make it through the review process, a large number, unfortunately, do not. To have a reasonable chance of being considered for publication, these new authors should make sure that they meet the requirements, the style, and the focus of TESOL Quarterly.

Converting a dissertation into a research article, further, often requires recontextualizing, reframing, condensing, and even restructuring the work contained in a dissertation (Kwan, 2010). It is not as simple as just taking a chapter from the dissertation and submitting it as an article. The research article needs to stand alone and able to be read by, and of value to, a much wider readership than that of the dissertation.

Below, we have included a checklist that doctoral students and new graduates may want to consider as they prepare their manuscript for submission.

-Consult your supervisor and seek their advice on the publishability of your paper.

-Consider co-authoring with a more experienced researcher.

-Identify an appropriate journal for your work. To do this, look at your reference list and identify the key journals that you have drawn on. These journals are often a good place for you to submit to.

-Make sure that you follow the submission guidelines, style, and format of writing that are used in the journal you are aiming at.

-Make sure that your paper makes an original contribution to the field and moves forward the discussion of the issue that you are focussing on.

-Make sure that your references are up to date. If you are drawing on a dissertation that was written a year or more ago, make sure to update your literature review and revise your results and discussion sections accordingly.

-Have your colleagues and your supervisor read and comment on your draft. Revise your draft as needed before submitting.

Finally, do remember that only a small proportion of papers submitted to journals—especially highly ranked ones—are published. If your submission does not succeed, do not take a rejection of your paper as a rejection of your work. Instead, consider the reasons for the 4

TESOL QUARTERLY

24

rejection carefully, revise your paper, and then submit your manuscript to another journal. You should be sure to revise your paper before submitting it to another journal because there is always a chance that your manuscript might be sent to a reviewer who reviewed it for the previous journal. These reviewers want to see that you took their comments on board before sending your paper to another journal.

EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH Aek Phakiti Experimental research aims to determine causal-like relationships between one or more independent variables (e.g., types of instruction, feedback) and one or more dependent variables (e.g., language acquisition, learning behaviours). To arrive at a valid conclusion about the causal-like relationship, the researcher systematically and carefully (1) manipulates the independent variable of interest by varying its degree or nature under different conditions, (2) controls other independent variables that can interfere with the effect of the target independent variable (i.e., foreseen confounding variables such as differences in proďŹ ciency levels, time of instruction) by holding them constant across the conditions, and (3) observes changes in the dependent variable(s).

See Blom and Unsworth (2010), Gass (2015), Hudson and Llosa (2015), and Phakiti (2014), who present experimental research methods in second language studies.

Issues Related to Methodology There are different types of experimental research approaches that have been applied in TESOL research (e.g., randomized pretestâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; posttest control group design, repeated measures design, quasi-experimental design, and single-case design). Experimental researchers need to consider the issues of (1) internal validity (i.e., whether the change in the dependent variable is due to the target independent variable only) and external validity (i.e., whether the observed causal-like relationship is generalizable for other groups of learners or in other settings), (2) potential threats to the internal validity of the study (e.g., selection bias, maturation, testing effect), and (3) the reliability and validity of measurements (e.g., use of pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest) and data analysis (e.g., suitable inferential statistics). An experimental research article needs to address the above issues clearly and precisely. The following are guidelines for preparing an experimental article.

TESOL QUARTERLY RESEARCH GUIDELINES

25

5

Introduction: Provide background information for the study. Discuss the research problem and its importance. State the aim of the study clearly and explicitly. If space permits, provide an overview of the report.

Review of the literature: Present what has been recently published about the topic. Situate the study within the existing field of study by presenting the relevant theoretical frameworks, as well as landmark and recent studies on the topic. Build the theoretical and methodological foundation and rationale for the study from the existing literature.

State the experimental hypotheses or questions that are connected to the theory discussed.

Method: Present the experimental design being adopted for the study in sufficient detail, including the reason why it is suitable for the study.

See Purpura, Brown, and Schoonen (2015) and Larson-Hall and Herrington (2010). If a mixed methods design is adopted, make sure to provide sufficient information about the qualitative part of the study.

Include setting, participants, experimental conditions and steps taken to derive valid and reliable data, research instruments (e.g., pretests, posttests, delayed posttests), data collection procedure (including data procedure charts and explanations), ethical considerations, and data analysis (e.g., the statistical tests being used to test the hypotheses or answer the research questions, established probability value [e.g., p < 0.05]).

Results: Organize the findings around the hypotheses or research questions in chronological order; use tables and/or figures sparingly and only to assist comprehension. Present the descriptive statistics of the dependent variables across experimental conditions (e.g., means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis statistics, sample size, 95% confidence interval). When presenting the results of an inferential statistic (e.g., analysis of variance [ANOVA]) in a table, make sure to include the value and magnitude of the statistic (e.g., t- or F-value), degree of freedom being used, detected p-value(s)—whether or not significant, and the effect size associated with the statistical test (e.g., Cohen’s d, R2, partial eta squared). See also Larson-Hall and Plonsky (2015).

Discussion: Discuss and interpret the findings in relation to previous theoretical frameworks and research. Make sure that you do not interpret beyond the evidence. Avoid overreacting with nonstatistical findings of the study (as disappointing results) by pointing out the limitations of the study (e.g., instruments, procedures, participants) as the key reasons for not detecting the statistical significance. Also avoid rewriting the related literature and hypotheses to fit the nonsignificant findings. Remember that theory is only tentative, not certain. Interpret and evaluate the statistical effect size of the findings. Compare the findings to those of previous studies.

Conclusions: Consolidate the report by summarizing, explaining and discussing what the findings mean conceptually in light of the results, 6

TESOL QUARTERLY

26

causal-like hypotheses, and relevant theories. Discuss the theoretical, methodological, and/or pedagogical implications of the study. Discuss the potential limitations of the study and recommend directions for future research.

A Sample Study Ong and Zhang (2012) is a good example of a typical quantitative experimental study in language learning and teaching. The study investigates the effects of planning conditions (e.g., planning, prolonged planning), subplanning conditions (e.g., task-given, taskcontent–given), and revising conditions (initial-essay–accessible versus initial-essay–removed) on written text quality of English as a foreign language (EFL). In the literature section, the authors present the research problem aspect by aspect (pp. 376–381). The authors then present the operational definitions of the independent variables of interest and three experimental hypotheses (pp. 381–382). Through stratified random sampling, 108 Chinese learners were assigned to the experimental and control conditions (pp. 382–383). Within each experimental group, learners were also exposed to different subplanning conditions and revising conditions. The researchers present the research procedures and experimental conditions succinctly (pp. 383– 386). A range of statistical analyses including a 4 (planning conditions) 9 3 (subplanning conditions) factorial ANOVA were employed.

Organizing the results according to the hypotheses, the authors report on the statistical findings (including the descriptive statistics) and the statistical test (including the effect sizes, partial eta squared). The authors interpret and discuss their findings for each hypothesis. In the Conclusion section, the researchers summarise the findings for the three hypotheses in relation to previous studies. They conclude that the free-writing conditions significantly enhanced the quality of students’ writing and the task-content–given and task-contentorganization–given conditions led to significantly better text quality than did the task-given condition. The researchers discuss the limitations of the study and suggest directions for future research.

SURVEY RESEARCH Elvis Wagner Survey research is a research methodology in which the researcher does not attempt to manipulate or control the setting or environment; TESOL QUARTERLY RESEARCH GUIDELINES

27

7

instead, the goal is a systematic gathering of information, often from a large sample or even an entire population. In applied linguistics, survey research is commonly used to investigate psychological constructs such as learner beliefs, attitudes, motivation, and strategy use.

Issues Related to Methodology Survey research is a quantitative methodology useful in applied linguistics because it allows researchers to operationalize phenomena that are difficult to measure through other means. For example, it would be difficult or impossible for researchers to objectively measure an abstract, psychological construct like motivation using only observational or performance data. Instead, researchers can use survey research instruments (e.g., questionnaires or interviews) to measure these learners’ motivation. When writing up the research, the organization is similar to reporting other types of research, but factors especially relevant to quantitative survey research will be described here.

Introduction: The introduction should present the issue that is being researched, and make it evident why survey methodology was used to investigate the topic.

Methodology: Provide an overview of the survey research method used. This should include a description of the participants, instruments, and the approach to data collection.

Participants: In addition to describing the participants, the sampling procedure that is used must be provided. Fink (1995), Perry (2011), and Vogt (2007) provide extensive reviews of sampling procedures. If a convenience sample is used, this must be explicitly stated, and the limitations must be acknowledged not only in the Limitations section, but also in interpreting the results of the data analysis.

Instruments: Describe in detail the survey instruments used, including the development and validation process. If the research is using or adapting an instrument developed by other researchers, and the research context is similar to the context it was developed for, then the researcher can cite the original validation process. However, if the instrument is used in a different context, or if it is modified extensively, then it is necessary to describe how the instrument was validated for this new purpose. If a new instrument is developed, then the theoretical model and the development and trialing of the instrument should be provided in order to justify the instrument’s use. The language ability of the participants needs to be considered; if they are lower ability learners, it might be necessary to use instruments written in the first language (L1), and the process of translating (and reverse translating, if applicable) needs to be described (D€ ornyei, 2010).

8

TESOL QUARTERLY

28

Similarly, the reliability of the instrument must be provided (Wagner, 2015). Brown (2001) provides an overview of how to estimate the reliability of a questionnaire, including estimating the internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha). If using an already established instrument, it is necessary to report the reliability in comparison to the reliability numbers reported in other studies using the same instrument. It is advisable to include the instrument in the appendix so that readers can review it.

Data collection: Describe how the surveys were administered, and any problems that arose during collection. Describe how missing cases were addressed (e.g., if an expected participant was absent, what sort of follow-up was conducted to ensure adequate sampling).

Results: The Results section typically begins with a Descriptive Statistics subsection describing the data, its distribution and appropriateness for using parametric or nonparametric statistical analyses, and the reliability coefficients of the survey instruments.

Discussion: In the Discussion section, the results of the analyses should be interpreted for the reader, and reviewed in relation to how these findings compare to relevant findings in the literature.

A Sample Study An applied linguistics study that used survey research is Cheng et al.

(2014). They examined how motivation and anxiety related to test performance on three large-scale standardized English proficiency tests.

For their study, they used a questionnaire that had two main sections: a motivation section composed of 24 Likert items, and a test anxiety section consisting of 25 Likert items (the responses to the items were on a 6-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree). The motivation section was the Language Learning Orientations Scale, and the test anxiety scale was based on the Cognitive Test Anxiety Scale. In the Instruments section of their article, Cheng et al. describe how these two scales were originally developed, the validation process of the instruments, and the reliability reported by the original developers.

The questionnaire was completed by 1,281 test takers that took one of three tests: the Canadian Academic English Language (CAEL) assessment, the College English Test (CET), and the General English Proficiency Test (GEPT). The authors did not provide the sampling procedure for how these 1,281 participants were selected, other than to say that they “were representative of the population of those who normally take the three tests” (Cheng et al., 2014, p. 308). They did, however, explicitly report the reliability coefficients for the different groups of test takers on the different sections of the questionnaire.

TESOL QUARTERLY RESEARCH GUIDELINES

29

9

They analyzed the data from the questionnaire using a number of analyses, including descriptive statistics, ANOVA, factor analysis, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), and hierarchical regression.

From these analyses, they found that motivation and test anxiety do affect second language (L2) test performance, that the different groups of test takers reported different levels of anxiety and motivation, and concluded that test developers need to consider social and educational contexts when developing and validating tests.

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH Sue Starfield Ethnographic approaches to research in TESOL are interested in studying language learning within the social contexts in which it occurs and uncovering the meanings, understandings, and identities of the participants in communicative events taking place within these contexts. Ethnographic research involves the direct observation of human behaviour within particular settings and seeks to understand a social reality from the perspectives of those involved.

Issues Related to Methodology The origins of ethnography lie in the field of anthropology and its desire to understand the peoples of non-Western cultures; however, disciplines other than anthropology have adopted ethnographic perspectives and adapted these to studying communities within local settings. Under the influence of postmodernism in particular, there is now a considerable diversity in ethnographic research. Written ethnographic accounts are now rarely objective research reports but tend to clearly locate the researcher within the research process and demonstrate reflexivity in this regard. Researchers who see their role as encouraging social change may be more interested in critical ethnography, which seeks to understand language learning and use in terms of issues of race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, identity, unequal power relations, and so forth (Johns & Makalela, 2011; Talmy, 2013).

Despite this diversity, core tenets of an ethnographic approach can be discerned. Ethnographic research is typically small in scale and focused on a single setting or group. Researchers are encouraged to immerse themselves in the everyday activities of the group of people whose meaning-making practices (also known as emic or insider perspectives) they are attempting to understand. Hammersley (2010) 10

TESOL QUARTERLY

30

identifies key features of a broadly defined ethnographic approach to educational research which are relevant to TESOL. These include the following:

• • •

studying people’s behaviour in everyday rather than experimental contexts; gathering data from a range of sources chiefly by “observation and/or relatively informal conversation” (Hammersley, 2010, p.

387); and collecting data which are not based on preset categories or explicit hypotheses but arise out of a general interest in an issue or problem.

Instead of preset categories, interpretive categories and theoretical ideas emerge in the course of the research and analysis. Sustained engagement by the researcher in the research setting is also a defining feature of ethnographic research. The collection of data from multiple sources and the triangulation of these data is therefore central to ethnographic research and promotes validity or trustworthiness. In his year-long ethnographic study of migrant learners of English in a Singaporean school, De Costa (2014) gathered data from field notes, observations, interviews, audiorecorded and videorecorded classroom interactions, and artifacts. From these multiple sources he was able to craft the thick description recommended by Geertz (1973) that includes detailed descriptions of contexts in an attempt to re-create as closely as possible the research setting so that, instead of mere description, the researcher moves to interpretation and the reader is provided with a greater depth of understanding.

An emerging genre is autoethnography in which the autoethnographer uses the tools of autobiography to examine and understand cultural and personal experience (Canagarajah, 2012), authoring texts “in which people undertake to describe themselves in ways that engage with representations others have made of them” (Pratt, 1991, p. 35).

While Canagarajah adopts a personal, reflexive tenor, including narrative elements in his account, ethnographic accounts in applied linguistics have tended to adopt fairly conventional formats and thus far appear to show little evidence of researcher reflexivity (Starfield, 2013).

A Sample Study Christian Chun (2014) discusses a critical ethnographic study he carried out in an English for academic purposes (EAP) class in an intensive English program at a Canadian university over an

TESOL QUARTERLY RESEARCH GUIDELINES

31

11

11-month period. The article examines racialized textbook representations of immigrant success stories that fail to challenge institutionalised social inequities and identities. The ethnographic research involved observing an instructor’s classes and included audiorecording and videorecording the classes, interviews with the instructor and two students taking the class, 18 research discussion meetings with the instructor, classroom observation field notes, and curriculum material analysis. The data analysed in the article are drawn from two classroom lessons featuring a textbook character called Jennifer Wong and from a meetings with the instructor that took place between the two lessons.

After two months of observation, Chun became aware that the teacher was concerned about the students’ lack of engagement with the curriculum. He raised the possibility of sharing work with her on functional grammar and critical pedagogies that informed his own thinking and pedagogy. Their meetings became collaborative, research-oriented inquiries into the theoretical and practical aspects of implementing a critical pedagogies approach. This attempt to bridge the divide between critical pedagogy theorists and practitioners was, for Chun, part of the critical reflexive praxis in which they were both engaged. The regularly scheduled conversations with the instructor had the ethnographic aim of examining and reflecting on the teacher’s evolving approaches to her pedagogy and “document[ing] the effects of any changes in both her classroom practices and the resulting meaning-making by students” (Chun, 2014, p. 6).

In Chun’s study, we see, as outlined above, how the researcher’s engagement at the site allows for the research to evolve as new questions and issues emerge over time, allowing Chun to develop a mutually supportive dialogic relationship with the teacher. Chun clearly identifies himself as not being “an objective, neutral observer but . . . part of and implicated in the phenomena” (Chun, 2014, p. 6) being observed. He observed how many of the discussions with the teacher were taken up in subsequent lessons and discussed these observations with the teacher. He also shared with her the transcripts of all the classroom interactions as well as his initial analyses of the classroom data, and she offered her own observations and comments that further shaped the analysis. The relationship that developed enabled the teacher to disclose to Chun, after the first lesson, a racialising encounter with a teacher in her own school days that she reinterpreted in the light of her new-found, more critical, understandings. Chun too shared with her his own experiences of being racially positioned in the U.S. context. In a second lesson using the same material, the teacher opened up the discussion in a more critical way and the students became more engaged in the discussion.

12

TESOL QUARTERLY

32

Chunâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s choice of a critical ethnographic approach that is explicitly informed by theory allows him to illustrate the ways in which social, political, and historical contexts shape everyday communicative classrooms events.

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Rodney H. Jones Discourse analysis is a term used for a range of research methods that study the structure and function of texts and interactions in relation to the social or institutional contexts in which they occur. The main approaches to discourse analysis used by scholars of TESOL are conversation analysis (see, e.g., Waring, 2012), interactional sociolinguistics (see, e.g., Kayi-Aydar, 2014), genre analysis (see, e.g., Paltridge, 2014), narrative analysis (see, e.g., Barkhuizen, 2011), and critical discourse analysis (see, e.g., Hammond, 2006). More recently, newer approaches to discourse such as mediated and multimodal discourse analysis have also attracted attention among TESOL scholars (see, e.g., Hafner, 2014).

Issues Related to Methodology Nearly all approaches to discourse analysis used in TESOL adhere to a few key principles. First, discourse analysts are interested in language use beyond the clause or utterance. Second, discourse analysts generally take as their data naturally occurring texts or spoken interactions. Third, discourse analysts examine actual language use. Finally, discourse analysts are concerned with the relationship between language and the social and/or cultural contexts in which it is used.

Beyond these principles, particular approaches focus on different aspects of discourse, conversation analysis, for example, focusing on how people structure their participation in conversations in terms of turn taking, topic management, and repair; genre analysis, focusing on the ways texts and interactions are structured in relation to particular social practices or activities; and critical discourse analysis, focusing on how texts and interactions reďŹ&#x201A;ect underlying ideologies and relationships of power in institutions and societies. Articles using discourse analytical methods generally follow the following format.

Introduction: Discourse analysis articles generally begin with a clear statement of the problem or issue under investigation and a theoretical discussion of the particular approach being used.

TESOL QUARTERLY RESEARCH GUIDELINES

33

13

Methodology: This section provides an account of how the data have been collected, selected, and (in the case of spoken data) transcribed, and the specific procedures that were followed in the analysis.

Findings and discussion: The Findings section usually includes a clear description of the features or patterns found in the data along with exemplary passages or examples to illustrate these features or patterns.

Because discourse analysis normally involves some degree of interpretation, the Discussion and Findings sections are often combined. This is usually the most important part of the article, because the researcher must make a very strong case for the validity of his or her interpretation.

Conclusions: Such studies usually end with a conclusion that reiterates the main findings and discusses such things as the limitations of the study and its implication for pedagogical practice.

Researchers using discourse analysis must address a number of particular challenges if they are to produce successful studies. Most importantly, they must strive to show that their analysis involves systematic attention to linguistic features in the data rather than just impressionistic interpretations of what people say or write (Antaki, Billig, Edwards, & Potter, 2002). Researchers must also be aware of how methods of sampling and transcription can affect their findings (Green, Franquiz, & Dixon, 1997). Because discourse analysis is essentially an interpretative exercise, researchers must present convincing arguments to justify their interpretations and conclusions. Finally, discourse analysts must be sensitive to the ethical dimensions of their work, not just in terms of how they obtain informed consent from participants to record interactions or collect texts, but also in terms of how they represent participants’ speech and the contexts in which this speech occurs (Cameron, Frazer, Harvey, Rampton, & Richardson, 1992).

A Sample Study Waring (2012) is a good example of an article reporting on a discourse analytical study. Waring uses tools from conversation analysis to examine how yes/no questions (such as Do you understand?) function as understanding checks in language classrooms. The article begins with an introduction to the problem and a strong justification for the utility of conversation analysis in helping to shed light on it. Following this is a thorough review of previous work on understanding checks in language classrooms from a variety of theoretical perspectives, including previous work using conversation analysis. Next, the author presents a clear statement of her research questions—(1) How are the 14

TESOL QUARTERLY

34

understanding-check questions oriented to by the learners?, and (2) How do the teachers manage the understanding-check questions?— and a detailed account of her methods, including a description of the participants and setting, the procedures followed in data collection and transcription (including the kinds of equipment used), and data analysis procedures (including how the researcher selected segments of the data to analyse and the particular features she focused on). The longest section of the article is the one in which the findings are described and interpreted. Notably, this section is arranged in a deductive fashion in which the researcher states a number of analytical claims and proceeds to support these claims using examples from her data. Among her main findings are (1) that yes/no questions are often ineffective ways to check students’ understanding, because conventions governing these question types make affirming understanding the preferred response (Pomerantz, 1984), whether students really understand or not; (2) that lack of understanding is often communicated with hesitations or silence rather than with no responses; and (3) that often such questions have important functions in classroom discourse other than checking understanding, such as signaling transitions from one activity to another. In the final section of the article the author reiterates her main findings and how they address her research questions, discusses the validity and generalizability of the findings in relation to the theoretical principles of conversation analysis, and discusses the pedagogical implications of the study.

Whereas particular studies using approaches like critical discourse analysis may be structured slightly differently, all articles using discourse analysis should demonstrate a similar degree of analytical rigor and accountability to the theories of language and social interaction advanced by whatever method of discourse analysis the researcher chooses.

PRACTITIONER RESEARCH Anne Burns Practitioner research (PR) broadly reflects the notion that professionals working within their own workplace settings carry out systematic investigations on aspects of their daily practices. Educational PR draws on methodologies of action research, practitioner inquiry, classroom research, action learning, and reflective and exploratory practice. It is situated at the interface of practice and theory, where participants are moving between the two in a designed process of intervention in response to participant-identified issues and challenges.

TESOL QUARTERLY RESEARCH GUIDELINES

35

15

Issues Related to Methodology PR highlights participants’ role in inquiry (teachers, students, administrators, etc.) within daily educational settings and incorporates critical reflection and the systematic study of practice, informed by evidence that supports new understandings and/or changes in practice.

It overlaps with case study and ethnography, and incorporates iterative interventionist approaches, such as those adopted in action research, of planning (or identifying an issue), acting (conducting some kind of intervention related to the issue), observing (collecting forms of evidence), and reflecting (analysing the evidence and reflecting on the intervention experiences). Data collection is eclectic (qualitative and/ or quantitative), depending on the questions posed. PR genres (still a subject of considerable debate), may avoid the traditional sequence of research reporting (Background, Method/Procedure, Results, Discussion, Conclusions). In contrast, narrative forms of writing orient reporting toward personalization, subjectivity, and localization, and are valuable tools for writing (Burns, 2014).

The format and style of reporting is inevitably determined by the target audience. Teacher colleagues working in similar circumstances, and primarily interested in practical issues, are more likely to appreciate accounts presented through narrative genres (telling the story of the research) that focus on practical activities and outcomes, and on the researcher’s experiences, such as newsletter contributions (e.g., ELT Research, 2015), short recounts (e.g., Cambridge English Language Assessment, 2015) or poster presentations (e.g., Smith, Connelly, & Rebolledo, 2014). Here, with the proviso that agreed genres for reporting PR are still in flux, I focus on how PR might be presented to academic journals such as TESOL Quarterly.

Introduction: An introduction is likely to contain an orientation to the researcher’s theoretical and/or practical rationale for the research and the issues and questions driving the investigation. It may also outline the aims and purposes of the research.

Context/background: The context provides a rich introduction to the research setting to clarify the cultural, social, and educational circumstances and imperatives and describe the participants involved. It includes information about the teaching program and the roles played by the participants.

Strategies/phases of research/steps taken: Often using an autobiographical style, the researcher details the actions taken and how they address the issues under investigation. This section may unfold as a recount of the events and reactions of participants during various research phases, outlining the methods and tools used to gather evidence to support emerging

16

TESOL QUARTERLY

36

reflections and conclusions. These reflections often show how the research moved in new directions because of unanticipated outcomes.

Insights/findings/outcomes: The data are presented to illustrate the impact of the practical investigative strategies and empirical phases on the original issues the researcher identified. The discussion relates to strategies and interventions that were both successful and unsuccessful and illustrates why theoretical and/or practical changes in practice occurred.

Implications/reflections/discussion: PR involves the researcher in arriving at new understandings and insights about the educational situation, themselves as practitioners, and how the research has resulted in “a better world” for participants. This section revisits what was anticipated from the research and what actually eventuated. It also suggests how other practitioners might replicate the process or draw on what has been gained.

Readers will notice that the format above does not include a formal literature review. There is no firm reason why this section might not stand alone, but since PR is not driven foremost by formalised “received theory,” a more logical approach for many practitioners is to interweave references within the various sections as the researcher moves between theory and practice.

A Sample Study Despite the dramatic increase in interest in PR in recent decades, its almost nonexistent publication in TESOL Quarterly is telling. A search through the 20 issues published between 2010 and 2014 revealed only one (Murphey & Falout, 2010) that came close to orienting itself specifically to practitioner/action research, through “praxis, the unity of theory and action” (p. 819).

Murphey and Falout (2010) used a process called critical participatory looping (CPL), based on Freire’s (2007/1970) principles of participatory pedagogy and Dewey’s (2004/1916) frameworks of experience, description, analysis, and intelligent action as an alternative to individualistic member checking, to validate research in their own classrooms.

This process of “mutual validation” (p. 812) involved participants (students and teachers) in two classroom studies to review data and interpretations in a way that fed back into classroom practices. The introductory part of the article, referenced to the literature, theorises the concept of CPL and the researchers’ introduction of it into two classroom investigations. A Background section, providing further theoretical rationalisation for their approach, is followed by a section on utilizing CPL in research, explaining the intervention processes and practical steps used to exploit the potential of CPL for learning. The TESOL QUARTERLY RESEARCH GUIDELINES

37

17

next sections, Study One and Study Two, describe respectively how CPL (a) heightened both teachers’ and students’ sensitivity to previous diverse learning experiences (p. 815), and (b) disclosed attributions of motivation/demotivation among students such that student agency was enhanced (p. 816). The Discussion section highlights the sociocultural processes of meaning making—dialogic energy (Wertsch, 2006), languaging (Swain, 2006) and intersubjectivity (Guilar, 2006)—that, as a result, created learning processes “with rather than of” (p. 818) students.

The Limitations section acknowledges possible limiting factors in the investigative approach, and the Conclusions section reflects on the research’s theoretical and practical value in transforming second language acquisition (SLA) learning environments.

ETHICS Peter I. De Costa TESOL researchers generally observe the core principles of justice, respect for persons, and yielding optimal benefits while minimizing harm when conducting research. Ethics can be examined from a variety of perspectives: quantitative vs. qualitative (Kono, 2013) and through macroethical and microethical lenses (Kubanyiova, 2013). Macroethics refer to the procedural ethics of institutional review boards (IRBs), ethics committees, and professional organizations; microethics engage with the everyday ethical dilemmas confronted by researchers.

To date, much of the ethics literature has been shaped by macroethical guidelines (e.g., Chapelle & Duff, 2003). TESOL researchers have also turned to professional organizations for ethical direction (BAAL, 2006; TESOL International Association, 2014). These macroethical guidelines, however, need to be complemented by microethical governance, that is, actual examples of ways to negotiate ethical dilemmas in specific research contexts (De Costa, 2016).

Ethical practices need to be enacted before, during, and after a study is conducted. Even before a study begins, researchers play a vital role in educating ethics committees and co-investigators in different institutions because the type of consent varies according to institutional setting. Consent forms need to be made accessible and understandable, especially when working with under-researched populations (Ortega, 2005). On a microethical level, only valid and reliable instruments should be used, and researchers need to be respectful of participants’ time while exploring compensation possibilities.

During data collection and data analysis, a flexible approach in dealing with emergent ethical problems needs to be adopted. For example, 18

TESOL QUARTERLY

38

when administering a survey, research bias ought to be factored in.

Similarly, interviews should be viewed as a form of social practice involving discursive positioning and evaluation by both interviewer and interviewee. Underscoring the importance of building relationships with participants, Holliday (2015) reminds us that it may be unfair to develop relationships within a research setting that cannot be sustained on the participants’ own terms. Analyzing data also poses ethical demands. When analyzing quantitative data, researchers need to select appropriate statistical tests and understand the logic behind statistical analysis. Overall, transparency of method should be observed.

Shohamy (2004) warned about the potential misuse of research results, which may be used inappropriately by consumers for immoral purposes after a study is completed. One way to evade this problem is to foreground the statistical and practical significance of one’s findings. Another growing ethical concern of TESOL researchers is the “publish or perish” culture confronting the academy today. Student– faculty collaborative research, in particular, is prone to abuse. The macroethical publishing guidelines provided by IRB protocols, the American Psychological Association (2010), and journals such as TESOL Quarterly (http://www.tesol.org/read-and-publish/journals/tesolquarterly/tesol-quarterly-research-guidelines) provide useful guidelines on authorship.

A Sample Study De Costa (2014) illustrated the ethical problems encountered during a year-long ethnographic study involving adolescent immigrant students in an English-medium secondary school in Singapore.

Before the study. Upon securing the approval of the Ministry of Education and the support of the school principal and his participants, De Costa applied for IRB approval and distributed consent forms. His participants were given the option to withdraw at any point in the study without penalty. In reciprocation for their participation, he implemented a lesson study professional development project for the teachers. He provided his student participants supplementary English lessons, organized field trips, and furnished them with information about the Singapore education system.

During the study. De Costa’s enduring presence in the school helped offset any hasty and preliminary generalizations. Further, his holistic understanding of the school was enhanced by having multiple data sources. He was also reflexive about not taking advantage of the TESOL QUARTERLY RESEARCH GUIDELINES

39

19

hospitality of teachers. Lesson observations were staggered, and ample notice was given before turning up for class. Broad classroom interactions were videorecorded, and interactions involving his focal learners and their Singaporean teachers and peers were audiorecorded to respect the wishes of some of the Singaporean students, who felt uncomfortable being videotaped. Interviews were held at a time that was convenient for participants and in a private space. Overall, cycling back and forth between the different data sources enabled him to avoid drawing simplistic conclusions.

After the study. When reporting his ďŹ ndings to the principal and teachers at his research site, De Costa was selective in disclosing and brokering information in order to avoid harming his student and teacher participants. Upon completing his study, deliberate efforts were made to share his ďŹ ndings with a broader audience through journal publications and presentations at conferences organized by professional organizations.

CONCLUDING REMARKS The information included in these guidelines is meant to provide a broad overview of some of the key issues and approaches relevant to work published in TESOL Quarterly. These guidelines should be used in conjunction with other information available on the TESOL website (e.g., the TESOL Research Agenda), the TESOL Quarterly website, and other publications on research methods and academic publishing.

These guidelines include key references and information on a range of research approaches, but they do not include the full range of research methods and approaches available to researchers and do not provide comprehensive details about the ones that are included. Authors are strongly advised to read more about the particular research method that they are adopting, look up research studies that use that particular method, and use up-to-date references in their work.

THE AUTHORS Ahmar Mahboob is a senior lecturer in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Sydney. His recent research looks at language variation and its implications for educational, social, and national development. He also works in the areas of genre studies and nonnativeEnglish-speaking teacher (NNEST) issues. Ahmar is a co-editor of TESOL Quarterly.

20

TESOL QUARTERLY

40

Brian Paltridge is professor of TESOL at the University of Sydney and co-editor of TESOL Quarterly. His most recent publications are Ethnographic Perspectives on Academic Writing, with Sue StarďŹ eld and Christine Tardy (Oxford University Press, 2016) and Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, edited with Aek Phakiti (Bloomsbury, 2015).

Aek Phakiti is an associate professor in TESOL at the University of Sydney. His research and teaching focus on language testing and assessment, second language acquisition, and research methods in language studies.

Elvis Wagner is an associate professor of TESOL at Temple University in Philadelphia, United States. His research focuses primarily on second language assessment, especially the assessment of second language listening and oral communicative competence.

Sue StarďŹ eld is a professor in the School of Education and Director of the Learning Centre at the University of New South Wales, Australia.

Her research focuses on doctoral writing, writing for publication, identity in academic writing, and ethnographic research methods.

Rodney H. Jones is a professor of sociolinguistics and new media at the University of Reading, England. His main research interests include discourse analysis, computer-mediated communication, health communication, and language and creativity.

Anne Burns is a professor of TESOL in the School of Education at the University of New South Wales, Australia. She is also professor emerita at Aston University, Birmingham, England, and an honorary professor at the University of Sydney.

Peter I. De Costa teaches on the doctoral Second Language Studies and Masters in TESOL programs at Michigan State University in East Lansing, United States. He is the editor of the Routledge volume Ethics in Applied Linguistics Research: Language Researcher Narratives (2016).

REFERENCES American Psychological Association (APA). (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Antaki, C., Billig, M., Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (2002). Discourse analysis means doing analysis: A critique of six analytic shortcomings. Discourse Analysis Online, 1(1). Retrieved from http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/previous/v1_n1.html

TESOL QUARTERLY RESEARCH GUIDELINES

41

21

Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Narrative knowledging in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 391–414. doi:10.5054/tq.2011.261888 Blom, E., & Unsworth, S. (Eds.). (2010). Experimental methods in language acquisition. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.

British Association for Applied Linguistics (BAAL). (2006). Recommendations on good practice in applied linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.baal.org.uk/about_goodpractice_full.pdf Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Burns, A. (2014). “Systematic inquiry made public”: Teacher reports from a national action research program. Research Notes, 56, 4–6. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/170903-research-notes-56-document.pdf Cambridge English Language Assessment. (2015). English Australia/Cambridge English Action Research Program 5. Research Notes, 60. Retrieved from http:// www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/228055-research-notes-60.pdf Cameron, D., Frazer, E., Harvey, P., Rampton, M. B. H., & Richardson, K. (1992).

Researching language: Issues of power and method. London, England: Routledge.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2012). Teacher development in a global profession: An autoethnography. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 258–279. doi:10.1002/tesq.18 Chapelle, C., & Duff, P. (Eds.). (2003). Some guidelines for conducting quantitative and qualitative research in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 157–178. doi:10.2307/3588471 Cheng, L., Klinger, D., Fox, J., Doe, C., Jin, Y., & Wu, J. (2014). Motivation and test anxiety in test performance across three testing contexts: The CAEL, CET, and GEPT. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 300–330. doi:10.1002/tesq.105 Chun, C. (2014). Addressing racialized multicultural discourses in an EAP textbook: Working toward a critical pedagogies approach. TESOL Quarterly, doi:10.1002/tesq.216 De Costa, P. I. (2014). Making ethical decisions in an ethnographic study. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 413–422. doi:10.1002/tesq.163 De Costa, P. I. (Ed.). (2016). Ethics in applied linguistics research: Language researcher narratives. New York, NY: Routledge.

Dewey, J. (2004). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Continuum. (Original work published 1916.)

D€ ornyei, Z., with Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

ELT Research. (2015). The newsletter of the IATEFL Research Special Interest Group, (January), 30. Retrieved from http://resig.weebly.com/issue-30.html Fink, A. (1995). How to sample in surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Freire, P. (2007). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. Ramos, Trans). New York, NY: Continuum. (Original work published 1970.)

Gass, S. (2015). Experimental research. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp. 101–117). London, England: Bloomsbury.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Green, J., Franquiz, M., & Dixon, C. (1997). The myth of the objective transcript: Transcribing as a situated act. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 172–176. doi:10.2307/ 3587984 Guilar, J. D. (2006). Intersubjectivity and dialogic instruction. Radical Pedagogy.

Retrieved from http://www.radicalpedagogy.org/radicalpedagogy/Intersubjectivity_and_Dialogic_Instruction.html

22

TESOL QUARTERLY

42

Hafner, C. A. (2014). Embedding digital literacies in English language teaching: Students’ digital video projects as multimodal ensembles. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 655–685. doi:10.1002/tesq.138 Hammersley, M. (2010). Ethnography. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 386–391). Oxford, England: Elsevier.

Hammond, K. (2006). More than a game: A critical discourse analysis of a racial inequality exercise in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 545–571. doi:10.2307/ 40264543 Holliday, A. (2015). Qualitative research and analysis. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp. 49–62). London, England: Bloomsbury.

Hudson, T., & Llosa, L. (2015). Design issues and inference in experimental L2 research. Language Learning, 65, 76–96. doi:10.1111/lang.12113 Johns, A. M., & Makalela, L. (2011). Needs analysis, critical ethnography, and context: Perspectives from the client—and the consultant. In D. Belcher, A. M. Johns, & B. Paltridge (Eds.), New directions in English for specific purposes research (pp. 197–221). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Kayi-Aydar, H. (2014). Social positioning, participation, and second language learning: Talkative students in an academic ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 686–714. doi:10.1002/tesq.139 Kono, N. (2013). Ethics in research. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Kubanyiova, M. (2013). Ethical debates in research on language and interaction.

In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: WileyBlackwell.

Kwan, B. S. C. (2010). An investigation of instruction in research publishing in doctoral programs: The Hong Kong case. Higher Education, 59(1), 55–68. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9233-x Larson-Hall, J., & Herrington, R. (2010). Improving data analysis in second language acquisition by utilizing modern developments in applied statistics. Applied Linguistics, 31, 368–390. doi:10.1093/applin/amp038 Larson-Hall, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). Reporting and interpreting quantitative research findings: What gets reported and recommendations for the field. Language Learning, 65(special issue), 127–159. doi:10.1111/lang.12115 Murphey, T., & Falout, J. (2010). Critical participatory looping: Dialogic member checks with whole classes. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 811–821. doi:10.5054/ tq.2010.237337 Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2012). Effects of the manipulation of cognitive process on EFL writers’ text quality. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 375–398. doi:10.1002/ tesq.55 Ortega, L. (2005). For what and for whom is our research? The ethical as transformative lens in instructed SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 427–443. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00315.x Paltridge, B. (2014). Genre and second language academic writing. Language Teaching, 47, 303–318. doi:10.1017/S0261444814000068 Perry, F. (2011). Researching applied linguistics: Becoming a discerning consumer (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Phakiti, A. (2014). Experimental research methods in language learning. London, England: Bloomsbury.

Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.),

TESOL QUARTERLY RESEARCH GUIDELINES

43

23

Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 91, 33–40.

Purpura, J. E., Brown, J. D., & Schoonen, R. (2015). Improving the validity of quantitative measures in applied linguistics research. Language Learning, 65, 37– 75. doi:10.1111/lang.12112 Shohamy, E. (2004). Reflections on research guidelines, categories, and responsibility. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 728–731. doi:10.2307/3588291 Smith, R., Connelly, T., & Rebolledo, P. (2014). Teacher-research as continuing professional development: A project with Chilean secondary schools. In D. Hayes (Ed.), Innovations in the continuing professional development of English language teachers (pp. 111–132). London, England: The British Council. Retrieved from http://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/sites/ec/files/E168%20Innovations%20in%20CPD_FINAL%20V2%20web.pdf Starfield, S. (2013). Researcher reflexivity. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–7). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning (pp. 95–108).

London, England: Continuum.

Talmy, S. (2013). Critical ethnography. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–6). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

TESOL International Association. (2014). TESOL International Association research agenda 2014. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Vogt, W. (2007). Quantitative research methods for professionals. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Wagner, E. (2015). Survey research. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp. 83–100). London, England: Bloomsbury.

Waring, H. Z. (2012). “Any questions?”: Investigating the nature of understandingchecks in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 722–752. doi:10.1002/ tesq.48 Wertsch, J. V. (2006). Generalized collective dialogue and advanced foreign language capacities. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning (pp. 58–71).

London, England: Continuum.

24

TESOL QUARTERLY

44

IMPACT FACTOR

IMPACT FACTORS THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACT FACTORS

Impact factors were created to help librarians and others make decision based on the importance of the journal. The journalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s importance is measured by how often it has been cited, which is the ultimate test of the value of an academic paper.

Impact factors can vary across disciplines, so comparisons can only be made within a field. Today impact factors are used for tenure and promotion as well as for bragging rights; therefore, editors often consider it impotent to receive one. Journals without an impact factor may be avoided by researchers who are concerned about where they publish.

While there are official organizations who calculate impact factors, they are easy to fake. A journal can claim to have an impact factor but, in fact, simply made one up. Therefore, researchers must when judging a journal only by its impact factor.

46

On impact

Nature and the Nature journals are diversifying their presentation of performance indicators.

M

etrics are intrinsically reductive and, as such, can be dangerous. Relying on them as a yardstick of performance, rather than as a pointer to underlying achievements and challenges, usually leads to pathological behaviour. The journal impact factor is just such a metric.

During a talk just over a decade ago, its co-creator, Eugene Garfield, compared his invention to nuclear energy. “I expected it to be used constructively while recognizing that in the wrong hands it might be abused,” he said. “It did not occur to me that ‘impact’ would one day become so controversial.”

As readers of Nature probably know, journal impact factors measure the average number of citations, per published article, for papers pub- lished over a two-year period. Journals do not calculate their impact factor directly — it is calculated and published by Thomson Reuters. Publishers have long celebrated strong impact factors. It is, after all, one of the measures of their output’s significance — as far as it goes.

But the impact factor is crude and also misleading. It effectively undervalues papers in disciplines that are slow-burning or have lower characteristic citation rates. Being an arithmetic mean, it gives disproportionate significance to a few very highly cited papers, and it falsely implies that papers with only a few citations are relatively unimportant.

These shortcomings are well known, but that has not prevented scientists, funders and universities from overly relying on impact factors, or publishers (Nature’s included, in the past) from excessively promoting them. As a result, researchers use the impact factor to help them decide which journals to submit to — to an extent that is undermining good science. The resulting pressures and disappointments are nothing but demoralizing, and in badly run labs can encourage sloppy research that, for example, fails to test assumptions thoroughly or to take all the data into account before submitting big claims.

The most pernicious aspect of this culture, as Nature has pointed out in the past, has been a practice of using journal impact factors as a basis for assessment of individual researchers’ achievements. For example, when compiling a shortlist from several hundred job appli- cants, how easy it is to rule out anyone without a high-impact-factor journal in their CV. How to militate against such a metrics-obsessed culture?

First, an approach that some have applied in the past and whose time has surely come. Applicants for any job, promotion or funding should be asked to include a short summary of what they consider their achievements to be, rather than just to list their publications. This may sound simplistic, but some who have tried it find that it properly focuses attention on the candidate rather than on journals.

Second, journals need to be more diverse in how they display their performance. Accordingly, Nature has updated its online journal metrics page to include an array of additional bibliometric data.

As a part of this update, for Nature, the Nature journals and Scientific Reports, we have calculated the two-year median — the median number of citations that articles published in 2013 and 2014 received in 2015. The median is not subject to distortion by outliers. (The two-year median is lower than the two-year impact factor: 24, down from 38, for Nature, for example.) For details, see go.nature.com/2arq7om.

Providing these extra metrics will not address the problem mentioned above of the diversity in citation characteristics between disciplines. Nor will it make much of a dent in impact-factor obsessions. But we hope that it will at least provide a better means of assessing our output, and put the impact factor in a better perspective.

However, w hether y ou a re assessing j ournals o r r esearchers, n othing beats reading the papers and forming your own opinion. ■ p , d e t i m i L rs e h is l b u P n a il l 4 6 6 | N AT U R E | V O L 5 3 5 | 2 8 J U LY 2 0 1 6

Thomson Reuters | The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor | Science

Contact Us

Explanation

of Impact Factor

SCIENCE SCIENCE HOME

FREE SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES

ESSAYS

The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor

SCIENCE

THE THOMSON REUTERS IMPACT FACTOR

PRODUCTS & SERVICES

This essay was originally published in the Current Contents print editions June 20,

SCHOLARLY RESEARCH, PUBLISHING AND ANALYSIS LIFE SCIENCES SOLUTIONS

1994, when Thomson Reuters was known as The Institute for Scientific Information® (ISI®).

See also: "The agony and the ecstasy: the history and meaning of the Journal Impact Factor"

SUPPORT SYSTEMS BIOLOGY HOME CONTACT SCIENCE OFFICE LOCATIONS FREE SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES Essays Citation-Based and Descriptor-Based Search Strategies Cited Title Unification Expected Citation Rates, Half-Life, and Impact Ratios Fifty years of citation indexing and analysis History of Citation Indexing How the Article Summary Interface Can Get You There Journal Evaluation and Source Coverage Policies for Biosis Products Journal self-citation in the Journal Citation Reports Linking Literatures: An Intriguing Use of the Citation Index

Librarians and information scientists have been evaluating journals for at least 75 years. Gross and Gross conducted a classic study of citation patterns in the '20s.1 Others, including Estelle Brodman with her studies in the '40s of physiology journals and subsequent reviews of the process, followed this lead.2 However, the advent of the Thomson Reuters citation indexes made it possible to do computer-compiled statistical reports not only on the output of journals but also in terms of citation frequency. And in the '60s we invented the journal "impact factor." After using journal statistical data in-house to compile the Science Citation Index® (SCI®) for many years, Thomson Reuters began to publish Journal Citation Reports® (JCR®)3 in 1975 as part of the SCI and the Social Sciences Citation Index® (SSCI®).

Informed and careful use of these impact data is essential. Users may be tempted to jump to ill-formed conclusions based on impact factor statistics unless several caveats are considered.

DEFINITION The JCR provides quantitative tools for ranking, evaluating, categorizing, and comparing journals. The impact factor is one of these; it is a measure of the frequency with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a particular year or period. The annual JCR impact factor is a ratio between citations and recent citable items published. Thus, the impact factor of a journal is calculated by dividing the number of current year citations to the source items published in that journal during the previous two years (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Calculation for journal impact factor.

A= total cites in 1992 B= 1992 cites to articles published in 1990-91 (this is a subset of A) C= number of articles published in 1990-91 D= B/C = 1992 impact factor

Mapping the Precursors of Modern Structural Biology

Reaction Similarity and Retrieval

The impact factor is useful in clarifying the significance of absolute (or total) citation frequencies. It eliminates some of the bias of such counts which favor large journals over small ones, or frequently issued journals over less frequently issued ones, and of older journals over newer ones. Particularly in the latter case such journals have a larger citable body of literature than smaller or younger journals. All things being equal, the larger the number of previously published articles, the more often a journal will be cited.4, 5

The Globalization of Web of Science

APPLICATIONS

Monitoring Complex Literature: the Advantages of Using a Multidisciplinary Database

Research Fronts Scientography

There have been many innovative applications of journal impact factors. The most common involve market research for publishers and others. But, primarily, JCR provides librarians and researchers with a tool for the management of library journal

47 http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/[1/27/2013 11:11:24 PM]

Search

Thomson Reuters | The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor | Science

Tailoring the Search

collections. In market research, the impact factor provides quantitative evidence for

The Agony and the Ecstasy: the history and the meaning of the Journal Impact Factor

editors and publishers for positioning their journals in relation to the competitionâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; especially others in the same subject category, in a vertical rather than a horizontal or intradisciplinary comparison. JCRÂŽ data may also serve advertisers interested in evaluating the potential of a specific journal.

The Application of Citation Indexing to Journals Management

Perhaps the most important and recent use of impact is in the process of academic

The Concept of Citation Indexing: Unique and Innovative Tool for Navigating the Research Literature The Relationship Between Citing and Cited Publications: A Question of Relatedness The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor The Thomson Reuters Journal Selection Process Using the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor Where Was This Paper Cited?

evaluation. The impact factor can be used to provide a gross approximation of the prestige of journals in which individuals have been published. This is best done in conjunction with other considerations such as peer review, productivity, and subject specialty citation rates. As a tool for management of library journal collections, the impact factor supplies the library administrator with information about journals already in the collection and journals under consideration for acquisition. These data must also be combined with cost and circulation data to make rational decisions about purchases of journals.

The impact factor can be useful in all of these applications, provided the data are used sensibly. It is important to note that subjective methods can be used in evaluating journals as, for example, by interviews or questionnaires. In general, there is good agreement on the relative value of journals in the appropriate categories.

However, the JCR makes possible the realization that many journals do not fit easily into established categories. Often, the only differentiation possible between two or three small journals of average impact is price or subjective judgments such as peer review.

USING THE IMPACT FACTOR WISELY Life Sciences Resources Drug Reports

TRAINING CONFERENCES & EVENTS

Thomson Reuters does not depend on the impact factor alone in assessing the usefulness of a journal, and neither should anyone else. The impact factor should not be used without careful attention to the many phenomena that influence citation rates, as for example the average number of references cited in the average article.

The impact factor should be used with informed peer review. In the case of academic evaluation for tenure it is sometimes inappropriate to use the impact of the source journal to estimate the expected frequency of a recently published article. Again, the impact factor should be used with informed peer review. Citation frequencies for individual articles are quite varied.

There are many artifacts that can influence a journal's impact and its ranking in journal lists, not the least of which is the inclusion of review articles or letters. This is illustrated in a study of the leading medical journals published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

6

REVIEW ARTICLES Review articles generally are cited more frequently than typical research articles because they often serve as surrogates for earlier literature, especially in journals that discourage extensive bibliographies. In the JCR system any article containing more than 100 references is coded as a review. Articles in "review" sections of research or clinical journals are also coded as reviews, as are articles whose titles contain the word "review" or "overview."

The Source Data Listing in the JCR not only provides data on the number of reviews in each journal but also provides the average number of references cited in that journal's articles. Naturally, review journals have some of the highest impact factors.

Often, the first-ranked journal in the subject category listings will be a review journal.

For example, under Biochemistry, the journal topping the list is Annual Review of Biochemistry with an impact factor of 35.5 in 1992.

METHODS ARTICLES It is widely believed that methods articles attract more citations than other types of articles. However, this is not in fact true. Many journals devoted entirely to methods do not achieve unusual impact. But it is true that among the most cited articles in the literature there are some super classics that give this overall impression. It should be noted that the chronological limitation on the impact calculation eliminates the bias super classics might introduce. Absolute citation frequencies are biased in this way, but, on occasion, a hot paper might affect the current impact of a journal.

VARIATION BETWEEN DISCIPLINES 48 http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/[1/27/2013 11:11:24 PM]

Thomson Reuters | The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor | Science Different specialties exhibit different ranges of peak impact. That is why the JCRÂŽ provides subject category listings. In this way, journals may be viewed in the context of their specific field. Still, a five-year impact may be more useful to some users and can be calculated by combining the statistical data available from consecutive years of the JCR (see Figure 2). It is rare to find that the ranking of a journal will change significantly within its designated category unless the journal's influence has indeed changed.

Figure 2: Calculation for five-year impact factor: One year of citations to five years of articles.

A= citations in 1992 to articles published in 1987-91 B= articles published in 1987-91 C= A/B = five-year impact factor

An alternative five-year impact can be calculated based on adding citations in 198892 articles published in the same five-year period. And yet another is possible by selecting one or two earlier years as factor "B" above.

ITEM-BY-ITEM IMPACT While Thomson Reuters does manually code each published source item, it is not feasible to code individually the 12 million references we process each year.

Therefore, journal citation counts in JCR do not distinguish between letters, reviews, or original research. So, if a journal publishes a large number of letters, there will usually be a temporary increase in references to those letters. Letters to the Lancet may indeed be cited more often that letters to JAMA or vice versa, but the overall citation count recorded would not take this artifact into account. Detailed computerized article-by-article analyses or audits can be conducted to identify such artifacts.

CITED-ONLY JOURNALS IN THE JCR Some of the journals listed in the JCR are not citing journals, but are cited-only journals. This is significant when comparing journals by impact factor because the self-citations from a cited-only journal are not included in its impact factor calculation.

Self-citations often represent about 13% of the citations that a journal receives. The cited-only journals with impact factors in the JCR Journal Rankings and Subject Category Listing may be ceased or suspended journals, superseded titles, or journals that are covered in the science editions of Current ContentsÂŽ, but not a citation index.

Users can identify cited-only journals by checking the JCR Citing Journal Listing.

Furthermore, users can establish analogous impact factors, (excluding self-citations), for the journals they are evaluating using the data given in the Citing Journal Listing (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Calculation for impact factor revised to exclude self-citations.

A= citations in 1992 to articles published in 1990-91 B= 1992 self-citations to articles published in 1990-91 C= A - B = total citations minus self-citations to recent articles D= number of articles published 1990-91 E= revised impact factor (C/D) (see Table 1 for numerical example)

TITLE CHANGE A user's knowledge of the content and history of the journal studied is very important for appropriate interpretation of impact factors. Situations such as those mentioned above and others such as title change are very important, and often misunderstood, considerations.

A title change affects the impact factor for two years after the change is made. The old and new titles are not unified unless the titles are in the same position alphabetically. In the first year after the title change, the impact is not available for the

49 http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/[1/27/2013 11:11:24 PM]

Thomson Reuters | The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor | Science new title unless the data for old and new can be unified. In the second year, the impact factor is split. The new title may rank lower than expected and the old title may rank higher than expected because only one year of source data is included in its calculation (see Figure 4). Title changes for the current year and the previous year are listed in the JCR® guide.

Figure 4: Unified 1992 impact factor calculation for title change.

A=1992 citations to articles published in 1990-91 (a1 + a2) A1=those for new title A2=those for superseded title B=number of articles published in 1990-91 (B1 + B2) B1=those for new title B2=those for superseded title C=unified impact factor (A/B) C1=A1/B1 = JCR® factor for the new title C2=A2/B2 = JCR factor for the superseded title

CONCLUSIONS The impact factor is a very useful tool for evaluation of journals, but it must be used discreetly. Considerations include the amount of review or other types of material published in a journal, variations between disciplines, and item-by-item impact. The journal's status in regard to coverage in the Thomson Reuters databases as well as the occurrence of a title change are also very important. In the next essay we will look at some examples of how to put tools for journal evaluation into use.

Dr. Eugene Garfield Founder and Chairman Emeritus, ISI

Self-Citation study of journals in the Reproductive Systems category of the 1992 SCI® Journal Citation Reports® (JCR®).

Table 1: Calculation of impact factors without self-citations.

Reproductive Systems Journals

(A/D) JCR Impact

A Cites in 1992 to 1990-91

B Selfcites in 1992

C (A-B) Minus Self-

Factor

Articles

to 1990-91

Cites

D Articles Published 1990-91

E (C/D) Revised Impact Factor

Articles AM J REPROD IMMUNOL

1.931

224

54

170

116

1.466

ANIM REPROD SCI

0.701

110

23

87

157

0.554

BIOL REPROD

3.257

726

265

461

530

2.757

EUR J OBSTET GYN R B

0.449

169

19

150

376

0.399

HUM REPROD

1.328

627

*

627

472

1.328

INVERTEBR REPROD DEV

0.899

98

8

90

109

0.826

J REPROD FERTIL

2.211

1287

209

1078

582

1.852

J REPROD IMMUNOL

1.442

137

20

117

95

1.232

MOL REPROD DEV

2.003

597

107

490

298

1.644

1.765

30

*

30

17

1.765

OXFORD REV

50 http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/[1/27/2013 11:11:24 PM]

Thomson Reuters | The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor | Science REPROD B REPROD DOMEST ANIM REPROD FERT DEVELOP REPROD NUTR DEV REPROD TOXICOL SEMIN REPROD ENDOCR SEX PLANT REPROD

0.565

39

2

37

69

0.536

1.493

221

40

181

148

1.223

0.579

84

10

74

145

0.510

0.859

79

26

53

92

0.576

0.347

25

*

25

72

0.347

1.659

136

38

98

82

1.195

* In 1992, Human Reproduction was not covered in a citation index, but has been added to the Science Citation Index (SCI) for 1993. The 1992 issue of Oxford Reviews of Reproductive Biology was not received in time to process its citations for Thomson Reuters 1992 database. Seminars in Reproductive Endocrinology is not covered in a citation index.

Table 2: Comparison of JCR impact factors to revised impact factors.

Journals ranked by an impact factor

Journals ranked by JCR impact factor: calculated without self-citations:

1

BIOL REPROD

3.257

BIOL REPROD

2.757

2

J REPROD FERTIL

2.211

J REPROD FERTIL

1.852

3

MOL REPROD DEV

2.003

OXFORD REV REPROD B

1.765

4

AM J REPROD IMMUNOL

1.931

MOL REPROD DEV

1.644

5

OXFORD REV REPROD B

1.765

AM J REPROD IMMUNOL

1.466

6

SEX PLANT REPROD

1.659

HUM REPROD

1.328

7

REPROD FERT DEVELOP

1.493

J REPROD IMMUNOL

1.232

8

J REPROD IMMUNOL

1.442

REPROD FERT DEVELOP

1.223

9

HUM REPROD

1.328

SEX PLANT REPROD

1.195

10

INVERTEBR REPROD DEV

0.899

INVERTEBR REPROD DEV

0.826

11

REPROD TOXICOL

0.859

REPROD TOXICOL

0.576

12

ANIM REPROD SCI

0.701

ANIM REPROD SCI

0.554

13

REPROD NUTR DEV

0.579

REPROD DOMEST ANIM

0.536

14

REPROD DOMEST ANIM

0.565

REPROD NUTR DEV

0.510

15

EUR J OBSTET GYN R B

0.449

EUR J OBSTET GYN R B

0.399

16

SEMIN REPROD ENDOCR

0.347

SEMIN REPROD ENDOCR

0.347

References 1.Gross P L K, Gross E M. College libraries and chemical education. Science 66:385-9, 1927.

2.Brodman E. Methods of choosing physiology journals. Bull. Med. Libr. Assn.

32:479-83, 1944.

51 http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/[1/27/2013 11:11:24 PM]

THIS WEEK EDITORIALS Patients and their families report difficulties in applying for such programmes, and say that they rarely receive responses. Companies that withhold a drug — because it is in short supply or not right for a patient — can find themselves on the receiving end of critical social-media campaigns highlighting individual patients. And firms worry that if a person dies or is harmed while taking a drug, it could hurt the drug’s chances of being approved. No one knows how many requests parents make and how often companies approve them, but anecdotally, firms often deny drugs on the grounds that they have not been tested in children.

Proper clinical trials for childhood cancer drugs are scarce. Designing a clinical trial is never simple, but adding children to the picture complicates the process immensely. Children are not just ‘small adults’ — they metabolize drugs in very different ways. It is difficult to predict from adult or animal studies whether a chemotherapy drug will be more or less toxic in a child, and at what dose. The process of obtaining informed consent for children participating in a trial can also be more complicated. And companies fear that the death of a child — even if unrelated to the treatment — could bring bad publicity for a new drug.

Recent years have seen attempts to make more drugs available to treat children. In the United States, a 2003 law known as the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) requires that companies develop a plan for how they will test experimental drugs in children, although many trials are exempted. A second law, called the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, motivates companies to perform paediatric clinical trials by granting an extra six months of market exclusivity for the adult drug.

Overall, these laws have been successful, leading to hundreds of drug labels being updated with information for use in children. But legal loopholes often prevent children with cancer from accessing new drugs.

For instance, therapies for conditions that do not affect children — such as Alzheimer’s disease — are exempt from the PREA. And exemptions

intended for such diseases have been broadly applied to cancer. For example, therapies that are being trialled in adults with breast cancer are exempted because children do not get that cancer, even if the drug could treat a childhood cancer in a different organ.

Also exempted are drugs for ‘orphan’ diseases that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. The number of orphan designations has skyrocketed in recent years — the improved ability to define the molecular basis of an individual’s “Legal loopholes cancer means that diagnoses have become often prevent increasingly subdivided, and the majority of approved cancer drugs now carry this children with orphan designation. cancer from Legislation is now attempting to close those accessing new loopholes. The Research to Accelerate Cures drugs.” and Equity (RACE) for Children Act, introduced to the US Congress on 14 July, would require companies to apply the PREA to any therapy with a molecular target that is relevant to both an adult and a childhood disease. It would also end the exemption for orphan diseases. Last July, the European Medicines Agency passed similar rules to make it more difficult for companies to avoid testing drugs in children. This applies when the disease has a common mechanism in adults and children, unless the drug is likely to be unsafe in children.

With Congress now out of session and focused on the upcoming US election, the RACE for Children Act is unlikely to advance before next year. But when lawmakers pick it up, they should also address problems with compassionate-use programmes — and ensure a transparent and useful process for people to gain access to unapproved drugs. They should also encourage companies to make more drugs available through market incentives, and provide increased protection should something go wrong. ■

On impact

them decide which journals to submit to — to an extent that is undermining good science. The resulting pressures and disappointments are nothing but demoralizing, and in badly run labs can encourage sloppy research that, for example, fails to test assumptions thoroughly or to take all the data into account before submitting big claims.

The most pernicious aspect of this culture, as Nature has pointed out in the past, has been a practice of using journal impact factors as a basis for assessment of individual researchers’ achievements. For example, when compiling a shortlist from several hundred job applicants, how easy it is to rule out anyone without a high-impact-factor journal in their CV. How to militate against such a metrics-obsessed culture?

First, an approach that some have applied in the past and whose time has surely come. Applicants for any job, promotion or funding should be asked to include a short summary of what they consider their achievements to be, rather than just to list their publications. This may sound simplistic, but some who have tried it find that it properly focuses attention on the candidate rather than on journals.

Second, journals need to be more diverse in how they display their performance. Accordingly, Nature has updated its online journal metrics page to include an array of additional bibliometric data.

As a part of this update, for Nature, the Nature journals and Scientific Reports, we have calculated the two-year median — the median number of citations that articles published in 2013 and 2014 received in 2015.

The median is not subject to distortion by outliers. (The two-year median is lower than the two-year impact factor: 24, down from 38, for Nature, for example.) For details, see go.nature.com/2arq7om.

Providing these extra metrics will not address the problem mentioned above of the diversity in citation characteristics between disciplines. Nor will it make much of a dent in impact-factor obsessions. But we hope that it will at least provide a better means of assessing our output, and put the impact factor in a better perspective.

However, whether you are assessing journals or researchers, nothing beats reading the papers and forming your own opinion. ■

Nature and the Nature journals are diversifying their presentation of performance indicators.

M

etrics are intrinsically reductive and, as such, can be dangerous. Relying on them as a yardstick of performance, rather than as a pointer to underlying achievements and challenges, usually leads to pathological behaviour. The journal impact factor is just such a metric.

During a talk just over a decade ago, its co-creator, Eugene Garfield, compared his invention to nuclear energy. “I expected it to be used constructively while recognizing that in the wrong hands it might be abused,” he said. “It did not occur to me that ‘impact’ would one day become so controversial.”

As readers of Nature probably know, journal impact factors measure the average number of citations, per published article, for papers published over a two-year period. Journals do not calculate their impact factor directly — it is calculated and published by Thomson Reuters.

Publishers have long celebrated strong impact factors. It is, after all, one of the measures of their output’s significance — as far as it goes.

But the impact factor is crude and also misleading. It effectively undervalues papers in disciplines that are slow-burning or have lower characteristic citation rates. Being an arith­metic mean, it gives disproportionate significance to a few very highly cited papers, and it falsely implies that papers with only a few citations are relatively unimportant.

These shortcomings are well known, but that has not prevented scientists, funders and universities from overly relying on impact factors, or publishers (Nature’s included, in the past) from excessively promoting them. As a result, researchers use the impact factor to help

. d e v r e s e r s t h g i r l l A . e r u t a N r e g n i r p S f o t r a p , d e t i m i L s r e h s i l b u P n a l l i m c a M 6 1 0 2 ©

4 6 6 | N AT U R E | V O L 5 3 5 | 2 8 J U LY 2 0 1 6

BOOK PROPOSALS

For jobs at Research I universities, like Ohio State, some departments will require a book to get tenure. In these cases, books are valued more than even papers in peer-reviewed journals. However, not every department values books in this way. The math department, for example, values papers more than books, so it is important to find out how these different forms of publications are valued.

A book proposal is different than a paper. Normally, you need to submit a proposal to a publisher.

Books are usually published by either commercial publishers or university presses. It’s not clear whether one type of publisher will give you more prestige than another. You need to choose a publishers who normally publish boos in that area.

Each publisher has their own format for a proposal. Usually it asks you what the book is about, are there competing books (which could show you are doing something unique or something popular), who is your audience, the length and organization of the book, and often some sample chapters.

Although I have never done this, it may be possible to send your proposal to more than one publisher at a time. However, in the proposal, you might be asked about this.

Your first book usually comes from your dissertation, so it is important, if you are interested in creating books, to organize your dissertation to easily turn it in to a dissertation. However, dissertations are not the same as books, so it may take you much time to revised. Blooks can also be created from papers, usually unpublished, on a similar topic. I have collected papers that were too long to publish and turned them into books.

One way to enter publishing is to create an edited book. These books can either be from soliticted papers, an open call for papers, or a mixture of both. Publishers often want you to collect all the proposals for chapters and maybe a few chapters before authorizing publication. For authors, this means that sometimes you may send in a proposal but never hear about whether the book is published. Again the status of these books may be different. Sometimes, an edited book is not counted much for tenure or promotion. For authors, chapter can be important but usually not as an important as a peer-reviewed paper.

Books and chapters are reviewed in a number of ways. Unlike a journal, the editor(s) have all the power in deciding whether they will accept your paper. Sometimes, your proposals may just not fit with what the editor is looking for, which is different than how an article is reviewed. There are also self-publishers or “vanity” presses that allow you to publish your own book. You can also publish “an open version” if that is acceptable. An open version is usually just a pdf file stored on your website.

This is a copyright issue and has to be decided with the publisher.

BOOK PROPOSALS THE VALUE OF PUBLISHING BOOKS

The value of publishing a book in comparison to publishing articles varies a great deal across disciplines.

In some departments, books are essential while in others, such as math, articles are considered of greater value.

For junior authors, writing a dissertation can provide an opportunity to turn it into a book. However, the organization of the dissertation should be planned to publish the book later. This planning should begin with making the chapters of the dissertation look like the chapters of a book. Later writers can begin collecting connected articles and areas where related papers can be written.

Many publishers have a detailed set of guidelines for publishing. Sometimes, submitting a book proposal is a process beginning with an outline, then a few chapters, and finally the complete book.

Often you work closely with an editor who suggests where changes need to be made. Final manuscripts are sometimes reviewed by outside reviewers just as articles are; however, they are not as formal and as blind as are article reviews.

New technologies like Amazon allow books to be as easily distributed as are other books. Selfpublishing is often possible on a variety of platforms Some of these platforms will, for a fee, publishing the book. Other platforms help you create open access, which can allow you to charge users for downloading the book.

2/25/2018

Multilingual Matters|Channel View Publications: Book Proposal Guidelines

Customers Lecturers Librarians Students Trade Customers

Browse by category Main Categories Anthropology Bilingualism Bilingual Education Creative Writing Studies Education Language Acquisition Language Education Language Planning Language and Identity Language and Politics Literacy and Multiliteracies Multilingualism Psycholinguistics Sociolinguistics Tourism Studies Translation and Interpreting Writing and Publishing

Book Proposal Guidelines Please email us a proposal which follows the guidelines below. At this stage we only want 4-5 pages: weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll ask for sample chapters or clarification if we need it.

1. Working title of the book.

2. Name of the author(s)/editor(s) 3. Contact details for all the author(s)/editor(s): postal address and email address 4. Present appointment 5. Brief summary of career to date 6. Previous publications (if these are extensive please only include recent publications and highlights) 7. Purpose, aims and focus of the book. This is your main opportunity to persuade us to commission your book, so please be clear about what is unique/interesting/innovative about your manuscript.

8. Chapter by chapter breakdown of the contents.

9. Clear indication of the market and intended readership. If students or teachers form part of your intended readership, please indicate what aspects of your book will particularly interest them, and which courses the book would be relevant to if applicable.

10. Other competing titles for this market and why this is different/better.

11. Please suggest which of our series you think your book will fit into. Please be aware that we may suggest an alternative if we think it is more appropriate.

12. Predicted length in number of words (a page estimate isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t any use to us).

13. Would the manuscript have many illustrations/tables/special typesetting requirements? If so, please give details.

14. Predicted timetable for delivery of the final manuscript.

15. Have you, or do you intend to, send the proposal for consideration to any other publishers? If this is the case, it is extremely important that we are informed.

Please send your proposal as follows: http://www.multilingual-matters.com/book_proposals.asp

2/3

1/31/2017

Writing a Book Proposal | Vitae

Lori Flores Assistant Professor of History at Stony Brook University (SUNY)

With Support From

Writing a Book Proposal Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Google+ E­mail

January 24, 2017

Image: Mariano Rivera (2007) / Flickr user Staxringold 58 https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1677­writing­a­book­proposal?cid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en&elqTrackId=7824bb7de2564827808e8de8d…

1/5

Language Learning & Technology - Submission Guidelines

Authors are invited to take advantage of the electronic format by including hypermedia links to multimedia and other materials both within and outside the manuscript.

The editors of LLT reserve the right to make editorial changes to manuscripts accepted for publication for the sake of style or clarity. Authors will be consulted only if the changes are substantive.

Authors of accepted manuscripts will assign to LLT the permanent right to electronically distribute their articles, but will retain copyright.

Authors may republish their work (in print and/or electronic format) as long as they acknowledge LLT as the original publisher.

Minor edits will be made within 14 days after publication. Post-publication changes involving content will be made only if there is a problem with comprehensibility. Such changes will be accompanied by a note of revision. External links will be validated at the time of publication.

Broken links will be fixed at the author’s request. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Review process All articles and commentaries go through a two-step review process: 1. Internal Review. The editors first review each manuscript to see if it meets the basic requirements (i.e., that it reports on original research or presents an original framework linking previous research, second language acquisition theory, and teaching practices), and that it is of sufficient quality to merit external review. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements and are principally descriptions of classroom practices or software are not sent out for further review. The internal review generally takes 1-2 weeks. Following the internal review, authors are notified of the results.

2. External Review. Submissions which meet the basic requirements are then sent out for blind peer review by 3 experts in the field. The external review takes approximately 2-3 months. Following the external review, the authors are sent copies of the external reviewers’ comments and are notified as to the decision (accept as is, accept pending changes, revise and resubmit, or reject). Submission to the Action Research Column are reviewed internally by the journal editors or Action Research Column editor and are not typically sent out for external review. Responses (accept, reject, request of revision) are ordinarily sent to authors within one month of submission.

Copyright © 2013 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501.

Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.

Website Design by Scott Coble

57 http://llt.msu.edu/guidelines/index.html[1/27/2013 3:25:14 PM]

2/25/2018

Multilingual Matters|Channel View Publications: Book Proposal Guidelines

Customers Lecturers Librarians Students Trade Customers

Browse by category Main Categories Anthropology Bilingualism Bilingual Education Creative Writing Studies Education Language Acquisition Language Education Language Planning Language and Identity Language and Politics Literacy and Multiliteracies Multilingualism Psycholinguistics Sociolinguistics Tourism Studies Translation and Interpreting Writing and Publishing

Book Proposal Guidelines Please email us a proposal which follows the guidelines below. At this stage we only want 4-5 pages: weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll ask for sample chapters or clarification if we need it.

1. Working title of the book.

2. Name of the author(s)/editor(s) 3. Contact details for all the author(s)/editor(s): postal address and email address 4. Present appointment 5. Brief summary of career to date 6. Previous publications (if these are extensive please only include recent publications and highlights) 7. Purpose, aims and focus of the book. This is your main opportunity to persuade us to commission your book, so please be clear about what is unique/interesting/innovative about your manuscript.

8. Chapter by chapter breakdown of the contents.

9. Clear indication of the market and intended readership. If students or teachers form part of your intended readership, please indicate what aspects of your book will particularly interest them, and which courses the book would be relevant to if applicable.

10. Other competing titles for this market and why this is different/better.

11. Please suggest which of our series you think your book will fit into. Please be aware that we may suggest an alternative if we think it is more appropriate.

12. Predicted length in number of words (a page estimate isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t any use to us).

13. Would the manuscript have many illustrations/tables/special typesetting requirements? If so, please give details.

14. Predicted timetable for delivery of the final manuscript.

15. Have you, or do you intend to, send the proposal for consideration to any other publishers? If this is the case, it is extremely important that we are informed.

Please send your proposal as follows: http://www.multilingual-matters.com/book_proposals.asp

2/3

1/31/2017

Writing a Book Proposal | Vitae

Graduate students and junior colleagues often ask me for advice on how to navigate the transition from completing a dissertation to revising it into a book. Part of that process is learning how to write book proposals for academic publishers. Based on my own experiences, I’ve come up with seven tips that might help demystify proposal writing.

Disclaimer: I’m a historian, but I think these suggestions translate across disciplinary boundaries.

View your work with fresh eyes. If you’ve just finished your dissertation, congratulations!

Now set it aside for a good while.

Trying to tackle dissertation­to­book revisions too soon will prevent you from seeing graduate school­inspired jargon and from spotting what content needs to be tweaked, cut, or added.

Many times, you need a more distant perspective on your work in order to articulate to editors how you plan to produce a book — an entirely different beast from a dissertation in terms of framing, style, and structure. While you’re taking that break, circulate your work to valued colleagues for their suggestions, and tackle other passion projects or interesting new readings in your field for some inspiration.

If you’ve already taken a break and are ready to come back to your project, start by asking yourself some tough questions: Are you putting forth a strong argument that will reach a broader range of readers than it did in its previous iterations? Is your authorial voice authoritative, accessible, and uniquely you? Are there models (other books you admire) that can help you think about narrative craft and flow? This is the time to look at your intellectual contribution with a wider, more ambitious lens.

Don’t wait too long to approach publishers. The entire work does not need to be revised before you send in a proposal. I have talked to many people who have been reluctant to begin writing their book proposals because they think the entire manuscript needs to be revised, polished, and ready for scrutiny. It doesn’t. In fact, academic­press editors rarely ask to see more than one or two sample chapters in addition to your proposal.

So at this point, polish your introduction and strongest chapters. Rest assured that the full manuscript will not be due in the hands of readers for a while, with the author and press mutually agreeing upon that submission date well in advance.

Tailor your proposal to the publisher. Check the websites of scholarly presses for their submission guidelines. Pay attention to what each press wants, and tailor accordingly. A book proposal is usually no longer than 10 pages. It should include a brief cover letter addressed to the appropriate editor, followed by a clear, concise description of the project and a rationale for 59 https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1677­writing­a­book­proposal?cid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en&elqTrackId=7824bb7de2564827808e8de8d…

2/5

1/31/2017

Writing a Book Proposal | Vitae

its publication (meaning — its scholarly significance, its appeal to both specialists and generalists, and any qualities that distinguish the book from its competition).

Your proposal should answer these questions: Why should this press care about adding your book to its catalog?

What important intellectual conversations are you engaging and influencing?

What are the various audiences who would be interested in — and buy — this book?

Does your work possess any crossover appeal or timeliness?

In addition, you should mention whether you have successfully published excerpts from the work already and include estimates of the word/illustration count and the date when you expect to send in the full manuscript.

Pitch well. Book exhibits at scholarly conferences are the ideal place to pitch your manuscript to a potential editor. In advance of the meeting (it doesn’t need to be the “big” conference of your field, either — small conferences might actually get you more face time with a press), email the appropriate acquisitions editor to set up a time to talk. Provide a brief description of your book, along with your CV, and end by asking if the editor would like to receive your proposal before, during, or after your meeting (some editors want all the materials ahead of time, and some don’t).

In any case, never send lengthy, unsolicited manuscripts to editors. But feel free to pitch to as many, and meet with as many, presses as you want at this stage. If you’re lucky enough to be approached by a press first, take advantage of its interest and follow up in a timely manner.

Ask editors the right questions. Think about what’s important to you in a publisher.

Ideally, you want to work with a press that has a solid reputation and has published other books you like and respect. Sure, prestige is important. But give additional thought to the way a press will treat you over the course of your relationship. Here’s what to ask a publisher: Which editor/s would I be working with, and how closely?

How long does the overall process take (from proposal to editorial­board response to readers’ reports, and from copyediting to proofs to publication)?

Can I join a particular book series I admire in that press?

How many books does the press produce in the span of one season?

Getting a better idea of a publisher’s timeline and priorities will help you set your own schedule (if you have a tenure calendar or another kind of calendar for your life to keep in mind). Ask colleagues what their experiences have been with different presses, particularly if they have published very recently.

60 https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1677­writing­a­book­proposal?cid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en&elqTrackId=7824bb7de2564827808e8de8d…

3/5

1/31/2017

Writing a Book Proposal | Vitae

Be patient yet vigilant. Some editors might end up ignoring your work, while others will be more attentive. Once you have prioritized your list of interested publishers (if you’re lucky enough to have more than one), proceed to working with your first choice and submit whatever work the editor wants to send out for readers’ reports and the press’s editorial board. If there are lags in communication, follow up respectfully about the status of your submission. During this time, don’t burn your bridges with any other presses until you are officially offered a book contract to sign.

Approach that contract wisely. Getting offered a book contract is flattering and exciting, but be sure to ask some more important questions.

Is this an advance contract (meaning the press wants to work with the manuscript, but is not fully committing to publishing it yet), or a full contract?

Are you responsible for coming up with any subvention funds (meaning, extra money from your university or outside grantors to help pay for your book’s publication)?

If you are working with oral histories or human subjects, does the press have its own proprietary consent forms you will be required to complete?

How affordable will the book be (illustrations, copyright permissions, and length can hike up the price)?

Can the press offer you a simultaneous run in hardcover and paperback?

What are the author’s royalties, if any, for hardcover, paperback, and ebook editions?

How many free author’s copies will you receive?

Try to negotiate what is important to you before signing any contract, while realizing that you may have to give in to certain terms.

Book proposals can be revelatory in themselves. Writing mine helped me see more clearly what I planned to revise, reframe, and refine in my work, and that was extremely useful. Publishing a book is a long and bumpy road, but tackling the proposal is an important first step that can help clear some mental obstacles out of your path. (Editor's note: A version of this essay first appeared on the blog, Borderlands History.)

Lori Flores is an assistant professor of history at Stony Brook University.

61 https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1677­writing­a­book­proposal?cid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en&elqTrackId=7824bb7de2564827808e8de8d…

4/5

3/13/2018

Crafting a Convincing Book Proposal | ChronicleVitae

Manya Whitaker Assistant Professor of Education at Colorado College

Crafting a Convincing Book Proposal Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Google+ E-mail

March 6, 2018

Image: iStock One of the joys of academic life is contributing to the canon of a field and knowing that other people will read your words and, perhaps, change their thinking. Thankfully, what counts as scholarship has been expanding in recent years. Yet in many fields, books are still the key to unlocking professional success and notoriety.

It will be awhile before my CV matches that of a senior professor, but Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve done OK on the book front as an untenured professor at a teaching college. I have published a book with a trade press, have a contract for a second (an edited anthology with an academic press), and am crafting my third book proposal. Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve also had a variety of presses ask me to review proposals. So I have a decent idea of what constitutes a good proposal for an early-career academic. https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2012-crafting-a-convincing-book-proposal?cid=VTEVPMSED1

1/4

3/13/2018

Crafting a Convincing Book Proposal | ChronicleVitae

The cover letter. Much like a cover letter for a job opening, the one you write in search of a book contract previews the content of the full submission. Your letter should include the key elements of your proposed book: the purpose, the audience, the content/format, and the projected length.

It should end with a brief discussion of why this particular press is an ideal publisher for your book. In no more than a page and a half, you should be able to convince an editor that: Your topic fills an obvious gap in the field.

The content will be innovative while still being in conversation with other texts.

The intended audience will find the work useful.

The book will be well aligned with the press’s current and future publishing goals.

Twice now I’ve written my cover letter after I finished the full proposal. Don’t do that. Write the cover letter first. In fact, it’s a good idea to write the cover letter before you write the full manuscript. In many ways, a cover letter serves as an outline. It’s a good check to see if: (a) You can clearly communicate the purpose of your book, and (b) you’ve truly thought through its content and organization. If you don’t have a coherent elevator pitch, it is unlikely that you will have a coherent book proposal (or manuscript).

The publisher. Self-publishing is not common practice in academe, so there are a lot of things to consider when choosing a press.

First, be careful of predatory presses. Usually those are companies you’ve never heard of beyond their invitational emails, and they often charge "publication fees." The lure of quick publication times can be enticing, but such publishers are not acceptable for academic authors.

For those with tenure-track positions, find out if the standards for tenure and promotion on your campus require that you publish with a scholarly press or if a trade press is acceptable. Academic presses tend to have specialized audiences — other academics, graduate students, conference-goers — who often know a little something about your book’s topic. Trade presses, on the other hand, have a more general audience. Trade books might be used in college classrooms or added to a professor’s bookshelf, but the target audience is nonacademics. Academic and trade presses have far different requirements with respect to writing style (e.g., citations, paragraph length, use of quotations), so even if your institution doesn’t dictate that you publish with one or the other, your topic and/or your writing style may be a better fit with a certain type of press.

If your institution doesn’t have specific publication requirements, then start your search by looking at the books that influenced your project. Who published those texts? You want a press with a strong publication record in your subject area. If there are no such patterns to discern in your field, then start with the press that published the most notable book in your research area, or ask senior scholars for recommendations. Visit press websites, browse https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2012-crafting-a-convincing-book-proposal?cid=VTEVPMSED1

2/4

3/13/2018

Crafting a Convincing Book Proposal | ChronicleVitae

their collections, and compile editors’ names and contact information. You should gather a list of three to five presses, saving links to, or copies of, their formatting guidelines for future reference.

If a finished manuscript is a ways off, consider using scholarly conferences to browse the various presses and to meet editors. Book exhibits at conferences aren’t always as robust today as they used to be, but many companies still send representatives to major scholarly meetings, where they set up shop in an exhibit hall. This is an excellent opportunity to talk with someone whose actual job is to review book proposals. You can ask a lot more questions in person than via email, and you get an immediate response. Between the books they’ve chosen to bring to the conference (which represent what they think is important in the field) and a brief conversation, it’s fairly easy to determine if your book would be of interest to the editors. If you’re lucky, the representative might browse your cover letter and give immediate feedback on the likelihood of the press’s being interested.

The proposal. Once you have a shortlist of publishers, review their formatting guidelines and start writing your proposal. Publishers generally ask the same questions, albeit in a different order. In addition to what you included in the cover letter, most will want to know the potential market for your book (which campuses and organizations might find it particularly relevant?) and how you might market it (e.g., blogs, websites, radio). And by "how you might market it," I do mean that the onus will be mostly on you to promote your book.

Also important are the competing and comparable texts. You need to find about four books that relate to your project, and describe how your text will differ or offer something new. What does your book accomplish that the others do not? The differences don’t have to be conceptual — you might be targeting a different audience or using different data sources.

The final substantive section of the proposal often involves information about you. Most publishers will want your CV and a brief bio so that they can ascertain your capability of writing this book. Is it within your area(s) of expertise? Have you published in this area before? Have you published a book before? This is where publishers conduct a risk analysis. How certain are they that you will finish as you’ve promised? Your job in this section is to anticipate any concerns they may have by presenting a brief discussion of how this book fits within your larger body of work.

One thing to keep in mind: If a publisher’s goal is to make money (although very few editors will say that outright), then a book proposal needs to clearly articulate how the intellectual value of the work might translate into monetary value.

Somewhere in the proposal you may be asked to describe the book’s logistics: length, images/figures, and permissions. Presses use that information to estimate the costs of publication. Of course, long books and ones with multiple images (especially if they are in color) https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2012-crafting-a-convincing-book-proposal?cid=VTEVPMSED1

3/4

3/13/2018

Crafting a Convincing Book Proposal | ChronicleVitae

are costlier to produce. Books with a lot of content that require permissions can make meeting a deadline difficult and might require you, as the author, to pay for reprint rights. (It’s almost certain the publisher won’t pay such costs, especially if you aren’t an established author in the field). Remember: You want a contract, so minimizing such concerns works only in your favor.

The final thing to think through are possible reviewers. Some publishers will ask you to suggest names, which makes sense because you are familiar with the experts in your subfield and are therefore better at choosing reviewers than is an editor who may not be up to date on the literature. It’s important to suggest scholars who will understand the purpose of your text, who are accessible, and who will offer constructive feedback. It’s OK if you know them and have a professional (but not personal) relationship with them. While the reviews will be blind, it makes sense to suggest people whom you know will consider the proposal thoroughly.

Final considerations. It can take anywhere from two weeks to a year for a press to fully review your proposal — and another year or two to actually publish the book once you’ve submitted the manuscript. Because presses are interested in cultivating both current and forthcoming subject areas, you should submit your proposal when you are certain that you can complete the manuscript within eight to 12 months (six months is preferable).

The press’s desire to consider a full proposal versus sample chapters will also dictate your timeline. Think carefully before you write an entire manuscript if you have any doubts about its being able to attract a publisher. Still, you might want to write at least a third of the manuscript before you start seeking a publisher, just to ensure that you have enough content from which to choose when sending sample chapters to publishers.

Writing a book — particularly your first — requires careful planning, deep knowledge, and a strong commitment to the project. Comparatively, writing a book proposal is a piece of cake.

Manya Whitaker is an assistant professor of education at Colorado College.

Read More from Manya

https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2012-crafting-a-convincing-book-proposal?cid=VTEVPMSED1

4/4

8/6/2019

Will E-Books Feed University Presses - Or Eat Them? Part One - The Scholarly Kitchen

Will E-Books Feed University Presses — Or Eat Them?

Part One By

KARIN WULF | JUL 30, 2019

BOOKS BUSINESS MODELS INNOVATION READING RESEARCH UNIVERSITY PRESS

What roles are e-books now playing, and what roles will they play, in scholarly disciplines for which books are a primary, often the apex, scholarly form? This is the first of two posts about e-book publishing and university presses.

I’ll lay out here some of the basics, and next week I’ll be joined by Lisa Bayer (https://ugapress.org/about/oureditors/lisa-bayer/), Director of the University of Georgia Press and John Sherer (https://www.uncpress.org/from-thedirector/), Spangler Family Director of the University of North Carolina Press, for a closer look at how these issues and more are playing out at their presses, and what they see for the future of university press e-books.

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/07/30/what-is-the-role-of-e-books-in-scholarly-disciplines-for-which-books-are-a-primary-often-the-apex-schol…

1/7

8/6/2019

Will E-Books Feed University Presses - Or Eat Them? Part One - The Scholarly Kitchen

Book disciplines are facing a lot of the same questions about digital publishing that journal-based disciplines have been trying to answer for two decades. How can we deliver this scholarship in digital form cleanly, efficiently, and sustainably? How will libraries acquire it? How will readers access and then use it? How will authors understand their relationship to the publisher of it?

This is not to say that e-books are new; theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re not. But the simultaneous pressures, themselves not new, of increasing scholarly output, pinched library budgets and the intensive resources needed to produce scholarly monographs are pushing university presses to think about new ways that digital books can alleviate these and other pressures, including the important goal of increasing access to scholarship.

There are three basic things to know about scholarly e-books. The first is that university presses function in two value markets: scholarly and financial. University presses have a mission to serve (http://www.aupresses.org/about-aaup) the development of knowledge. It is a resource intensive mission (https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/the-costs-ofpublishing-monographs/). And that mission is usually difficult to square with economic markets, because so few scholarly books make back their costs. If scholarship is protein, the market often prefers sugar. But as a society, we need protein, and we need to support its production. This reality is at the heart of the debate about Stanford University Press (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/06/24/stanford-university-press-and-the-wrong-lesson-of-thehumanities/), and it is at the heart of projects such as the UNC Press Sustainable History Monograph Pilot (http://www.longleafservices.org/blog/the-sustainable-history-monograph-pilot/), led by John Sherer. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/07/30/what-is-the-role-of-e-books-in-scholarly-disciplines-for-which-books-are-a-primary-often-the-apex-scholâ&#x20AC;Ś

2/7

8/6/2019

Will E-Books Feed University Presses - Or Eat Them? Part One - The Scholarly Kitchen

The second is that platforms to distribute and access e-books have been developing in interesting ways. The big aggregators, JSTOR, Project MUSE, and Oxford Scholarship Online, have been joined by university presses exploring direct sale to libraries of their own lists. JSTOR, begun in 1995 as the Journal Storage Project, was the brainchild of William Bowen’s insight that the increase in scholarly journal output needed to be stored digitally simply because libraries were running out of space. The implications of providing journals digitally have been profound, and reach well beyond providing more journals for less bricks and mortar space in research libraries. Among the most positive outcomes is that access can be expanded as internet access expands. Among the most challenging are that digital production requires constant technological updating, requiring additional expertise, time and costs for publishers. The connection that scholars might have once felt for the societies that publish a lot of scholarly content has been reduced, as both individuals and libraries acquire their content through aggregators. These issues are the same for books– and maybe more so.

Books at JSTOR launched in 2012, and now includes over 75,000 scholarly e-books (https://about.jstor.org/whats-injstor/books/). Plenty of presses offer their e-publications via multiple outlets. Yale University Press (https://yalebooks.yale.edu/ebook-information), for example, lists 11 access points for its e-books (including single title sales through Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc.). A few presses are also striking out on their own (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/10/18/university-presses-take-control-ebook-distribution) to provide direct content access. Earlier this year the University of Michigan Press E-Book (https://www.press.umich.edu/librarians) collection launched, and the press Director Charles Watkinson describes it, even in early days, as a “qualified success.” As he pointed out, it’s not only a matter of offering access to an individual press’s titles, but getting into the workflow, which means getting discovery to those titles through the big services, ProQuest, EBSCO, and OCLC. The third is that the question of how digital text can serve longform scholarship — for the scholar producing scholarship, and for the reader consuming it (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/10/23/dear-reader-are-youreading/), remains unanswered. I can report from the ground that e-books are both the bane and the salvation of my graduate seminars. Students still report that they prefer print, when they can afford to buy books or when they can get a copy from our library at William & Mary or through interlibrary loan. But in the absence of print, digital is essential.

This has long been a question for scholarly publishers and librarians. Will scholars and students adapt to digital text?

Can our eyes–and brains — absorb complex arguments without the tactile reinforcement of interacting with the page (turning it, dog-earing it, marking it)? My anecdotal observation is that more students are appearing in class with tablets, contrary to my expectations that laptops plus smartphones were going to limit tablet use if only because of cost. They are using those tablets to access e-books from the library, and to save book chapter PDFs. The friction variable is considerable, as some platforms make it harder to locate or to navigate within different sections of a book.

And don’t get me started on what it is like to try and read the source notes on any of these platforms (short version: gruesome).

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/07/30/what-is-the-role-of-e-books-in-scholarly-disciplines-for-which-books-are-a-primary-often-the-apex-schol…

3/7

8/6/2019

Will E-Books Feed University Presses - Or Eat Them? Part One - The Scholarly Kitchen

Externally developed technologies are making an important impact, too. The utility of PDF apps plus tablet pencils that allow markup makes a huge difference in e-text usage. That makes sense, as I have seen the journal and book editors at the Omohundro Institute shift to using large size iPads and pencils for editing work. And I now ask all students to send papers to me as PDFs so I can “write” in the margins and across the text and email back a flattened copy. This system affords most of the virtues of paper. Whether most is enough, and whether this is a systemic trend is another matter as libraries contend with limits on e-access and the costs of purchasing e-books. Books at JSTOR initiated a look at “Reimagining the Monograph” (https://labs.jstor.org/monograph/) to ask what readers (are readers “users” now?) most want. Some of what the study uncovered is the important compatibility and complementarity of traditional paper books and e-books or digital projects. These are additive forms, not replacement technologies.

But this just scratches the surface, given that “books,” and especially e-books, are a shifting form. Presses are beginning to support the changing form of books in response to Digital Humanities research outputs. Michigan’s Fulcrum (https://www.fulcrum.org/) and Stanford’s digital project publishing (https://www.sup.org/digital/) are offering scholars a way to represent complex digital research and interpretation. And, at the Omohundro Institute we are working on the second iteration of the OI Reader, our platform for multi-media scholarship. These are also expensive developments, meaning that the pressures on mission-driven university presses continue — or perhaps the opportunities for university presses to lead continue to expand.

Karin Wulf @KAWULF

Karin Wulf is Director of the Omohundro Institute of Early American History & Culture and Professor of History at the College of William & Mary. She is a scholar of early American and Atlantic history working on gender, family and sexuality.

Discussion

11 THOUGHTS ON "WILL E-BOOKS FEED UNIVERSITY PRESSES — OR EAT THEM? PART ONE" Good thoughts.

I have long held that publishers should jointly fund an e-book / digital reading platform and take some of Amazon’s business. The kindle is great for a novel, but it’s a horrible tool for many books — including academic books — and it’s awful for magazines.

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/07/30/what-is-the-role-of-e-books-in-scholarly-disciplines-for-which-books-are-a-primary-often-the-apex-schol…

4/7

8/6/2019

Scholarly E-Books and University Presses - Part Two - The Scholarly Kitchen

For the field of scholarly communications, it’s important to understand where university presses stand in relation to commercial publishers, but also the space that books occupy as opposed to journals. The production and consumption cycle for books is different than it is for journals. Books play a very different role in some fields than in others; for some fields books remain a critical, even apex scholarly form, whereas for others books are marginal. The economics of book and journal publication are different. Library acquisitions for books and journals are different. And on and on.

It seems straightforward to observe these fundamental differences, which isn’t to say that there are not important similarities we can learn from. But as the high volume, high dollar journal-driven fields continue to dominate a lot of the economics and policies in scholarly communications, it is worth continuing to draw attention to these distinctions.

The differences explain a lot about why ambitious policy/aspirations such as open access can stumble without sufficient attention to them. And, with respect to David Crotty’s post last week on the necessary attention to business models (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/01/building-for-the-long-term-why-business-strategies-areneeded-for-community-owned-infrastructure/) up and down the line in scholarly communications from funders to organizational leadership, it’s also worthwhile to attend to these distinctions given the up tempo, clearly much-needed pace of experiments around book publishing.

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/06/scholarly-e-books-and-university-presses-part-two/?informz=1

2/7

8/6/2019

Scholarly E-Books and University Presses - Part Two - The Scholarly Kitchen

So let’s dig in. I asked two university press directors, Lisa M. Bayer (https://ugapress.org/about/our-editors/lisabayer/) of the University of Georgia Press, and John Sherer (https://www.uncpress.org/from-the-director/) of the University of North Carolina Press, to join me in addressing some of the developing issues around scholarly e-books.

I posed a series and questions, John and Lisa offered some back and forth, and then I posed a few follow-ups.

How important are e-book sales from e-readers (Kindle sales) versus academic libraries (JSTOR, etc.) for your list, and how has this changed over the last ten years?

Lisa Bayer (LB): Given that our mission as a university press is to share peer-reviewed knowledge as broadly as possible, I’d say that all our formats, including consumer e-books and library aggregation, are important. Kindle is far and away our largest consumer e-book account, and we’ve been pleasantly surprised at the variety of subject areas that sell through Kindle, from creative nonfiction and short fiction to scholarly monographs on history and environmental studies. We distribute our scholarly books to libraries via all the available aggregators, including Project MUSE, JSTOR, EBSCO, and ProQuest. The usage is more evenly spread across those vendors because libraries like choices.

Ten years ago, Kindle (est. 2007) was the new cool kid, and musty old print was being declared out in the midst of the Great Recession. University presses didn’t yet have the trusted not-for-profit aggregators Project MUSE (launched with University Press e-Book Consortium in 2011) and Books at JSTOR (launched in 2012), both of which were game changers for global distribution of our digital content to research libraries.

John Sherer (JS): The latest stats from the Association of American Publishers suggest that digital sales are only 12% of the overall revenue for American publishers. At UNC Press, our overall digital revenue accounts for about 18% of all book revenue, and that’s evenly split between what we call consumer channels (Kindle, iBookstore, Nook, etc.) and institutional channels (JSTOR, MUSE, Oxford Scholarship Online, EBSCO, etc.). But our trade and general interest books make up a lot of the consumer channel sales. For our monograph list, the revenue is skewed much more heavily to institutional channels. I think 10 years ago we all imagined we were converting from vinyl to CD and we’d sell e-books instead of print books. But we were actually going from vinyl to Spotify, with a robust market for analog.

I think 10 years ago we all imagined we were converting from vinyl to CD and we’d sell e-books instead of print books. But we were actually going from vinyl to Spotify, with a robust market for analog. –John Sherer Do you see e-book sales as a complement to print; why or why not?

JS: It’s not as much about digital sales as it is about discoverability. In that way, it is very complementary. For our monographs, we see aggregation platforms as vital to the how scholars find our books at the moment when they are doing research. There’s a growing awareness that scholarly research (even in the humanities) begins digitally, but then scholars tend to pivot to print when they do immersive reading. If we make the digital edition discoverable, we’re likely increasing our chances of getting a print sale. This is one of the rationales behind the Sustainable History Monograph Pilot (http://www.longleafservices.org/blog/the-sustainable-history-monograph-pilot/). What happens to print when digital is available first and for free? Does print get cannibalized by free, open digital. Or does free, open digital lead to more print activity? https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/06/scholarly-e-books-and-university-presses-part-two/?informz=1

3/7

8/6/2019

Scholarly E-Books and University Presses - Part Two - The Scholarly Kitchen

LB: Rather than a complement, which might imply subsidiary, I see e-books and aggregated digital content as equally important to print for scholarly books. For complex and diverse reasons, monographs are much less likely to be purchased in print editions by research libraries, especially given the enhanced accessibility, portability, and discoverability that digitally delivered content affords. When we send our content to aggregators, we join a huge network of scholarly publishers reaching thousands of institutions worldwide: that is mission-critical. At one of the last O’Reilly Tools of Change for Publishing conferences I heard a smart person say, “The page is no longer primary.”

For most of our customers, print books are still primary. But university presses operate in a file-based ecosystem, increasingly so with Open Access pilots and platforms such as Manifold, PubPub, Fulcrum, Humanities Open Book, and the Sustainable History Monograph Program.

Do you have a sense that e-books, particularly the chapter disaggregation, is serving classrooms in ways that book sales are not?

LB: Chapter usage is difficult to parse from the reports provided by the aggregators. It’s such a small part of our overall business that we don’t have the time to look at line item usage by title. We’ve seen monograph sales decline, and aggregator sales have not made up that decline, so there’s not a one-to-one correspondence. But if I were an instructor who wanted to use a single chapter of a history monograph that was available online via my library’s feefor-usage license, I’d assign it that way if my library paid for that level of access. University presses’ primary goal is to advance knowledge by making content widely discoverable, which also should mean giving users and readers choices with regard to how they want to engage with it.

JS: We see evidence that books which tend to be the most successful — that win awards and get reviews and sell in print — are also being consumed at the chapter level. But I don’t think it’s zero sum. Books that make an impact are finding readers through many different pathways. What is rare is to see a book that thrives digitally but doesn’t also do well in print. It’s happened for a few high-priced reference items, but not for monographs.

What are the economics of e-books, for the press and for authors? (I realize there is some information you can’t provide – but generally, based on your experience?)

JS: The economics for consumer sales are more favorable than print. We don’t have to manufacture, store, and ship a copy. There are almost no returns and no inventory obsolescence. And a Kindle sale on a royalty statement probably looks straight forward to an author. But transactions with aggregators can vary from an e-book being part of a large subject collection sold to a library or a library system; or residing in a Patron-Driven-Demand pool. And we don’t have enough space for me to explain the economics of Evidence-Based-Acquisitions models. Then there are chapter downloads. Single-user sales. Unlimited user sales. Do you want to talk about time-limited rentals? Non-linear lending? It goes on and on. Some transactions are at two-to-three times the list price of the book. But many transactions are literally pennies. There are some reports we receive where it costs us more to process the royalty accounting than the money we’re receiving. I won’t pretend to be able to explain it all and so it’s probably justifiable that some authors are flummoxed by it.

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/06/scholarly-e-books-and-university-presses-part-two/?informz=1

4/7

8/6/2019

The most signi cant expense of scholarly publishing is the front-end human work of content acquisitions, development, peer review, editing, design, layout, and marketing/discoverability –Lisa Bayer Scholarly E-Books and University Presses - Part Two - The Scholarly Kitchen

LB: I’ll start with an important finding: the most significant expense of scholarly publishing is the front-end human work of content acquisitions, development, peer review, editing, design, layout, and marketing/discoverability. The average expense to produce the file is just shy of $40,000 (see the Ithaka S+R study on the cost of publishing monographs (https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/the-costs-of-publishing-monographs/)). At the same time, ebook/digital sales make up about 12 percent of our overall net sales. Print is still primary sales-wise, which can be explained by John’s Spotify analogy above. It’s not a one-to-one comparison. We pay authors a royalty on all sales earned whether print or digital. The channels and choices are many and varied, which is why we use one distributor, Ingram’s CoreSource, to send our e-book files to nearly fifty vendors. Owing to a recent public discussion on social media (https://twitter.com/lisambayer/status/1153002860688416768) with an author who was surprised to find her book available as full text via JSTOR, we clearly need to do a better job of informing authors, especially in the academy, of the rapidly changing landscape of digital content aggregation (which is one reason I’m so appreciative of the opportunity to contribute to this blog post).

Are there specific successful examples you would point to in terms of the e-book market and use?

LB: Not a specific title, but I can mention a couple of our globally-focused book series. The titles that we publish in Geographies of Justice and Social Transformation (https://ugapress.org/series/geographies-of-justice-and-socialtransformation/) and Studies in Security and International Affairs (https://ugapress.org/series/studies-in-security-andinternational-affairs/) would have much less impact if they were not available digitally via aggregators that reach a global research audience. Partners like JSTOR, Project MUSE, and others are absolutely critical to enabling university presses to share peer-reviewed knowledge beyond relatively privileged “developed” markets, especially via their Open Access programs.

What are other issues you see as key to e-books?

JS: I’ll simply add that we’ve been very liberal at UNC Press about participating in digital dissemination models, which means I have no one but myself to blame for the complexity I’ve described above. What I should probably find is a better way of saying to my authors that we’re still in a period of experimentation where we’re trying to understand how it all works. But our default is to err on the side of over-distributing the digital editions of our books. When a student can read an e-book for “free” or when a scholar can download an e-book from their library at 2:00 am in the morning by simply pressing a button, we see that as a positive thing. It’s not the best way to maximize revenue. You need to try to create artificial scarcity to do that. But since dissemination is in our DNA, it never occurred to us to make it hard for people to read our books.

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/06/scholarly-e-books-and-university-presses-part-two/?informz=1

5/7

8/6/2019

Scholarly E-Books and University Presses - Part Two - The Scholarly Kitchen

One more item has come to mind which is not so much about the direct economics of e-book sales, but the potential value of having our book (and journal) scholarship available within large digital networks of humanities scholarship.

JSTOR, in particular, has begun developing some tools (like Text Analyzer and TopicGraph) that let scholars use machine learning and AI to do new types of research in the humanities. Our monograph output needs to be semantically tagged and available in these networks, in order to be visible to this type of researcher. I realize it’s not how many scholars do research now, but it’s hard to imagine that it doesn’t become more relevant in the future. This type of impact and relevance is likely to be appealing to those in control of the budget dollars of the future.

LB: This conversation has shown there is a growing movement among scholars, universities, governments, and assorted funding agencies to move to more Open Access publications: free to readers, but decidedly not free to produce. The challenge and opportunity for university presses is to continue exploring and explaining the real costs of publishing (cf. ITHAKA etc. above) and maintaining the budgets to sustain that publishing mission.

The challenge and opportunity for university presses is to continue exploring and explaining the real costs of publishing and maintaining the budgets to sustain that publishing mission.–Lisa Bayer As Lisa, John, and I emailed about this post, we wondered if a follow up directly aimed at “what authors should know about e-books” and a discussion with a couple of the big aggregators would be helpful. In the meantime, the Association of University Presses is in the midst of revamping their website guidance, but the current material can be found here (http://www.aupresses.org/resources/for-authors-a-faculty). Project MUSE’s guidance for publishers, which explains their mission and offers a brief introduction to process is here (https://about.muse.jhu.edu/publishers/why-muse-books/).

There are other issues around the aggregator platforms that are worth thinking through in more detail. An advantage to the aggregators is the kinds of data mass that allow for developing digital research methods. But we could explore in a bit more depth how life beyond the aggregators might look. Charles Watkinson of the University of Michigan Press shared with me that their experiment with an independent platform for offering their e-pubs is going very well, and that among the best aspects of that venture is the opportunity to work directly with libraries to provide the content each one most desires or requires.

[Disclosure: The University of North Carolina Press is the Omohundro Institute’s press partner for books; all OI books are published with what John Sherer described above as “very liberal” e-dissemination.]

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/06/scholarly-e-books-and-university-presses-part-two/?informz=1

6/7

THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS MORE DETAILS ON THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The peer review process is often said to make academic publishing than other forms of writing. As one journal editor put it, a peer-reviewed idea is considered true until it is shown to be otherwise. This is important in understanding why most citations are used positively until shown otherwise. The process is often performed by volunteers who may be under pressure to promptly finish their reviews although there is often no way the editor can enforce a deadline unless willing to replace one reviewer with another, which can be a cumbersome process.

Reviewers are usually carefully selected to give a variety of perspectives on a paper, although that may not always be possible. They are usually considered expert in the content, although, again, that may not always be the case3. Journals usually have a pool of reviewers for the editor to choose from, although they may also select reviewers whom they feel, sometimes from prior publication, to be experts in the field. The editor can follow the recommendations of the peer reviewers or make their own decisions.

Our primary concern here is how you can respond to the suggestions peer reviewers make, you need to first understand each suggestion and then decide whether you want to accept or reject each suggestion. In any case, you will be need to explain what you did, and particularly when you reject the suggestion. You can either say “you say jump and I say how high” or to disagree with the suggestion. In any case you need to document what you did in the letter you return with your revision. Peer reviewers may be difficult to understand so it may be important to get help in understanding what the reviewers are looking for. Particularly attention should be paid to reviews referring to violations of guidelines, which could be cause for rejection.

65

Peer Review in Academic Journals Peer review is the essential part of what makes knowledge in journals accepted.

Once an article has been peer reviewed, it is generally accepted as “true” until someone comes a long and disproves it. While some journals may ask whom the author would like to be a reviewer or even whom the author does not want, most of the time the journal editor, once the article, is accepted as a possible publication, and selects the reviewers. The reviewers are selected based on their knowledge or the subject area, which can be based on their prior publications or their membership on the editorial board. Often it can be difficult to find peer reviewers since they are rarely paid, so often editors have to be careful about selecting too many articles since it can be difficult to find appropriate reviewers.

Most reviewers for journals are “double-blind,” meaning that the reviewer does not know the author and vice versa. This practice is controversial since it is a cause of potentially hostile reviews. Potential reviewers are usually a sent an invitation to review with perhaps a brief description of the article or the abstract. Based on this limited information, they need to decide whether to accept the invitation. More and more, journal editors have realized the importance of getting timely decisions on whether an article will be accepted. Often a reviewer is given a deadline for sending in a review. Because the reviewers are not paid, it is sometimes difficult to get them to review in a timely manner. Reviewers are often “gently reminded” to send in their reviews by the deadline, but there is little the editor can do to force them, which is a reason it may take longer than expected for authors to receive a reply.

After the first round of reviews, the editor decides whether to send the article back for revision based on the reviewers’ comments or to reject the paper. If the editor decides to send the review back, he or she has to decide whether to ask the same reviewers or find new reviewers. Sometimes the reviewer is asked whether they want to review the article again, but the decision of whom to ask depends on the reviewer.

63

PEER REVIEW UNDERSTANDING PEER REVIEW

Peer review is the process by which your research is evaluated and verified by reviewers. Peer review is changing in different ways in different disciplines. In some disciplines, you can post your research and receive some feedback before you submit your papers. In other fields, you may have to present at a conference before you submit a paper.

It is difficult to know what criteria peer reviewers use. In theory, they should be experts in the content area of your research. Moreover, it is difficult to know whether it is the editor or peer reviewers who make the decision as to whether a paper will be accepted.

There is often little communication between he editor and the reviewers, so the reviewers are on their own in making decisions, so it is difficult to know in advance how a paper will be evaluated.

However, some of the major publishers have been providing guidelines and information for peer reviewers to use if they wish. As writers, it is important that you understanding the peer review system, but it is more important that you know what kinds of questions peer reviewers often ask, so you can anticipate in advance what peer reviews are going to use to evaluate your research. If you can anticipate these comments, you can build them into your paper.

If you are asked to resubmit the paper or even if you are rejected, it is important that you respond to these questions. Often you are required to submit a litter to the editor explaining what changes you have made. If you are resubmitting the paper to another journal, you can use the comments to revise your paper before sending it to another journal.

In the following pages, there are a number pamphlet published to help reviewers. As writers, pay attention, to the kinds of questions and criteria that peer reviewers are expected to use in evaluating your paper. Most of the criticisms that peer reviewers raise can be answered in your paper, but it is always best to anticipate them.

ScholarOne Manuscripts â&#x201E;¢

Reviewer User Guide 1-May-2018

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscripts™ Reviewer User Guide

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 THE REVIEW PROCESS .............................................................................................................................. 1 RECEIVING AN INVITATION ........................................................................................................................ 1 RESPONDING TO AN INVITATION ............................................................................................................. 2 LOGGING INTO YOUR REVIEWER CENTER ............................................................................................. 5 Account Setup and Maintenance ............................................................................................................ 5 FORGOT YOUR PASSWORD? ............................................................................................................. 6 Language Toggle .................................................................................................................................... 7 REVIEWER CENTER OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 8 Home Page ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Header .............................................................................................................................................. 8 REVIEWING THE MANUSCRIPT ................................................................................................................. 9 Accessing the REview Center ................................................................................................................. 9 Access the Manuscript for Review .......................................................................................................... 9 SCORING & SUBMITTING YOUR REVIEW ..............................................................................................13 Publons Opt-In for Reviewers ...............................................................................................................16 attaching files ........................................................................................................................................16 Contacting the journal ...........................................................................................................................18 Other notifications .................................................................................................................................18 VIEWING AUTHOR’S RESPONSE.............................................................................................................19 SUGGESTIONS FOR REVIEWING ............................................................................................................20 VIEWING COMPLETED REVIEWS ............................................................................................................21

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscripts™ Reviewer User Guide

Page 1

INTRODUCTION As a Reviewer of a manuscript, your input is a crucial part of the peer review process.

This guide is intended to give an overview of the Reviewer function in ScholarOne Manuscripts.

THE REVIEW PROCESS The steps below are the high-level steps in the review process. This document will describe each of these steps in detail.

•

Receive invitation to review

•

Accept invitation

•

Review manuscript

•

Complete review online

•

Submit review

RECEIVING AN INVITATION As a reviewer, you will be notified by e-mail of an invitation to review a manuscript. Text of the e-mail can be customized so its appearance may vary by journal.

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscriptsâ&#x201E;˘ Reviewer User Guide

Page 2

RESPONDING TO AN INVITATION The e-mail might come embedded with hyperlink invitation responses. Selecting the appropriate hyperlink sends the response to the journal and updates the system with your response.

If you select the Agreed hyperlink, you will be sent an additional e-mail that contains a link to your reviewer center. Click the link to begin your review.

Note: If the e-mail does not come with embedded response links, you will need to reply via e-mail.

If you log into your Reviewer Center instead of replying to an email, you will see a notice that you have a new invitation.

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscriptsâ&#x201E;˘ Reviewer User Guide

Page 3

Select View Invitation to choose the approipate response from the Action column.

When you choose Agreed & Begin Reivew you will be taken directly to the submission and score sheet.

If the option for Decline â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Suggest Alternate is configured for your site, selecting this option will take you to a confirmation screen.

Clicking on the I Confirm option, will take you to a new screen to record the suggested alternate(s).

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscriptsâ&#x201E;˘ Reviewer User Guide

Page 4

Once you have submitted your suggestions, you will recived a thank you notice on the screen.

Other options such at Decline or Unavailable with also ask you to confirm your response. Once your response has been recorded, you will see a thank you notice.

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscripts™ Reviewer User Guide

Page 5

LOGGING INTO YOUR REVIEWER CENTER Each ScholarOne Manuscripts journal site has a unique Web address (URL). Typically, you are given that address in the invitation or invitation-response e-mail sent by the journal. If the URL is hyperlinked, simply select the link within the e-mail. You can also enter the web address in the address field of your browser and press the Enter key on your keyboard. The journal’s Log In page is displayed.

ACCOUNT SETUP AND MAINTENANCE Your account on the journal’s ScholarOne Manuscripts site may be created in one of two ways.

•

The journal may create your account and e-mail you instructions on how to login.

•

Some journals may include account information along with the invitation to review. If you do not receive your account details, please check instructions on how to obtain your password.

To keep your account information current, click on your name and select the section you need to update.

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscriptsâ&#x201E;˘ Reviewer User Guide

Page 6

Note: You can also change your User ID and Password here.

FORGOT YOUR PASSWORD? If you forget your password, select Reset Password.

Enter your E-mail Address select the Send Reset Link button. The system will send you an e-mail containing details on how to reset your password.

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscriptsâ&#x201E;˘ Reviewer User Guide

Page 7

LANGUAGE TOGGLE Language toggle allows you to switch the display from the default language of English to another language. If configured for your site, you will find the language toggle located on the header at the top of the screen. Current languages available are French, Chinese and Japanese.

Note: All uploaded documents and end-user supplied text will not toggle and will be displayed in the language entered by the user.

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscripts™ Reviewer User Guide

Page 8

REVIEWER CENTER OVERVIEW HOME PAGE The Home Page contains top-level navigation based upon roles. You will only see the roles you have permissions to. It also contains side navigation to your different publications (if applicable).

The Home page contains many convenient navigation features as well as site-specific information and images.

Header Quick Links: Access the following functions: • •

• •

Your user name – click to edit your account Instructions & Forms– journal-specific instructions for users and any journal-specific forms required for the peer review process; Admins see the screens for editing the page Help – links you to various help functions Log Out

Journal Logo

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscriptsâ&#x201E;˘ Reviewer User Guide

Page 9

Top-Level Menu: Access the role-specific centers and functions through this menu. Users see only centers they have access to. Some centers, such as Admin and Editor, are grouped together under a heading with a drop-down list.

This menu is displayed wherever you are working in the system to allow you to easily move between functions.

Left menu: Access options to switch to another journal (if configured) and links to help and documentation.

REVIEWING THE MANUSCRIPT ACCESSING THE REVIEW CENTER Select the Review role on the top menu.

ACCESS THE MANUSCRIPT FOR REVIEW The Reviewer dashboard will show you the number of papers you have to review. You can select from the Action column to Continue Review, View Abstract, View Proof, or Contact the Journal.

When you select Continue Review, you will be taken to both the PDF proof on the left side of the screen and the score sheet on the right. This type of navigation will allow you to scroll through the PDF proof and have the score sheet next to the area of the document you are reviewing.

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscripts™ Reviewer User Guide

Page 10

There will be four additional tabs to aid in reviewing and scoring the manuscript.

•

Files: Will list all individual files that you have access to.

•

Details: Give details and version history for the submission and author name (unless it is a blinded review) as well as a quick link to the Abstract.

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscripts™ Reviewer User Guide

•

Instructions: View journal-specified instructions

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Page 11

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscriptsâ&#x201E;˘ Reviewer User Guide

â&#x20AC;˘

Page 12

Search Tool: Allows you to search items from the submission across search engines like Web of Science or PubMed. The search engines that you have access to are determined by the publisher or journal.

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscriptsâ&#x201E;˘ Reviewer User Guide

SCORING & SUBMITTING YOUR REVIEW The format of a score sheet varies by journal and may include journal-specific questions, a recommendation field, comments to the author, comments to the editor, and the ability to attach files.

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Page 13

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscriptsâ&#x201E;¢ Reviewer User Guide

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Page 14

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscriptsâ&#x201E;˘ Reviewer User Guide

Page 15

Note: Any fields marked with a red asterisk require an answer before you can submit the score sheet.

Quick links appear above the score sheet to the abstract and author response

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscriptsâ&#x201E;˘ Reviewer User Guide

Page 16

PUBLONS OPT-IN FOR REVIEWERS Publons, if configured on your scoresheet, provides peer reviewers instant recognition for their contributions. Simply select Yes to get recognition or click the link to Learn More about Publons.

ATTACHING FILES You can either click on the drop zone or drop files from the computer. A maximum of 10 files can be dropped at a time.

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscriptsâ&#x201E;˘ Reviewer User Guide

Page 17

Before the files are uploaded, they must meet the standard criteria and you must answer the required question of who the file is intended for. Typically this is either the Author & Editor or just the Editor. Once answered, the uploading process will begin.

Once you submit your review, you will receive a notificatation on the screen.

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscriptsâ&#x201E;˘ Reviewer User Guide

Page 18

CONTACTING THE JOURNAL You may have questions regarding the paper you are reviewing and need to speak to someone at the journal.

Selecting the Contact Journal link will open a new window for you to create an email to the appropriate person you would like to contact.

OTHER NOTIFICATIONS Other notifications you can receive during the review process, are notices for your upcoming review deadline and if the review is overdue.

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscripts™ Reviewer User Guide

Page 19

VIEWING AUTHOR’S RESPONSE On revised manuscripts you will be able to view the author’s response to the decision letter on the Details tab. If configured, you will also be able to see the Decision letter that was sent to the Author.

Click the Author’s Response link to access the response information.

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscriptsâ&#x201E;˘ Reviewer User Guide

Page 20

SUGGESTIONS FOR REVIEWING The review form auto-saves every 30 seconds. When it does, a small message will appear at the bottom-right hand side of the form. It will fade away after one second.

Reviewers have the option of saving manually, using the Save as Draft button. You can also print using the Save & Print button. Using the browser controls or Save & Print button will print the right side of the page which includes the ID, Title, and Form.

We recommend that, if you cut and paste your comments, use a plain text editor such as WordPad or Notepad.

Be sure to not include your name in any comments you make to the author as many sites are conducting a blinded review process.

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscriptsâ&#x201E;¢ Reviewer User Guide

VIEWING COMPLETED REVIEWS After submitting your review, you can access your completed review in the Scores Submitted section of the dashboard.

Select View Submitted Review from the Action column. A new window will display your completed review.

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

Page 21

Clarivate Analytics | ScholarOne Manuscripts™ Reviewer User Guide

Page 22

ScholarOne® ScholarOne, a Clarivate Analytics Business, provides comprehensive workflow management systems for scholarly journals, books, and conferences. Its web-based applications enable publishers to manage the submission, peer review, production, and publication processes more efficiently, increasing their profile among authors, decreasing time-to-market for critical scientific data, and lowering infrastructure costs. ScholarOne offers workflow solutions for the submission and review of manuscripts, abstracts, proceedings, books, grants & awards, and production. Supporting over 365 societies and publishers, over 3,400 books and journals, and 13 million users, ScholarOne is the industry leader.

To learn more, visit: Clarivate.com

CLARIVATE ANALYTICS MAIN OFFICES North America: +1 888 399 2917 Europe, Middle East & Africa: +442038114093 Latin America: +551183709845

Asia Pacific: Australia +61285877636 New Zealand +61285877636 China +861057601200 India +911130446419 Korea +82220768100 SE Asia & Pakistan +6567755088 Taiwan +886225033034

Japan: +81345893100

© 2018 Clarivate Analytics

clarivate.com

Effective Date: 1-May-2018 Document Version: 2.6

64

AAUP HANDBOOK

Best Practices for Peer Review

Association of American University Presses New York, NY Washington, DC www.aaupnet.org 67

The Association of American University Presses (AAUP) advances the essential role of a global community of publishers whose mission is to ensure academic excellence and cultivate knowledge. High standards of editorial quality and peer review are one of the primary ways that AAUP members advance that mission. Demonstration of these standards in their publication programs is central to the membership eligibility of nonprofit scholarly publishers, and is the very substance of AAUP members’ authority to validate and disseminate long-form scholarship.

AAUP offers this handbook of Best Practices for Peer Review as a resource for member publishers, acquisitions editors both new and experienced, faculty editorial boards, scholarly authors and researchers, and new scholarly publishing programs.

The Best Practices handbook was developed by the Association’s Acquisitions Editorial Committee through a consensus-building two-year process to articulate a set of practices that comprise a rigorous process of peer review. The Committee has rightly noted that, “the peer review process is highly complex, involves many individuals, and must be responsive to the norms of the appropriate fields.” Disciplinary expectations, administrative procedures, inter-disciplinary and creative works, and innovative publishing formats may all demand changes in approach. However, wellreasoned differences in practices can only be evaluated against a solid understanding of what constitutes a standard practice of high-quality peer review.

The effort to draft these Best Practices began under the aegis of the 2014-15 AAUP Acquisitions Editorial Committee, chaired by Mary Francis (then at California, now Michigan) and was completed by the 2015-16 Committee, chaired by Mick GusindeDuffy (Georgia). The committee gathered information and feedback from a wide subset of AAUP member publishers to ensure the document is broadly reflective of accepted standards. An early draft was brought to a Peer Review Collaboration Lab, organized by Dan Williams (TCU), at AAUP’s 2015 Annual Meeting in Denver.

The final document is a product of significant work and consultation from many individuals in the AAUP community, and AAUP is grateful for all these contributions.

70

The core values of the Association include integrity, diversity, intellectual freedom, and stewardship. These values are reflected in work our members do to promote and disseminate scholarship, and the standards of peer review in monographic publishing are a key part of what sustains them. Best Practices for Peer Review helps to articulate how this works and will be a living foundation for integrity and stewardship.

Peter Berkery Executive Director Association of American University Presses

71

Table of Contents 6

Preamble Why Peer Review Is Important

7

Section 1 The AEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Choices about Why, When, and How to Conduct Peer Review

12

Section 2 Selecting Peer Reviewers

15

Section 3 Working with Peer Reviewers

21

Section 4 Sharing Peer Reviews with Authors

24

Section 5 Peer Reviews as Documents of Record

73

6

AAUP HANDBOOK

Preamble. Why Peer Review Is Important Peer review is essential to the university press mission of advancing and disseminating scholarship. Peer review is the process through which university press editors commission formal evaluations from respected experts (“peers”) on the contribution to scholarship, teaching, and public debate of a work being considered for publication.

These formal evaluations are considered by press staff and shared and discussed with authors as a crucial prepublication step in an editor’s evaluation of the merits of proposed projects. This process provides feedback that is both stringent and fair, enables an author to strengthen a work in progress, and adds value and meaning to the work that is ultimately published, helping inform the deliberations of press staff.

By facilitating the review process, university press editors enlist the expertise of a wide community of experts to create productive conversations between reviewers and the authors whose work they are asked to evaluate.

As a principal university press advocate, the Association of American University Presses (AAUP) actively supports the essential role peer review plays in developing and validating high-quality scholarly publications. This is reflected in the AAUP’s membership eligibility requirements, which require some form of peer review for projects published by member presses.

The purpose of this document, written by the AAUP Acquisitions Editorial Committee, is to articulate a set of practices that comprise a rigorous process of peer review. The Committee acknowledges, however, that the peer review process is highly complex, involves many individuals, and must be responsive to the norms of the appropriate fields. Thus, while the steps discussed below are recognized as generally acceptable best practices, this document is not intended to prescribe the conduct of an acceptable peer review in every case. Moreover, though strong peer reviews are necessary for moving forward with a project, they form only one part of a broad range of factors, including considerations of fit and budget, that together lead to a publishing decision.

74

7

AAUP HANDBOOK

Section 1. The AE’s Choices about Why, When, and How to Conduct Peer Review When does the peer review process begin?

The initiation of peer review depends in part on the stage at which a project reaches the press. If a project first is submitted to or invited by the acquisitions editor (AE) at the proposal stage, peer review offers the AE a chance to develop a project, to stave off competition from other presses, and to shape the project to best fit the press’s editorial program. If a project is placed under contract at the proposal stage, it is good practice to have the full manuscript draft peer reviewed when it is complete as well. Works initially submitted as complete manuscripts receive one or more rounds of review. It is especially common for first books to be subject to several rounds of review and revision, depending on initial reviews and manuscript and audience aspirations, whereas the work of more experienced authors may more commonly receive only one round of peer review.

Regardless of the stage and circumstances under which peer review is successfully completed and a contract for a book signed, university press contracts usually specify that publication is contingent upon both peer reviews of the complete manuscript and the project’s acceptance by the press’s faculty or governance board. AEs at most presses will not present a work to the faculty or governance board for final approval unless it is in a penultimate or final draft.

What are some exceptions to the general practice of seeking peer review before offering a contract? Is peer review ever waived?

Each press has its own criteria for deciding which types of books can be put under contract prior to peer review. Sometimes a decision to offer a contract is time sensitive: situations involving an agent or competition with other presses may not allow sufficient time for complete review of a proposal or manuscript. But even 75

8

AAUP HANDBOOK

under pressured conditions, the AE will often draw on his or her advisory network for a quick or informal vetting of the project and the author’s reputation. Projects placed under contract prior to peer review normally will later be presented to the faculty board, and at that point, peer reviews of the full manuscript will be required.

AEs may also proceed without peer review when working with new editions of previously published works, copublications with international publishers, translations, and occasionally works intended for general readers. Even in these cases, the AE may wish to solicit reviews to assist with revising such manuscripts or positioning them in the marketplace. Projects should be excused from peer review rarely and only for carefully considered reasons.

Do different types of books require different types of peer reviews?

Scholarly monographs, general interest (trade) titles, textbooks, reference works, professional volumes, art and architecture books, fiction and poetry are distinct genres with different readerships. Since one goal of peer review is to evaluate a manuscript’s appeal to its intended audience, the review process should be aligned with the specific expectations for these different types of books. For instance, a textbook for classroom use would not be expected to focus primarily on cuttingedge research in the same way that a monograph would. Peer reviewers of a textbook might be asked about the accessibility of the writing and about classroom potential in addition to the currency of the content. Reviewers of a trade project might focus on the project’s contribution to a broader public conversation or on the author’s narrative skill, as opposed to its engagement with contemporary scholarly discourse.

In general, the AE should formulate questions for the peer reviewer that clarify the work’s intentions and guide the reviewer in assessing its strengths and weaknesses in light of its intended readership. (See Guidelines for reviewers below.)

76

9

AAUP HANDBOOK

Do different disciplines have different types of peer reviews?

Different disciplines work with distinct materials and methods, and so it is inevitable that they will bring different criteria and conventions to the process of evaluating books. A review of an edited volume in economics, for example, might address a decidedly different set of questions than a report on a monograph in literary criticism. AEs are typically attuned to such variation, as are faculty board members, who take it into account in their assessment of a work.

Do multimodal projects such as digital platforms, apps, and enhanced ebooks require a different type of review than do printed books and standard ebooks?

All projects that bear the imprint of a university press, including digital projects and publications, should be peer reviewed to ensure that they are aligned with the mission of the press. The timing and choice of reviewers will vary greatly, however, depending on the scope of the project. Large or multimedia projects may require an editorial board that guides development from the proposal stage onward. In addition to scholars in the field, technical experts may need to be enlisted to make sure that user interfaces comply with state-of-the-art technology and best digital practices.

Whether a digital project will be presented to the faculty board for approval, and at what stage, will vary from press to press and may depend on the nature of the project.

Scholarly digital initiatives are producing new modes and forms of publishing, and the dynamism of these developments requires ongoing assessment of conventional peer review processes.

Confidentiality and anonymity in the peer review process University presses typically promise anonymity to their peer reviewers with the intention of assuring a candid discussion of a projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s weaknesses and strengths.

In contrast to the review of journal articles, the book manuscript review process is 77

10

AAUP HANDBOOK

not generally double-blind, given the challenges of masking an author’s identity in full-length manuscripts. Book manuscript peer reviewers also assess the standing of an author’s work in his or her field, the place of the current manuscript in an author’s oeuvre, and the reception of previous publications as part of the overall project assessment.

In some cases, peer reviewers may wish to reveal their identity to the author whose work is being reviewed. It is good practice in these cases for the AE to first show an anonymous version of the peer review to the author, so that the author’s first response is not influenced by the identity of the peer reviewer. Once the author has had a chance to consider the report, the AE may then choose to reveal the reviewer’s identity but is not obliged to do so. It can be fruitful for an author and reviewer to be in contact, either directly or via the AE, for additional consultation on revisions.

To assure confidentiality, AEs may need to make minor edits on a peer reviewer’s text. These could involve rephrasing references to a reviewer’s own work or deleting mention of areas of expertise or a specific institution with which the reviewer is associated. Reviewers are not always aware they are divulging their identity, and it is the AE’s responsibility to read reviews carefully with confidentiality in mind.

However, AEs should take great care to ensure that their edits do not threaten the integrity of the reviewer’s comments. When in doubt, it is best to send a marked-up document to the reviewer for review prior to distribution.

Even though anonymity is maintained throughout the review process, presses will often approach reviewers at later stages to request permission to use quotations from the reviews in promotional copy or to include mention of a reviewer in a book’s acknowledgments. At many presses, the AEs make these requests as the original contact with the reviewer.

How many reports should be solicited and in what order?

Generally, AEs seek two simultaneous reviews of manuscripts they wish to pursue.

Interdisciplinary works may benefit from additional readings to represent the full 78

11

AAUP HANDBOOK

range of expertise in the project itself and to gauge the potential readership across different fields. Textbooks, reference works, and translations may benefit from more than two reviewers for analogous reasons.

But when the AE is uncertain about a project or about press acceptance of a project contingent upon the response from a particular readership, he or she may start with one review and follow it with a second only if the first is favorable. The evaluation of the first reviewer can also assist the author with plans for revision prior to the commissioning of a second review. This process adds time to the publication schedule but conserves AE and press resources.

An additional review may also be beneficial in cases in which the peer reviewers provide widely varying assessments of a manuscript. But it is also important for an AE to be able to advocate for a worthy project, even if it receives an equivocal or even negative review: path-breaking scholarship is often controversial, and the AE has a vital responsibility to articulate how each project fits the mission and aims of his or her list.

How many times does a manuscript need to be reviewed?

Some completed manuscripts also undergo several rounds of review. On occasion, particularly with revised dissertations and first books, a peer-reviewed full manuscript is put under contract with the stipulation that the work will be reviewed again after extensive revisionâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;either by one of the original reviewers or by a third independent reviewer, depending on the AEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s or the faculty boardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s preference and reviewer availability.

79

12

AAUP HANDBOOK

Section 2. Selecting Peer Reviewers Who is qualified to write peer reviews?

With the goal of soliciting feedback to help craft excellent books, AEs should choose reviewers for their expertise in the subject matter of each individual publishing project. Peer reviewers are most often established scholars with relevant expertise.

Scholars who have already published at least one scholarly book (or have a book forthcoming) are preferred, although an extensive record of journal publications on relevant topics is acceptable. Some presses prefer tenured faculty; however, with decreasing numbers of scholars (including experienced ones) on the tenure track, this requirement may be difficult to meet. It is also important to note that in some emerging disciplines or areas of study, the thought leaders are often still junior faculty. When reviewing a project intended for course adoption, extensive teaching experience at the level of the book’s intended audience may trump publication record or tenure. Journalists, civil servants and elected officials, professional writers, and artists outside the academy with relevant experience can also be used as peer reviewers in certain circumstances. The AE should be ready to speak to a particular reader’s expertise as needed to the faculty board, author, or press colleagues.

The criteria outlined above represent the primary concerns of an AE in selecting appropriate peer reviewers. Best practice would also include soliciting feedback from readers who might help promote the book later or adopt it for courses or who might themselves be potential press authors. (See Confidentiality and anonymity in the peer review process above.) The peer review process plays a critical role in building an AE’s advisory and author network. However, the reviewer’s relevant subject expertise is paramount.

80

13

AAUP HANDBOOK

Where do AEs find appropriate peer reviewers? Are suggestions from authors acceptable?

A vital part of the AE’s role is to develop a robust network of advisors. (See Who is qualified to write peer reviews? above.) The AE’s reviewer selection process may be informed by, but should be independent of, suggestions from the author herself. An author’s suggestions may alert AEs to other experts in the field or signal an author’s conception of his ideal reader. If authors ask that some scholars not be asked to review the manuscript because of intellectual differences, the AE may wish to abide by the request but is not obligated to do so. The author’s list of potential reviewers or veto of others can reveal conceptual or disciplinary boundaries of the author’s work, highlight conflicts of interest the AE is not aware of, or flag reviewer directions that might be problematic. (See What should an AE do about an obviously incompetent, biased, or ad hominem report? below.)

Similarly, suggestions from trusted advisors, such as other press authors in the field, faculty board members, and series editors, can be helpful. Still, a degree of independence and evaluation by the AE is crucial. Other authors can have their own priorities and biases and, although these are rarely consciously manipulative, they can have a disproportionate influence on the verdict emerging through peer review.

If a project is intended for a series, can or should the series editor (or one of the series editors) act as a peer reviewer?

AEs should be attentive to the possible tension between the role of series editors as champions of work cultivated for their series and their role as potential peer reviewers. The simplest way to avoid this tension is to commission at least two peer reviewers and to ask the series editor to offer an assessment of the reviews along with summary comments on a project’s potential fit with the series. In cases where there are multiple series editors or a series editorial board, a core of expertise in the field is already gathered and so peer review by one of the series editors is acceptable.

But such a review ought to be balanced by at least one review from a respected scholar who is not a member of the series board.

81

14

AAUP HANDBOOK

In cases where a series has a single editor, the series editor’s review may be the deciding factor when outside reviewers do not agree on a project’s merits. Otherwise, a series editor’s role ideally is to commission, vet, and possibly help develop projects.

The series editor can comment on a project via a letter of endorsement, which will have a different status in the faculty board’s approval process than a full, independent peer review.

What constitutes a conflict of interest that would prevent someone from acting as peer reviewer?

Obviously, AEs should steer clear of relatives, existing or previous connections by marriage or serious relationship, and an author’s dissertation advisor. Best practice also dictates avoiding reports from colleagues at the same institution, members of the author’s dissertation committee, members of the author’s graduate student cohort, and close friends or collaborators. There are myriad gray areas that may require further discussion: the enlistment of former or preexisting collaborators, such as volume coeditors or paper coauthors, for example, should be weighed carefully. Best practice is to err on the side of avoiding perceived conflicts. In certain circumstances exceptions may be made in consultation with the AE’s supervisor.

82

15

AAUP HANDBOOK

Section 3. Working with Peer Reviewers Guidelines for reviewers Presses often provide reviewers a short list of questions to guide their evaluation of a project in order to improve the chances that the review will address the points most pertinent to a press’s publication decision. This list should ask reviewers to focus on key areas such as the quality of argument, evidence, and writing in the context of subject-specific and manuscript-specific issues. Just as different reader criteria are brought to different projects, so too is it useful to have a range of reviewer questions tailored to particular kinds of projects, such as scholarly monographs, course books, trade nonfiction, fiction, or poetry. (See Do different types of books require different types of peer reviews? above.) The list may end by asking reviewers to recommend whether a project should be (1) rejected, (2) revised and resubmitted, or (3) accepted for publication. Although very important, such opinions should not outweigh the AE’s own judgment of the manuscript’s potential and his or her assessment of the reviews.

It is not uncommon for two reviews to offer similar feedback and yet make different recommendations about publication.

AEs should explain to reviewers, either in the initial query or when sending the materials provided for the review process, that their reports will be confidential and their identities concealed from the author. The query or the review guidelines should specify who will see the reports (AEs and their assistants, the author, faculty board members) and who will know the reviewers’ identities (AEs and their assistants, other press staff, faculty board members). (See Confidentiality and anonymity in the peer review process above.)

How should readers be remunerated for reports?

Presses generally offer readers an honorarium in return for their evaluations of projects. That the compensation is an honorarium, not a fee, is important. First, using the term “honorarium” highlights the fact that peer review is a responsibility 83

16

AAUP HANDBOOK

academics bear as members of the scholarly community. Second, the term points to the fact that a press is not buying an expert opinion in the way that, say, a defense attorney may pay an expert to offer a particular reading of evidence. A peer reviewer is expected to provide an unbiased, candid, well-supported evaluation of a project’s merits.

An honorarium generally takes one of two forms. A reviewer may be offered a cash payment or a selection of books from a press’s catalog up to a certain dollar amount (usually larger than the amount of the cash payment, as the unit cost of books is significantly lower for publishers than for retail buyers). Some presses offer a combination of cash and books. AEs should tell a potential reader what the honorarium is in their initial queries, before the review begins. If certain categories of books are ineligible for selection, such as distributed books from other publishers, this should be noted on the honorarium form.

Honoraria amounts vary widely by presses, and AEs should be familiar with their own press’s conventions. The amounts should reflect the scope of the work the reviewer is being asked to do; honoraria are typically larger for full manuscripts than for proposals. In addition, asking a peer reviewer to evaluate a particularly long manuscript or to provide a report in an unusually short amount of time often warrants increasing the amount of an honorarium. (See What is a reasonable amount of time to allow a peer reviewer to read and report on a project? below.) Honoraria are paid on receipt of reports. Also, if the press ultimately publishes the work in question, the reviewer should receive a gratis copy.

What is a reasonable amount of time to allow a peer reviewer to read and report on a project?

While it is generally in both an author’s and a press’s interests to receive reports as quickly as possible, AEs should be aware that properly reviewing a manuscript is both time- and labor-intensive. It is customary to give peer reviewers at least six to eight weeks to review a full manuscript and three to four weeks to review a proposal, though in competitive situations an AE may request a faster turnaround. It may also 84

17

AAUP HANDBOOK

be necessary to allow more time for particularly long or complex projects. AEs and reviewers should agree on a deadline before the process starts, and it is generally recommended that an AE or assistant check in with reviewers as the deadline approaches. AEs or their assistants should track due dates for reviews in some kind of databaseâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;an essential tool, given the volume of projects an AE may have out for review at any given time.

What should an AE do when a peer reviewer fails to produce a report within an acceptable period of time? Can compensation be withheld in such cases?

Given the time it can take to secure appropriate readers for a project, AEs should accommodate modest delays (one to two weeks). However, a reviewer who misses an initial deadline is likely to miss another one, and AEs should exercise caution in granting longer extensions (a month or more). If a second deadline passes without a review, the AE should take steps to line up an additional reader rather than risk longer delays for the author. A new reader should also be found if a reader does not respond to follow-up queries. In such cases, the AE should notify the original reader that the press no longer expects a report and will not compensate him or her. There is always the possibility, however, that a late review will surface, and an AE will need to decide whether to provide the normal honorarium in such cases.

As challenging as the lack of review can be, AEs also face situations in which a review is unsatisfactory: either it fails to address the questions posed, it does so without sufficient detail, or its assessment is unclear. AEs should first try to encourage the reviewer to flesh out the report, but if a full review does not materialize, the honorarium may be prorated. Similarly, if a reviewer fails to submit a review, the press is not obliged to pay the honorarium. If, however, the press decides it no longer needs a commissioned report (for example, if a project is lost to another press in competition), the reviewer should still be offered the honorarium, even if the report has not yet arrived.

85

18

AAUP HANDBOOK

What should an AE do about an obviously incompetent, biased, or ad hominem report? Can a commissioned report be disregarded? What is the best way to communicate such concerns to a peer reviewer?

Peer review is meant to provide an honest and rigorous assessment of the merits of a project, and archetypical reports can be as much an art form as the manuscripts under consideration. The ideal report offers sound advice for helping a project realize its fullest potential. It is the AEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s responsibility, in turn, to assess the reviews to ensure that reviewers have met expectations. Reports that do not engage with the content of a work, that offer insufficient support for a reviewerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s criticisms, or that evince animus toward authors or their ideas do not provide useful guidance to AEs, authors, or faculty boards.

Upon receipt of an opaque or problematic review, the AE should request amplification or clarification for the sake of the author and the press. Specificity is important in such situations. The ultimate goal is to secure a suitable review, and so giving the reviewer an opportunity to revisit the report is in most cases worthwhile.

On the other hand, if a report is flawed because the reader is clearly biased against an author or his approach to a subject, there is little to be gained in returning to that reviewer. The decision to address flawed reviews directly can be a vexed one for AEs, who should discuss such reports with their supervisors before proceeding.

If the report is biased against the authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approach, the AE should consider it in the context of the scholarly discipline in question. If the field is deeply divided and the author and reviewer are on opposing sides of that divide, then the review may help the author anticipate and address criticisms. Ideally, the AE will be aware of such disciplinary politics and will take them into consideration in selecting peer reviewers.

If the bias is against the author personally, the review should be disregarded because it does not assess the manuscript itself. For the sake of expediency, it is often best to extend the usual courtesy to such a reviewer and process his or her honorarium, even if the report is disregarded.

The AE need not share an unfairly prejudiced or hostile report with an author; instead, the AE should seek an alternate peer reviewer. Presses differ in whether they 86

19

AAUP HANDBOOK

include biased reports in packets for the faculty board. If such a report is included, the AE’s statement should take care to contextualize the review and its criticisms and explain that it has not been shared with the author.

If a report is delayed or otherwise unacceptable, what should the AE say to the author? Should the author be told the reviewer is at fault, or is it best to simply cite unavoidable delays?

In general, transparency in the author-editor relationship is paramount, and the AE should tell the author about any delays in the review process promptly. However, AEs need not always reveal the source of the delay. In deciding whether to inform an author that a delay is due to a reviewer’s tardiness, the AE should avoid giving the impression that the report is hastily or haphazardly prepared. Peer reviews need to carry authority with an author because they form, at least in part, the basis of a press’s judgment about whether to accept or reject a project. If a reviewer submits a well-constructed but delayed review, its tardiness should not undermine its force.

If a reader fails to submit a review, an AE should alert the author of the reader’s unresponsiveness, though ultimately it is the role of an AE to manage the peer review process as efficiently as possible.

What if a reviewer jeopardizes a project by revealing his or her role to others in the field?

In spite of the press’s best intentions in assuring the confidentiality of peer reviews (see Confidentiality and anonymity in the peer review process above), in some cases a reviewer may discuss the project with interested parties other than the author. This discussion may jeopardize a book that is, for example, based on confidential interviews or takes a stand on a controversial issue. In such cases, AEs must weigh the likely impact of the revelation in deciding whether to disregard the report. Will public knowledge of the reviewer’s identity undermine the legitimacy of the report with the author or other scholars in the field? Has the revelation reshaped the readership for the 87

20

AAUP HANDBOOK

work or its public reception? Does it potentially poison the authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s relationship with the subjects of his or her research or employer? Where the revelation has had a significant impact on the likely success of the work, the press may need to reconsider its decision to publish it.

88

21

AAUP HANDBOOK

Section 4. Sharing Peer Reviews with Authors How should an AE handle split or negative reviews?

Reviews don’t always lead to a clear positive or negative decision. If peer reviewers’ views diverge and a third party, such as a series editor, isn’t available to assess and advise on the difference of opinion (see If a project is intended for a series, can or should the series editor (or one of the series editors) act as a peer reviewer? above), a useful first step is for the AE to discuss the reports with the author or request a preliminary written response to the reviews to see how an author assimilates and addresses the feedback.

A commanding author response can make a very compelling case to pursue a project further, even in the face of strong criticism. The AE may solicit another review; invite the author to revise and resubmit and then send the project out to be reviewed again; or, in some circumstances, proceed to the faculty board for final approval on the strength of the one supportive review and the author’s thoughtful and thorough response. The last option is most likely when a series editor or a faculty board member can also be called upon to weigh in on or contextualize the reviews as well as to offer their view of the project’s merits.

If both reviews are overtly negative but the AE feels the project is still viable, he or she may craft a plan with the author for revisions that would enable further consideration. However, the AE should be very clear with the author about the time frame and the likelihood of eventual publication.

Is a formal response from the author to the reviews necessary in every case? If not, what are the exceptions?

With some exceptions, a formal response from the author should be solicited before a project is taken to the faculty board for approval. Occasional exceptions include cases where the reports are strong, the project is competitive, and the press must move quickly.

89

22

AAUP HANDBOOK

How much help should an AE offer in guiding an author’s response to readers’ reports?

The author, ultimately, is responsible for his or her response, but most authors benefit from the AE’s guidance in the content and tenor of the response. The AE should help the author write a response that offers a strategy for revision and addresses the reviewers’ criticisms in a productive fashion. The AE should highlight the sections in the peer reviews that need to be addressed and that will likely be of most concern to the press and the faculty board.

When is it appropriate for the AE’s vision for a project to take precedence over reviewers’ suggestions about desirable revisions?

Sometimes the press and author’s vision of a work does not align with that of reviewers. For example, a more scholarly reviewer may recommend expanding the reference or scholarly apparatus of a trade book. Or a reviewer might argue for a topic that is beyond the scope of the project to be covered. In such instances, the path forward should involve discussions between the AE and author, who ultimately will need to agree on an ideal structure for the work informed by the press’s expectations. We recommend letting reviewers know if their advice is not followed to avoid concerns raised on receipt of the published book.

If the author does not agree with elements of a review, he or she needs to be prepared to make a compelling case for his or her preferred approach. AEs should pay careful attention to the way in which authors frame their decision not to heed some of the reviewers’ suggestions.

What is the best course of action if an author refuses to write a formal response to peer reviews or writes something obviously inadequate?

It is rare for an author who is serious about publishing a book with a university press to refuse the opportunity to respond to peer reviews. If an author does refuse, the 90

23

AAUP HANDBOOK

AE should reassess his or her working relationship with the author and may even decline publication on these grounds. If the response is inadequate but the AE is still interested in the book, he or she should work with the author to improve the response.

91

24

AAUP HANDBOOK

Section 5. Peer Reviews as Documents of Record Besides the AE, author, and press staff, who is permitted to see anonymous peer reviews?

The review process for proposals and manuscripts is intended to be entirely distinct from any professional review authors may be undergoing. For this reason AEs are strongly discouraged from sharing materials with authors’ hiring, tenure, and promotion committees. Peer reviewers are not being asked to comment on an author’s professional experiences beyond what is conveyed in the proposal or manuscript itself, so repurposing reader reports for any professional situation beyond the publishing world constitutes misuse. Of course, the outcome of a university press’s peer review and publication process will often have considerable impact on the author’s professional evaluations, but it is critical that the intentions of the manuscript review process be maintained separate from any other evaluative process.

If members of a hiring or tenure and promotion committee request copies of the reviews, the AE should refuse to provide them and should contact the author to tell him or her to communicate with the committee about the issue directly. However, an AE may choose to inform hiring or tenure and promotion committees about the project’s current status: out for review, under contract, or in press.

Do members of a press faculty editorial board know the identity of all peer reviewers? If there are exceptions, what are they?

As the charge of university press faculty boards is to assess the integrity of the review process, it is essential that the identity of the peer reviewers be shared with board members. However, even at this stage, it is important that the promise of reviewer anonymity be incorporated into the preparation of board materials. All of these materials are confidential, and everyone involved in compiling and reviewing

92

25

AAUP HANDBOOK

them should be aware of this. Many presses circulate separate reviewer identities with their board materials so as to avoid including peer reviewer identities in the dockets themselves. (See Confidentiality and anonymity in the peer review process above.)

If peer reviews include endorsements that could be used as blurbs in marketing materials, what is the best way to request this kind of use from peer reviewers?

Many presses harvest blurbs from reviewersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; reports. Because peer reviewers have been promised anonymity, this process cannot be automated. If a press wishes to extract comments from a report, it is essential that press staff request the reviewerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s permission and offer him or her the opportunity to refine or edit the quoted material.

Some reviewers may wish to see the revised manuscript before authorizing use of their words in marketing materials.

Can reports be shared with other presses if an AE decides not to pursue a project?

Every AE will experience a situation in which the peer review process does not lead to a contract, faculty board approval, or even board presentation. In some cases, in order to help an author find a viable publishing alternative, AEs may want to share reports with AEs at other houses to help expedite the decision-making process. The reviews should only be requested by and given to another AE; this exchange should not occur through the author. In any such situation, the AE at the original press should contact the reviewers, explain the circumstances, and ask for their permission.

If a reviewer does not wish his review to be shared, the AE should not pass it along to the other press.

93

26

AAUP HANDBOOK

What about long-term storage of reports and the identity of reviewers?

Reader reports, both digital and print forms, become part of any pressâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s archival holdings. The utility of reader reports following book publication usually decreases, though the comments may come to have historical value. For practical purposes, it may not be possible to protect reviewersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; anonymity in perpetuity. Many presses have opted to adhere to their parent institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s embargo protocols on tenure and promotion review files. These often set the duration of reader protection for periods of fifty years post review, or this time period may be benchmarked by the timing of the decision on whether or not to publish. Those presses that archive their book files with their institutional libraries or repositories should actively consult with collections managers to be certain that, as materials are digitized, issues of anonymity are discussed and protocols agreed upon.

What if lawyers or other parties external to the university ask to see the reviews?

As noted above (see Besides the AE, author, and press staff, who is permitted to see anonymous peer reviews?), presses should refuse outside requests to see reviews. In some cases, however, public records laws may trump press policy, in cases, for example, where an author is a civil servant or a press is part of a state university. When legal issues arise, presses should consult with university counsel before responding to such requests.

94

INTRODUCTION

JULIA WILSON VoYS co-ordinator

Peer review now results in over 1.5 million scholarly articles published each year and is fundamental to the integration of new research findings in hundreds of fields of inquiry. For scientific knowledge to progress scientists need to share their research findings with other scientists and this is done through publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals. Peer review is also the tool used for reviewing grant proposals for research funding.

Peer review provides a system to select which research should be brought to the attention of other researchers. It also gives authors feedback to improve the quality of their research papers before publication. The peer review system judges the validity, significance and originality of the work, rather than who has done it. Because it indicates that research has been scrutinised by independent experts in the field, peer review is also an important consideration for policy makers, reporters and the public when weighing up research claims and debates about science.

Peer reviewing is particularly important for early career researchers because it allows them to gain insights into other developments in their research area and play a greater role in their research community. Reviewers develop their own research, writing and data presentation skills, and their ability to look at their own work objectively.

However, there has been growing talk of â&#x20AC;&#x153;a crisis in peer reviewâ&#x20AC;? â&#x20AC;&#x201C; with concerns raised about the global expansion of scholarly research, and to particular incidents of flawed papers making it into print, leaked email exchanges showing researchers trying to influence the process; as well as the mounting pressures on researchers to get grants and publish papers, leaving little time to review papers.

1

96

In Voice of Young Science (VoYS) workshops, early career researchers raised questions about how to get involved in reviewing, how to be sure of doing a good job and what to expect as authors and reviewers.

THIS GUIDE WILL HELP EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS UNDERSTAND:

This is a nuts and bolts guide to peer review for early career researchers written by members of the VoYS network1. Using a collection of concerns raised by their peers, the VoYS writing team set off to interview scientists, journal editors, grant bodiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; representatives, patient group workers and journalists in the UK and around the world to find out how peer review works, the challenges for peer review and how to get involved.

1. How the peer review process works 2. Some of the limitations of peer review

We have not avoided criticisms of the peer review process in this guide but rather entered into the debate, asking journal editors and reviewers some challenging questions about scientific fraud and plagiarism going undetected; issues of trust and bias; ground-breaking research taking years to publish and the system benefiting a closed group of scientists.

CONTENTS

1Voice of Young Science (VoYS) is a network of early career

researchers who stand up for science in public debates about science. Further information at www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/voys.html.

97

3. The role of peer review in society

1.

BEHIND THE SCENES

P3

2.

PEER REVIEW WARTS AND ALL

P17

3.

PEER REVIEW FOR THE PUBLIC

P22

4.

FURTHER RESOURCES

P25 2

BEHIND THE SCENES

There are three key roles in peer review: the authors who write the papers, the reviewers who provide expert opinions and advice, and the editors who make the decisions.

Author submits article to journal

Journal Editor screens paper

Rejected after screening

Reviewer Reviewer

Rejected Author makes revisions

Editor assessment of reviews Accepted no revisions required

Figure 1: Diagram of a â&#x20AC;&#x153;typicalâ&#x20AC;? peer review process (there are many varieties)

3

98

The Editors

To gain an insight into how peer review works, we asked editors from a variety of peer reviewed journals, how they select reviewers, reduce potential bias and make decisions about which manuscripts to publish.

WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN A PAPER IS SUBMITTED? “I have a whole load of manuscripts coming to me each day - far more than I can publish. So I have to look at them and decide firstly, is this paper relevant to the journal I’m editing? (Is it groundbreaking etc.) I’m looking for the best papers, but I often know very little about the nitty gritty of the research area. It is the experts that I send the paper out to review to, who know the subject area well and can help me make a judgement.”

CHRIS SURRIDGE Chief Editor and Associate Publisher of Nature Protocols

“When your paper is submitted, we first of all look through it briefly to check the format and length, the clarity of the discussion, research methods and overall fit with the journal. This is a fairly quick process around two weeks or so. If it passes this 'desk review' procedure, we then send it out for full review to subject experts.”

ROBERT BLACKBURN Editor-in-Chief of the International Small Business Journal (ISBJ)

HOW DO YOU THEN SELECT REVIEWERS? “If I know the field intimately I will select people to review from my knowledge base. If I don’t know the field, I select reviewers by searching ‘PubMed’ (a free online database of citations and abstracts) for authors of similar research or pick suitable authors from the bibliography of the paper. I don’t think it makes sense to carefully and precisely select and invite only verifiable world leaders. Most luminaries are often too busy, and the process of selection becomes far too slow.”

DR MICHAEL CURTIS Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods

99

4

“Finding subject reviewers is a careful procedure because it is voluntary and anonymous. We find these experts from our Editorial Board plus others - you may have cited somebody extensively and we may ask them, or we use our database of previously published authors and reviewers. The ISBJ also provides you with the opportunity to suggest possible reviewers - obviously not your friends or colleagues!”

ROBERT BLACKBURN

Editor-in-Chief of the International Small Business Journal (ISBJ)

Once the reviews have been submitted, it’s decision time.

Peer review is not a democratic voting system. It is the editor who makes the final decision based on all the information available to them.

HOW DO YOU REACH THE FINAL DECISION ON A PAPER? “To reach a decision on a paper, we take into consideration a combination of the reviewers’ opinions and our editorial judgement. In addition to looking at the broader recommendations made by the reviewers, we think about the specific scientific points they raise, in light of their areas of expertise, the feasibility of any requested revisions, and the effects these revisions may ultimately have on the overall conceptual interest and quality of the paper. All of these considerations factor into our overall view of the appropriate next steps for the paper.”

DR MARIE BAO

Associate Editor, Developmental Cell, Cell Press

Many journals have an editorial team with an editor-in-chief and a number of scientific editors who are assigned responsibility for the peer review of individual papers. These journals often hold discussions before accepting a paper.

HOW DO YOU OVERSEE THE PROCESS WITH YOUR EDITORIAL TEAM? "We invite several reviewers in order to get a view which is independent from the editorial team. If the reviewer and the assigned editor agree that a paper should be rejected, we reject. But if there is reasonable support, then we start a confidential online discussion with additional editors. Usually it becomes clear very quickly whether a paper is going to be accepted or rejected, but if there is no clear consensus, then as Editor-in-Chief, I make my own assessment and provide a recommendation to the handling editor."

PROFESSOR PHILIP STEER 5

Editor-in-Chief, of BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 100

Enter the reviewers....

WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO SAY The benefits of reviewing are diverse: from ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF BEING improving your critical thinking, giving and A REVIEWER? receiving feedback and gaining insights to

improve your future publications. Reviewing is an essential skill to develop as a researcher.

WHY DO YOU REVIEW? “Partly because it is an accepted part of membership in the academic community. But also, it is always interesting to see the latest work in my particular specialist areas and be able to comment on it and hopefully sometimes improve it prior to publication; to act as a gatekeeper for quality in an area of science that I know about and care about.”

DR STEPHEN KEEVIL

Medical Physicist, King’s College London

90%

review because they like playing their part as a member of the academic community2

85%

just enjoy seeing other papers and being able to improve them2

Almost all researchers

91%

believe that their last paper was improved through the peer review process2

2

Results from the 2009 Peer Review Survey: Sense About Science with support from Elsevier carried out one of the largest ever peer review surveys of over 4000 authors and reviewers: 101 http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-survey-2009.html

6

SOME TIPS FOR NEW REVIEWERS PLEASE! “When reviewing, try to remember that you are an author too and be professional and constructive in your approach. That can be hard but don’t let your inner nitpicker get the upper hand. Leave 24 hours between reading the manuscript and writing your review, to allow time for your reasonable self to rise to the fore.”

STEPHEN CURRY

Professor of Structural Biology, Imperial College London

When accepting the invitation to review you are agreeing to provide a fair, robust and timely critique that is useful for the authors in improving their manuscript (whether or not the journal accepts the manuscript).

Before you accept to review a paper, ensure you can submit within the time frame because slow review times are a source of frustration for authors. Many journals record how long a reviewer has taken to submit a review. If they are frequently very slow, editors will take this into account and avoid inviting the reviewer again. Some journals also rank your review once it is submitted, so if you do a good job; you are likely to be invited again.

If, after agreeing to review, you find that you will not be able to complete the review in the agreed time frame, contact the journal and let them know.

If you have any conflicts of interest– for example, you work closely with the author or are in direct competition – you must declare these to the editor. If you are unable to accept the invitation to review, suggestions of alternative reviewers are welcomed by editors.

WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU LOOK FOR? “For me it is the originality of the work, the importance of the questions addressed, the appropriateness of the techniques used, the quality of the data and the reliability and significance of the conclusions that are the most important criteria.”

PROFESSOR MIKE CLEMENS

Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, University of Sussex

7

102

QUESTIONS REVIEWERS ASK Aside from assessing the title, abstract, English language of the article and references, reviewers assess the scientific quality of the work.

Does the paper fit the standards and scope of the journal it is being considered for?

Is the research question clear?

Was the approach appropriate?

Is the study design, methods and analysis appropriate to the question being studied?

Is the study innovative or original?

Does the study challenge existing paradigms or add to existing knowledge?

Does it develop novel concepts?

Does it matter?

Are the methods described clearly enough for other researchers to replicate?

Are the methods of statistical analysis and level of significance appropriate?

Could presentation of the results be improved and do they answer the question?

If humans, human tissues or animals are involved, was ethics approval gained and was the study ethical?

Are the conclusions appropriate?

If the science is sound but the language is poor, some reviewers may suggest edits, whereas others might flag up to the editor that the paper needs an English language edit.

If the language is so poor it is difficult to assess the science you might recommend the author improves the language and resubmit. There are English rewriting services available.

DO I NEED TO GET UP TO SCRATCH WITH MY STATS? “When it comes to clinical trials and epidemiology papers, statistical literacy is an important issue.”

DR STEPHEN KEEVIL

Medical Physicist, King’s College London

103

8

IS THERE ANY TRAINING? “Most journals provide online guidelines for reviewers but in my experience little other training is available. The skills are largely learned from colleagues and mentors in the reviewer's own department.”

PROFESSOR MIKE CLEMENS

Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, University of Sussex

“When I started reviewing I had no formal training, but I did get invaluable guidance from senior staff. Now there are also training days and web courses which give advice on the structure and content of a review, and, importantly, the expectations of the editor.”

DR DEIRDRE HOLLINGSWORTH

Epidemiologist, Imperial College London

Most experienced peer reviewers have ‘learnt on the job’. If you are reviewing for the first time, it is a good idea to ask an experienced reviewer with an analytical approach to be your mentor.

Research groups and medical departments often hold their own 'journal club' where they discuss a recent paper. This allows the group to keep up-to-date with scientific developments and develop skills to critically appraise research papers that will be useful when reviewing.

Some journals (eg. the EMBO Journal, BMJ Open) publish reviewers’ reports alongside papers which can be useful for inexperienced reviewers to look at.

Once a decision has been made, journals often let reviewers know whether they accepted or rejected the paper, and send them a copy of the other review(s). This allows you to see the assessments and opinion of other experts and whether there is anything you have missed in your own review. It can also help you judge whether you were too stringent for the journal or too lenient. It can sometimes take a few attempts to gain a sense of what the acceptance threshold is for a particular journal as each journal is different.

Papers can go through several rounds of peer review, when a paper is rejected, the author will in most cases submit it to another journal. The new journal editor will then send the paper out to new reviewers. There is concern amongst the scientific community that this leads to “wastage” of reviews as previous reviews are not always taken into consideration.

9

104

IS ANYTHING BEING DONE TO PREVENT “WASTAGE” OF REVIEWS? “Cascading peer review (a.k.a. ‘waterfall peer review’) is when a paper that has been rejected after peer review, is passed to another journal along with the reviewers’ reports.

The peer review process at the second journal can be kept relatively short because the Editor considers the reports from an earlier round of peer review, along with any new reviews. Variations on this process exist, according to the type of journal - but essentially reviews can “cascade” down through various journals.”

DAN MORGAN

Executive Publisher of Psychology & Cognitive Science

HOW THE VITAE RESEARCHER DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK CAN HELP YOU WITH PEER REVIEW Being a successful researcher involves developing many skills including reviewing the work of others as part of the peer review process.

This skill will help you in many employment destinations, not just research.

105

10

The Vitae Researcher Development Framework (www.vitae.ac.uk/rdfresearcher) is a guide to identify your strengths and priorities for professional and career development. It sets out the knowledge, behaviors and attributes of successful researchers and assists you in achieving higher levels of development.

The Framework is made up of four domains, which encompass knowledge and intellectual abilities personal effectiveness research governance and organisation engagement, influence and impact These are further broken down into a number of characteristics, which you would be developing through peer review including: reputation and esteem collegiality publication knowledge base critical thinking and analysis networking and responsiveness to opportunities reputation and esteem time management skills continued professional development â&#x20AC;&#x153;As a researcher itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s easy to get stuck into only thinking about the knowledge and skills that are specific to your research field. The Researcher Development Framework emphasises broadening your horizons and identifying strengths and skills, such as those involved in peer reviewing, that will help you become a better researcher.â&#x20AC;?

DR DANIEL WEEKES

Research Associate, Kings College, University of London

11

106

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEER REVIEW? Peer review is not a one-size fits all system; there are variations across journals and research fields.

Acceptance rates at journals vary widely with some only accepting a small percentage of papers submitted. These journals tend to have extremely stringent requirements for publication. For example, very general and high impact factor journals such as Science or Nature will reject many good quality research papers if the editor feels the research is not ground-breaking enough. Others, such as PLoS ONE (published by the Public Library of Science), use a peer review process that does not judge significance or originality, but will publish all papers that meet the necessary standards of scientific rigour. There are also smaller, more specialist journals which do not receive many submissions and so the competition to publish is not as high. The average acceptance rate for journals is 50%.

Some peer reviewed journals are tracked by Thomson Reuters and awarded an impact factor, calculated annually. Impact factor is a measure of the number of times the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a particular year.

Peer review varies widely depending on the research field in terms of what reviewers are looking out for and the time the process takes (in mathematics, peer review can take years whereas in biomedical subjects it can take just weeks).

In some fields, like physics, it is more common to put research online in a subject repository (such as ArXiv) before it is submitted to a journal. This allows the research to be circulated and commented on before it is subject to peer review – whereas within medicine there are ethical concerns about research being accessed before it has been peer reviewed.

We asked Tommaso Dorigo experimental particle physicist at CERN to describe the process in his field: “In my opinion, in experimental High-Energy Physics (HEP), most scientific papers could well do without external review. HEP collaborations count dozens, and in a few cases thousands, of collaborators.

Each of them is responsible for what gets published and is entitled to take part in the review process before a paper is sent to a peer reviewed scientific journal. So a powerful internal screening blocks anything that is even remotely questionable before it reaches a journal.”

TOMMASO DORIGO

Experimental particle physicist at CERN 107

12

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEER REVIEW?

DR IRENE HAMES (Editorial Consultant and author of Peer Review and

Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals) RUNS US THROUGH THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEER REVIEW

SINGLE-BLIND REVIEW The reviewers know who the authors are, but the authors do not know who the reviewers are. The most common system in science disciplines.

This allows reviewers to provide honest, critical reviews and opinions without fear of reprisal from the authors.

Lack of accountability, allows unscrupulous reviewers to submit unwarranted negative reviews, delay the review process and steal ideas.

DOUBLE-BLIND REVIEW The reviewers do not know who the authors are, and the authors do not know who the reviewers are. Main form of peer review used in the humanities and social sciences.

Reduces possible bias resulting from knowing who the authors are or where they come from, work assessed on its own merits.

Involves some effort to make sure manuscripts are anonymized, reviewers can often guess who the authors are (particularly if the authors have cited many of their own papers), information important for a complete critical appraisal is missing.

13

108

OPEN REVIEW At its most basic, reviewers know who the authors are and the authors know who the reviewers are. It can also mean inclusion of the reviewers’ names and/or reports alongside the published paper, comments from others [subject community or wider public] at pre-publication stage, or various combinations of these.

Greater accountability and reduced opportunity for bias or inappropriate actions.

Reviewers can be given public credit for their work.

Potential reviewers may be more likely to decline to review. Revealing reviewer identity may lead to animosity from authors, damaged relationships and repercussions for job prospects, promotion and grant funding.

DO YOU THINK KNOWING THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR AFFECTS THE REVIEWER’S DECISION? “It is probably impossible to ignore the effect of the author’s name, whether they be an unknown or a big-shot scientist. By acknowledging that potential impact, you can mitigate the most disturbing effects. Remember that your job as a reviewer is to judge the work, not the scientist.”

STEPHEN CURRY

Professor of Structural Biology, Imperial College London

IS THE DOUBLE-BLIND SYSTEM EFFECTIVE? “Double-blind peer review can work effectively for some editors and journals. For others, however, it doesn’t. It’s been shown that reviewers can often – in around half of cases – identify who the authors are, and the internet and online searching have increased the chances of this happening. This is causing some journals in disciplines where double-blind review has been the norm to move to single-blind review.

There are also concerns that some potential competing interests of authors and other factors that might be important in assessing work are not available in double-blind review.”

DR IRENE HAMES

Editorial Consultant and author of Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals

109

14

PEER REVIEW FOR FUNDING APPLICATIONS Peer review is also used to assess scientists´applications for research funds. Funding bodies seek expert advice on a scientist’s proposal to select which projects to fund.

“At Diabetes UK we use peer review to ensure that the research we fund will help to improve the lives of people living with diabetes. It helps us know why an area of research is important and needs further investigation and it also helps identify reasons why a research proposal, that at first seems a good idea, might not be suitable for funding.”

DR IAIN FRAME

Director of Research, Diabetes UK

Dr Liz Philpots thinks early career researchers should get involved in peer reviewing grant applications as well as journal papers: “If it’s your area, put yourself forward for peer reviewing grant applications– and say [to your supervisor] I’d like to do this one. That’s the only way to get experience.”

DR LIZ PHILPOTS

Head of Research at the Association of Medical Research Charities

SHOULD REVIEWERS BE REWARDED? “Based on the 2009 peer review survey results it is clear that reviewers would like to be rewarded. The question is how should they be rewarded? In the survey most reviewers indicated that they would like to receive payment in kind for their reviews. Publishers are keen to do this in a sustainable way and there are currently a variety of initiatives in place on journals, including giving certificates to reviewers or providing accreditation (CME/CPD points). Elsevier provides reviewers free access to its Abstracting and Indexing service Scopus. Also popular among reviewers is receiving an ‘Acknowledgement in the journal’, something more and more journals are now doing.”

ADRIAN MULLIGAN

Deputy Director, Research & Academic Relations, Elsevier

15

110

PEER REVIEW WARTS AND ALL

Peer review is not a perfect system.

It relies heavily on trust, and as scientists are human like the rest of us, there will always be cases of misconduct.

SO IS PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVE? “Bad papers sometimes make it through peer review and the system is not set up to catch outright fraud. However, it acts as a useful first barrier to junk science and journalists should treat information from non-peer reviewed sources accordingly.”

JAMES RANDERSON

Environment and Science News Editor at the Guardian

"It's a good thing scientists are mostly honest, because peer review offers the greatest possible temptation to steal ideas, to show favour to former students, to boost favoured theories, or to do down rivals.

Honest they may be but they aren't saints, so we must expect all of these things to happen from time to time.”

NIGEL HAWKES

Straight Statistics “Regardless of its weaknesses, peer review is something the scientific world cannot do without.”

PROFESSOR MAMMO MUCHIE

Editor of the African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development

Just as a washing machine has a quality kite-mark, peer review is a kind of quality mark for science. It tells you that the research has been conducted and presented to a standard that other scientists accept. At the same time, it is not saying that the research is perfect (nor that a washing machine will never break down).

17

112

COULD JOURNALS REWARD REVIEWERS FINANCIALLY? â&#x20AC;&#x153;I don't think so. This may encourage some people to review papers for which they are not really qualified. However some other form of recognition of the work involved, such as free online access to papers published in the journal for a year, might be appropriate.â&#x20AC;?

PROFESSOR MIKE CLEMENS

Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, University of Sussex

Many journals provide recognition to reviewers by publishing their names in the journal as part of an annual list. Some journals send a certificate to congratulate and express their appreciation to their best reviewers, clinicians can claim CPD points for reviewing. However, journal editors have made the case that the many hours of important work peer reviewers contribute need to be recognised more formally by interview panels and researchassessment exercises.

111

16

BUT WHAT DO EDITORS THINK? DO WE TRUST REVIEWS TOO MUCH? “Perhaps we do. It is easy to find plausible reasons to reject a paper, especially at the highly competitive end of the market. If a reviewer has a vested interest or a conflict of interest this is rarely disclosed. Indeed, any 'expert' in the field must be a rival by definition, and conflicted by definition. Yet we trust their judgements.”

DR MICHAEL CURTIS

Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods

CAN WE PREVENT REVIEWER BIAS? “Reviewers are trusted to deliver an opinion but the editor knows this to be subjective and so will carefully consider this when making a final decision on a paper. And journals rarely accept papers based on only one review.”

COLLETTE TEASDALE

Development Editor - Economics Journals, Routledge Journals, Taylor & Francis Group

Reviewers could potentially slow down the publication of a paper to enable them to get their paper out first. However, reviewers are given a deadline to submit their review. If they are very late then journals will invite an expedited review from a backup reviewer or consider the reviews they already have in-hand at an editors’ meeting to minimize the delay for the authors.

One criticism of peer review is that it “shuts down new ideas” as research that goes against the status quo may be rejected by reviewers. We put this issue to the experts: “Rather than shutting down new ideas, the process of peer review should mean that they are carefully considered and subject to close scrutiny before being released to a wider audience. Often the processes of peer review itself can specifically enhance a paper and the ideas it seeks to communicate.”

COLLETTE TEASDALE

Development Editor - Economics Journals, Routledge Journals, Taylor & Francis Group

113

18

“Fundamental physics sometimes advances with the presentation of ideas which may sound crazy at first. This exposes the field to being hijacked by deranged minds with their own “theory of everything” in their pocket. It can be difficult for a reviewer to know whether a study is worthy of publication and so there is a risk that reviewers decide on the basis of their personal biases and turn down good work, or let crazy papers pass.”

TOMMASO DORIGO

CMS experiment at CERN

New research that goes against current thinking might take longer to pass peer review, but if it is scientifically sound, it will eventually be published.

“There have been numerous cases where highly original and controversial ideas have been blocked for years before they have been accepted, published and become popular.”

PROFESSOR MAMMO MUCHIE

Editor of the African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development

We often hear about cases of fraud going undetected. But can peer review ever really detect fraud?

“If a fraudster makes up data carefully, detection is very difficult.

However, made up data often include impossible enumeration. It is astonishing how stupid fraudsters can be. I have seen: published photographs recoloured and relabelled as new data; blots that have been touched up; numerical data that defy the laws of mathematics; non-use of randomization; an absence of blinding; and wildly unequal group size. Underpowered studies with meaningless statistical analysis, are also all too common. Mostly this is fraud by ignorance, but to present such works as meaningful experimental data is fraud nevertheless; it should be detected by peer review but it clearly escapes detection in many cases.”

DR MICHAEL CURTIS

Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods

19

114

CAN PEER REVIEW DETECT PLAGIARISM? “Unfortunately, the peer review process often doesn’t pick up plagiarism as this would require the reviewer to know about every research paper published on the subject area (and remember them!). However, journals use a plagiarism checker that produces a report highlighting the similarities with published papers. Reviewers can carry out their own similar check using etBlast, a free database where they can paste the abstract and see which papers are similar. This process is also useful to help reviewers see where the paper fits within published literature, as well as how novel a paper is.”

ELIZABETH HAY

Managing Editor, RCOG Journals

The Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE) is an international forum for editors of peer reviewed journals who discuss all aspects of publication ethics. They have developed best practice flowcharts for editors on how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct including plagiarism and research fraud as well providing guidance on how editors can responsibly carry out peer review.

A SELF-CORRECTING PROCESS If someone sets out to falsify data, there is sometimes no way of knowing this until the paper is published and others in the scientific community scrutinise and try and repeat the work. Publication of a peer reviewed paper is just the first step: once a paper is published, findings and theories must go on to be re-tested and judged against other work in the same area. Some papers’ conclusions will be disputed or superseded after further research is published. In a sense, long-term, peer review is a self-correcting process.

If a researcher discovers there is a mistake in their published paper, the online version of record cannot be altered in any way, but a correction (corrigendum) is published to appear alongside the paper online.

If other researchers disagree with aspects of a published paper, or have identified flaws, they can write a letter to the journal editor. Some journals ask the authors to respond to the letter and publish the correspondences, which is a way of continuing the scientific debate. Some journals also have rapid response comments attached to papers online.

115

20

After publication, if a paper is found to be fraudulent or plagiarised, or researchers realise they made a mistake in their calculations that invalidates the paper, the journal publishes a retraction which appears alongside the paper online. These can be tracked on Retraction Watch. If editors are concerned about the validity of a paper and there is an investigation underway, they will publish an expression of concern.

Pre-publication peer review is the conventional process of papers being sent out for peer review before they are published in a journal.

Post-publication peer review is when a paper is scrutinised, replicated and commented on by experts after it is published. New web technologies allow readers to rate papers, and add comments and notes to online articles for readers to see.

The internet has created novel ways of reviewing research both pre and post peer review.

Some researchers have started to use blogs, wikis and other Web 2.0 technologies to communicate their own research to other scientists in the field as well as share their thoughts on the quality and conclusions of other research papers.

21

116

DOES PEER REVIEW MATTER TO THE PUBLIC?

Peer review is not only relevant to scientists.

Sense About Science has worked with the public to promote an understanding of peer review, encouraging the question ‘has it been peer reviewed?’ to help the process of weighing up conflicting scientific claims.

Understanding that published research has been scrutinised by other experts in the field can help people understand why a claim that is backed up by a peer reviewed paper is likely to be more reliable than someone’s opinion which has undergone no such scrutiny.

“If patients have been diagnosed with a disorder and the medication doesn’t seem to work immediately, they may search for an alternative on the internet where there are a host of claims for miracle drugs. It can be difficult to distinguish between claims that are backed by evidence and have been tested by researchers, and those that are not. Understanding peer review gives patients a tool to weigh up these claims.”

JANIS HICKEY, DIRECTOR

British Thyroid Foundation

ENTER THE JOURNALISTS….

Most people hear about scientific research through announcements in the media, so it is the journalists who weigh up the status of research and decide what’s worth reporting.

When writing about research claims, should journalists report the status and quality of research? For example, has the research been presented at a conference or is it published in a peer reviewed journal?

“I think it is important for science journalists to be as open as possible about the sources for their stories. I don't think it is necessary to state as a matter of course that a journal is peer reviewed (that is normally implicit), but I think it is often useful to say if a story is based on work from a non-peer-reviewed journal or work that has not been subjected to peer review.”

JAMES RANDERSON

Environment and Science News Editor at the Guardian

117

22

“Peer review is not a guarantee that the science is right, just that it seems to have been done properly. So whether I report the status of research or not depends on the content. If some distinguished cosmologist tells me - without benefit of peer review - that in his opinion the universe went through a phase that resembled custard before splashing into sticky globules that coalesced into galaxies, I might very well make a story out of it. Right or wrong, such a conjecture affects no one. On the other hand, if someone claimed a successful treatment for multiple sclerosis without benefit of a peer reviewed publication, I'd not touch it at all because it would be cruel to raise unfounded hopes.”

TIM RADFORD

Freelance journalist

“Many of my editors - and many of the people that I write for - don't understand the difference between research that has been peer reviewed, and research that hasn't so I tend not to include those terms in my writing. However I, personally, certainly do consider whether research has been peer reviewed or not when considering how much credibility to give to claims.”

CLAIRE COLEMAN

Freelance journalist who often writes about beauty treatments for the Daily Mail

PEER REVIEW MATTERS Peer review may have its limitations, but it is also a remarkable process which relies on the trust and co-operation of the scientific community and acts as a quality control ensuring that published research is valid, significant and original. The process is essential for the dissemination and advancement of scientific knowledge. Without peer review, how would we weigh up claims and know what to believe?

In a survey3 of over 4000 researchers, most (84%) believed that without peer review there would be no control in scientific communication

3

Results from the 2009 Peer Review Survey: Sense About Science, with support from Elsevier carried out one of the largest ever peer review surveys of over 4000 authors and reviewers: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-survey-2009.html

23

118

Reviewing is a role that is integral to the scientific community and so it is important that early career researchers get involved in the process early on.

“One of the reasons I like to review papers is that it makes me feel like an important part of the academic community, and that my opinion about what is (or isn’t) good science actually matters.”

JAMIE MCCLELLAND

VoYS

“Reviewing for journals is my chance to stop bad science being published and improve the quality of good science papers which deserve to get published!”

MARGARET HESLIN

VoYS

“If the results in a paper have important consequences for the public, it is essential that the work is reviewed by peers to check that the conclusions are reliable.”

DR DEIRDRE HOLLINGSWORTH

Epidemiologist, Imperial College London

“Peer review is important because it helps people make decisions about what to believe, what to treat with scepticism and what to trust. When research work has been scrutinised and critically assessed by experts before publication it helps prevent the release of work that is unsound, inadequate or has been wrongly interpreted. Its role is to ensure the scholarly record is as sound as possible. It isn’t, however, a guarantor of absolute truth – it does sometimes go wrong and there are shortcomings - but it is considered by many to be crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research.”

DR IRENE HAMES Editorial Consultant and author of Peer Review and Manuscript Management

in Scientific Journals

119

24

Peer Reviewing

The following is an example of a typical peer review I usually do. I actually start with the specific comments by going through each paper at least twice. I may make comments or highlight areas I want to comment on. As you can see, most of my comments point to areas that need improvement. They often reflect what I think is important in a publishable paper for that journal. This is important for you to understand because you may feel there are different standards, so either you (in this case the author) can either accept mine or challenge them with their own.

After I finish my specific comments, I try to generalize what are the specific reasons for my decision. I try to say something nice regardless of my overall opinion. Here Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m particularly sensitive to how the paper fits with the journal and what are the most significant problems the author needs to address.

I then go to the journalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website to submit my review. Almost all journals I review for have 3 or 4 categories I can choose from. Some journals have a checklist of possible concerns that I need to address â&#x20AC;&#x201C; e.g. how is the abstract, the nature of the claims, the overall writing style. None of these are necessary the basis for acceptance but can be an important for the editor to make a decision. When I was an editor, I was also responsible for judging whether the paper met the guidelines, although I have noticed that some reviewers also focus on this.

Overall Comments

1. The introduction isn’t particularly well‐written; there is a lot of research on the different topics discussed.

2. The literature review has no form; it seems to be simply reporting all of the literature instead of focusing on what factors have influenced your study.

3. It seems that this paper is about Facebook; not about the research.

4. An interesting idea but poorly developed. Requires a great deal of revision.

General Comments

1. The introduction is vague – if the paper is about Facebook and eportfolios, then that should be discussed in the first sentence.

2. At some point you need to address the problem – the vernal discussion of ICT is not very useful since it doesn’t directly address either the problem or why you chose Facebook.

3. There’s a lot of research on eportfolios that is being ignored that might help focus the problem on why you are using it and why you chose Facebook.

4. Be more specific than “popular technology.” Facebook currently is under tremendous criticism so you can just argue that it’s popular.

5. The paper is trying too hard to be an argument rather than a justification for a pedagogy. How does it “promote language learning.” Don’t just cite a bunch of sources – evaluate why you agree with them.

6. Why is it so useful? Why are teachers reluctant – How is your research addressing these concerns.

7. Again, you can’t just say there is a “dearth of studies.” You have to explain why you need such studies first.

8. Be specific – why are you exploring? You need to be focusing on your research not trying to argue about the value of Facebook. The issues you raise about Facebook should be addressing classroom issues, not about the value of Facebook.

9. Your assessment of eportfolios is limited. Again, there is a lot of research that may be addressing these limitations. For example, given what you did with eportfolios, why is the limited audience a problem. Why can’t you do what you did with paper‐based portfolios.

10. Again, your discussing of the limits of eportfolios is redundant, but you are still not dealing with how your approach deals with these issues.

11. Why is it valuable for writing – again what is your paper about?

12. What do you mean by a rhetorical space?

13. The fact that there was a connection is not important. What connection are you going to discus in your research?

14. Why were they hesitant? How did they overcome this? What does this have to do with your research?

15. When you cite research, just cite the results, but more importantly you need to show why these results are related to your research. Again, you are not discussing in class writing but paper‐ based portfolios. How do all these feature you like about Facebook support portfolios?

16. Again, what do learning management systems have to do with your research?

17. Be more specific about improving writing skills – what skills are you looking for in your research?

How does Facebook and portfolios deal with that?

18. Are you using Facebook to improve grammatical accuracy? Why would Facebook use ever improve grammatical accuracy.

19. When you write “according to him”, who else is there? What does “respectively” refer to?

20. All the same issues exist with your discussion of peer review? Again, your research is focusing on comparing different spaces, not on the value of Facebook.

21. Now you have to be focusing on why you chose Facebook for portfolios, particularly if there are such issues you raised.

22. What does “and if ever there was” mean? Either there was research or not.

23. Your research questions are not well set up, given the structure of your literature review.

24. You raise your research questions and then you return to reviewing literature – how is this supposed to be organized? Are you dealing with these issues you raised? If you are they should have been in the research questions.

25. Audience and pressure are the two factors you conclude with. Is this what your research is about?

26. When you say “similar background,” you need to discuss how you measure this.

27. What does “controlled” mean?

28. When you say “choose their own topic” you are actually limiting the choice.

29. What do you mean “experienced?” what guidelines?

30. The methods section requires more specificity e.g. What “guidelines?”

31. What subjects? What time allotment?

32. What do you mean by “collaborative?” Are you using Facebook?”

33. What exactly was in the portfolio?

34. What is “face” and “content” validation?

35. You need to show what pressure? How did the different groups incorporate social pressure in different ways?

36. You cite sources to show happened but no information about your own study.

37. How do you know they overcame their hesitations? You need to discuss in the methods, how they chose their readers.

38. Don’t just list quotes from your students. Evaluate their significance.

39. Was the kind of pressure the students received different from that in a paper portfolio?

40. More evidence and discussion are needed about differences in audience, particularly with the paper portfolio.

41. Explain who were seeing their positing’s? How was this different from what the control group received?

42. You can’t just say “a great majority.” You need to cite data to support this.

43. It seems the mail factor is audience, but you didn’t quantify this difference or explain in the lit review why this difference may be important.

44. What future studies? Be specific.

Please type your detailed comments, considering each of the following questions in turn. The more detail you can provide, the more helpful will be your report to the author.

To what extent: 1. does the paper discuss or employ computers in education?

Good although the connection between Facebook and education is not well explained 2. is the abstract a concise account of the work and conclusions? yes but it shares the same limitations as does the paper 3. is the introduction a satisfactory background to the work?

No, lacks relationship to article

4. are any technical methods adequately described and analysed?

No, a lot more detail is necessary 5. are the results adequately described and analysed?

No, a lot of discussion is omitted 6. are the conclusions supported by the data? ok 7. have alternative interpretations of the data been considered? no 8. is the arrangement of material satisfactory? no, research questions are not clearly explained.

9. can parts of the paper be presented more concisely? yes, citation results can be more concisely stated.

Based on your detailed review, is the paper of (please put an "x" before the appropriate option): __ major importance? __ important? _X_ of minor significance?

Do you consider yourself: __ an expert on this topic X__ knowledgeable on this topic __ interested in this topic

2/10/2019

Lifting the lid on publishing peer review reports: an interview with Bahar Mehmani and Flaminio Squazzoni

(https:/ /www.e lsevier. com) Home (/)

â&#x2013;ť

SEARCH

Elsevier Coâ&#x20AC;Ś

â&#x2013;ť

Reviewers' â&#x20AC;Ś

â&#x2013;ť

CART

MENU

Lifting the â&#x20AC;Ś

Lifting the lid on publishing peer review reports: an interview with Bahar Mehmani and Flaminio Squazzoni Two of the authors of a recent Nature study on open peer review explain their ďŹ ndings and how this aďŹ&#x20AC;ects reviewer behaviour

By Christopher Tancock January

,

î?&#x20AC; Reviewers' Update (/connect/reviewers-update)

Š istockphoto.com/vladwel

Subscribe to Reviewers' Update â&#x2013;ť

đ&#x;&#x2019;Ź Comments

Subscribe â&#x2013;ť

(http://www.â&#x17D;&#x2122;friendly.com)

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers-update/lifting-the-lid-on-publishing-peer-review-reports-an-interview-with-bahar-mehmani-and-flaminio-sâ&#x20AC;Ś

1/15

2/10/2019

Lifting the lid on publishing peer review reports: an interview with Bahar Mehmani and Flaminio Squazzoni

(https:/ /www.e lsevier. com)

Bahar Mehmani (https://www.linkedin.com/in/bmehmani) SEARCH CART MENU (BM) is Reviewer Experience Lead at Elsevier; Flaminio Squazzoni (https://twitter.com/squazzoni?

lang=en) (FS) is full Professor of sociology in the Department of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Milan. In this article, Christopher Tancock (https://www.đ&#x;&#x201D;&#x2014;edin.com/in/chriâ&#x2013; her-tancock-26290787) interviews the pair about their recent article in Nature Communications (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08250-2) on the topic of open peer review reports.

So youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve published a recent paper with Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08250-2.eî°´? ď&#x2DC; d_access_token=d3VvgcWKh7C0JTsc5xZiNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NpmgddIf4OB642IfCWBbN rqglkurW3xoaN4lNaTqcdiwJ2qnMSoma08M1LNvKzUTJrzJ0LO B_-jWJy4azfm0rSfdQ1OdKNSfusIi_ANwJtuIkrlYa-IyY41qARbWShxI%3D) that provides some interesting insights into open peer reviewâ&#x20AC;Ś What made you look at this area?

FS: This is a paper which took years to get oďŹ&#x20AC; the ground. It stems from work with PEERE (http://www.peere.org) and BM. At the core was the issue of sharing journal data in a safe, responsible manner. This was one of the most signiďŹ cant pieces of work from PEERE, others are in store and hopefully will follow soon. There had been a lot of discussion in the academic press on the Subscribe â&#x2013;ť Subscribe to Reviewers' and Update topic of making peer review (PR) more transparent accountable.

BM had â&#x2013;ť suggested we needed to look at data. There was (and is) a great deal of (http://www.â&#x17D;&#x2122;friendly.com) đ&#x;&#x2019;Ź Comments

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers-update/lifting-the-lid-on-publishing-peer-review-reports-an-interview-with-bahar-mehmani-and-flaminio-sâ&#x20AC;Ś

2/15

2/10/2019

Lifting the lid on publishing peer review reports: an interview with Bahar Mehmani and Flaminio Squazzoni interest in the potential of open PR under the umbrella of open science/open access, along with lots of debate about its potential beneďŹ ts. What this (https:/ SEARCH CART MENU project does is to test these assumptions with statistical, evidence-based /www.e analysis.lsevier.

There has been other analysis of what works and doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t with open PR. Butcom) analysis is more robust, responsible and reliable when conducted using cross-journal data direct from publishers as happened here. The procedures and collaboration were really good and should serve as standard in future for researching PR.

How long was the study?

BM: I started the pilot with ďŹ ve journals in November based on a small experiment with one of them in . The pilot ended in December .

What I shared was the data from ďŹ ve journalsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; peer review databases. This was part of a wider data sharing process conducted under a PEERE data sharing protocol whereby Elsevier journals in agreement with their editors contributed.

The idea was to run the pilot and use the data to see what impact (if any) there was on the submission rates and behaviour of reviewers in open PR. This had always been very diďŹ&#x192;cult to do as there are so many variables. We had to consider how to combine data to accurately model the impact of this model of peer review on refereesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; behaviour. Before any of this, however, we ďŹ rst had to develop a proper data sharing protocol (https://www.nature.com/articles/546352a) . This took an additional two years to do! There was lots of back-and-forth between Elsevier, SpringerNature, Wiley, the Royal Society and PEERE. Happily, we ďŹ nally celebrated the signing of a comprehensive protocol between all parties in .

What were you looking for?

Subscribe to Reviewers' Update â&#x2013;ť

đ&#x;&#x2019;Ź Comments

Subscribe â&#x2013;ť

(http://www.â&#x17D;&#x2122;friendly.com)

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers-update/lifting-the-lid-on-publishing-peer-review-reports-an-interview-with-bahar-mehmani-and-flaminio-sâ&#x20AC;Ś

3/15

2/10/2019

Lifting the lid on publishing peer review reports: an interview with Bahar Mehmani and Flaminio Squazzoni BM: We were basically interested in testing the anecdotal evidence about open PR. One hears a lot about open PR but thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s not much actual (https:/ SEARCH CART MENU evidence!

There was no large-scale study on the topic.

With our study, we /www.e were examining lsevier. how open PR impacts acceptance, completion rate, how refereescom) write, what type of recommendations they make and what eďŹ&#x20AC;ect is felt from the decision on whether to reveal identity or notâ&#x20AC;Ś

FS: If I may add, Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d agree on the above. Furthermore, there was another important aspect: to look at all factors systematically. There have been other articles on the impact of aspects of open PR, but here we could look at them all together, systematically and coherently. We were also able to compare what happened with these ďŹ ve journals with external data on similar journals that did not switch to OPR. This we used as a â&#x20AC;&#x153;controlâ&#x20AC;? to test and validate our ďŹ ndings and was very important. One must also be mindful of the need to consider the context â&#x20AC;&#x201C; this allows you to interpret results more accuratelyâ&#x20AC;Ś For example, declining reviewer acceptance is a general trend, so not necessarily speciďŹ c to these ďŹ ve journals and this test. Often existing studies claim points based on limited data and suggesting generalizations.

Being robust in this way allowed us to be conďŹ dent in the interpretation of our results.

One other thing to noteâ&#x20AC;Ś The academic landscape works against us in completing this sort of work requiring years â&#x20AC;&#x201C; nowadays the trend is about fast work, fast publications, more citations, etc. Our type of study required slow, careful work by all the team involved, especially Francisco Grimaldo (https://www.uv.es/grimo/) (who is our data master from the University of Valencia, and leading ďŹ gure in PEERE) and Giangiacomo Bravo (https://lnu.se/en/staff/giangiacomo.bravo/) (our great data scientist from Linnaeus University in Sweden)!

Subscribe to Reviewers' Update â&#x2013;ť

What did you expect to ďŹ nd?

đ&#x;&#x2019;Ź Comments

Subscribe â&#x2013;ť

(http://www.â&#x17D;&#x2122;friendly.com)

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers-update/lifting-the-lid-on-publishing-peer-review-reports-an-interview-with-bahar-mehmani-and-flaminio-sâ&#x20AC;Ś

4/15

2/10/2019

Lifting the lid on publishing peer review reports: an interview with Bahar Mehmani and Flaminio Squazzoni FS: We were expecting more negative results, to be frank. We anticipated a more pronounced eďŹ&#x20AC;ect from the trial. But we didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t get one! We didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t note (https:/ SEARCH CART MENU a signiďŹ cant an eďŹ&#x20AC;ect from open PR on refereesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; willingness or turnaround /www.e time. About the only negative issue was that only around eight per cent of lsevier. com) reviewers agreed to reveal their names. Interestingly, these [resulting reports] were often positiveâ&#x20AC;Ś Received wisdom told us that switching to OPR would lead to reviewers being sceptical, hesitant, taking longer to perform reviews but this not true as our new study shows! The issue of referees being reluctant to reveal their identities is not surprising really, but this shows that open PR is possible and sustainable when you bear this in mind.

What is the key take-home message from your research?

FS: Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d say that open PR is a very important innovation, but it needs to be coherent with incentives and approvals that underpin the world of academia!

You canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t implement a PR system without considering the human factor. One needs to remember that scholars are embedded in a competitive environment with complex reward systems. Therefore, you need to establish a system which recognizes and is sensitive to those systems and which considers the human and social factors.

BM: From my point of view itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the need to consider system analysis to test any assumptions as well as the importance of working with independent researchers to do so.

Should journals and publishers be more proactive and engage with open peer review faster do you think?

FS: Well, you know here in Italy, we like slow food not fast food! Maybe itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the same with this topicâ&#x20AC;Ś I think itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s better to proceed slowly and carefully.

Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s take time to develop evidence-based, careful research. We can then Subscribe â&#x2013;ť Subscribe to Reviewers' Update analyse the eďŹ&#x20AC;ect of manipulating PR across publishers andâ&#x2013;ťacross domains.

For example, open PR is not generally accepted in the humanities and social (http://www.â&#x17D;&#x2122;friendly.com) đ&#x;&#x2019;Ź Comments

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers-update/lifting-the-lid-on-publishing-peer-review-reports-an-interview-with-bahar-mehmani-and-flaminio-sâ&#x20AC;Ś

5/15

2/10/2019

the lid on publishing peer review reports: an interview with Bahar Mehmani and Flaminio Squazzoni sciences, whereLifting individual research is dominant. ConďŹ dentiality is a big issue in that ďŹ eld. As a result, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s important not to generalize and impose (https:/ SEARCH CART MENU standards that do not suit certain communities. /www.e

Is

lsevier. therecom) a plan

for a follow up or â&#x20AC;&#x153;next stepâ&#x20AC;? after the article?

BM: Well, weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re very interested in looking at behavioural aspects of those who did reveal their identity. We want to look at their motivations.

FS: Indeed! Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re already looking closer at the eight per cent - in fact I just saw some preliminary statistics from Giangiacomo and the team yesterday about this. What we already found is a correlation between type of recommendation and the decision to/not reveal oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ID. It was mainly positive from those who revealed. ALL cases where the recommendation was to reject didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t reveal however. We want to use this analysis for a simulation model to look at an even broader scale and play with the parameters to try and judge the impact on behaviour.

Is there any advice youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d oďŹ&#x20AC;er journal editors and reviewers as a result of your study?

FS: Yes! Sharing internal data in a responsible, responsiblymanaged/designed way is to be encouraged!

BM: Thinking about referees, I have myself recently reviewed and decided to reveal my ID. After all, I dedicated lots of time and eďŹ&#x20AC;ort. I therefore wanted to be open to promote them. After all, I was probably one of the only people at that point who had carefully read the paper (twice!). Being a reviewer openly gives you the opportunity to promote the paper at conferences and on social media.

Subscribe to Reviewers' Update â&#x2013;ť

Subscribe â&#x2013;ť

FS: Ah, but what if you had recommended rejection?!

đ&#x;&#x2019;Ź Comments

(http://www.â&#x17D;&#x2122;friendly.com)

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers-update/lifting-the-lid-on-publishing-peer-review-reports-an-interview-with-bahar-mehmani-and-flaminio-sâ&#x20AC;Ś

6/15

REVISE AND RESUBMIT RESPONDING TO REVIEWERS

Reivise and resubmi is one of the most common response you will receive from a journal. It means that further revision is needed on a paper. Therefore, just as you might feel about receving feedback from your professors, you should view this as a positive response and unless there are some extenuating factors, you should floow the suggestions and rebumit your paper.

There is no one format for responding. You need to respond to every cooment the reviewers makes. If uou disagree with the reviewer, it is important that you provide a reason why you disagree. It is up to the editor to decide whether your resoson is appropriate.

1/26/2018

Essay on how academics should approach 'revise and resubmit' responses from journals

#Career Advice (/advice)

The 'Revise and Resubmit' Michael S. Harris offers advice on how to handle a key part of the publishing process.

By Michael S. Harris // August 3, 2015

4 COMMENTS (/ADVICE/2015/08/03/ESSAY-HOW-ACADEMICS-SHOULD-APPROACH-REVISE-AND-RESUBMIT-RESPONSES-JOURNALS#DISQUS_THREAD)

(https://careers Faculty Jobs (https://careers.insidehigh Keywords=&radialtown=&LocationId=&R site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_cam Arts & Humanities (https://careers.insi link&utm_campaign=jobs) Education (https://careers.insidehigher Engineering & Mathematics (https://ca site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_ca Health & Medical (https://careers.insid link&utm_campaign=jobs) Professional Fields (https://careers.ins link&utm_campaign=jobs) Science & Technology (https://careers. link&utm_campaign=jobs) Social Sciences (https://careers.inside link&utm_campaign=jobs) Technical & Vocational Fields (https://c site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_ca Administrative Jobs (https://careers.ins Keywords=&radialtown=&LocationId=&R site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_cam When submitting your writing for publication in a journal, the best you can often hope for is to receive a “revise and resubmit” request from the editor. This means the reviewers and editor found value in your manuscript, but want to see revisions. After the revisions, the journal is willing to have youExecutive resubmitAdministration the manuscript Jobs for a (https://c second Keywords=&radialtown=&LocationId=&R review. While there is no guarantee that the journal will accept the article after revisions, your odds are certainly better than if theysite&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_cam rejected you! In today’s post, I will share a few tips and suggestions for how to respond to a revise and resubmit from an academic journal.

Jobs Outside Higher Education (https:// Keywords=&radialtown=&LocationId=&R I recently went through several rounds of revisions on a manuscript that I am publishing. I received literally hundreds of comments and suggestions for changes. One site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_cam round of revisions had 277 items to address.

If you receive a long list of revisions, do not despair. Editors and reviewers may request dozens or hundreds of changes. The fact that an editor is willing to reconsider your manuscript despite the areas to improve should give you hope.

Without a clear plan, you simply can’t tackle that many comments. Below are the six steps I take to respond to a revise and resubmit request from a scholarly publication and I believe can be a useful model.

1. Read through the comments and edits.

Often, you will receive a set of overarching comments and areas to improve from the editor. You should read this rst as it will give you the broad parameters of what you need to work on improving. Next, there will usually be comments from reviewers. Sometimes these are in a narrative form and other times they will be inside the manuscript (using track changes in Word, for example). Read through these to get a better sense of the speci c areas that you will need to address.

2. Create a master to-do list.

The next step is to create a to-do list of everything you need to x before resubmitting the manuscript. I include everything from the major to minor on the list (this list is how I know I had 277 things to x in one round of revisions). Particularly for the major areas listed in the editor’s letter, you may have to create multiple items to resolve the issue raised. I recommend your to do list be written in an action item format. For example, don’t list “clarify conceptual framework.” Instead use “insert an additional page of discussion of the conceptual framework to better explain how I used the conceptual framework in my analysis.”

https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2015/08/03/essay-how-academics-should-approach-revise-and-resubmit-responses-journals

1/5

1/26/2018

Essay on how academics should approach 'revise and resubmit' responses from journals

As you work on creating the master to do list, you will nd that some reviewers mention similar areas to improve so you can combine these comments into one action item. You may also realize that the reviewers’ advice is contradictory. In this case, you will have to determine how you will move forward and put that on your to do list.

3. Work through your master to do list.

Now that you have compiled everything you need to nish before resubmitting your manuscript, the next stage is to work through the list. There are multiple ways you can do this. Some people prefer to work logically through the paper starting at the introduction, working through to the conclusion. I tend to prefer to move around between different sections to keep myself fresh and to keep my mind on the big picture. There isn’t a right or wrong way to do this so long as you get everything on the to do list completed.

Another way I like to tackle the list is by starting each writing session with a big issue to x. This way I know I have completed a major area of revision in the writing session. Toward the end of my writing time, I will knock out a few quick and easy changes to make myself feel better about the progress I am making.

4. Review the editor’s letter and reviewers’ comments.

After completing your to do list, review the editor’s letter and any comments that you received to make sure that you fully addressed what they asked you to do. As you get into the weeds of making changes, you can easily miss something. This check can help you verify that you have done everything needed.

5. Write a response letter to the editor.

Using your to do list and the original reviews as a guide, write a letter to the editor. You do not need to detail every minor change that you have made, but you should identify the major areas that you improved. In addition, if you had contradictory comments from reviewers or did not address a major area raised by the reviewers, (https://careers you should clearly explain your logic and rationale.

Faculty Jobs (https://careers.insidehigh Keywords=&radialtown=&LocationId=&R Receiving a revise and resubmit is a huge accomplishment. Completing the revisions and resubmitting your manuscript is truly a site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_cam wonderful milestone — celebrate your Arts & Humanities (https://careers.insi achievement. link&utm_campaign=jobs) Education (https://careers.insidehigher Engineering & Mathematics (https://ca site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_ca Health & Medical (https://careers.insid link&utm_campaign=jobs) Michael S. Harris is associate professor of higher education and director of the Center for Teaching Excellence at Southern Methodist University.

Professional Fields (https://careers.ins link&utm_campaign=jobs) Science & Technology (https://careers. link&utm_campaign=jobs) Read more by Michael S. Harris Social Sciences (https://careers.inside link&utm_campaign=jobs) Technical & Vocational Fields (https://c jump to comments (#comment-target) site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_ca 6. Resubmit your manuscript and CELEBRATE!

Bio

(/print/advice/2015/08/03/essayhow-academics-should-approachrevise-and-resubmit-responsesjournals? width=775&height=500&iframe=true)

Administrative Jobs (https://careers.ins Keywords=&radialtown=&LocationId=&R site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_cam Executive Administration Jobs (https://c Keywords=&radialtown=&LocationId=&R site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_cam Jobs Outside Higher Education (https:// Keywords=&radialtown=&LocationId=&R site&utm_content=sidebar-link&utm_cam

Be the rst to know. (https://www.insidehighered.com/content/signinside-higher-eds-newsletters) Get our free daily newsletter. (https://www.insidehighered.com/content/signinside-higher-eds-newsletters)

Work/School Email

Yes, please!

-

Hide comments

https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2015/08/03/essay-how-academics-should-approach-revise-and-resubmit-responses-journals

2/5

1/22/2018

The puzzle: Why do scientists typically respond to legitimate scientific criticism in an angry, defensive, closed, non-scientific way? The answer: …

Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science The puzzle: Why do scientists typically respond to legitimate scientific criticism in an angry, defensive, closed, non-scientific way? The answer: We’re trained to do this during the process of responding to peer review.

Posted by Andrew on 13 January 2018, 9:47 am

[image of Cantor’s corner] Here’s the “puzzle,” as we say in social science. Scientific research is all about discovery of the unexpected: to do research, you need to be open to new possibilities, to design experiments to force anomalies, and to learn from them. The sweet spot for any researcher is at Cantor’s corner. (See here for further explanation of the Cantor connection.)

Buuuut . . . researchers are also notorious for being stubborn. In particular, here’s a pattern we see a lot: – Research team publishes surprising result A based on some “p less than .05” empirical results.

– This publication gets positive attention and the researchers and others in their subfield follow up with open-ended “conceptual replications”: related studies that also attain the “p less than .05” threshold.

– Given the surprising nature of result A, it’s unsurprising that other researchers are skeptical of A. The more theoretically-minded skeptics, or agnostics, demonstrate statistical reasons why these seemingly statistically-significant results can’t be trusted. The more empirically-minded skeptics, or agnostics, run preregistered replications studies, which fail to replicate the original claim.

– At this point, the original researchers do not apply the time-reversal heuristic and conclude that their original study was flawed (forking paths and all that). Instead they double down, insist their original findings are correct, and they come up with lots of little explanations for why the replications aren’t relevant to evaluating their original claims. And they typically just ignore or brush aside the statistical reasons why their original study was too noisy to ever show what they thought they were finding.

So, the puzzle is: researchers are taught to be open to new ideas, research is all about finding new things and being aware of flaws in existing paradigms—but researchers can be sooooo reluctant to abandon their own pet ideas.

OK, some of this we can explain by general “human nature” arguments. But I have another explanation for you, that’s specific to the scientific communication process.

My story goes like this. As scientists, we put a lot of effort into writing articles, typically with collaborators: we work hard on each article, try to get everything right, then we submit to a journal.

What happens next? Sometimes the article is rejected outright, but, if not, we’ll get back some review reports which can have some sharp criticisms: What about X? Have you considered Y? Could Z be biasing your results? Did you consider papers U, V, and W? The next step is to respond to the review reports, and typically this takes the form of, We considered X, and the result remained significant. Or, We added Y to the model, and the result was in the same direction, marginally significant, so the claim still holds. Or, We adjusted for Z and everything changed . . . hmmmm . . . we then also though about factors P, Q, and R. After including these, as well as Z, our finding still holds. And so on.

The point is: each of the remarks from the reviewers is potentially a sign that our paper is completely wrong, that everything we thought we found is just an artifact of the analysis, that maybe the effect even goes in the opposite direction! But that’s typically not how we take these remarks. Instead, almost invariably, we think of the reviewers’ comments as a set of hoops to jump through: We need to address all the criticisms in order to get the paper published. We think of the reviewers as our opponents, not our allies (except in the case of those reports that only make mild suggestions that don’t threaten our hypotheses).

When I think of the hundreds of papers I’ve published and the, I dunno, thousand or so review reports I’ve had to address in writing revisions, how often have I read a report and said, Hey, I was all wrong? Not very often. Never, maybe?

So, here’s the deal. As scientists, we see serious criticism on a regular basis, and we’re trained to deal with it in a certain way: to respond while making minimal, ideally zero, changes to our scientific claims.

That’s what we do for a living; that’s what we’re trained to do. We think of every critical review report as a pain in the ass that we have to deal with, not as a potential sign that we screwed up.

So, given that training, it’s perhaps little surprise that when our work is scrutinized in post-publication review, we have the same attitude: the expectation that the critic is nitpicking, that we don’t have to change our fundamental claims at all, that if necessary we can do a few supplemental analyses and demonstrate the robustness of our findings to those carping critics.

And that’s the answer to the puzzle: Why do scientists typically respond to legitimate scientific criticism in an angry, defensive, closed, non-scientific way? Because in their careers, starting from the very first paper they submit to a journal in grad school, scientists get regular doses of legitimate scientific criticism, and they’re trained to respond to it in the shallowest way possible, almost never even considering the possibility that their work is fundamentally in error.

P.S. I’m pretty sure I posted on this before but I can’t remember when, so I thought it was simplest to just rewrite from scratch.

P.P.S. Just to clarify—I’m not trying to slam peer review. I think peer review is great; even at its worst it can be a way to convey that a paper has not been clear. My problem is not with peer review but rather with our default way of responding to peer review, which is to figure out how to handle the review comments in whatever way is necessary to get the paper published. I fear that this trains us to respond to post-publication criticism in that same way. http://andrewgelman.com/2018/01/13/solution-puzzle-scientists-typically-respond-legitimate-scientific-criticism-angry-defensive-closed-non-scientific-…

1/17

2/12/2019

How to use reviewers' revise and resubmit comments most effectively (opinion)

#Career Advice (/advice)

From Dreaded to Amazing Cathy Davidson describes how to transform your “revise and resubmit” comments from one to the other.

By Cathy N. Davidson // February 12, 2019 0 COMMENTS (/ADVICE/2019/02/12/HOW-USE-REVIEWERS-REVISE-AND-RESUBMIT-COMMENTS-MOST-EFFECTIVELYOPINION#DISQUS_THREAD)

(https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_ les/styles/large/public/media/clip%20board%20art_0 itok=H1BwOp5j) ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/EHRUI1979

Perhaps the biggest turning point in my career as a researcher and writer came the day that it dawned on me that receiving a “revise and resubmit” reader’s report -- or any kind of professional feedback -- was a gift, not a curse and a condemnation. The rst few times it felt like, no matter what I did, some “authority gure” was going to tell me how wrong or bad or stupid I was. Sound familiar?

Then I showed one of my early R and R’s to a senior colleague. (This in itself was a big step.) “Can you believe this sexist response?” I began to fume. Fortunately, my wonderful senior colleague, Linda Wagner-Martin -- then https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2019/02/12/how-use-reviewers-revise-and-resubmit-comments-most-effectively-opinion?utm_source=Inside+…

1/11

2/12/2019

How to use reviewers' revise and resubmit comments most effectively (opinion)

at Michigan State University, and the single most proli c scholar I've known in my entire career -- stayed calm, heard me out and asked to read the reader's report. And then she said something like, “Oh, how lucky! Someone was willing to take time out of their own obligations to make sure your work would be publishable -- and is pushing you to be as good as you can be.”

Thank you, Linda. That was decades ago -- a couple dozen books ago for me and maybe 100 or 200 for Linda.

(Google her!) We even did a few massive books together. (See Oxford Companion to Women’s Writing in the United States (http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195066081.001.0001/acref9780195066081) .) I’ve never forgotten that lesson from my days as a new, shaky assistant prof who came to my rst tenure-track job after three years adjuncting all over the place. I'll say it again -- “Thank you, Linda Wagner-Martin.”

In the event that you are not lucky enough to have a Linda Wagner-Martin in your life, I’m going to pass on a method of dealing with R and R’s -- a perspective on it -- that works for me: Read it and think about it. Read it and use it. Read it and revise … It’s all yours, offered not as a solution but simply as one possible method for coming to grips with what someone says about your work.

The point is that, whatever method you use, you should take control of the revision process. For me, the mental shift from “dreaded” to “amazing” comes when I take over the reports and translate them from "their critique of me" to "my action plan for me."

Here’s what I do, especially if there are multiple readers’ reports. I break it all down into microsteps, which -- at least, for me -- makes it easier.

Deconstructing the R and R I begin by deconstructing the reader's reports. I use a template, which I describe later in this essay, in order to make the process as clean, clear, even mechanical (unemotional) as possible. Here are the speci c steps I take:

I print out the reader report(s) to make it easier to deconstruct them. (This is not the time to go paperless.)

I make four categories that I’ll explain in more depth later, into which I will put every single comment by each reader. I cut and paste everything from the reader's report onto separate pages for each category.

I make each category its own sheet(s). I print these out and then I literally check off the boxes after I do something so I have a clear visual of completion and progress. (This is unlike editing online where your work disappears and your faults seem to stay, and stay, and stay!)

Then, I turn to my manuscript:

I keep a clean original copy of my full manuscript -- exactly what the readers saw.

I make an online copy of the manuscript using a visually and distinctly different font or type size or margins or color. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2019/02/12/how-use-reviewers-revise-and-resubmit-comments-most-effectively-opinion?utm_source=Inside+…

2/11

2/12/2019

How to use reviewers' revise and resubmit comments most effectively (opinion)

I make my revisions, both by hand and online, on this new copy, leaving the original pristine. At some point(s), I also want a physical copy of the revision so I can see how much I'm accomplishing. Other times, I don't want to see the process -- only how the nal version is coming along.

Rewarding myself with progress on these steps is essential for an R and R. The Template Here are the four categories into which I put every comment from each reader. I’ve also provided recommended actions to take with each one.

No. 1. Praise. I list any complimentary comments according to Reader A, Reader B or both. I put in page numbers if they are available.

Action: I don’t touch anything that both readers love, and you shouldn’t, either. Be very careful changing anything even one reader loves if the other one doesn’t mention it. The easiest way to defeat yourself with an R and R is to revise the good parts that don’t need revision.

No. 2. Small, easy, xable things. These include typos, fact errors, run-on sentences, clarity points and the like.

Again, I list these according to Reader A, Reader B or both.

Action: I like to x simple things rst. I literally go through the new manuscript in its new revision 2 font and make all these changes. Every time I make a change, I check it off on my No. 2 sheet: Small, Easy, Fixable Things. This is a great psychological warmup for tackling the next step.

No. 3. Large, conceptual, and structural revisions. This is where I do much more extensive work on the piece.

Action: Sometimes I do this with a trusted writing group or friend. I like to make the revision rst, then show someone the before and the reader’s comment and the after and get feedback. It’s easy to get lost. I do not have a method for whether to do both or the one or the other rst. But I like to get feedback on how I’m doing any time I feel stuck.

No. 4. Paranoid readings of readers’ reports. This is what I think is actually happening in reader’s reports but that they aren’t saying. Vocalized, paranoid readings usually go something like: “I’m sure I know who Reader A was. He’s a misogynist and hates feminist work.”

Paranoid readings overemphasize critique and undervalue the readers’ support. In my experience, paranoid reading is typically wrong.

NB: I was editor of American Literature for a decade and heard versions of this paranoid reading dozens of times, including guesses about the speci c person who must have written the report. About 99 percent of the time, people were wrong in their guesses. Often, it was not some enemy from a different critical camp but a friend/colleague who offered critique in the hopes that it would make the nal essay even stronger.

Action: The only thing to do with any such paranoid feeling is to label it: “This is my suspicion, my paranoia. This is not actually in the reports. I’m going to just leave it there and not change a thing in the essay to feed this https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2019/02/12/how-use-reviewers-revise-and-resubmit-comments-most-effectively-opinion?utm_source=Inside+…

3/11

1/2/2019

The ABC’s of Responding to Critique from a Journal Editor or Reviewer

(https://www.aclang.com/)

ENG (https://ww

THE ABC’S OF RESPONDING TO CRITIQUE FROM A JOURNAL EDITOR OR REVIEWER < (HTTPS://WWW.ACLANG.COM/BLOG/)

WRITTEN BY: AVI STAIMAN. AUG. 2, 2018 After hours of research, writing, rewriting, and editing (https://www.aclang.com/editing-service/), you’ve finally crossed the Rubicon and submitted your manuscript for review. The customary academic review process begins with an initial review from a journal editor. The editor reads the entire text and then decides what to pass on to reviewers.

Because those reviewers — two, three, and sometimes even more — determine whether a piece moves forward in the publication process, they act as the gatekeepers to publication.

Oftentimes you may feel discouraged by reviewers who send a lengthy critique, question the novelty of your study, or attack your methodology. You may feel that they don’t even understand your research. Rather than responding with a curt email or being discouraged by comments and critique from reviewers, consider these ABCs of responding to criticism.

A: Always be polite It’s easy to get frustrated with comments, questions or endless back-and-forth with reviewers.

Remember that the peer review process is designed to improve the quality of your research, not to “win” or demonstrate to the reviewer that your knowledge of the subject is deeper than theirs.

Reviewers are critiquing your work, not critiquing you. Your responses should not reflect any bitterness or anger, but should be objective responses to their feedback.

Remember that editors and reviewers are acting with the intent to help authors improve their study.

Take advantage of their advice! In fact, a long list of detailed reviewer comments usually means that a reviewer has spent a lot of time evaluating your work and attempting to provide constructive feedback. Most reviewers are volunteers who don’t get paid for their work but do this work in order to promote research in their field. Be sure to thank reviewers for their effort, even if you disagree with some of their feedback.

B: Be open to suggestions

https://www.aclang.com/blog/the-abcs-of-responding-to/

1/5

1/2/2019

The ABC’s of Responding to Critique from a Journal Editor or Reviewer

After spending countless hours working on your text, you likely have a special affinity for it. An ENG outside observer with a fresh set of eyes is sometimes best able to look at your article and point out areas for improvement. (https://ww (https://www.aclang.com/) As anyone that’s gone through the academic editing process (https://www.aclang.com/blog/presubmission-checklist/) knows, few submissions are accepted unconditionally. Virtually all journals require authors to address and respond to the reviewers’ comments. You do not have to make all the changes that the reviewers suggest, but you do have to address all of their concerns. If you are unwilling to change something, you should provide a compelling reason. Therefore, consider strongly all of the suggestions you receive.

C: Critique the critique?

The purpose of a review is to identify ways to improve your research and to help you think critically about your findings in a new way. It is easy to poke holes in an argument; however, it is much harder to suggest how to fix it.

A good review is more than just a simple “revise,” “reject,” or “accept.” It should be multifaceted and meaningful and should guide you to a better argument structure or content. If your review is curt or cursory, it may lack the ability to do that. Politely push your reviewers to provide these details if they haven’t done so already. If you disagree with a reviewer’s critique, you should say so in a polite way.

Be clear and focused, and provide as many details as necessary to help the reviewer understand your line of reasoning. Addressing a reviewer’s critique doesn’t always mean accepting his or her opinion. Oftentimes it means better expressing your own.

D: Deep breath Initial irritation is only natural. Put the review away for a few days and then read the comments again carefully and objectively to ensure that you have clearly understood the reviewers’ concerns.

Once you have taken a moment, focus on the particular details the reviewers discuss. These details are important because they will help the reviewer understand how you have addressed their expressed concerns. A methodical, step-by-step response to any comments will help polish your work and impress your reviewer or editor. Becoming defensive and rejecting all of the reviewers’ comments out of hand will likely do more harm than good.

E: Establish if it’s “revise and resubmit” or rejection.

You can receive three types of responses to your submission: outright rejection, an invitation for you to revise and resubmit, or, ideally, unconditional acceptance. Because unconditional acceptance is rare, it is important to determine if you have been given an outright rejection or an opportunity to revise and resubmit.

If your work is rejected altogether, you may have chosen the wrong publication. Do some further research into the journal, its readership, and what they publish. Alternatively, a rejection may mean there is a flaw in your work. Use this rejection as an opportunity to think critically about your findings. In this case, any initial reviewer comments will be helpful in figuring out how to reconfigure the piece, if you decide to do this. In these cases, re-submitting the same article to the same publication is not recommended. However, there may be other avenues for publication — don’t get discouraged!

https://www.aclang.com/blog/the-abcs-of-responding-to/

2/5

1/2/2019

The ABC’s of Responding to Critique from a Journal Editor or Reviewer

If it is a case of revise and resubmit, you should implement the suggested revisions and prepare your ENG response describing what you have done. Address each point in order. If reviewers number their comments, use this system for your responses. If you have not made a suggested change, give the (https://ww (https://www.aclang.com/) reasons. Where you have made changes, provide page and paragraph references so that the editor or reviewer can find them easily. You’re well on your way to publication — and helping the reviewers see that their changes have been implemented will speed up the process!

F: Follow up If you submitted your manuscript but still have not received a decision, consider checking with the editor about the status of your submission. Because the standard amount of time from submission to decision making varies among different journals and fields, reach out to colleagues with experience or check the journal website to determine whether you have been waiting longer than usual.

Subscribe to our updates

Even if you have heard from the reviewers, following up is still critical. A thorough, clear, and polite response to editors’ and reviewers’ comments will help to reduce the likelihood of rejection or another round of review, saving you additional time and moving you closer to acceptance. If they set you a deadline for re-submitting your article, be sure to do so on time. If you are concerned that you won’t be able to, ask for an extension as soon as possible.

Being able to accept and embrace critique, whether from journal editors, reviewers, or peers (https://www.aclang.com/blog/Academic-Publication/)is critical to personal growth — and to the development of strong academic work. Keeping these ABC’s in mind will help you navigate the review process and continue on the journey to publication.

Tags:

Journal Submission (https://www.aclang.com/blog/?tag=journal-submission)

Scholarly Journal (https://www.aclang.com/blog/?tag=scholarly-journal) Journal Editing (https://www.aclang.com/blog/?tag=journal-editing)

RELATED ARTICLES

https://www.aclang.com/blog/the-abcs-of-responding-to/

3/5

2Â 125

CHANGES IN THE PUBLICATION AND PEER REVIEW PROCESS THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL INFLUENCES

Changes in attitudes towards publishing and the implementation of new technologies has greatly influenced the publishing process. Traditionally, journals published only a few papers that were considered the final say in truth. Over the years, there has been a tremendous growth in the number of journals as their contents have become narrower and narrower. Nowadays, editors have to consider the specific nature of their audiences as well as the nature of the field before considering what is appropriate to publish. There has been a greater concern with ethics as well as with the nature of what is considered true and what is not true.

The peer review process is also changing. Some journals are giving authors greater say in choosing the reviewers and whether they want the review process to be blind. The time frame for publishing has changed. Editors, knowing the pressure that writers are under, are putting more pressure on reviewers, who mostly remain unpaid and underdid, to speed up the review process. Some journals are including opportunism for including pre-review so that authors can obtain comments before submitting their papers as well as opportunities for post publication discussions that allow authors the change to interact with their readers.

One of the greatest changes has been the rise of open access and predatory journals, both of which are published on the Internet so that there is no charge for reading and sometimes downloading and sharing the articles. Open access refers to journals that publish articles without fees to the reader. Publishers have jumped in on this by charging authors often large amount so money to publish open access. The most controversial aspect has been the growth of the so-called “predatory journals” that require authors to pay for the privilege of being published. Many of these journals claim they have editors who are not really editors and editorial boards where anybody can join or contain members who have been added without permission. They often have name similar to more traditional journals and may hide the fact they charge fees for publication. Authors need to carefully evaluate any journal they hope to publish to before submitting their papers.

124

TRADITIONAL PUBLISHING AND OPEN ACCESS SAGE OPEN ACCESS GUIDELINES

Many traditional gated journals now often open access options, often for a high price. In the following example, Sage, a publisher of many traditional journals in a variety of disciplines published guidelines for open access submissions. In this example, SAGE charges a fee of $395 for publishing an article. This charge is comparable to some of the so-called predatory journals and much lower than the $2-3000 charged by other traditional publishers.

Sage also promises a new approach to peer reviewing. Instead of judging the significance of the research, peer reviewers focus on the quality of methodology, whether the discussion summarizes accurately the results, and if the conclusions follow logically. They feel that this approach gives more power to the readers in deciding the value of the research.

SAGE Open Manuscript Submission Guidelines Table of Contents: 1. Open Access 2. Article processing charge (APC) 3. What do we publish?

3.1 Aims & scope 3.2 Article types 3.3 Writing your paper 4. Editorial policies 4.1 Peer review policy 4.2 Authorship 4.3 Acknowledgements 4.4 Funding 4.5 Declaration of conflicting interests 5. Publishing policies 5.1 Publication ethics 5.2 Contributorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s publishing agreement 6. Preparing your manuscript 6.1 Word processing formats 6.2 Artwork, figures and other graphics 6.4 Reference style 6.5 English language editing services 7. Submitting your manuscript 7.1 How to submit your manuscript 7.2 Title, keywords and abstracts 7.3 Information required for completing your submission 7.4 ORCID 7.5 Permissions 8. On acceptance and publication 8.1 SAGE Production 8.2 Online publication 8.3 Promoting your article 9. Further information

OPEN EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS OER AND PUBLISHERS

This video discusses the conflict between traditional publishers and open educational resources

This Journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics.

This Journal recommends that authors follow the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals formulated by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Please read the guidelines below then visit the journalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s submission site https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen to upload your manuscript. Please note that manuscripts not conforming to these guidelines may be returned.

Only manuscripts of sufficient quality that meet the aims and scope of SAGE Open will be reviewed.

As part of the submission process you will be required to warrant that you are submitting your original work, that you have the rights in the work, that you are submitting the work for first publication in the Journal and that it is not being considered for publication elsewhere and has not already been published elsewhere, and that you have obtained and can supply all necessary permissions for the reproduction of any copyright works not owned by you.

1. Open Access SAGE Open is an open access, peer-reviewed journal. Each article accepted by peer review is made freely available online immediately upon publication, is published under a Creative Commons license and will be hosted online in perpetuity. Publication costs of the journal are covered by the collection of article processing charges which are paid by the funder, institution or author of each manuscript upon acceptance. There is no charge for submitting a paper to the journal.

For general information on open access at SAGE please visit the Open Access page or view our Open Access FAQs. [Return to top]

2. Article processing charge (APC) If, after peer review, your manuscript is accepted for publication, a one-time article processing charge (APC) is payable. This APC covers the cost of publication and ensures that your article will be freely available online in perpetuity under a Creative Commons license.

The article processing charge (APC) is $395.

[Return to top]

3. What do we publish?

3.1 Aims & scope Before submitting your manuscript to SAGE Open, please ensure you have read the Aims & Scope.

3.2 Article types SAGE Open welcomes the submission of original research articles and literature reviews.

3.3 Writing your paper The SAGE Author Gateway has some general advice and on how to get published, plus links to further resources.

3.3.1 Making your article discoverable When writing up your paper, think about how you can make it discoverable. The title, keywords and abstract are key to ensuring readers find your article through search engines such as Google. For information and guidance on how best to title your article, write your abstract and select your keywords, have a look at this page on the Gateway: How to Help Readers Find Your Article Online [Return to top]

4. Editorial policies 4.1 Peer review policy The journal’s policy is to have manuscripts reviewed by two expert reviewers. SAGE Open utilizes a double-blind peer review process in which the reviewer and authors’ names and information are withheld from the other. All manuscripts are reviewed as rapidly as possible, while maintaining rigor. Reviewers make comments to the author and recommendations to the Article Editor who then make the final decision.

The approach of SAGE Open's peer review process differs from that of traditional journals.

Rather than assessing the relative 'importance' of a given article to its respective field, peer review will instead focus solely on determining the quality of research methodology, that is, determining whether the research was conducted properly, the discussion accurately summarizes the research, and the conclusion follows logically from the research. Readers and the academic community at large will then have the power to continue the peer review process after online publication, helping to determine the significance of each article through the ability to share a discuss articles freely and through article-level usage metrics.

The Editor or members of the Editorial Board may occasionally submit their own manuscripts for possible publication in the journal. In these cases, the peer review process will be managed by alternative members of the Board and the submitting Editor / Board member will have no involvement in the decision-making process.

SAGE Open is committed to delivering high quality, fast peer-review for your paper, and as such has partnered with Publons. Publons is a third party service that seeks to track, verify and give credit for peer review. Reviewers for SAGE Open can opt in to Publons in order to claim their reviews or have them automatically verified and added to their reviewer profile. Reviewers claiming credit for their review will be associated with the relevant journal, but the article name, reviewer’s decision and the content of their review is not published on the site. For more information visit the Publons website.

[Return to top]

4.2 Authorship All parties who have made a substantive contribution to the article should be listed as authors.

Principal authorship, authorship order, and other publication credits should be based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. A student is usually listed as principal author on any multiple-authored publication that substantially derives from the student’s dissertation or thesis.

[Return to top]

4.3 Acknowledgements All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an Acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, or a department chair who provided only general support.

[Return to top]

4.4 Funding SAGE Open requires all authors to acknowledge their funding in a consistent fashion under a separate heading. Please visit the Funding Acknowledgements page on the SAGE Journal Author Gateway to confirm the format of the acknowledgment text in the event of funding, or state that: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

[Return to top]

4.5 Declaration of conflicting interests SAGE Open encourages authors to include a declaration of any conflicting interests and recommends you review the good practice guidelines on the SAGE Journal Author Gateway.

Please include any declaration in file separate from the main text, after any acknowledgements, under the heading 'Conflicts of Interest.' If no declaration is made the following will be printed under this heading in your article: ‘None declared’. Alternatively, you may wish to state that ‘The Author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest’.

When making a declaration the disclosure information must be specific and include any financial relationship that all authors of the article has with any sponsoring organization and the forprofit interests the organization represents, and with any for-profit product discussed or implied in the text of the article.

Any commercial or financial involvements that might represent an appearance of a conflict of interest need to be additionally disclosed in the covering letter accompanying your article to assist the Editor in evaluating whether sufficient disclosure has been made within the Declaration of Conflicting Interests provided in the article.

[Return to top]

5. Publishing policies 5.1 Publication ethics SAGE is committed to upholding the integrity of the academic record. We encourage authors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics’ International Standards for Authors and view the Publication Ethics page on the SAGE Author Gateway. Journal policy prohibits an author from submitting the same manuscript for consideration by another journal and does not allow publication of a manuscript that has been published in whole or in part by another journal.

5.1.1 Plagiarism SAGE Open and SAGE take issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism or other breaches of best practice in publication very seriously. We seek to protect the rights of our authors and we always investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of published articles. Equally, we seek to protect the reputation of the journal against malpractice. Submitted articles may be checked with duplication-checking software. Where an article, for example, is found to have plagiarized other work or included third-party copyright material without permission or with insufficient acknowledgement, or where the authorship of the article is contested, we reserve the right to take action including, but not limited to: publishing an erratum or corrigendum (correction); retracting the article; taking up the matter with the head of department or dean of the author's institution and/or relevant academic bodies or societies; or taking appropriate legal action.

5.1.2 Prior publication If material has been previously published, it is not generally acceptable for publication in a SAGE journal. However, there are certain circumstances where previously published material can be considered for publication. Please refer to the guidance on the SAGE Author Gateway or if in doubt, contact the Editor at the address given below.

5.2 Contributor’s publishing agreement Before publication SAGE requires the author as the rights holder to sign a Journal Contributor’s Publishing Agreement. SAGE Open publishes manuscripts under Creative Commons licenses.

The standard license for the journal is Creative Commons by Attribution (CC BY), which allows others to re-use the work without permission as long as the work is properly referenced. For more information, you are advised to visit SAGE's OA licenses page Alternative license arrangements are available, for example, to meet particular funder mandates, made at the author’s request.

[Return to top]

6. Preparing your manuscript 6.1 Word processing formats The preferred format for your manuscript is Word. Templates are available on the Manuscript Submission Guidelines page of our Author Gateway.

[Return to top]

6.2 Artwork, figures and other graphics For guidance on the preparation of illustrations, pictures and graphs in electronic format, please visit SAGE’s Manuscript Submission Guidelines Figures supplied in color will appear in color online.

[Return to top]

6.3 Reference style SAGE Open adheres to the APA reference style. Please review the guidelines on APA to ensure your manuscript conforms to this reference style.

If you use EndNote to manage references, you can download the APA output file here.

[Return to top]

6.4 English language editing services Authors seeking assistance with English language editing, translation, or figure and manuscript formatting to fit the journal’s specifications should consider using SAGE Language Services. Visit SAGE Language Services on our Journal Author Gateway for further information.

[Return to top]

7. Submitting your manuscript 7.1 How to submit your manuscript SAGE Open is hosted on SAGE Track, a web based online submission and peer review system powered by ScholarOne™ Manuscripts. Visit https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen to login and submit your article online.

IMPORTANT: Please check whether you already have an account in the system before trying to create a new one. If you have reviewed or authored for the journal in the past year it is likely that you will have had an account created. For further guidance on submitting your manuscript online please visit ScholarOne Online Help.

[Return to top]

7.2 Title, keywords and abstracts Please supply a title, short title, an abstract and keywords to accompany your article. The title, keywords and abstract are key to ensuring readers find your article online through online search engines such as Google. Please refer to the information and guidance on how best to title your article, write your abstract and select your keywords by visiting the SAGE Journal Author Gateway for guidelines on How to Help Readers Find Your Article Online.

Articles should not exceed 10,000 words (excluding references) and may present original research or literature reviews. The word count (which includes all text including the abstract, manuscript, notes, tables, figures, etc.) should appear on the title page.

Manuscripts should include an abstract of approximately 150 words, and, beneath the abstract, 4-5 keywords. When preparing your abstract, we suggest you describe the purpose of your research, the methods or approaches you used, your results, and your conclusions.

All manuscripts should follow the style guidelines set forth in the sixth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.

[Return to top]

7.3 Information required for completing your submission Provide full contact details for the corresponding author including email, mailing address and telephone numbers. Academic affiliations are required for all co-authors. These details should be presented separately to the main text of the article to facilitate anonymous peer review.

You will be asked to provide contact details and academic affiliations for all co-authors via the submission system and identify who is to be the corresponding author. These details must match what appears on your manuscript. At this stage please ensure you have included all the required statements and declarations and uploaded any additional supplementary files (including reporting guidelines where relevant).

[Return to top]

7.4 ORCID As part of our commitment to ensuring an ethical, transparent and fair peer review process SAGE is a supporting member of ORCID, the Open Researcher and Contributor ID. ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes researchers from every other researcher and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between researchers and their professional activities ensuring that their work is recognized.

We encourage all authors to add their ORCIDs to their SAGE Track accounts and include their ORCIDs as part of the submission process. If you donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t already have one you can create one here.

[Return to top]

7.5 Permissions Authors are responsible for obtaining permission from copyright holders for reproducing any illustrations, tables, figures or lengthy quotations previously published elsewhere. For further information including guidance on fair dealing for criticism and review, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions on the SAGE Journal Author Gateway.

[Return to top]

8. On acceptance and publication If your paper is accepted for publication after peer review, you will first be asked to complete the contributorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s publishing agreement. Once your manuscript files have been checked for SAGE Production, the corresponding author will be asked to pay the article processing charge (APC) via a payment link.

Your article will be prepared for publication and can appear online within 5-6 weeks.

[Return to top]

8.1 SAGE Production Your SAGE Production Editor will keep you informed as to your articleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s progress throughout the production process. Proofs will be sent by PDF to the corresponding author and should be returned promptly. Authors are reminded to check their proofs carefully to confirm that all author information, including names, affiliations, sequence and contact details are correct, and that Funding and Conflict of Interest statements, if any, are accurate. Please note that if there are any changes to the author list at this stage all authors will be required to complete and sign a form authorizing the change.

[Return to top]

8.2 Online publication One of the many benefits of publishing your research in an open access journal is the speed to publication. With no page count constraints, your article will be published online in a fully citable form with a DOI number as soon as it has completed the production process. At this time it will be completely free to view and download for all.

[Return to top]

8.3 Promoting your article Publication is not the end of the process! You can help disseminate your paper and ensure it is as widely read and cited as possible. The SAGE Author Gateway has numerous resources to help you promote your work. Visit the Promote Your Article page on the Gateway for tips and advice.

In addition, SAGE is partnered with Kudos, a free service that allows authors to explain, enrich, share, and measure the impact of their article. Find out how to maximize your articleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s impact with Kudos.

[Return to top]

9. Further information Any correspondence, queries or additional requests for information on the Manuscript Submission process should be sent to the SAGE Open editorial office as follows: sageopen@sagepub.com [Return to top]

JOURNAL STANDARDS THE HIDDEN STANDARDS AND REVIEWER COMMENTS The guidelines for authors sometimes only present a partial view of what are the standards for publication. Another source of guidelines is the instructions given to the peer reviewers. Sometimes these are not specifically given, but in other cases, the reviewers receive a list of questions they need to answer along with their reviews. These questions may include applicability for the journalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s audience and specific questions about the various parts of the paper.

Another source of information can be found in the comments the reviewers themselves make. For the author, these reviews can be very important in revising the paper. Journals often ask authors to include a letter explaining each revision. Even if the paper is rejected, it is still important to revise since you may meet up with the same reviewer even in different journals.

2/8/2017

EARLI SIG Writing Publications

SIG Writing Home

EARLI SIG Writing Publications

Repositories Index

Completed review #2073 Mail

My reviews My account Change password

Title

MS_JOWR_1102 Learning How to Write an Academic Text: A Comparison of Observational Learning with Learning by Doing

Manuscript # 1102 Manuscript documents

Document 1

Final Version JoWR­20160519T1634211.pdf

Date

2016­05­24 02:51:22

Description final version masked JOWR

Log out (cherepaha) reviewer

File

Related Messages

4 messages

Invitation date

2016­06­25

Date due

2016­07­25

Date received 2016­07­01 Editor

MacArthur, Charles

Reviewer

Bloch, Joel

Questionnaire

Name

Question

Answer

Introduction

The questionnaire below summarizes your evaluation. Manuscripts under review should be treated as confidential, proprietary information. After you have submitted the review, please destroy the manuscript you reviewed. Please note that JoWR is an international journal presenting research from diverse linguistic and cultural regions. Consequently, if applicable, authors should specifically address the (national, regional) context under study to inform and clarify readers’ understanding. Please fill in the questionnaire, and then elaborate on the statements below in the comments to author section and/or comments to editors, which are not being communicated to the authors.

­­

Scale

Please use 1 for do not agree, and 5 for I do agree

­­

1

Is the topic and its treatment of interest for JoWR­readers?

3

2

Is the (national) context explained for international audiences?

2

3

Is the theoretical framework comprehensive and relevant for the problem being treated?

2

4

Are the aims clearly stated?

4

5

Is the method adequate for the problem under study?

3

6

Is the qualitative/quantitative data­analysis adequate and appropriate?

4

7

Are conclusions carefully drawn and supported by data?

3

8

Does the discussion link clearly to and clarify the data presented?

3

9

Is the manuscript well written?

4

1

Insufficient information ?

yes

2

Superfluous information?

no

3

Poor organization of the text?

no

4

Lack of clarity in tables, excerpts, figures?

no

5

Style?

no

1

Length of the article?

yes

2

References (APA style)?

yes

3

Accurate summary presented of the abstract?

yes

4

Title of the paper?

no

Comments to General Comments author 1. An interesting study but it ignores many of the controversial issues that it raises. While these issues may not seem controversial to the authors, they will be especially to a North American audience that emphasizes learning by doing much more than learning by observation. These distinctions should also be addressed in the discussion of the results, which may impact how learning by doing is taught…

2. I don’t necessarily believe in replicability but more detail is needed about the methods.

3. The results are only slightly significant, so more emphasis needs to be on the implications for the methodology, not necessarily in line with the methods but on how the results can be interpreted. It will be easy to dismiss the fact the significant results are slight to the implications should be better integrated into the discussion and implications.

4. The title can be revised to be more specific since the whole text is not being addressed.

Specific Comments 5. The first paragraph is too vague; it should be cut.

6. The citation to “hard work” is vague; the claim is too obvious, but what is necessary is to define what that means in terms of what benefits this approach will bring.

7. Cognitive overload went back to the work of Hayes and Flower – their approach was to separate out planning, for example, from composing. What Is the weakness of this approach that your research will deal with?

8. There is an assumption that learning to write is occurring at the same time, but does the literature on learning to write support that assumption.

122

http://sig­writing.publication­archive.com/show­task/REVIEW/2073

1/2

2/8/2017

EARLI SIG Writing Publications 9. Is there evidence that Bandura’s research applies to academic writing?

10. For many North American readers, the dichotomy between learning styles is highly controversial. The author can disagree with that but needs to acknowledge that controversy. Also, the idea that the planning/binary dichotomy may not be binary. When the word “preference” is used, the author should discuss what was found in their research about this distinction.

11. This same controversy exists between learning by doing and learning by observing. Again, North American readers are going to find this dichotomy highly controversial. The research cited doesn’t ‘prove” its effectiveness, particularly in opposition to learning by doing.

12. How would academic writing be different from what the previous research showed?

13. What is the value of “self­efficacy?”

14. There is a contradiction between the strategies the writing by doing have and their ability to write well­organized essays? How Is that knowledge different?

15. In traditional process approaches, planning is an active process, so it was not clear why one group would prefer one approach over the other.

16. What is the difference between a strong and weak model?

17. Was there a class in which this research occurred? Did the participants in the study learn any of this? You mention that this was part of a course, so it has to be assumed that the participants had some background with this approach 18. The problem with the Granello citation is that it is 15 years old and may no longer be true.

19. What were the differences in the interventions? What information was contained in the instructions? What were effective and non­ effective strategies?

20. I’m asking these questions because I think there needs to be a criterion for evaluating the final results?

21. Where were the videos posted? Could the participants view them again? I assume the 50 minutes was the total time of the segments.

22. What was the point of the weak model? The image doesn’t show much. Why is this weak?

23. In what ways were the conditions similar? Why were there two interventions?

24. In this type of design, it has to be made clear that one side simply didn’t receive more instruction than the other group.

25. Was there an assumption that language proficiency and writing proficiency were the same?

26. Did the students know what “attractive and suitable” meant?

27. What were the dependent measures in the study? Did you examine the specific characteristics of an introduction?

28. What was the significance level in the revising condition?

29. The problem with “ecologically valid” is what the participants are learning outside the experiment.

30. Unless you establish in the introduction, why you need a viable option, it’s hard to argue that the lack of significant results is meaningful.

31. Were the criteria different at the end of the study? How did the study affect writing pedagogy?

32. There are other ways of looking at the results by better accounting for these so­called differences in the design of the course.

Comments to author (by other reviewers)

This paper presents an interesting instructional study focused on comparing the effect of an observational learning condition and a learning by writing condition to learn how to perform a complex writing task such as writing an academic text. The study overtakes previous studies in comparing observation and writing instructional conditions because it analyzed the interaction of students’ writing preferences in the effect of the instructional methods, which is the main contribution of this study. According to it, the term “students’ writing preferences” should be included in the title, and the results obtained should be more clearly mentioned in the abstract.

Despite the interest of this study, there are two concerns that should be considered by the authors.

A possible key limitation of this study to consider is its design. They implemented a posttest­only control group design, and it is not clear in the paper whether the authors used a random assignment of the participants to the groups, in order to ensure that they were probabilistically equivalent. In order to support the equivalence between conditions, authors took into account different variables as age, gender and language proficiency, which showed no statistically significant differences between them. However, they are not key variables to consider prior to the administration of the instructional conditions as would be their academic writing performance.

According to the mean age of the sample, the students were not freshmen, so they probably had some previous experience with this kind of academic writing task at university level.

This concern about the design threat the internal validity of the study, so the kind of design used should be clarified, and consider its possible limitations to establish conclusions.

Another concern in relation to this paper is about the kind of instructional programs implemented. It is not clear that the labels used in each condition (learning by observation and learning by doing) reflect clearly the instructional approaches, because the instructional programs include much more.

Learning by observing models included (as specified by authors on p. 14) students' individual reflection about the differences between models (who was the best and the worse and why?), individual recording of these reflections to answer the questions (Which differences between the two writers did you observe? Who do you think is the best writer and why? What did the other writer do that made you think he was the worst ?), and individual notes about which writing strategies they observed in the videos.

In the same way, students in the learning by doing condition, were provided with declarative knowledge about useful writing strategies for implementing the academic writing task through supportive materials. Students also received declarative knowledge about what features should be presented in a good introduction of an academic writing task, through discussion of a written model (as it is pointed by authors on p.13 ).

So, it would be necessary that authors find a more suitable way to name the instructional conditions. Particularly, the learning by doing condition incorporated many other elements that extended well beyond writing practice, which could explain the different results found by previous studies about the higher effectiveness of learning by observation. The finding obtained is not consistent with previous literature, as the authors propose in the discussion section. In this study, the observation condition didn’t show statistically higher writing performance than learning by doing condition. So, it doesn’t seem appropriate to talk about “marginally significant” differences between observation and learning by doing conditions. A possible reason to explain this difference could be linked to the instructional approach followed by the learning­by­doing condition. This condition seems to be closer to strategy instruction focused on declarative knowledge about writing strategies and written products and writing practice than a learning by doing condition.

Solving this concern would involve a complete change in the approach followed in the introduction and discussion sections of the paper, so it doesn’t seem necessary to make a deep review of the rest of the paper. Nevertheless, other issues to consider would be the following: There is no explicit formulation of hypothesis about the effect of the instructional programs on writing performance. Clearly stating the hypothesis on the introduction would be helpful to organize and discuss the findings obtained in the discussion section.

In the method section, subheadings should be reconsidered. They included a section named “materials and procedure” which includes the description of the design and the contents of the instructional programs. However the section devoted to describe assessment materials belong to a different section. Also, it would be more suitable to use the term “session” instead of “intervention” to make reference to the sessions or units of the instructional programs.

As for the measures taken, specific data about the reliability of both questionnaires is not provided in their description in the method section.

In relation to academic writing performance, it would be suitable to show the inter­rater agreement taken into account for each six dimensions to mark the global writing performance score.

Comments to I don't think I've ever heard learning by doing and learning by observation separated; the latter is normally subordinated to the former. editor I feel the author has to account for how readers may respond to this issue.

Suggested decision

reject but encourage to resubmit

This site is sponsored by members of the EARLI Special Interest Group Writing and the SIG Writing Conferences (Geneva 2004, Antwerp 2006, Lund 2008, Heidelberg 2010, Porto, 2012, Amsterdam 2014, Liverpool 2016). See www.jowr.org to contact editors for questions or suggestions.

123 http://sig­writing.publication­archive.com/show­task/REVIEW/2073

2/2

PAY‐TO‐PUBLISH PUBLICATION PROCESS PAY‐PUBLISH FLOWCHART There are two key differences: one is the review by editorial staff instead of peer review, which may not be as valuable, and the addition of a payment requirement directly after getting an acceptance letter. On the other hand, there is no indication of copyright transfer so you may be able to retain your rights.

THE CHANGING NATURE OF PEER REVIEW HOW PEER REVIEW IS CHANGING Peer review is considered the most important factor in differentiating academic papers from other forms of writing. Generally speaking, peer reviewers are unpaid volunteers who are considered experts in the topic. While reviewers are generally given a time frame to submit the review, they are difficult to replace and therefore an author may have to wait until the reviews are submitted. Reviewers are rarely given comments on their reviews and while their future assignments may depend on the quality and timeliness of their reviews, they are usually solely responsible for their reviews.

As publishing changes, so does peer review. Some of these changes have been in response to changes in publishing; others have been in response to controversies over peer review. Today, there has been proposals for open prepublication, post publication, portability across journals. New technologies allow for reviewers to comment on papers before they are published; however, these methods have not taken hold, and most journal still rely upon traditional methods.

126

Responding to Reviews

It is inevitable that you will feel angry or upset if you receive a negative review or a rejection.

That is why we hope you have a plan for where to submit your paper next. Sometimes, it may mean that you need to take some time, maybe read some more research, and carefully consider where to send your paper. If you receive comments, and you may not, take some time to revise your paper as if you are going to resubmit this. Sometimes, you may wind up with the same reviewers, so it is important you understand what they think.

4/13/2018

ScholarOne Manuscripts

TESOL Quarterly  Home  Author  Review

Review TQ-2018-0116  Go to Score Sheet Proof 

2

Files

Details

Instructions

 Due 10-May-2018

 Search Tool

 Contact Journal

TQ-2018-0116 ‐ View Abstract Pluralizing the Paraphrase: Reconsidering Meaning via a Typology of Linguistic Changes

*= Required Fields

Questionnaire

Yes No

Not applicable

Does the manuscript contain new and significant information to justify publication?

Does the Abstract (Summary) clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?

Is the problem significant and concisely stated?

Are methodological and/or theoretical matters comprehensively described?

Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?

Is adequate reference made to other work in the field?

Is the language acceptable?

Please rate the priority for publishing this article (1 is the highest priority, 10 is the https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tq

1/4

4/13/2018

ScholarOne Manuscripts

lowest priority)

Select...

Yes No Does the manuscript appeal to the general interests of the TESOL Quarterly readership?

Does the manuscript strengthen the relationship between theory and practice? Practical articles must be anchored in theory, and theoretical articles and reports of research must contain a discussion of implications or applications for practice.

Manuscript Structure Length of article is:

Select...

Number of tables is:

Select...

Number of figures is:

Select...

* Please state any conflict(s) of interest that you have in relation to the review of this paper (state â&#x20AC;&#x153;noneâ&#x20AC;? if this is not applicable).

Would you be willing to review a revision of this manuscript?

Yes No

* Recommendation Accept Minor Revision Major Revision Reject

https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tq

2/4

4/13/2018

ScholarOne Manuscripts

Confidential Comments to the Editor ΩSpecial Characters

*Comments to the Author ΩSpecial Characters

Attach Files 

Drop files here or click, to begin. (Max of 10 at a time)

No Files Attached

Save as Draft  Save & Print Submit Review 

© Clarivate Analytics | © ScholarOne, Inc., 2018. All Rights Reserved.

ScholarOne Manuscripts and ScholarOne are registered trademarks of ScholarOne, Inc. https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tq

3/4

TheScolaryKitn

Peer Review in a World of “Alternative Facts” By

ALICE MEADOWS | SEP 11, 2017 PEER REVIEW RESEARCH

This post, which was co-authored by Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf, is the first in a series to celebrate this year’s Peer Review Week, which they have also co-edited The theme of this year’s Peer Review Week (https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com) is “transparency.” Among the many planned global activities will be blog posts, both here on The Scholarly Kitchen and elsewhere, webinars and other events, and of course sessions at the Peer Review Congress (http://www.peerreviewcongress.org/index.html) on aspects of transparency, as well as a special Peer Review Week panel, Under the Microscope: Transparency in Peer Review (https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com/activities/).

127

2/8/2018

PLOS ONE: accelerating the publication of peer-reviewed science

Manuscript Status

Editorial and Peer Review Process

Editorial Process Revisions Appeals Accepted Manuscripts

Manuscript Status Authors can check the status of a manuscript at any time in the submission system. Authors will also be notified by email when a decision is made.

Contact Give Feedback

Understanding manuscript statuses Manuscript submitted

The journal has received the submission and is screening it for basic technical requirements.

Editor invited

The journal is identifying potential editors for the submission.

Under review

The handling editor has begun to invite peer reviewers to evaluate the submission.

Required reviews complete

Some or all assigned reviewers have completed their reviews.

Decision in process

The handling editor has entered a decision but the decision is not yet finalized and has not been sent to the authors.

Editorial Process Initial checks

New submissions go through an in-house quality control check to ensure adherence to our policies and requirements, including: 

ethical requirements for human and animal experimentation



financial disclosures



competing interests



data deposition

Manuscripts will not be seen by an Academic Editor or peer reviewers until they pass this check.

We aim to check manuscripts as efficiently as possible, but timing may vary depending on whether we need to return the submission to the author for follow-up queries or additional information.

Editor assignment

After a manuscript passes the quality control check, it is assigned to an Academic Editor according to relevant expertise. See the list of Editorial Board members. The Academic Editor is asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the PLOS ONE criteria for publication. Editors can choose to reject the manuscript on the basis of their own expertise, or assign external reviewers for further evaluation.

How long does it take to assign an Academic Editor?

The length of time it takes to assign an editor may vary depending on editor availability or the time of year (e.g., winter or summer holidays).

Can authors suggest an Academic Editor?

Authors can enter the names of suggested Academic Editors in the submission form, but this does not guarantee that the suggested editor will be assigned to the manuscript.

Will authors know which Academic Editor is assigned?

The editor’s identity is anonymous until the manuscript receives a decision.

Peer review

The Academic Editor decides whether reviews from additional experts are needed to evaluate the manuscript. After agreeing to review a manuscript, external reviewers are typically granted 10 days to complete the assignment. We will follow up with late reviewers and keep authors informed if there are any

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process

1/3

2/8/2018

PLOS ONE: accelerating the publication of peer-reviewed science

delays.

Will authors know who is reviewing their manuscript?

Reviewers are anonymous by default. Reviewers’ identities are not revealed to authors or to other reviewers unless reviewers specifically request to be identified by signing their names at the end of their comments.

Will authors know the identity of the editor reviewing their manuscript?

The Academic Editor is anonymous to authors and reviewers unless and until a manuscript is accepted for publication. The editor’s name is then indicated in the published article.

Will editors and reviewers know the names of authors during review?

The names of the authors are not anonymous to reviewers or editors during review so that they can assess potential conflicts of interest.

Can authors ask to exclude reviewers?

Authors may enter the names of potential peer reviewers they wish to exclude from consideration in the peer review of their manuscript. The editorial team will respect these requests so long as this does not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission.

How many reviewers will a manuscript have?

The majority of PLOS ONE submissions are evaluated by 2 external reviewers, but it is up to the Academic Editor to determine the number of reviews required.

When reviews have been received, authors may see the status “Required Reviews Complete.” Please note that additional reviews may still be pending after this status is activated.



Read the guidelines for reviewers.

Editorial decisions

The final decision on a manuscript is made by the Academic Editor. The time to receive a decision depends on how long it takes for the editor to assess the reviews.

While the Academic Editor is entering the decision, authors may see the status “Decision in Process.”

When the decision is final, authors will receive the notification by email and see the decision term in the submission system.

What are the possible decision outcomes?

After evaluation, the Academic Editor chooses between the following decisions: 

Accept



Minor Revision



Major Revision



Reject

Revisions Authors who receive a decision of Minor Revision or Major Revision have 45 days to resubmit the revised manuscript.

In most cases, the revised manuscript will be re-assigned to the original Academic Editor. The Academic Editor will determine if additional input is needed from reviewers.



Read the guidelines for revised manuscripts.

Transferring to Other Journals Authors can request that submissions (with referee reports, if relevant) rejected from one PLOS journal be transferred to another PLOS journal for further consideration there. Manuscripts will never be transferred between the journals without an author’s consent.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process

2/3

2/8/2018

PLOS ONE: accelerating the publication of peer-reviewed science

We trust that reviewers for any PLOS journal are willing to have their reviews considered by the editors of another PLOS journal.

Appeals Authors may submit a formal appeal for rejected submissions. Appeal requests must be made in writing to plosone@plos.org with the word “appeal” in the subject line. Authors must provide detailed reasons for the appeal and point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Academic Editor's comments.

Decisions on appeals are final without exception. Priority is given to new submissions, so the appeal process may take longer than the original submission process.

Accepted Manuscripts If your manuscript has been accepted, read about what to expect and how you can expedite the publication process.

Contact If you have questions at any stage in the process, please email us.

Give Feedback

Help us improve this page by leaving your feedback. For questions about a specific manuscript, please email the journal.

Did you find all of the information that you were looking for during your visit?

⚪ Yes ⚪ No

Send feedback

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process

3/3

2/8/2018

PLOS ONE: accelerating the publication of peer-reviewed science

Manuscript Status

Editorial and Peer Review Process

Editorial Process Revisions Appeals Accepted Manuscripts

Manuscript Status Authors can check the status of a manuscript at any time in the submission system. Authors will also be notified by email when a decision is made.

Contact Give Feedback

Understanding manuscript statuses Manuscript submitted

The journal has received the submission and is screening it for basic technical requirements.

Editor invited

The journal is identifying potential editors for the submission.

Under review

The handling editor has begun to invite peer reviewers to evaluate the submission.

Required reviews complete

Some or all assigned reviewers have completed their reviews.

Decision in process

The handling editor has entered a decision but the decision is not yet finalized and has not been sent to the authors.

Editorial Process Initial checks

New submissions go through an in-house quality control check to ensure adherence to our policies and requirements, including: 

ethical requirements for human and animal experimentation



financial disclosures



competing interests



data deposition

Manuscripts will not be seen by an Academic Editor or peer reviewers until they pass this check.

We aim to check manuscripts as efficiently as possible, but timing may vary depending on whether we need to return the submission to the author for follow-up queries or additional information.

Editor assignment

After a manuscript passes the quality control check, it is assigned to an Academic Editor according to relevant expertise. See the list of Editorial Board members. The Academic Editor is asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the PLOS ONE criteria for publication. Editors can choose to reject the manuscript on the basis of their own expertise, or assign external reviewers for further evaluation.

How long does it take to assign an Academic Editor?

The length of time it takes to assign an editor may vary depending on editor availability or the time of year (e.g., winter or summer holidays).

Can authors suggest an Academic Editor?

Authors can enter the names of suggested Academic Editors in the submission form, but this does not guarantee that the suggested editor will be assigned to the manuscript.

Will authors know which Academic Editor is assigned?

The editor’s identity is anonymous until the manuscript receives a decision.

Peer review

The Academic Editor decides whether reviews from additional experts are needed to evaluate the manuscript. After agreeing to review a manuscript, external reviewers are typically granted 10 days to complete the assignment. We will follow up with late reviewers and keep authors informed if there are any

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process

1/3

2/8/2018

PLOS ONE: accelerating the publication of peer-reviewed science

delays.

Will authors know who is reviewing their manuscript?

Reviewers are anonymous by default. Reviewers’ identities are not revealed to authors or to other reviewers unless reviewers specifically request to be identified by signing their names at the end of their comments.

Will authors know the identity of the editor reviewing their manuscript?

The Academic Editor is anonymous to authors and reviewers unless and until a manuscript is accepted for publication. The editor’s name is then indicated in the published article.

Will editors and reviewers know the names of authors during review?

The names of the authors are not anonymous to reviewers or editors during review so that they can assess potential conflicts of interest.

Can authors ask to exclude reviewers?

Authors may enter the names of potential peer reviewers they wish to exclude from consideration in the peer review of their manuscript. The editorial team will respect these requests so long as this does not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission.

How many reviewers will a manuscript have?

The majority of PLOS ONE submissions are evaluated by 2 external reviewers, but it is up to the Academic Editor to determine the number of reviews required.

When reviews have been received, authors may see the status “Required Reviews Complete.” Please note that additional reviews may still be pending after this status is activated.



Read the guidelines for reviewers.

Editorial decisions

The final decision on a manuscript is made by the Academic Editor. The time to receive a decision depends on how long it takes for the editor to assess the reviews.

While the Academic Editor is entering the decision, authors may see the status “Decision in Process.”

When the decision is final, authors will receive the notification by email and see the decision term in the submission system.

What are the possible decision outcomes?

After evaluation, the Academic Editor chooses between the following decisions: 

Accept



Minor Revision



Major Revision



Reject

Revisions Authors who receive a decision of Minor Revision or Major Revision have 45 days to resubmit the revised manuscript.

In most cases, the revised manuscript will be re-assigned to the original Academic Editor. The Academic Editor will determine if additional input is needed from reviewers.



Read the guidelines for revised manuscripts.

Transferring to Other Journals Authors can request that submissions (with referee reports, if relevant) rejected from one PLOS journal be transferred to another PLOS journal for further consideration there. Manuscripts will never be transferred between the journals without an author’s consent.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process

2/3

2/8/2018

PLOS ONE: accelerating the publication of peer-reviewed science

We trust that reviewers for any PLOS journal are willing to have their reviews considered by the editors of another PLOS journal.

Appeals Authors may submit a formal appeal for rejected submissions. Appeal requests must be made in writing to plosone@plos.org with the word “appeal” in the subject line. Authors must provide detailed reasons for the appeal and point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Academic Editor's comments.

Decisions on appeals are final without exception. Priority is given to new submissions, so the appeal process may take longer than the original submission process.

Accepted Manuscripts If your manuscript has been accepted, read about what to expect and how you can expedite the publication process.

Contact If you have questions at any stage in the process, please email us.

Give Feedback

Help us improve this page by leaving your feedback. For questions about a specific manuscript, please email the journal.

Did you find all of the information that you were looking for during your visit?

⚪ Yes ⚪ No

Send feedback

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process

3/3

Ethics and Publishing

We will discuss ethics and publishing later, but I want to introduce the topic here as part of the publishing process. Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve seen many times where papers pass through peer review and are published but later are flagged for retraction. There can be many reasons for this â&#x20AC;&#x201C; plagiarism, data manipulation, etc â&#x20AC;&#x201C; but here we want to notice that the publishing process does not end with the publication of the paper. In fact, it is vey important that papers are cited or downloaded. Sites like Research Gate can be important in this way, although there are issues about the use of intellectual property involved here.

Also most of the retractions come after the paper is published. These violations are another example of how the publication can continue. A paper can be retracted at any time. In the case of journals, often the decision to retract is the editor or the editorial board. This can occur at any time, and the process can take a while, so papers may be frequently cited before a retraction is made.

From here, the allegations could be sent to the university, which may convene a committee to determine the future of the accused author. If an author feels, for example, that another author has stolen her work, she must engage in this procedure or find an alternate way. The university or employer can impose additional sanctions

Ethics and Publishing

We will discuss ethics and publishing later, but I want to introduce the topic here as part of the publishing process. Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve seen many times where papers pass through peer review and are published but later are flagged for retraction. There can be many reasons for this â&#x20AC;&#x201C; plagiarism, data manipulation, etc â&#x20AC;&#x201C; but here we want to notice that the publishing process does not end with the publication of the paper. In fact, it is vey important that papers are cited or downloaded. Sites like Research Gate can be important in this way, although there are issues about the use of intellectual property involved here.

Also most of the retractions come after the paper is published. These violations are another example of how the publication can continue. A paper can be retracted at any time. In the case of journals, often the decision to retract is the editor or the editorial board. This can occur at any time, and the process can take a while, so papers may be frequently cited before a retraction is made.

From here, the allegations could be sent to the university, which may convene a committee to determine the future of the accused author. If an author feels, for example, that another author has stolen her work, she must engage in this procedure or find an alternate way. The university or employer can impose additional sanctions

Image via Master Steve Rapport (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:March_For_Science_(34209637345).jpg).

To start things off on the Kitchen we wanted to go big, to be transparent about the values and general principles of peer review. The foundation of modern scholarly practice â&#x20AC;&#x201D; across disciplines and rooted in the Enlightenment â&#x20AC;&#x201D; is the process of testing assertions, followed by critical exchange among experts, and then more testing. But what is asserted, how itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s asserted, and who constitutes the community of expertise has always been up for grabs. Distortions of evidence, actual conspiracies and conspiracy theories, and the attractiveness of some theories over others have historically been rooted in factors including new media forms. In the nineteenth century, it was cheap print; in the twentieth century television and in the twenty-first century it is digital media that makes evaluating information and its deployment so challenging.

128

In the mainstream news, here at The Scholarly Kitchen, and on other blogs, there have been lots of hot — and some not so hot — takes in recent months on the challenge of information profusion, manipulated material, and distorted narratives. When we start to consider what constitutes reliable information, and how we know what we know — from image and video manipulation to social media bots to widely differential news emphases to retracted journal publications — the spectrum is vast. Yet if we return to the basic impetus for enlightenment inquiry, we might find that it is not certainty we seek (or even want), but confidence in the methods and process of discernment, both of which are deliberately lacking in fake news.

Peer review is a mechanism for critical discernment. It’s a vital element of how knowledge, in all its forms, is created through evidence and argument. The framework of alternative facts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts) (in)famously defined by Kellyanne Conway as “additional facts and alternative information,” suggests that knowledge is a matter of opinion. Alternative facts, however, cannot withstand scrutiny, whereas knowledge actually thrives on it.

Peer review, at its best, is one of the most rigorous forms of scrutiny available to us, and is thus key to the production of knowledge.

Of course, neither the process nor the methods of peer review are perfect. But what is arguably perfect is the intent of peer review. It exists specifically to try and ensure that, before being accepted, a paper (or book, conference proposal, grant application, etc.) has been thoroughly reviewed — typically by at least two peers who are experts in the field.

Peer reviewers are explicitly responsible for evaluating the merit of the work they’ve been assigned, according to the reviewing organization’s criteria. Per a modest adaptation of the Council of Science Editors (https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-3reviewer-roles-and-responsibilities/) to include all scholarly disciplines, this includes: Providing written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the value of the work, together with the documented basis for the reviewer’s assertions Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rating the work’s composition, accuracy, originality, and significance for the journal’s readers Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process: not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed work Providing a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work, which may include supplementary material provided to the journal by the author Determining the merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it; and recommending acceptance or rejection using whatever rating scale the editor or other selection group deems most useful Noting any ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any work concurrently submitted elsewhere, which may be known to the reviewer

129

Peer review is vulnerable to cultural and other biases, as is any human endeavor, and we take that seriously. But its goals of subjecting research to scrutiny, to identifying possible errors or concerns, and to providing this feedback to the authors in such a way that they can use it to materially improve their work, reflects core values. This process may be undertaken privately, as in the case of blinded peer review, or, to a greater or lesser degree, openly, for example, through publication of the review report itself. In some cases, especially in scientific disciplines, authors may also be required to provide access to the underlying data and/or proof of replicability.

There is certainly some evidence to suggest that a more transparent process is both wanted and needed by researchers.

Irrespective of the form of review, providing transparent (i.e., clear, accurate, and easy-to-find) information on their peer review process should be a no-brainer for any journal or organization. This could be as simple as a complete description of how they do peer review to, for example, banning confidential remarks to the editor in favor of a collaborative and consensual discussion between reviewers that ensures the author understands the rationale behind their decision (see, for example, eLife (https://elifesciences.org/about/peer-review)). There is certainly some evidence to suggest that a more transparent process is both wanted and needed by researchers. For example, 82% of respondents to PRE’s 2016 survey (http://www.pre-val.org/research/) want to know if an article has been screened for plagiarism, 81% want to know the number of reviewers, and 74% want information about the peer review method.

The same survey showed very strong support for more transparency around publisher policies: 97% agreed (84% strongly agreed) that peer review policies should be freely available; 93% agreed (71% strongly) that journals should provide a description of their peer review process; and 95% agreed (83% strongly) that publication ethics policies should be freely available.

While common sense steps can provide the transparency in peer review and clarity in other scholarly contexts such as research process, including sources and data, it is as important to be transparent about the values inherent in peer review. As an iterative process, peer review relies on a mutual dedication to knowledge on the part of reviewer and author, and on the communal intellectual labor, including that of editors, that makes knowledge creation possible. In other words, peer review is emblematic of broader values and collaborative practices associated with scholarship specifically but also in the production and circulation of knowledge more generally. Good professional journalism, for example, relies on a set of principles (https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp) that emphasizes the use of sound evidence and fact-checking. What peer review and associated like practices threaten is opinion-based assertions that purport to be facts, as well as ideological inflexibility.

As we’ve argued here, peer review is big. It touches us all — not just as authors or editors or publishers, but as readers and consumers of peer-reviewed scholarship in its immediate and derivative forms. When the March for Science featured signs proclaiming the value of peer review, it might have seemed lighthearted to some. But “What do we what? Science! How do we want it? Peer Reviewed!” is in fact an assertion of core values embodied in a practice essential to our ongoing striving for knowledge.

130

Other posts this week on the Kitchen for Peer Review Week will consider the challenges of reviewing digital scholarship; self-citation and the past, present, and future of peer review and we will end the week with a report from the Peer Review Congress (http://www.peerreviewcongress.org/) (taking place September 10-12). We hope you’ll read and engage with these important issues throughout the week.

Alice Meadows @ALICEJMEADOWS

Alice is Director of Community Engagement & Support for ORCID, responsible for communicating the why, what, and how of ORCID for researchers and their organizations. Alice is on the Board of Directors for the Society for Scholarly Publishing and received the 2016 ALPSP Award for Contribution to Scholarly Publishing.

Discussion

1 THOUGHT ON "PEER REVIEW IN A WORLD OF “ALTERNATIVE FACTS”" SLAP-DASH EDITORS? Yes, “providing this feedback to the authors in such a way that they can use it to materially improve their work, reflects core values.” Perhaps it is the burden of editorial work, but too often I have had feed-back from authors whose work I have reviewed (always politely) that they either never received the review, or only a doctored editorial summary (and I do not routinely check with authors). When one expends considerable effort in preparing a judicious and helpful review, at the very least one expects it to be communicated to the author! So let us have an explicit statement from editors when soliciting a review that it will be fully communicated to the author (unless the language is grossly intemperate).

By

DONALD FORSDYKE | SEP 11, 2017, 9:19 AM

131

The Scholarly Kitchen

Journals Peer Review: Past, Present, Future By

ALICE MEADOWS | SEP 14, 2017

PEER REVIEW RESEARCH WORLD OF TOMORROW

Peer review of journals has been evolving ever since it was first introduced in the seventeenth century. Today there are a multitude of peer review processes, many different flavors of review, and a wealth of new tools and services for editors and reviewers. We asked experts from three very different organizations, each with a strong commitment to peer review, to give us their thoughts on how itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s evolved in their organizations and the communities they serve, how it works today, and what it might look like in future.

133

Rachel Burley is Publishing Director of BioMed Central (BMC), an early and highly successful adopter of open access journals with a strong tradition of experimentation in its publishing program. Seth Denbo is Director of Scholarly Communication and Digital Initiatives at the American Historical Association (https://www.historians.org/), the largest professional organization serving historians. Phil Hurst and Stuart Taylor are, respectively Publisher and Publishing Director at The Royal Society (https://royalsociety.org/), the world’s oldest learned society and publisher of the world’s first scholarly journal, Philosophical Transactions (http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/), which celebrated its 350th birthday in 2015.

How did peer review evolve in your organization/community?

Phil and Stuart: At the Royal Society in the 1660s, Henry Oldenburg became the founding editor of the world’s first and longest-running journal dedicated to science, Philosophical Transactions. He acted as both editor and publisher.

Although the journal had approval of the Society, Oldenburg had independent control of its contents and finances.

Much of the early copy was sourced from his Europe-wide network of ‘natural philosophers’. The work of, or sponsored by, the Society was instead published separately in books and treatises.

Under Oldenburg’s control there was little evidence of formal quality control or what we would now call peer review (https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/9434). Unlike the modern journal editor, Oldenburg did not sift freely submitted manuscripts and select for publication on merit. Instead, he worked hard to secure copy from his contacts and regularly extracted, summarized and translated from existing material, or reported on scientific findings second or third hand. His motivation was primarily to communicate and to make foreign material available to his British colleagues. This was in contrast with the close scrutiny required of work published by the Society, which required approval of Council.

After Oldenburg’s death, Philosophical Transactions was edited by Secretaries of the Society and much of the content originated from the organization. Under this model, the Society was vulnerable to accusations of publishing poor quality material but having little control over it. In 1752, the Society officially took over editorial and financial control in order to protect its reputation more closely. By the 1830s the process of reviewing became more formalized, involving the organized scrutiny of specialists and written reports. Referees of Philosophical Transactions were looking for plausibility, originality and significance.

During the latter part of the 20th century, in addition to these criteria, many journals started to focus on potential impact of claims in scientific articles. The ultimate examples of this practice can be seen in the so-called elite journals (such as Nature, Science and Cell) which have rejection rates well above that required to merely weed out poor research. The Journal Impact Factor was created as a measure of the average number of citations received by an article in a given journal. Initially intended only as a guide to subscribing librarians, it started to be used as a surrogate metric with which to evaluate individual researchers for the purposes of jobs and funding.

134

Seth: Journals that publish historical scholarship employ a range of different peer review methodologies for evaluating and developing quality, but most are double blind, so neither the author nor the reviewers are aware of the others’ identity. Peer review itself, as it is practiced in most historical journals now, has a history. When the American Historical Review (AHR) was first founded in the final decade of the nineteenth-century, “Many of the procedures subsequently taken as guarantees of scholarly gatekeeping — such as peer review — were largely absent” writes Rob Townsend in History’s Babel: Scholarship, Professionalization, and the Historical Enterprise in the United States, 1880-1940. Contributions to the AHR — one of the few journals in the field that publishes across all historical fields and time periods — in its earliest days were not subjected to peer review. Most were written by members of the editorial board or their students. It wasn’t until the 1930s, as historical scholarship became more specialized, that articles were sent to reviewers who could assess the quality from a particular subject point of view. The identity of the reviewer was often kept hidden from the author, but consistent use of blind reviewing practices didn’t become the norm until later in the century.

How does peer review work today?

Seth: Today, the AHR has a policy of double blind reviewing. Each piece is read by the in-house editorial staff (associate editor and editor), who assign it to members of the board of editors for an initial round of review. If the board of editors deem that the piece is worth putting forward it is sent to external reviewers. Once the piece leaves the hands of the in-house editorial staff all subsequent reading is done without names attached. The board member’s review and any subsequent external reviews are anonymous, with neither the authors nor the reviewers knowing each others’ identities. Peer review has a number of different functions for the journal. Alex Lichtenstein, editor of the AHR, says “Peer review serves several important purposes. Most importantly, it assures that field-based scholarship remains innovative, up to date, attentive to historiography, and rooted in deep and informed research. It also helps us direct our authors to crafting articles that speak beyond the confines of a particular field to a wider historical audience, even while significantly advancing the scholarship in the narrower case.”

It’s a collaborative process through which potential is developed into a finished scholarly work. While this exchange of ideas between scholars also performs a central role in ensuring that the journal publishes the scholarship of the highest quality, the value in peer review is as much the process as the product. Historians who have been published in the AHR generally feel that the feedback they receive is highly valuable, and plays a vital role that goes far beyond gatekeeping. The publishing process that carefully manages peer review — which aims to ensure that every piece is carefully evaluated by the right group of scholars (in the case of the AHR as many as six rounds of review) — is timeconsuming and labor intensive. It is also the basis of the production of scholarship and scholarly communication.

It’s a collaborative process through which potential is developed into a nished scholarly work. While this exchange of ideas between scholars also performs a central role in ensuring that the journal publishes the scholarship of the highest quality, the value in peer review is as much the process as the product.

135

Rachel: Peer review is the cornerstone of maintaining quality and integrity in the scientific record and to advance discovery. If we want to be able to rely on research, some form of peer review will always be needed. And in a climate of ever-increasing research output, it is likely that the systems used by publishers will continue to evolve, perhaps more rapidly than they have done in the past.

BMC was one of the first publishers to truly open up peer review, and this year we have led on new initiatives to further develop the process, particularly in regard to improving reproducibility and reducing the bias towards positive results. If successful, these pilot projects could become standard offerings at BMC and our parent company, Springer Nature.

We are experimenting with automating wherever possible to lighten the workload of our reviewers and editors (such as with ethics or image checks) as each manuscript goes through an average of 1.5 rounds of checks per submission.

We have introduced Registered Reports (https://cos.io/rr/) at BMC Biology, BMC Medicine and BMC Ecology. This is an innovative new research format which aims to minimize bias by allowing authors to submit their rationale and methods for peer-review before any experiments are conducted. Articles that pass peer-review will be accepted-inprinciple meaning that, as long as the study is completed in accordance with the pre-registered methodology, the article will be published following a second round of peer-review.

Phil and Stuart: As of June 2017, the Scopus database listed 36,377 academic journals. The great majority of them practice peer review incorporating some or all of the following elements: 1. To verify the accuracy of research findings as far as possible 2. To evaluate the methods and statistics 3. To highlight any ethical concerns 4. To make constructive criticisms aimed at improving the article 5. To advise the Editor on the decision to accept/reject (in highly selective journals, this will include an estimate of potential impact/novelty etc) 6. To check that the article is compliant with the data sharing policy of the journal (though this may be done by in-house staff) Many argue that journals should not attempt to select articles based on estimates of potential impact or importance (especially given that print page limits are now largely an irrelevance and that such judgements are inevitably somewhat subjective and dependent on the research trends of the day). This has given rise to a number of journals in which peer review is more ‘objective’ i.e., based only on the soundness and rigor of the methodology. The first such journal was PLOS One (2006). The promise of this type of journal is that the scientific literature might gradually become less biased against negative or null results and will be less dominated by the trends and ‘hot topics’ of the day.

At the Royal Society, nine of ten journals currently operate peer review to verify claims and to assess potential impact.

Our newest journal Royal Society Open Science, however, only judges the former and leaves any assessment of impact and importance to the reader.

136

The time of peer reviewers is very valuable and is becoming more and more precious as research output continues to grow. Serial rejection of sound research by one journal after another wastes a considerable amount of this resource and may lead to needlessly duplicated research.

What does the future hold for peer review?

Rachel: To truly revolutionize peer review, more transformative changes will be needed. Earlier this year, we issued a report (https://figshare.com/articles/What_might_peer_review_look_like_in_2030_/4884878) based on the discussions at the SpotOn conference in London that examines how peer review can be improved for future generations. The report offers key recommendations to the academic community that include finding and inventing new ways of identifying, verifying and inviting peer reviewers; investing in reviewer training programs, and recognizing reviewers. The report concludes that in order to affect real, industry-wide improvements, publishers, researchers, funders and institutions need to be willing to experiment with different models of peer review, particularly those that increase transparency, encourage more diversity in the reviewer pool, utilize Artificial Intelligence, and those that support training and mentoring.

Making the peer review process and experience better and more ef cient is fundamental to our commitment to improve the overall publishing process.

Making the peer review process and experience better and more efficient is fundamental to our commitment to improve the overall publishing process. That is why we are proactively partnering with the research community to save editors’, reviewers’ and authors’ time, ensuring the right person is invited to review each paper, that the reviewer is properly recognized for their work, and that they are equipped to do the job in a way which improves the manuscript and advances discovery. Ultimately, the future of peer review has to be about improving our processes and using technology in a clever way so that our people can do great things.

Seth: Anonymity, many would argue, protects both author and reviewer, and allows for evaluative processes that focus on the scholarship rather than other factors. But maintaining blindness has always been a challenge in smaller fields. Now, when a few key search terms are often all it takes to reveal who is working on particular topics, it is more difficult to preserve anonymity on both sides of the exchange. While technology has made some established modes of review potentially less equitable, it has also opened up possibilities for exploring new methodologies. This, and a growing commitment to openness among many scholars, has led to experimentation with peer review (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/arts/24peer.html) that takes place with varying degrees of transparency.

Phil and Stuart: Although there can be deficiencies in its practical implementation, the principle of ‘review by peers’ has never been more important. The review of a piece of research can be almost as valuable as the research itself.

Publishing peer review reports and the names of reviewers, which we and other publishers are doing, improves the transparency and accountability of the process. In the future journal peer review might be used as evidence for policy makers, as a communication tool to the public and as valid research output in awarding grants and tenure. Let’s hope so.

137

PEER REVIEW AND POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO Reviewing has two distinct parts: the peer review process where the reviewers decide whether the paper is publishable and the post-review process where papers that have been deemed publishable are read and cited by other authors. In most traditional journals, the relationship between the two is in favor of the peer reviewers: what they say about the paper will make it publishable. In newer forms of journals, the power has been shifted to the readers. After a minial amount of peer review, the article is published and its fate will be decided by the readers who choose to download or copy the article after it is published.

9/28/2017

Post-publication peer review in action: Science flags paper just days after publication - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Retraction Watch Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Post-publication peer review in action: Science flags paper just days after publication with one comment

Science has issued an expression of concern for a widely covered materials science paper published on Friday, citing issues with the supplementary data.

The paper — which caught the attention of multiple news outlets — added properties to cotton fibers in vitro, potentially enabling researchers to manufacture fabric that can fluoresce or carry magnetic properties.

The move to issue an expression of concern was unusually quick. According to the journal, an expert who received the paper from a journalist under a media embargo contacted Science to flag issues in some of the supplementary data. At the time of this post, the paper does not yet have an entry on PubPeer.

Here’s the full expression of concern: In the 15 September issue, Science published the Report “Biological fabrication of cellulose fibers with tailored properties” by F. Natalio et al. (1). After the issue went to press, we became aware of errors in the labeling and/or identification of the pigments used for the control experiments detailed in figs. S1 and S2 of the supplementary materials. Science is publishing this Editorial Expression of Concern to alert our readers to this information as we await full explanation and clarification from the authors.

A spokesperson for Science told us: The [Editorial Expression of Concern] originated from a discussion with an individual who contacted the journal after seeing the paper under embargo from a journalist. This alerted the editors to errors in the labeling and/or identification of the pigments used for the control experiments detailed in figs. S1 and S2 of the Supplementary Materials.

Science is now currently awaiting full explanation and clarification from the authors. We hope to resolve this issue quickly.

According to the information available on the abstract, the paper was submitted May 15 and accepted August 21 after two rounds of peer review.

We asked the spokesperson if the journal was disappointed the issues weren’t caught during peer review, and if the reviewers had access to the supplementary material. She told us: 139 http://retractionwatch.com/2017/09/18/post-publication-peer-review-action-science-flags-paper-just-days-publication/

1/5

1/4/2020

Nobel Prize-winning scientist Frances Arnold retracts paper - BBC News

American scientist Frances Arnold, who won the Nobel Prize for chemistry, has retracted her latest paper.

Ms Arnold shared the prestigious award in 2018 with George P Smith and Gregory Winter for their research on enzymes.

A subsequent paper on enzymatic synthesis of beta-lactams was published in the journal Science in May 2019.

It has been retracted because the results were not reproducible, and the authors found data missing from a lab notebook.

Reproduction is an essential part of validating scientific experiments. If an experiment is a success, one would expect to get the same results every time it was conducted.

Ms Arnold came forward with the news herself on Twitter on 2 January.

"For my first work-related tweet of 2020, I am totally bummed to announce that we have retracted last year's paper on enzymatic synthesis of beta-lactams. The work has not been reproducible," she tweeted.

"It is painful to admit, but important to do so. I apologize to all. I was a bit busy when this was submitted, and did not do my job well."

Frances Arnold @francesarnold

It is painful to admit, but important to do so. I apologize to all. I was a bit busy when this was submitted, and did not do my job well. twitter.com/francesarnold/â&#x20AC;Ś Frances Arnold @francesarnold For my first work-related tweet of 2020, I am totally bummed to announce that we have retracted last year's paper on enzymatic synthesis of beta-lactams. The work has not been reproducible. science.sciencemag.org/content/364/64â&#x20AC;Ś 4,249 1:02 PM - Jan 2, 2020 747 people are talking about this Report

That same day, Science published a note outlining why it would be retracting the paper, which Ms Arnold co-authored with Inha Cho and Zhi-Jun Jia. Protein research takes Chemistry Nobel Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers'

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50989423

2/15

1/4/2020

Nobel Prize-winning scientist Frances Arnold retracts paper - BBC News

"Efforts to reproduce the work showed that the enzymes do not catalyze the reactions with the activities and selectivities claimed. Careful examination of the first author's lab notebook then revealed missing contemporaneous entries and raw data for key experiments. The authors are therefore retracting the paper."

The announcement is the latest example of the "reproducibility crisis" facing the sciences.

In October 2018, the journal Nature wrote online that there was "growing alarm about results that cannot be reproduced".

An earlier survey conducted by the journal found that more than two-thirds of researchers had tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments.

Reaction to Ms Arnold's tweets was mostly positive, however, as her colleagues commended her honesty.

"Can I please express my respect for you bringing this to everyone's attention. This shows that anyone can make an honest mistake and acting to correct that is the best response.

Thank you," wrote Dominique Hoogland, a researcher at King's College London.

Ms Arnold is a widely respected chemical engineer, whose work pioneering "directed evolution" won her the €1m (£0.8m) Millennium Technology Prize in 2016.

She is also on the board of directors for Google's parent company Alphabet.

Related Topics Chemistry

United States

Nobel Prize

Share this story About sharing

More on this story Evolutionary engineer Frances Arnold wins €1m tech prize 24 May 2016

Protein research takes Chemistry Nobel 3 October 2018

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers' 22 February 2017

AAAS: Machine learning 'causing science crisis' https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50989423

3/15

The Scholarly Kitchen

Turning a Critical Eye on Reference Lists By

ANGELA COCHRAN | OCT 5, 2017

AUTHORITY ETHICS METRICS AND ANALYTICS PEER REVIEW

Manuscripts are complicated. They start with a summary, continue with a justification for the work, and a comprehensive review of other work related to the topic. This introduction is followed by the methodology, arguably one of the most important parts of the paper. Once the “why” and “how” are explained, the paper lays out the results, discussion points, and conclusions.

Each section of the manuscript listed above helps to tell the story of why the author bothered to do the work, how they did it, and what they learned from it. Peer reviewers and editors are tasks with casting a critical eye on these parts: 140

Is the abstract clear?

Does the author explain the rationale for undertaking this work (novelty)?

Is the literature review complete? Does the literature review show a bias toward a specific conclusion?

Is the methodology sound? Can it be replicated?

Are the results reasonable given what the reviewer understands from the methods and introduction?

Are the conclusions consistent with the stated results?

Are the references complete and devoid of unnecessary puffery with citations to reputable works in the field?

Hold on — what’s that last one?

Reference lists. How closely are reviewers casting a critical eye on reference lists? Well, let’s take a step back and look at some opinions on citations in general.

There are some journals (https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/47777/why-do-journals-have-limits-on-thenumber-of-references) that limit the number of references an author can include in a paper. I never quite understood the point of this and assumed that the rationale had something to do with limiting page counts. It also seems like a useful exercise in figuring out that what you leave out is just as important as what you put in (a lesson taught to me by my freshman political science professor).

This practice of limiting citations does not always sit well with authors. Authors are often faced with requests from peer reviewers to add references to their paper. There are many reasons for this: Omissions of important and relevant work from the literature review.

The author neglected to mention works that are contrary to what the author is presenting.

Peer reviewer takes advantage of their role and requests that the author add referenced to the reviewer’s works.

The reviewer is familiar with recently published and relevant papers that the author did not include.

The reviewer or editor suggests papers published in the journal in order to boost its Impact Factor.

What you don’t often see are reviewers asking an author to remove references. I understand from my friends in the humanities that reviewers do often heavily edit and review reference lists but I haven’t seen evidence (anecdote or otherwise) that this is a widespread practice in STM journals.

Arguments have been made (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/07/16/when-do-citations-reflect-impact/) regarding what a citation actually means (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-citation-in-researchpapers). This discussion is coming to the forefront with the popularity of preprint servers. The question being asked is whether researchers should cite preprints (http://fossilsandshit.com/should-we-cite-preprints/) that have not undergone peer review. I am not going to debate that here, but the next leap is whether journals should allow preprints to be cited and if so, should there be a clear indication that the paper has not been reviewed?

141

Is a citation a vote of approval for the cited work? Is it an acknowledgement of work contributing to the overall body of knowledge?

Did you know that there is an inflated importance of article citations? Of course you did. We talk about it all the time — in posts, in editorial board meetings, on op-ed pages, etc. We know that funding agencies use citations (https://www.nature.com/news/reviewers-are-blinkered-by-bibliometrics-1.21877), that tenure committees use citations, and that authors in some countries are paid modest to huge bonuses for publishing papers in journals that have strong citation performances (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cash-bonuses-peer-reviewed-papers-goglobal).

Recently, a debate started around the role that so-called “predatory journals” play in this vicious citation game.

Bloomberg’s BusinessWeek (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-08-29/medical-journals-have-a-fakenews-problem)published an article about pharmaceutical companies using Omics, a journal publisher sued by the Federal Trade Commission (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/08/ftc-charges-academic-journalpublisher-omics-group-deceived) for deceiving researchers, to publish shoddy studies. After the article spends lots of inches describing the complaints and charges against Omics, it drops this bomb:

Bloomberg Businessweek found that researchers at major pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, and Merck, submit to Omics journals and participate in their conferences. Pfizer, the biggest U.S. drugmaker, has published at least 23 articles since 2011, including two since the FTC’s lawsuit.

The article goes on to posit that pharmas publish papers in these journals that won’t likely withstand the scrutiny of a quality medical journal. The pharmas benefit because the Omics journals are open access and they assume clinicians will have an easy time finding them via a Google search.

But there is something else going on? Again from the BusinessWeek article.

Jeffrey Curtis, a physician and professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, worked on a rheumatoid arthritis study with Bristol-Myers that was published in an Omics journal within two weeks of submission. Companies “are often in more of a hurry and are willing to accept lower-tier journals,” Curtis says. “They want a citation. They want someone to be able to reference it and have it be official.”

The pharmas are counting on other researchers to use the work and cite the work. Those researchers may publish in very reputable medical journals. So back to the question of what a citation actually means. Is it a vote of approval?

These citations are often not flagged because predatory publishers, and notably Omics, owns many journals with titles that are almost identical to real journals.

The implications on modern medicine are huge; but, we are seeing this on a smaller scale as well.

142

Researchers that are living off citation metrics — untenured or soon to be unemployed or underfunded post-docs — are using citation metrics to prove their value. We even have an index for it, the h-index (http://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=282982&p=1887449).

We see evidence that the h-index is gaining importance, with many scholars including it on their CV and on various applications. The h-index is a particularly nasty implementation as authors can game that system independently — no journal corroboration necessary.

I have recently discovered several papers where the authors are adding self-citations to a paper in review. The paper may have one or two self-citations in the original submission. A revision may come back with 15 more. And a second revision may have another 30 added. During the production process, still more may be added. The final published paper is now an h-index factory.

In these instances, I assume that the authors are counting on the editors and reviewers NOT reviewing the references after the initial review. Why would they? It’s not uncommon for a second review (if there is one) to be nothing more than a verification that requested changes were made. The editor and reviewers trust that the authors are not trying to sneak something past them.

I have recently discovered several papers where the authors are adding self-citations to a paper in review…The nal published paper is now an h-index factory.

With a recent paper I reviewed from an ASCE journal, many of the added citations came from papers the author published in Omics journals as well as other well-known questionable journals. Even if the references were carefully scrutinized, would the reviewers recognize that Irrigation and Drainage Systems Engineering is not ASCE’s Journal of Irrigation and Draining Engineering? Would they notice that the Int. J. Hydraul. Eng. is not the same as the J. Hydraul. Eng.? Our incessant need to abbreviate journal titles in the references to within an inch of their lives is certainly not helping.

The gaming of the h-index lead one group of researchers to propose a new index—the s-index (http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/3/20). The authors point out the following in the abstract:

Incorporating superfluous self-citations in one’s writings requires little effort, receives virtually no penalty, and can boost, albeit artificially, scholarly impact and visibility, which are both necessary for moving up the academic ladder.

I don’t disagree with this argument but the creation of a new index may serve to muddy the waters even more. The lead author, Justin Flatt, had trouble defining “superfluous self citations.” In an interview with Richard Poynder (https://poynder.blogspot.com/2017/09/in-recently-published-paper-justin.html), Flatt agrees that the research community needs to form a consensus around acceptable levels of self-citations.

143

Phil Davis argues (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/09/13/need-self-citation-index/) that the creating of a new index is not the best solution. He recommends that the h-index be coupled with an h-index minus self-citations. Think of it as an h-index and an h – s index. A wide gap between the two numbers would show that a large portion of a researcher h-index comes from self-citations. Knowing this may tell a reader whether this author is a bona fide legend or just a legend in their own mind.

Now that we have established the ways that researchers can inflate their h-index and capitalize on self-citations, we should talk about some solutions.

Critical review of the reference section is warranted. I looked at reviewer instructions across multiple publishers.

Elsevier (https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/how-to-conduct-a-review#review) lists “references” as something that should be reviewed but it doesn’t say for what. PNAS (http://www.pnas.org/site/authors/reviewers.xhtml) and Wiley (https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/step-by-step-guide-toreviewing-a-manuscript.html)don’t mention references in their instructions. BMJ (http://www.bmj.com/aboutbmj/resources-reviewers/guidance-peer-reviewers), Cell Press (http://www.cell.com/reviewers), and Taylor & Francis (http://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/reviewers-guidelines-and-best-practice/)all recommend that reviewers ask if there are any glaring omissions of references but does not ask reviewers to review the references for quality or appropriateness.

I suggest that journals and editors consider the following steps in ensuring reference lists are helpful and appropriate: Reviewers should be asked to look for gratuitous self-citations and ask the authors to justify the inclusion of those references in their rebuttals to reviewer comments.

Subsequent versions of reviewed articles should be evaluated for inappropriate references being added. This could be a reviewer task, editor task, or staff task.

References should be scanned for citations to known “predatory” journals. Once identified, an editor or reviewer can make a determination whether it’s appropriate to include. Conducting this scan would be labor intensive. It has been rumored that Cabell’s, who launched the journal blacklist earlier this year, is working on a tool for scanning reference lists for this purpose.

Let’s agree to stop abbreviating journal titles in references. The predatory publishers are taking advantage of journal brands and launching titles with small tweaks in the title. Abbreviating journal titles in the references abets that confusion as well as does a number on a journal’s search engine optimization.

Gratuitously citing your own work in inappropriate contexts should be considered an ethical issue and dealt with as such. COPE currently has no guidelines on this issue, but journals can take a leadership role in curbing this behavior.

Journals that discover gratuitous and inappropriate self citations after a paper is published should publish a correction noting that the identified references should not have been included as they are not relevant to the paper.

There should be zero tolerance for journal editors to insist on citations to the journal that are superfluous.

Likewise, reviewers should not be permitted to provide a laundry list of their own works unless they are absolutely necessary for the paper.

144

If citations matter, then they matter. It seems that we, as a community of researchers and publishers, have determined that they do matter. Support for the Initiative for Open Citations (https://i4oc.org/) seems to prove that point. If this content is valuable and the metrics around them used to make massive decisions about funding science and who gets promoted, etc., then we need to stop ignoring them and start casting a more critical eye on what’s going on there.

Angela Cochran @ACOCHRAN12733

Angela Cochran is the Associate Publisher and Journals Director at the American Society of Civil Engineers. She is past-president of the Council of Science Editors.

Discussion

1 THOUGHT ON "TURNING A CRITICAL EYE ON REFERENCE LISTS" An interesting read – I certainly hadn’t heard that some authors are using revisions as an excuse to sneak in self-citations. I have to say, that I think your suggestions as appropriate sanctions aren’t strong enough – for instance, if a journal discovers this only post-publication, then the paper should be withdrawn. As you say, it’s an ethical issue, and I suspect most other ethical issues wouldn’t be treated so lightly.

Apart from that, I wonder how many other poor citation practices have been enabled by reference software?

One particular bugbear for me is that authors often cite an inappropriate secondary source (rather than either the original study, or an appropriate review), yet this is often hard to pick up at review.

By

JAKE BUNDY | OCT 5, 2017, 6:41 AM

145

Citation Contamination: References to Predatory Journals in the Legitimate Scienti c Literature By

RICK ANDERSON | OCT 28, 2019

AUTHORITY AUTHORS CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS ETHICS METRICS AND ANALYTICS OPEN ACCESS RESEARCH

(This post is based on a presentation given at the 6th annual World Conference on Research Integrity, in Hong Kong, June 2019.)

My objective with this small research project was to get an idea of whether (and, if so, to what extent) articles published in predatory journals are being cited in the legitimate scientific literature.

To that end, I identified seven journals that had revealed their predatory nature when they were exposed by one of four different â&#x20AC;&#x153;stingâ&#x20AC;? operations, each of which had clearly demonstrated that the journal in question will (despite its public claims of peer-reviewed rigor) either publish nonsense in return for payment of article-processing charges, or take on as an editor someone with no qualifications.

/

I then searched for citations to articles published in these journals in three large aggregators of scientific papers: The Web of Science, a massive index of scholarly journals, books, and proceedings that claims to index over 90 million documents The ScienceDirect database of journals and books published by Elsevier, which claims to include over 15 million publications PLOS ONE, an open-access megajournal that has published roughly 200,000 articles in its history (Here it’s important to note that Web of Science indexes both the Elsevier journal list and PLOS ONE, which means that findings in either of the latter two databases will represent a subset of the findings in Web of Science. Searching them separately serves the purpose of creating additional context for the Web of Science results, but obviously doesn’t supplement them.)

In the interest of avoiding exposing both myself and my institution to possible litigation, I’m going to avoid naming these journals publicly. Instead, I’ll assign them the letters A through G. I will disclose, however, that six of these seven journals publish in the medical and biosciences — which is, itself, a matter of particular concern.

/

Journals A, B, C, and D demonstrated their predatory nature by falling for the “Star Wars” sting (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2017/07/22/predatory-journals-star-wars-sting/#.XadFuy2ZP_Q). In this sting operation, an investigator wrote a putatively scientific paper that actually consisted, in the investigator’s words, of “an absurd mess of factual errors, plagiarism, and movie quotes.” The paper purported to discuss the structure, function, and clinical relevance of “midi-chlorians… the fictional entities which live inside cells and give Jedi their powers in Star Wars.”

Despite the paper’s obviously fictional and even absurd nature, it was accepted for publication in these four journals, thus demonstrating that despite their claims, they do not actually exercise any meaningful editorial oversight or peer review, but in fact will publish anything submitted as long as the author is willing to pay an article processing charge — and will then falsely represent that article to the scholarly world as legitimate, peer-reviewed science.

Another journal betrayed its predatory nature by falling for the “Chocolate Makes You Lose Weight” sting (https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800). This sting was perpetrated by science journalist John Bohannon, who put together an actual clinical study of the impact on weight loss of eating one chocolate bar per day. By purposely using a fundamentally flawed research design and subsequently p-hacking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging) the resulting data set, Bohannon and his colleagues were able to make it seem as if their study had demonstrated eating chocolate will make you lose weight.

The article was accepted and published (without a single word changed from its submitted draft, according to Bohannon) in Journal E. The “Seinfeld” sting (https://retractionwatch.com/2017/04/06/hello-newman-yet-another-sting-pranks-a-predatoryjournal-seinfeld-style/) followed roughly the same parameters as the previous two, except that in this case the nonsense paper that was submitted for publication purported to discuss the fictional disorder “uromycitisis,” which was invented as part of the story line of a popular American television sitcom. This paper was accepted and published

by Journal F. The final predatory journal under examination for this project was Journal G, which agreed to take on as an editor (https://retractionwatch.com/2017/03/22/latest-sting-will-predatory-journals-hire-fake-editor-dr-fraud-answer-yes/) a fictional individual named Anna O. Szust. According to the fake CV provided by the perpetrators of this sting operation, the fictional “Dr. Szust” had never published a scholarly article and had no experience as either a reviewer or an editor. Not only did this journal accept “Dr. Szust” as a member of its editorial board; amazingly, she is still listed as a member of that board today, even after her nonexistence has been widely publicized. (The word szust, by the way, is Polish for “fraud.”)

Searches were conducted in August 2018 and then repeated in October 2018 as a control. In all cases, the October results were either the same or slightly higher.

Summary of Findings /

When I searched Web of Science, Science Direct, and PLOS ONE for citations to articles published in these seven journals, I found that two of the seven (Journal B and Journal D) had never been cited by articles in those aggregations.

Of the remaining 5, it is important to note that Journal E hasn’t always been a predatory journal. It was established in 2008 and published by a highly reputable open access publisher until the end of 2014, at which point it was sold to another publisher, which was the journal’s home at the time the “Star Wars” sting was carried out. While this journal continues to exist and its website shows volumes through 2018, it hasn’t actually published any articles since 2016.

These facts will become important in the next section.

THE GOOD NEWS The findings indicated in Figure 1 are mostly self-explanatory; however, some explanation with regard to Journal E is called for.

Figure 1 Of the three aggregations, the one that contained the fewest citations to predatory journals was PLOS ONE (in which there were no citations to predatory journals except for Journal E—which was cited in 17 PLOS ONE articles, though none of these cited articles was published in Journal E after its sale in 2014).

Elsevier ScienceDirect contained 61 citations to Journal E in total, 31 of them occurring since the sale. However, of those 31 articles in Elsevier journals, 26 cited pre-sale articles in Journal E; in two cases only abstracts were available online, making it impossible to determine the publication dates of the articles cited; in three cases, citations were to post-sale articles. In other words, only 5 articles in Elsevier journals, at most, were found to have cited articles from Journal E that were published after its sale. /

The most concerning result was that Web of Science contained 40 citations to post-sale articles published in Journal E. However, in interpreting this data, it’s again very important to bear in mind that Web of Science claims to index “over 90 million records,” while Elsevier’s Science Direct includes “over 15 million publications”; in both cases the indexed documents include book chapters as well as journal articles. PLOS ONE has published just under 200,000 articles, making its archive a radically smaller data set.

In any case, this table represents the good news: the predatory journals under examination have rarely been cited in legitimate publications indexed by these large compendia of scholarly and scientific literature.

However, there’s also bad news.

THE BAD NEWS Another context in which this data should be considered is that of the predatory journals’ output itself: for example, one of them has had fully 36% of its published articles cited in the mainstream scholarly literature; another has had 25% of its articles cited. Journal E has had only 6% of its post-sale articles cited in the legitimate literature — however, as Figure 2 shows, given this journal’s prodigious output during the two years under examination, that small percentage represents the largest number of articles cited.

Figure 2 And it’s important to bear in mind that this study examined only seven of the most egregious predatory journals in a population of over 12,000 such publications (https://blog.cabells.com/2019/10/02/the-journal-blacklist-surpasses-the12000-journals-listed-mark/) in the marketplace. /

The problem is increasing at an alarming rate hence why we have decided to build a platform where researchers and publishers as well as the wider academic community can look if a journal is of a questionable nature or not. Fidelior is the platform we are busy testing and from responses thus far, the need is clearly there to have a system do the hard work of checking and highlighting possible questionable journals used within texts. The platform is growing and more tools will be added in due time to support the academic community even more. We welcome anyone to come and have a look, test and see how the reporting looks inside the system.

The link to be used is: http://test.fidelior.net/#home Just register in order to gain full system access.

Please provide us with any comments or suggestions you think would be helpful in order for us to improve the system even more.

By

DR. WERNHER FRIEDRICH | OCT 28, 2019, 9:04 AM Hallo. Thanks for Fidelior. A suggestion: we urgently need a list of predatory conferences. These conferences are more difficult to determine than journals and are springing up all over the place.

By

HESMA VAN TONDER | OCT 29, 2019, 2:02 AM

Dear Hesma, thank you for this suggestion. We, at Fidelior Research, have been looking into the matter for a while now. We know that predatory operations have strong connections to other sorts of cyber-crime. Evaluating predatory conferences is indeed is a very challenging task, due to the fact that there are limited resources (e.g. metrics, lists, etc.) to support decisions. We therefore hope to build a scholarly community and develop a meaningful knowledge base. Please email me at info@fidelior.net. We have compiled a comprehensive list of readings on the issue of predatory conferences, which I can share.

By

WERNHER FRIEDRICH | OCT 29, 2019, 8:20 AM

/

I fully endorse the concerns raised, but my worry is that these problems are not just restricted to predatory journals, I have gathered some examples where journals of well-known publishing groups are not strictly following the rigor of or maybe not all reviewers are applying their full attention to the review process. articles are being published with gross errors and citations have clear questionable contents. In one way such publications. This is particularly common what I call the “kit based” (like kits of SNPs and other gene mutations are largely being used in the so-called molecular and genetic studies) research where investigators from entirely different fields manage to get presentable results, but their inherently weak analytical skills make the data interpretation questionable. On the other hand, such publications are providing easy material for teaching critical review of research to graduate students By

ANWAR ALI SIDDIQUI | OCT 28, 2019, 9:49 AM There’s no question that the publication of questionable research is a problem throughout the scholarly literature, and that a solution to that problem is urgently needed–particularly where the research has the potential to significantly impact human health. This study examined only one particular manifestation of the problem, but a particularly egregious one.

By

RICK ANDERSON | OCT 28, 2019, 10:01 AM

It is for exactly this reason why an electronic platform is needed. One area where there is a problem is that there is no international standard that exists to determine if a journal is questionable or not. In order for the entire academic community to work together to clean out the predatory practices, such an international standard is required with criteria to determine if a journal is following the correct procedures and peer review mechanisms. Fidelior aims to establish an advisory board with international stature to support this process in order to establish an international criteria standard which will ultimately lead to policy changes at country as well as university and research levels.

By

DR. WERNHER FRIEDRICH | OCT 28, 2019, 10:20 AM

Lazy journal editors (and reviewers)! One might at least wish that the editors were outed to their academic deans, who no doubt fund grad student assistants or approve faculty release time for such inattention to simple standards of citation.

By

DF | OCT 28, 2019, 10:11 AM

/

Please note, though, that in the case of predatory journals the problem isn’t that their editors are lazy.

The problem is that their editors are a fiction (in some cases literally, as the “Dr. Fraud” sting made clear). The entire business model of these journals is based on publishing whatever is submitted, as long as the submission is accompanied by money. So it’s not that the editing is sloppy; it’s that editing doesn’t happen, because if it did it would interfere with the revenue flow. Poorly managed journals are fundamentally different animals from predatory journals, and it’s important not to confuse them.

By

RICK ANDERSON | OCT 28, 2019, 10:40 AM

I’m not sure that the right take here. I’ve never seen journal reviewer instructions that expect reviewers to verify that every citation is a high quality paper. I’ve certainly seen reviewers call out dubious claims that come with a questionable citation; however, I don’t think anyone is expected every reference to be validated by volunteers. Further, many of these so-called predatory journals go out of their way to look like legit journals and publishers do no favors by abbreviating journal names to within an inch of their lives.

Overall, I agree that given the level of fraud and concern, more attention should be paid to citations, particularly as it is the currency of scholarly publishing: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/10/05/turning-critical-eye-reference-lists/ By

ANGELA COCHRAN | OCT 28, 2019, 10:46 AM

The solution may not be as simple as finding a means to screen out citations from questionable journals.

What about the problem of quality work that was submitted by mistake to questionable journals by the junior author on a reputable research team? Especially during 2012-16, a substantial number of reputable biomedical researchers unknowingly submitted to questionable journals. Hundreds and hundreds of publications in OMICS Group journals arose from federally (or Europe PMC Funders group) funded scientists, as shown here proudly by OMICS: https://www.omicsonline.org/NIH-funded-articles.php This particular list is just a *subset* of federally funded OMICS Group publications where the authors took the time to submit their published manuscripts to PMC (under public access policies); for this subset, the manuscripts are now permanently archived and discoverable because they show up in PubMed searches, and may be cited. PubMed may have played a role in building up the reputation of some questionable journals, by not flagging them or by listing them as published in the USA when they are well known to be published in India.

/

The following URL shows, as of today, 128 federally funded studies archived in PMC from a single OMICS journal alone — the Journal of AIDS & Clinical Research — with many authors representing prestigious research institutions: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22J+AIDS+Clin+Res%22%5Bjour%5D If you click on the articles, you may notice important researchers in the field of HIV/AIDS; and that many of these publications were subsequently cited by articles in reputable journals. Should reputable journals be excluding such citations? Should editors tell the authors that they cannot cite their own work or the work of their peers if published in a questionable journal?

Should the NLM list this journal publisher as in India instead of allowing them to falsely claim Sunnyvale, California? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog? term=%22J+AIDS+Clin+Res%22%5BTitle+Abbreviation%5D By

CONCERNED TOO | OCT 28, 2019, 12:04 PM

Finally someone did the study! Thanks, Rick. All these years of hand-wringing about predatory & nobody had any idea if those papers were ever being cited. Thanks also for using a solid criteria for predatory rather than that questionable old list.

Now we have a little data indicating that there are a handful of authors of legit papers that cite predatory journals. The question that comes up immediately is whether those authors actually read the articles they’re citing (or were the citations added in as part of a too-shallow lit review). I would also be very interested in what the citation patterns would look like extended to a larger set of poorly or not-at-all edited publications.

By

WILLIAM GUNN | OCT 28, 2019, 1:14 PM Yup, agreed on both counts. Though I’d caution (again and again and again) against conflating the problem of poorly-edited or low-quality journals with the problem of genuinely fraudulent ones. I’m not saying there’s no fuzziness at all in the boundary that separates them, but we are actually talking about two different classes of problem: one is high quality vs. low quality articles, and the other is honest vs. dishonest publishing practices. A journal that is operating in a fundamentally honest way but not doing a great job represents an entirely different class of problem from that represented by a journal that offers fake credentialing for money.

By

RICK ANDERSON | OCT 28, 2019, 1:42 PM

Is it okay to review a manuscript submitted to a predatory journal.

By

SALEM YOUSSEF MOHAMED SALEM | OCT 28, 2019, 3:00 PM

/

Regardless, it raises the question of citation practices, and whether one should be citing, even in a negative manner, things that one knows haven’t been peer reviewed? Traditionally, the practice is that anything not peer reviewed should not be listed in a paper’s citations (they can be mentioned as things like “personal communications” instead). I discussed this at length here: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/03/14/preprints-citations-non-peer-reviewed-materialincluded-article-references/ Is an author required to cite any random rant or piece of doggerel one finds on the internet that contradicts the reality of one’s findings? If someone hands me a deranged flier on the subway claiming odd things about the causes of cancer, should I be citing that in my formally published epidemiology paper?

By

DAVID CROTTY | OCT 29, 2019, 9:11 AM

Thanks, Emily and Martin, that’s a good question. I did not examine the context for each of the citations.

By

RICK ANDERSON | OCT 29, 2019, 10:08 AM

While the concerns are valid and this research is worthwhile, it raises another issue often ignored Simply that occasionally, good research may inadvertently be published in a predatory outlet. It is very likely that those who cite such works and even the reviewers have checked the source and found the material credible and sound despite the shady character of the publisher.

This shows that ultimately each article may be evaluated on it’s own merit and not solely based on the publication outlet. Yes, peer review is important but it is not necessarily without occasional imperfections too.

By

DR. O. S. ASAOLU | OCT 28, 2019, 6:17 PM I have been working with journals for almost 20 years and I can’t think of an occasion where the peer reviewers carefully went through the references of a paper to determine the credibility of the cited article. Peer reviewer time is limited and this level of checking is generally not expected.

Which is why we need an automated tool to flag questionable references for further investigation: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/09/25/fighting-citation-pollution/ By

DAVID CROTTY | OCT 28, 2019, 6:39 PM

Interesting. Is it known what percentage of these citations are author self-citations? /

By

GABOR SCHUBERT | OCT 29, 2019, 5:35 AM Nope, I did not analyze to that level. Good question, though.

By

RICK ANDERSON | OCT 29, 2019, 10:38 AM

What is the percentage of scientific research in the last decade that is peer-reviewed?

Australia and India threw out thousands of research. Most of the countries research come out of have a high percentage of discrimination in society. Scientists come out of these social environment. Have they any training in the removal of prejudicial biases to formulate non-biased researches? Do they know Emmanuel Kant’s Critique? Science has eradicate religion (catechism helps to teach practitioners to remove prejudicial biases) and now carry all of the irrationality and vulnerabilities that exist in untrained human beings it has ascribed to religion.

When will North America have a scientific review of science itself? The third most quoted psychologist just became the second most revoked psychologist with a possibility of becoming the first.

When will science only publish reviews that are peer-reviewed or express non-peer-reviewed researches frequently in the articles? Corruptibility increases the higher the intelligent quotient. Corruption is highest in the top universities. Science is losing its credibility. Where does science begin transparency?

By

PAUL | OCT 29, 2019, 6:22 AM

Journal citations are an increasingly outdated metric for this and other reasons. They arose from an era where the friction of paper-based distribution enabled a trust-based infrastructure. In a world of friction-free, open dissemination we need to transition to new techniques based on verification, attribution, and network analysis to reach conclusions about authenticity and value. It’s not clear that retrofitting citations or building new human-curated journal authority lists will be potent enough for our era.

Richard Wynne Rescognito, Inc. By

RICHARD WYNNE | OCT 29, 2019, 8:03 AM Citations, however, do serve a purpose beyond driving metrics that allow academics to abdicate their responsibilities as far as evaluating candidates for jobs, tenure, and funding. They are (as argued here https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/11/07/does-democracy-need-footnotes/), “about the productive and persuasive relationship of evidence to argument.”

Diluting the scientific record is the issue here, not the pernicious side effect that has on metrics. /

Plagiarism, Academic Ethics and Intellectual Property

194

Plagiarism and Intellectual Property The relationship between plagiarism and intellectual property law Academic writing is based on the use of text, acknowledging how we stand on the shoulders of giants, finding support for our ideas, and providing additional information for our readers. This kind of textual borrowing is possible because we do not consider intellectual property the same as real property, and therefore it can be borrowed without asking permission. However, there are a number of rules considering how intellectual property is used that reflect the values of academic writing regarding how it should be acknowledged, its rhetorical importance in establishing a claim, and its role in collaborative nature of research where resources are shared.

PLAGIARISM AND ETHICS APPROPRIATE RESEARCH My general approach to teaching about plagiarism is that once students know about what the appropriate forms of citation or textual borrowing and what are the rules for publishing, they wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t do it not because itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a moral violation but because it makes for a weaker paper. Papers are judged on how well they integrate previous research and previous methodologies, so not acknowledging this previous research can have a detrimental effect on the development of the paper.

The following article gives an overview of ethical issues and which ones might be acceptable and which ones might not be even though all of them raise ethical issues. You can see from this issue that ethical considerations are not always clear but themselves can be ambiguous. Also, not that these decisions were not always made during the peer review process but illustrate how ethical issues can arise throughout the life of an article.

4/5/2018

This Issue

Institutional Research Misconduct Reports Need More Credibility | Research, Methods, Statistics | JAMA | JAMA Network

Views 8,009 | Citations 0 | Altmetric 21 PDF

 Share





Viewpoint



April 3, 2018

Institutional Research Misconduct Reports Need More Credibility C. K. Gunsalus, JD1; Adam R. Marcus, MA2; Ivan Oransky, MD2,3  Author Affiliations | Article Information JAMA. 2018;319(13):1315 1316. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.0358

I

nstitutions have a central role in protecting the integrity of research. They employ researchers, own the facilities where the work is conducted, receive grant funding, and teach many students about the

research process. When questions arise about research misconduct associated with published articles, scientists and journal editors usually first ask the researchers’ institution to investigate the allegations and then report the outcomes, under defined circumstances, to federal oversight agencies and other entities, including journals.1 Depending on institutions to investigate their own faculty presents significant challenges. Misconduct reports, the mandated product of institutional investigations for which US federal dollars have been spent, have a wide range of problems. These include lack of standardization, inherent conflicts of interest that must be addressed to directly ensure credibility, little quality control or peer review, and limited oversight.

Even when institutions act, the information they release to the public is often limited and unhelpful.

As a result, like most elements of research misconduct, little is known about institutions’ responses to potential misconduct by their own members. The community that relies on the integrity of university research does not have access to information about how often such claims arise, or how they are resolved.

Nonetheless, there are some indications that many internal reviews are deficient.

Three recent reports from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) underscore this phenomenon. In 2016, the Optimizing the Nation’s Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century panel concluded that “Some academic research institutions have failed to respond appropriately to investigators’ transgressions or failed to use effectively https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2675025

1/7

4/5/2018

Institutional Research Misconduct Reports Need More Credibility | Research, Methods, Statistics | JAMA | JAMA Network

the range of tools available to create an environment that strongly discourages, at both the institutional and the individual level, behaviors in conflict with the standards and norms of the scientific community.”2 In 2017, the Committee on Responsible Science noted that “significant gaps exist in the information available to institutions as well as to the rest of the research enterprise about how allegations are handled, what challenges arise, and how successful institutions are able to ensure effective performance.”3 A third NASEM group, the Committee on the Review of Omics-Based Tests for Predicting Patient Outcomes in Clinical Trials, reported in 2012 that “institutions can be influenced by secondary interest beyond financial interests, such as factors that impact an institution’s reputation. In research, such reputational factors can be quite prominent and difficult to manage, including deference to esteemed and well-funded investigators and the importance to both investigators and institutions of faculty publications in highimpact journals.”4 The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation (NSF) has found that the reports of some institutions do not meet reasonable standards. For instance, some reports from universities do not ask relevant research questions, or they fail to appropriately expand the investigation beyond a particular allegation; other reports focus on finding fault with an individual when many were involved in the research; and for some other reports, committee members have lacked relevant expertise (email from Alan Boehm, MFS; James T. Kroll, PhD; and Aaron S. Manka, PhD; December 2017). These are not idiosyncratic or 1-time problems. A partial list of shortcomings that the OIG staff has compiled and shared at conferences includes the following: Investigative reports that lack supporting evidence and fail to address the elements of a research misconduct finding, particularly intent; Individuals who are the subjects of the investigation blaming the student or postdoctoral researchers, but the investigative committee never interviewing these individuals; Accepting, without question, excuses by the subjects of the investigation; and Relying only on information in allegations, not checking for patterns or other misconduct.

Social psychology illuminates why so many institutional responses to allegations of research misconduct are flawed. The work of Valdesolo and DeSteno documents how “individuals’ evaluations of their own moral transgressions differ substantially from their evaluations of the same transgressions enacted by others. To the extent that the group stands as an important source of self-definition, one may have an interest in protecting the sanctity of that entity.”5 Some institutional responses to allegations of research misconduct, even from sophisticated and well-resourced universities, seem distorted by inexperience, inefficiency, or symptoms of in-group thinking. Understanding and counteracting these human inclinations are critical to reinforce research reproducibility, integrity, and not least, the credibility of institutions and the research community. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2675025

2/7

4/5/2018

Institutional Research Misconduct Reports Need More Credibility | Research, Methods, Statistics | JAMA | JAMA Network

Universities must strengthen plans and reports for investigations into research integrity before they are finalized. Checklists are one potential approach for moving in this direction, according to Davidoff, an early proponent: “standard-setting checklists are emerging as particularly valuable tools in high-stakes and high-pressure situations—not only in medicine but also in other disciplines.”6 As an essential first step, the research community should agree on standards that institutional reports should meet. In December 2017, a meeting of experts was convened (hereinafter “Experts Meeting”) to consider this issue. Represented were a wide range of individuals who deal with scientific misconduct, including a former university provost and president, other institutional leaders, federal officials, researchers, a journal editor, journalists, NASEM panel participants, and attorneys representing respondents, whistle-blowers, and institutions. The group developed a proposed checklist for research integrity investigation (eAppendix in the Supplement). The checklist, or its improved successors, is designed to address whether an investigation follows reasonable standards and if the subsequent report is appropriate and complete. For example, it addresses the following issues: Whether a specific institutional investigation plan or report is generated that identifies appropriate questions to pursue and proposes a meaningful approach to securing the answers; Whether the correct individuals are interviewed; Whether the relevant data are secured and reviewed by appropriate experts; Whether the report provides factual basis and data; and Whether the report supports its conclusions.

A first step is use of the checklist by internal investigative committees, institutional officials who receive misconduct investigation reports, and attorneys responsible for signing off on these reports. Second, institutions should experiment with forming consortia to provide external peer review of internal investigative reports before they are made final and revising the reports if needed. Implementing such an approach on a widespread scale has clear logistical challenges, not least among them confidentiality and efficiency. Given the stakes, and existing mechanisms in other sectors, these challenges must be overcome.

While not all those who attended the Experts Meeting to develop this checklist agree, institutional reports of research misconduct should ultimately be released and made available for scrutiny for the scientific enterprise to achieve more trust. Efforts by one of our organizations (Retraction Watch) to use public records laws to obtain such reports has met with some success, but this approach has limitations.

The scientific community relies on reports of research, and the journals that publish those reports rely on the institutions of investigators to ensure integrity in research. These institutions can and should do better.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2675025

3/7

Abstracts

Abstracts are usually written after the paper is completed. There is no one format, but they are often a summary of the significant areas of the paper. Many researchers who are very busy only have the time to read a few papers, so they often begin with the abstract to decide whether the paper is valuable. One of the questions that is sometimes asked in the peer review process is whether the abstract accurately represents the data presented in the paper. The following article discusses the problem with authors who exaggerate their claims in the abstract, so It is important that the abstract fairly represents the importance of the data.

8/11/2019

#News (/news)

Study says authors exaggerate their findings in paper abstracts

#Books And Publishing (/Books)

Abstract ‘Spin’ Study says authors exaggerate their ndings in paper abstracts, and that's a problem when readers take them at face value.

By Colleen Flaherty // August 6, 2019 11 COMMENTS (/NEWS/2019/08/06/STUDY-SAYS-AUTHORS-EXAGGERATE-THEIR-FINDINGS-PAPER-ABSTRACTS#DISQUS_THREAD)

GETTY IMAGES

We’ve all been told not to judge a book by its cover. But we shouldn’t be judging academic studies by their abstracts, either, according to a new paper (https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2019/07/04/bmjebm-2019111176) in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. The study -- which found exaggerated claims in more than half of paper abstracts analyzed -- pertains to psychology and psychiatry research. It notes that “spin” is troublesome in those elds because it can impact clinical care decisions. But the authors say that this kind of exaggeration happens in other elds, too.

“Researchers are encouraged to conduct studies and report ndings according to the highest ethical standards,” the paper says, meaning “reporting results completely, in accordance with a protocol that outlines primary and secondary endpoints and prespeci ed subgroups and statistical analyses.”

Yet authors are free to choose “how to report or interpret study results.” And in an abstract, in particular, they may include “only the results they want to highlight or the conclusions they wish to draw.” https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/08/06/study-says-authors-exaggerate-their-findings-paper-abstracts?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&ut…

1/12

8/11/2019

Study says authors exaggerate their findings in paper abstracts

In a word: spin.

Based on the idea that randomized controlled trials often inform

(//careers.insidehighered.com? utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-

how patients are treated, researchers used PubMed to nd

site&utm_content=article-promo-box-

these kinds of studies. Their sample included those published

link&utm_campaign=jobs)

from 2012-17 in well-regarded psychology and psychiatry journals: JAMA Psychiatry, American Journal of Psychiatry,

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Psychological Medicine, British Journal of Psychiatry and Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Crucially, they analyzed only trials with results that were not

Search Over 35,000 Jobs Keyword or Location

Search

Browse all jobs on Inside Higher Ed Careers » (//careers.insidehighered.com? utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorialsite&utm_content=article-promo-boxlink&utm_campaign=jobs)

statistically signi cant, and therefore were susceptible to spin -116 in all.

Evidence of spin included focusing only on statistically signi cant results, interpreting nonsigni cant results or equivalent, using favorable rhetoric with regard to the nonsigni cant results and declaring that an intervention was bene cial despite its statistical insigni cance.

How often did articles’ abstracts exaggerate the actual ndings? More than half the time, or 56 percent. Spin happened in 2 percent of titles, 21 percent of abstract results sections and 49 percent of abstract conclusion sections. Fifteen percent of abstracts had spin in both their results and conclusion sections.

Spin was more common in studies that compared a proposed treatment with typical care or placebo than in other kinds of studies. But industry funding was not associated with a greater likelihood of exaggeration, as just 10 of 65 spun trials had any of this kind of funding.

The study notes several limitations, including that looking for spin is inherently subjective work. But it says that it’s important to guard against spin because researchers have an ethical obligation to honestly and clearly report their results and because spinning an abstract “may mislead physicians who are attempting to draw conclusions about a treatment for patients.” Physicians read only an article abstract, versus the entire article, a majority of the time, it says, citing prior research (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1046%2Fj.15251497.2000.00202.x) on the matter, and many editorial decisions (https://www.bmj.com/content/329/7464/470) are based on the abstract alone. Positive results are also more likely to be published in the rst place, the paper notes, citing one study that found 15 percent of peer reviewers asked authors to spin their manuscripts.

What’s to be done? Journal editors may consider inviting reviewers to comment on the presence of spin, the article suggests.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/08/06/study-says-authors-exaggerate-their-findings-paper-abstracts?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&ut…

2/12

8/11/2019

Study says authors exaggerate their findings in paper abstracts

Reporting guidelines also are used by several journals already to “ensure accurate and transparent reporting of clinical trial results, and the use of such guidelines improves trial reporting,” the paper says. While the recent Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (http://www.consort-statement.org) on abstracts don’t contain language discouraging spin, it says, “research reporting could be improved by discouraging spin in abstracts.”

Lead author Sam Jellison, a medical student at Oklahoma State University, underscored that his paper is not the rst (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/185952) to explore academic spin. Yet making more readers “aware of what spin is might be the rst and largest step to take to ght this problem,” he said.

Jellison said that the existing literature suggests spin is not unique to psychology and psychiatry, and that those elds are actually “middle of the road” in terms of prevalence.

Philip Cohen, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland at College Park who blogs (https://familyinequality.wordpress.com) about research, pointed out that reviewers already look at abstracts as part of their process, so in addition to the journal editor, "reviewers should be able to see if the abstract is overstating the ndings.”

Still, a common way that sociologists in ate research ndings in general is to mention those that are not statistically signi cant while downplaying the lack of signi cance, attributing it to a small sample or using phrases such as “does not reach statistical signi cance,” he said, “as if the effect is just trying but can't quite get there.”

Beyond questions of spin, Cohen said there is surely a problem with “people only publishing, or journals only accepting, dramatic ndings,” he said. So the greatest source of exaggeration is probably in what gets published at all, with null ndings or those that contradict existing positive results never seeing the light of day -- what Cohen noted has been called the " le drawer" problem.

While psychology isn't alone in the spin room, the eld has had its share of data integrity and public perception problems. A landmark study (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/28/landmark-study-suggestsmost-psychology-studies-dont-yield-reproducible-results) in 2015, for example, found that most psychology studies don’t yield reproducible results.

Brian Nosek, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and lead author on the reproducibility study, said that spin involves two “connected problems,” neither of which is easy to solve. Authors are “incentivized to present their ndings in the best possible light for publishability and impact, and readers often don't read the paper.”

As an author, he said, “even if I want to avoid spin,” it’s “entirely reasonable for me to try make the narrative of my title and abstract as engaging as possible so that people will read the paper.” And at the same time, it’s “very di cult to capture the complexity of almost any research nding in a phrase or short abstract.” It’s really a “skill” to present “complex ndings brie y without losing accuracy.” https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/08/06/study-says-authors-exaggerate-their-findings-paper-abstracts?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&ut…

3/12

8/11/2019

Study says authors exaggerate their findings in paper abstracts

As a reader, Nosek continued, “even if I want to make the best possible decisions based on research evidence, I don't have time to read and evaluate everything deeply." In some cases, he said, "I need to be able to trust that the information conveyed brie y is accurate and actionable.”

Ultimately, when “decisions are important, we should have higher expectations of readers to gather the information necessary to make good decisions,” he said. “But we need to recognize pragmatic realities and develop better tools for readers to calibrate the con dence in the claims they see in brief, and provide cues prompting them to dig more deeply when the evidence is uncertain.”

It’s also “in our collective interest to provide authors more training in communicating their ndings in abstracts and press releases," Nosek added.

Read more by Colleen Flaherty

jump to comments (#comment-target)

(/print/news/2019/08/06/studysays-authors-exaggerate-theirndings-paper-abstracts)

Be the rst to know. (https://www.insidehighered.com/content/signinside-higher-eds-newsletters) Get our free daily newsletter. (https://www.insidehighered.com/content/signinside-higher-eds-newsletters)

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/08/06/study-says-authors-exaggerate-their-findings-paper-abstracts?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&ut…

4/12

ETHICS V I O L AT I O N

Ohio State has had a number of high-profile ethics cases that have been well publicized.

These cases are often directed at senior researchers who employ several graduate students and post docs, who are often blamed for any violations. Any accusation has to be investigated by the universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s committee, which is different than the committee that investigates students. In these examples, the university had to do extensive examinations that are presented in these examples. They contain various examples of some of the issues that constitute ethical considerations in academic writing.

3/30/2018

Ohio State just released a 75-page report finding misconduct by a cancer researcher. What can we learn? – Retraction Watch

Retraction Watch Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Ohio State just released a 75-page report finding misconduct by a cancer researcher.

What can we learn?

Today, the Ohio State University (OSU) announced that ChingShih Chen, who resigned from a professorship there in September, was guilty of “deviating from the accepted practices of image handling and figure generation and intentionally falsifying data” in 14 images from eight papers.

Chen had earned more than $8 million in Federal grants, and his work had led to a compound now being testing in clinical trials for cancer. (For details of the case, see our story in Science.)

OSU — which has

C. K. Gunsalus

been involved in several high-profile cases of misconduct recently — released a lightly-redacted version of their investigation report, and we asked C.K. Gunsalus, who has decades of experience reviewing similar cases, to examine it for us. A Q&A follows.

Ching-Shih Chen

https://retractionwatch.com/2018/03/30/ohio-state-just-released-a-75-page-report-finding-misconduct-by-a-cancer-researcher-what-can-we-learn/

1/5

3/30/2018

Ohio State just released a 75-page report finding misconduct by a cancer researcher. What can we learn? – Retraction Watch

Retraction Watch (RW): What’s your impression of the case? How does it compare in significance with others you’ve looked at?

Follow

C.K. Gunsalus (CKG): This research is clinical, and was covered by an investigational Follow this blog

new drug application (IND). Any time you have translational research that has been or is in the process of human use, the significance is high.

Get every new post delivered right to your

RW: OSU is releasing their investigation report. In our inbox. experience with universities, that’s rare, even when we file public records requests.

Email addressWould you agree?

CKG: Yes, it is rarer than it should be, and is to be commended.

RW: We — meaning you and two of our co-founders — and a number of others recently developed a checklist, published in JAMA, to allow for peer review of reports like this. How does the report perform on that checklist?

CKG: Some strengths come through clearly and unaddressed questions surface. The virtue of a checklist is that it can quickly highlight important issues about the investigation and the institutional response. Applying the checklist developed by a convened group of experts in this area and applying it to this report raises some questions. The university may well have strong answers for all of them. They are not answered in the report that was released.

RW: What did OSU do well?

CKG: They received an anonymous allegation, assessed it for its factual basis–not always done–and responded by applying their procedures, sequestering data promptly, appointing first an inquiry, and then an investigative committee. They released the final investigation report. The report contains a good deal of detailed information about specific papers and figures. The report clearly states findings and how they relate to conclusions, and in at least in one instance, the committee expanded their work based on the evidence they were examining. They make recommendations that seem to respond to the seriousness of the findings.

Overall, this is a very tightly focused, internal investigation that examined some itemized issues in detail and with apparent care and rigor for those issues. As indicated above, a procedural review of the report raises questions that may well have been addressed in other contexts; there just is not information in this document one way or the other to answer those questions, some of which involve serious matters. https://retractionwatch.com/2018/03/30/ohio-state-just-released-a-75-page-report-finding-misconduct-by-a-cancer-researcher-what-can-we-learn/

2/5

3/30/2018

Ohio State just released a 75-page report finding misconduct by a cancer researcher. What can we learn? – Retraction Watch

RW: What unanswered questions do you have about this case, based on the report?

CKG: There are a number of places where the released documents are less clear than might be ideal, leading to the following questions, among others: While making it clear the investigation was conducted under institutional policies–the report at one point differentiates between institutional and federal standards and definitions–there is no information about the larger institutional implications of the findings, and little information about the clinical implications. There is no discussion of the relation of those papers to other lines of work in the lab, no timeline showing whether the misconduct started full blown on a particular date or is restricted to the line of work examined. It is not clear why the papers examined were selected, or how, though the committee did expand its scope of work after examining some of the initial evidence.

The issue over which I paused the longest is triggered by a sentence on page 3 describing the data sequestration process: “In some cases, Dr. Chen indicated that there were no laboratory notebooks kept by members of the lab, rather individuals only had weekly progress reports and no daily records of the experiments they conducted.” If that is the case, how is it that only his work was examined? How were all of his collaborators cleared of any involvement in the misconduct? What is the institution doing about the training provided (or not) to students and trainees in his lab over the years? How do the funders know that the work they supported was conducted, or how it was done?

The report does not include the charge nor the scope of the work the committee was to review. There is no way from what is in the report to determine if all pertinent evidence was available or examined, nor how the work that was examined was selected. How did the staff and committee determine which work to review? Did they set a chronological limit and not go any further back? Did they focus only on the items reported by the anonymous allegation? The report does not say. Again, there may be compelling and sufficient answers; they are just not in the report I reviewed.

While the investigative committee included a member from outside the home unit of the respondent, it did not contain any member from outside the university. There is no discussion in the report covering the professional expertise of the committee members nor statements about reviewing their work for potential conflicts of interest. Thus it is not possible, from the report, to assess whether the committee had appropriate expertise for its task, or any conflicts of interest. Please note that I am not questioning https://retractionwatch.com/2018/03/30/ohio-state-just-released-a-75-page-report-finding-misconduct-by-a-cancer-researcher-what-can-we-learn/

3/5

3/30/2018

Ohio State just released a 75-page report finding misconduct by a cancer researcher. What can we learn? – Retraction Watch

the expertise of the members; the report would be stronger if it were recited, along with its relevance to the work to be examined.

It appears that only the the respondent was interviewed, and that was only by staff, not by the investigative committee. This seems unusual to me, and raises a number of questions.

Finally, reconstructing the timeline of the investigation from the report–one is not included–opens some additional questions. The time from beginning of the process to the end is not especially startling; that without explanation, the report carries a January 2018 revision date, when it was issued in September 2017, is unusual. If the revision was to redact for reasons of student (or other) privacy, it would have been useful if that had been clearly noted.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

SHARE THIS:



Email



Facebook 38



Twitter

RELATED Probe into Carlo Croce reached "defensible and reasonable" decisions, says external review March 5, 2018 In "misconduct investigations"

Cancer researcher has dodged accusations for decades (and has a new correction) March 8, 2017 In "alfredo fusco"

Catching up: OSU "missed fraud," Dipak Das lost tenured professorship, Ivan on NPR's Science Friday January 6, 2013 In "dipak das"

 March 30, 2018  Ivan Oransky  united states

2 thoughts on “Ohio State just released a 75-page report finding misconduct by a cancer researcher. What can we learn?”

https://retractionwatch.com/2018/03/30/ohio-state-just-released-a-75-page-report-finding-misconduct-by-a-cancer-researcher-what-can-we-learn/

4/5

3/30/2018

Probe into Carlo Croce reached “defensible and reasonable” decisions, says external review – Retraction Watch

Retraction Watch Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Probe into Carlo Croce reached “defensible and reasonable” decisions, says external review An independent analysis of how The Ohio State University reviewed allegations of misconduct against a high-profile cancer researcher has found that the institution “complied with applicable law and with relevant institutional policies and reached reasoned and supportable conclusions.”

The review follows numerous allegations of research misconduct against Carlo Croce, described in a March 8 story in the New York Times. According to the Times article, Croce has been the subject of multiple investigations; at least five of those inquiries from OSU cleared him of wrongdoing.

Croce has denied the allegations, and is now suing the New York Times and an outside researcher who served as a key source in the story. As a result of the story, however, OSU — where Croce is based — told us last year it had “launched an independent review of our systems for ensuring research integrity.”

The summary of the analysis of how OSU handled allegations against Croce, conducted by law firm Ropes & Gray and released on Friday, noted a few improvements that could be made, including adopting a policy whereby OSU informs any outside institution when the allegations primarily affect research conducted there, and giving the research integrity officer (RIO) the authority to weigh in on issues arising from potential conflicts of interest. https://retractionwatch.com/2018/03/05/probe-into-carlo-croce-reached-defensible-and-reasonable-decisions-says-external-review/

1/5

3/30/2018

Probe into Carlo Croce reached “defensible and reasonable” decisions, says external review – Retraction Watch

In addition, the firm said OSU should have requested the retraction of one paper, rather than corrections. The university release about the findings did not specify which Follow paper; when we asked an OSU spokesperson which paper this refers to, he said:

Follow this blog In this instance, the journal decided to issue a correction and not a retraction.

Get every new post

delivered right to your inbox.

Croce has a total of eight retractions and 15 corrections.

Email address

Although the review focused on OSU’s probe into allegations about Croce, this isn’t the first time the institution has taken a second look at its investigations: In 2013, an investigation by The Columbus Dispatch revealed that the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) asked OSU to redo its investigation of pharmacy researcher Terry Elton.

Although the institution originally found the problems with his images were due to disorganization, after prompting by the ORI, OSU concluded that Terry Elton was guilty of misconduct.

For the analysis of the Croce probe, Ropes & Gray reviewed 14 past allegations: Eight instances of research misconduct and six so-called “ancillary matters,” such as disputes over authorship, or misuse of grant funds, according to the OSU spokesperson. Neither the OSU release nor the summary of the Ropes & Gray analysis specify what OSU found during its initial probe into the allegations; the spokesperson told Retraction Watch he “cannot share specifics beyond what is contained in the executive summary of Ropes & Gray report.”

The analysis concluded that several of the allegations against Croce “did not involve any cognizable allegation of research misconduct,” and half of the remaining allegations “related most directly to persons who conducted the relevant research at institutions other than OSU, and, therefore, that OSU was not the proper party to evaluate such allegations.” For the others, Ropes & Gray concluded that:

OSU carried out preliminary assessments of the remaining allegations of research misconduct. All institutional decisions rendered in resolving each of the Past Allegations were defensible and reasonable…Each of the corrective actions that OSU pursued in connection with the Past Allegations fell within the range of acceptable practice.

https://retractionwatch.com/2018/03/05/probe-into-carlo-croce-reached-defensible-and-reasonable-decisions-says-external-review/

2/5

3/30/2018

Probe into Carlo Croce reached “defensible and reasonable” decisions, says external review – Retraction Watch

Gates Garrity-Rokous, Ohio State vice president and chief compliance officer, said in a statement:

We asked some of the best minds in the country to review our research policies and procedures, and give us an honest and thorough assessment…We are grateful for the careful evaluation and detailed feedback. We will adopt the Ropes & Gray recommendations and are continuing our own assessment of the research enterprise to ensure our practices not only comply with, but exceed, federal and legal requirements.

Ropes & Gray noted some improvements OSU could make, summarized in the OSU release:

-clarifying that the research integrity officer (RIO) will take steps to sequester evidence before notifying a respondent in a research misconduct proceeding.

-formalizing the responsibility of RIOs for managing conflict-of-interest issues during a misconduct investigation.

-establishing a standing faculty committee on research misconduct because of the expertise and time commitments required; the current practice is for these committees to be established on an ad-hoc basis.

-routinely referring to other institutions any allegations of misconduct related to research carried out primarily at those institutions.

-adopting, for biomedical research, uniform authorship standards of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

The firm also reviewed OSU’s report about an investigation about an unidentified researcher in the College of Pharmacy, noting:

https://retractionwatch.com/2018/03/05/probe-into-carlo-croce-reached-defensible-and-reasonable-decisions-says-external-review/

3/5

3/30/2018

Probe into Carlo Croce reached “defensible and reasonable” decisions, says external review – Retraction Watch

The final investigation report reflects a detailed and appropriate investigation of the allegations in question.

Despite the cloud of allegations against him, Croce has recently received several prestigious awards for his work, including a share of the Dan David Prize in February — which came with $300,000 — and the 2017 Margaret Foti Award for Leadership and Extraordinary Achievements in Cancer Research, from the American Association for Cancer Research.

We contacted Croce and his attorney, Thomas Hill; a representative of Ropes & Gray referred us to OSU. We’ll update the post if anyone else responds.

According to the OSU release, the university is starting to implement an “advanced research integrity plan,” including training 25,000 researchers online; the OSU spokesperson told us the university is also hiring additional research integrity officers, and revising its Research Misconduct and Research Data policies. Last fall, an ORI division director left the agency to join OSU as assistant vice president in the Office of Research Compliance.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

SHARE THIS:



Email



Facebook 9



Twitter

RELATED Carlo Croce, facing misconduct allegations, accuses former colleague of misconduct November 9, 2017 In "author objections"

Carlo Croce, Ohio State researcher facing misconduct allegations, suing New York Times for defamation September 8, 2017 In "Legal Threats"

Cancer researcher has dodged accusations for decades (and has a new correction) March 8, 2017 In "alfredo fusco"

 March 5, 2018  Alison McCook  misconduct investigations, united states

https://retractionwatch.com/2018/03/05/probe-into-carlo-croce-reached-defensible-and-reasonable-decisions-says-external-review/

4/5

Bolland et al. BMC Res Notes (2018) 11:521 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3613-1

BMC Research Notes Open Access

RESEARCH NOTE

A randomised investigation of journal responses to academic and journalist enquiry about possible scientific misconduct Mark J. Bolland1* , Alison Avenell2, Greg D. Gamble1, Stephen Buranyi3 and Andrew Grey1

Abstract Objective: We investigated whether responses about possible scientific misconduct from journals to journalists would differ in speed, usefulness, and tone from responses to academics. Twelve journals that published 23 clinical trials about which concerns had been previously raised were randomly assigned to enquiries by a journalist or academics. Emails were sent every 3 weeks to the journal editor. We recorded the time for the journal to respond, and two investigators independently assessed the usefulness and tone of the journal responses.

Results: 10/12 journals responded: 3 after one email, 5 after two emails, and 2 after three emails (median time from first email to response: 21 days; no difference in response times to journalist or academics, P = 0.25). Of the 10 responses, 8 indicated the journal was investigating, 5 had a positive tone, 4 a neutral tone, and 1 a negative tone. Five of the enquiries by the academics produced information of limited use and 1 no useful information, whereas none of the 6 journalist enquiries produced useful information (P = 0.015). None of the 10 responses was considered very useful. In conclusion, journal responses to a journalist were less useful than those to academics in understanding the status or outcomes of journal investigations.

Keywords: Misconduct, Retraction, Research fraud Introduction When scientific misconduct occurs, the relevant literature ought to be promptly corrected. However, there are often lengthy delays between concerns being raised and formal actions such as expression of concern notices or article retraction (see Table 1 for description). For example, concerns were raised about the work of the Japanese anaesthetist Yoshitaka Fujii in 2000 [1] but it took until 2012 before the body of work was publicly confirmed as fraudulent leading to the recommendation that 183 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) be retracted [2, 3]. Delays may occur for many reasons, but one common theme is that formal investigations take a very long time. The average duration of investigation by *Correspondence: m.bolland@auckland.ac.nz 1 Bone and Joint Research Group, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

the Office of Research Integrity between 2001 and 2010 was 20 months, with some investigations lasting at least 9 years [4]. Other concerns raised about the management of scientific misconduct include uninformative retraction notices and failure to retract articles even when there is clear evidence of misconduct [4].

Beginning in March 2013, we started to report to affected journals numerous concerns about a set of 33 RCTs from a group in Japan, including objective statistical evidence of implausible characteristics of randomised treatment groups, improbable recruitment rates and implausibly positive outcome data, lack of ethical oversight, plagiarism and many logical and other errors.

Between October 2015 and September 2016, 10 RCTs were retracted based upon these concerns. The reasons for retraction included scientific misconduct, concerns about data integrity, fraud, extensive self-plagiarism and honorary authorship. In November 2016, our systematic review describing the concerns about the RCTs was published [7]. An accompanying editorial stated that the

© The Author(s) 2018. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat​iveco​mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creat​iveco​mmons​.org/ publi​cdoma​in/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Bolland et al. BMC Res Notes (2018) 11:521

Page 2 of 5

Table 1 Definition of scientific misconduct and COPE guidelines for journal responses to errors or misconduct (Adapted from [6]) Definition of scientific misconduct Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results [5] COPE guidelines Problem

Recommended action

A small part of otherwise reliable publication is misleading (especially if honest error)

Correction

Incorrect author list Inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct

Expression of concern

Evidence that findings are unreliable but authors’ institution will not investigate Believe an investigation has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive An investigation is underway but results not be available for some time Clear evidence that findings are unreliable because of misconduct or honest error

Retract publication

Findings have been published previously Plagiarism Research is unethical COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

lead author admitted that the three RCTs in that journal were fraudulent, and that the editors of the journals that published the remaining RCTs had been notified of the concerns [8]—these notifications occurred in September 2016.

We expected that a number of other retractions would follow this publication and the journal notifications, but 4 months later we had received no new information and nothing further had happened in public. The journal that published our systematic review indicated that it had completed its involvement. Therefore, we planned to contact each journal with unretracted RCTs to ask for an update, in the hope of expediting processes to preserve the integrity of the research literature. Previously, we had found that our enquiries to journals about their investigations of our concerns generated responses of variable timing, usefulness and tone. We wondered if it would make any difference whether the enquiry to the journal came from an academic group or a journalist. Therefore, we invited a journalist (SB) who has recently investigated and written about scientific misconduct and the world of academic publishing for the Guardian newspaper [9– 11] to take part in a randomised comparison of journal responses to contact by academics or a journalist. Specifically, we hypothesized that journal responses to journalists would differ in speed, usefulness, and tone from journal responses to academics.

Main text Methods

We contacted the editors of the 12 journals that published the 23 unretracted trial publications using email

contact details on the journal website, or where these were not available or not responded to, using email details obtained from an internet search. Each journal was randomised to receive a standard letter from the journalist or from our group of academics (Additional file 1: Appendix S1). Journals were randomised in two blocks, one block for each of the two first authors on the 23 publications, using random numbers generated with Excel 2010. Thus, six journals with between 1 and 3 publications each (total 12 publications) were sent a letter from the journalist and six journals with between 1 and 4 publications each (total 11 publications) were sent a letter from the academics. Each journal editor was contacted contemporaneously by email, and if no response was received within 3 weeks, a follow-up email was sent.

We sent a maximum of 3 emails in total.

We recorded basic facts about each of the journals, including the publisher, impact factor, and whether the journal was a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), who provide guidance for dealing with scientific misconduct, or had previous experience with retractions, as determined by Pubmed and Google searches. For each journal, we recorded the time taken to respond and any details provided about investigations being undertaken. Two authors blinded to randomisation (AG, AA) independently classified the usefulness of information provided in the responses, and the tone of the journal response. We pre-specified that a very useful response would clearly state what the journal had done to date and the current status of its investigation; whereas a response of no use would not indicate what the journal had done nor the current status of the investigation, and

Bolland et al. BMC Res Notes (2018) 11:521

a response of limited use would lie between these two categories. Tone of the response, defined by the Oxford English dictionary as “The general character or attitude of a piece of writing”, was classified as positive, negative or neutral by each investigator according to their own judgement. Agreement of these classifications between authors was 75%-kappa statistic for usefulness 0.64, and for tone 0.53. In cases of disagreement, the independent assessment of a third author (MB) acted as a tiebreaker, with final categorisation agreed by consensus.

We compared the median time to a response using the log-rank test and the differences in usefulness and tone with Fisher’s Exact test (GraphPad Prism version 7.03 for Windows, GraphPad Software, La Jolla California USA, https​://www.graph​pad.com). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Due to the nature of the study, ethical approval was not considered necessary.

Results

The 23 unretracted trial publications were published in 12 journals from 8 different publishers (Additional file 1: Appendix Table S1). Three journals are open access, 7

Page 3 of 5

are members of COPE, 11 have an impact factor, which ranges from 1.2 to 5.79, and 8 have prior experience with retractions.

Ten of the 12 journals responded, 3 after the first email, 5 after the second email, and 2 after the third email. 8 journals responded within 1 day of the most recent email being sent. Thus, the median time from the first email to a response was 21 days. There was no difference in response times between the two groups (P = 0.25).

Table 2 shows details of the responses received (Additional file 2). Of the 10 responses, 8 indicated that the journal was investigating, 4 whether or not the lead author had been contacted, and 1 whether or not the institution had been contacted. Only 3 responses indicated that the journal would be in contact in the future, but none made contact within 5 months of the journal’s response.

Overall, we considered that 5 of the 6 enquires made by academics produced information of limited use and 1 no useful information, whereas none of the 6 enquiries by the journalist produced useful information (P = 0.015).

None of the 10 responses were considered to be very useful. Table 3 has examples of the responses and their

Table 2 Journal responses Journal contacted by Academics (n = 6)

Journal contacted

by Journalist (n = 6)

Publications (n)

11

12

Response from journal

6

4

Journal is investigating

6/0/2

2/0/2

Author contacted

3/1/2

0/0/4

Institution contacted

0/1/5

0/0/4

Journal will be in contact in future

1/2/3

2/0/2

Tone (positive/neutral/negative)

4/2/0

1/2/1

Information obtained (useful/ limited use/no use)

0/5/1

0/0/6a

Response indicates: (Yes/no/not stated)

Consensus assessment

a

Includes 2 journals who did not respond to 3 emails

Table 3 Examples of journal responses and classification Response

Classification

We have no comment

Negative tone/no use

Your email was forwarded to me. We’re still looking into this matter per our policies

Neutral tone/no use

I have forwarded your e-mail to the editor and will keep you posted regarding the same

Neutral tone/no use

Sorry for the delay in responding—for some reason your earlier emails did not get through to me… we have been working on this issue for some time now. The … managing editor … has been working with … staff as there is a defined process they need to follow. She is looking into where we stand with this and I will follow up with you once I learn more

Positive tone/no use

Thanks very much for your message regarding the two papers published in … Yes, the … has initiated an investigation using Positive tone/limited use the COPE guidelines. The results of this investigation will guide our future actions

Bolland et al. BMC Res Notes (2018) 11:521

classification. The tone of the journal reply was positive for 5 responses, neutral for 4 responses, and negative in 1 response. There was no difference between the proportion of positive/neutral (versus negative) responses to the academics and the journalist (P = 0.40).

One of the 23 publications was retracted because of scientific misconduct in the 5 months after our initial emails (Additional file 1: Appendix Table S1), but no public statements or expressions of concern were issued about any of the remaining 22 publications during this period.

Discussion

Journals responded to enquiries by academics with more useful information, (although that information was still of limited use), than they provided to the journalist, but there were no differences in the tone or speed of the journal response to the academics or journalist. These findings were contrary to some of our expectations. Prior to the study, we had a range of views as to whether there would be differences in journal responses to being contacted by a journalist or by a group of academics, in general expecting either no differences or that the journalist would receive faster responses.

Only 25% of journals (3/12) responded to the initial email contact, and 17% (2/12) did not respond despite being sent 3 separate emails. When journals did reply, the response was quick: 8/10 responses came within 1 day of the most recent email, and the other two within 8 days of the most recent email. However, the information provided by the journals was of limited or no use in understanding what was happening. While 8/10 responses indicated that an investigation was taking place, only 4 indicated whether or not the author had been contacted and only 1 whether or not the institution had been contacted. Three responses stated that we could expect further contact from the journal, but none gave an indication of the expected time frame and no journal has contacted us as yet. Despite our enquiries, the investigations of the possible misconduct did not appear to have proceeded: in the 11 months after the journals were all first notified by another journal editor about the possible scientific misconduct (including the 5 months after our first email) only one journal made any public statement about the integrity of an RCT—it was retracted.

Unbeknown to us, a journalist from the Retraction Watch website also contacted the journals with the unretracted papers between our 2nd and 3rd email contacts [12]. Retraction Watch is a prominent website that publicly records and comments upon scientific misconduct, and regularly corresponds with journals about misconduct. Therefore, its journalists might be expected to obtain more useful information more frequently than other journalists or academics. Of the 12

Page 4 of 5

journals potentially contacted, 7 responded to Retraction Watch. Applying the same classifications we used, 2 responses were very useful, 2 of limited use, and 3 of no use. One response stated that the journal, a member of COPE, did not investigate issues of misconduct. This independent attempt at contacting journals confirms that journals often do not respond, and when they do, the information provided is usually of limited or no use.

Our study has highlighted an important problem.

When there is clear-cut evidence of research misconduct identified in previous investigations, there seems little reason for long delays or a reluctance to provide useful information about the processes being undertaken to correct the scientific record, nor to promptly publish an expression of concern. But even after recommendation for retraction following an official investigation by a German State Medical Association, 10% of articles remained unretracted after 2 years [13]. Failure to express concern or retract articles means that patients and research participants may be put at risk if they receive treatment based on findings that are later retracted because they were incorrect or unreliable and research funds may be wasted by exploring hypotheses based on invalid data.

Limitations The major limitations to our findings arise from the necessarily small and selected group of journals contacted.

By necessity, the study focused only on a group of 23 RCTs published in 12 journals. These RCTs were part of a broader group of 33 RCTs about which concerns regarding possible scientific misconduct had been published [7]. All the affected journal editors had been notified of the concerns by the editor of the journal that published these concerns [8]. It would be valuable to repeat the study with a larger number and broader range of journals.

However, potential widespread scientific misconduct is rare, and an opportunity for independent investigators to repeat our study might not occur for some time.

Additional files Additional file 1. Template for letters from academics to journalist to journal editors. Table S1. References of 23 randomised controlled trials.

Additional file 2. Study data. Contains all study data.

Abbreviations RCT​: randomised controlled trial; COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics.

Authors’ contributions MB, AG, GG, SB and AA designed the research. MB and SB emailed the editors.

MB collated the responses. AA and AG reviewed the responses. MB performed the analyses. MB drafted the paper. All authors critically reviewed and improved it. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Bolland et al. BMC Res Notes (2018) 11:521

Author details 1 Bone and Joint Research Group, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. 2 Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, Scotland AB25 2ZD, UK. 3 London, UK. Acknowledgements Not applicable.

Competing interests MB, GG, AG, and AA were the authors of the systematic review raising concerns about the trial. SB is a journalist. Otherwise have no competing interests to declare.

Availability of data and materials All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its additional file.

Consent to publish Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable.

Funding No specific funding was received for this study. MB receives salary support from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. These funders had no role in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Received: 13 December 2017 Accepted: 19 July 2018

Page 5 of 5

References 1. Kranke P, Apfel CC, Roewer N, Fujii Y, et al. Reported data on granisetron and postoperative nausea and vomiting by Fujii et al. are incredibly nice!

Anesth Analg. 2000;90:1004–7.

2. Yentis SM. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:455–6.

3. Carlisle JB. The analysis of 168 randomised controlled trials to test data integrity. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:521–37.

4. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:17028–33.

5. https​://ori.hhs.gov/defin​ition​-resea​rch-misco​nduct​. Accessed 23 July 2018.

6. Committee on publication ethics (COPE). Retraction guidelines. 2009. https​://publi​catio​nethi​cs.org/files​/retra​ction​%20gui​delin​es_0.pdf.

Accessed 23 July 2018.

7. Bolland MJ, Avenell A, Gamble GD, Grey A. Systematic review and statistical analysis of the integrity of 33 randomized controlled trials. Neurology.

2016;87:2391–402.

8. Gross RA. Statistics and the detection of scientific misconduct. Neurology.

2016;87:2388.

9. Buranyi S. The hi-tech war on science fraud. 2017. https​://www.thegu​ ardia​n.com/scien​ce/2017/feb/01/high-tech-war-on-scien​ce. Accessed 23 July 2018.

10. Buranyi S. Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? 2017. https​://www.thegu​ardia​n.com/scien​ce/2017/ jun/27/profi​table​-busin​ess-scien​tific​-publi​shing​-bad-for-scien​ce.

Accessed 23 July 2018.

11. Buranyi S, Devlin H. Dozens of recent clinical trials may contain wrong or falsified data, claims study. 2017. https​://www.thegu​ardia​n.com/scien​ ce/2017/jun/05/dozen​s-of-recen​t-clini​cal-trial​s-conta​in-wrong​-or-falsi​ fied-data-claim​s-study​. Accessed 23 July 2018.

12. Koziol M. A shadow was cast on a bone researcher’s work. What are journals doing about his papers? 2017. http://retra​ction​watch​ .com/2017/04/25/shado​w-cast-bone-resea​rcher​s-work-journ​als-paper​s/.

Accessed 23 July 2018.

13. Elia N, Wager E, Tramer MR. Fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: a descriptive cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e85846.

Ready to submit your research ? Choose BMC and benefit from:

• fast, convenient online submission • thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field • rapid publication on acceptance • support for research data, including large and complex data types • gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations • maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year At BMC, research is always in progress.

Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES OPEN VS. GATED MATERIALS Materials can be either open for individual use or gated for commercial use. This book is a combination of both, although it is argued that there are fair use arguments for allowing them to use. This book is open so there is no charge for using them. The value and quality of open resources are very controversial. In the United States, there is a tremendous need to reduce the costs of materials. In other parts of the world, the emphasis is for greater access.

One of the most controversial aspects of openness has been the growth of so-called predatory journals that offer open access but charge authors to publish. Potential authors must now take care to carefully evaluate the journals they want to publish in.

198

OPEN EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS AND FALSE JOURNALS Distinguishing Authentic and Fake Journals and Conferences The spread of technology has allowed us to decide whether we want others to have to pay to read our research or whether to be able to read our research for free. The latter has been called “Open Educational Materials.” What his means can vary from one journal to another can vary a great deal.

There has been a growing number of online journals that publish research for free so that anyone can access the articles. Often, government funded research requires researchers to publish some version of their research, often the next to last draft, openly since the public has funded the research. Some publishers have responded by allowing researchers to pay to have their research published. In fields where all publishing is free, this fee can be burdensome.

Some open access journals have attempted to create credibility by mimicking traditional open access journals. They employ similar forms of peer review, article length and type, editorial boards, and editors.

They look like traditional published journals except they are free to access. A few journals have attempted to exploit the online by publishing different types of articles or having more categories of articles. But the basic nature of the traditional journals remains the same.

However, there has also been a growing number of what are called “fake’’ journals that sometimes look like traditional journals but do not have the same credibility. Many of these journals charge a lot of money to publish their research in journals that have little or no credibility in the academic world. Often you may be spammed to contribute to these journals. Traditional journals rarely spam protentional contributes.

Fake journals can look like authentic journals. There are a number of factors you can look at to determine whether a journal is “fake.” Often the peer review period is very short. The publisher may list a lot of journals in different fields. The editor and editorial board may not be familiar. The location of the journals may not be common. All these are signals that these journals may not be authentic. Similar criteria can be applied to judging the authenticity of the journal.

It can be tempting to publish in a fake journal and just pay the money. I had a student who had to publish to get his degree, so the $400 fee did not seem that outrageous to finish a PhD. However, in the long term, these journals may not count very much, if anything, towards your future. They may not even be around when you need to present your work. So today, attention must to be to choosing which journal you want to publish in. For more information, see https://scholarlyoa.com.

197

PREDATORY JOURNALS AND CONFERENCES HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER A JOURNAL OR CONFERENCE IS PREDATORY The growth of open access has had a dark side: the parallel growth of the so-called “predatory journals.” It is often difficult to determine whether a journal is predatory. It often charges a fee for publishing. In fields that there was never a charge, this is a new development that can have negative consequences. Beyond the fee, there is the problem of reputation of the journal. Some have editors who either don’t exist or are not really editors. Similarly, some have editorial boards that either do not exist or have no credibility to be on a board. There have been cases where a predatory journal copies the title of an established journal.

In order to increase their revenues, predatory journals may have a low standard for publication. While they may offer peer review in a short period of time that may not be authentic peer review and just a perfunctory examination of the paper. The journals often cover a large range of topics at a time when many journals are being established on more narrow topics. Again, the goal seems to be to make the most money possible by publishing a wide range of articles, often ones that could not be published in established journals, either gated or open access.

Potential authors should be suspicious of any journal that asks for money, particularly if they are in a field where the established journals do not charge money. Potential authors may also want to check the credibility of the editor, publisher, and editorial board to see if they really exist and add credibility to the journal. Sometimes, you can even use Google Maps to see where the offices of these journals are and whether these locations are places where journals are usually published.

Choosing a conference can involve the same problems. These conferences usually have a high rate of acceptance and a quick level of review. Again, sometimes payment for the conference is required before notification of acceptance is given. These conferences can have high fees and are often have a large variety of topics but a low rate of attendance, which means that many of the benefits of a conference for getting feedback or making contacts are lost.

What is further complicating this situation is that established publishers are getting into the publishing these types of journals where fees are charged and a wide variety of papers are accepted. Sometimes you can directly transfer a rejected paper directly to one of these journals. The motivation for this might be acceptable; that is, to let the readers decide the value of a paper rather than a couple of reviewers.

However, there is often a charge for this, which is lower than their regular open access fees but can be higher than those found in the predatory journals.

The complex nature of these new spaces means that potential authors have to take greater care in evaluating a journal or a conference before submitting their papers.

OPEN EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS AND FALSE JOURNALS Distinguishing Authentic and Fake Journals and Conferences The spread of technology has allowed us to decide whether we want others to have to pay to read our research or whether to be able to read our research for free. The latter has been called “Open Educational Materials.” What his means can vary from one journal to another can vary a great deal.

There has been a growing number of online journals that publish research for free so that anyone can access the articles. Often, government funded research requires researchers to publish some version of their research, often the next to last draft, openly since the public has funded the research. Some publishers have responded by allowing researchers to pay to have their research published. In fields where all publishing is free, this fee can be burdensome.

Some open access journals have attempted to create credibility by mimicking traditional open access journals. They employ similar forms of peer review, article length and type, editorial boards, and editors.

They look like traditional published journals except they are free to access. A few journals have attempted to exploit the online by publishing different types of articles or having more categories of articles. But the basic nature of the traditional journals remains the same.

However, there has also been a growing number of what are called “fake’’ journals that sometimes look like traditional journals but do not have the same credibility. Many of these journals charge a lot of money to publish their research in journals that have little or no credibility in the academic world. Often you may be spammed to contribute to these journals. Traditional journals rarely spam protentional contributes.

Fake journals can look like authentic journals. There are a number of factors you can look at to determine whether a journal is “fake.” Often the peer review period is very short. The publisher may list a lot of journals in different fields. The editor and editorial board may not be familiar. The location of the journals may not be common. All these are signals that these journals may not be authentic. Similar criteria can be applied to judging the authenticity of the journal.

It can be tempting to publish in a fake journal and just pay the money. I had a student who had to publish to get his degree, so the $400 fee did not seem that outrageous to finish a PhD. However, in the long term, these journals may not count very much, if anything, towards your future. They may not even be around when you need to present your work. So today, attention must to be to choosing which journal you want to publish in. For more information, see https://scholarlyoa.com.

199

Call For Papers/ Books/Conference Proceedings/Thesis PublicationJanuary 2017 Issue Associated Asia Research Foundation (AARF) www.aarf.asia We feel great pleasure to inform you that Associated Asia Research Foundation (AARF) is publishing various journals in fields of Management, Commerce, IT, Engineering, Human Resources, Social Sciences, Natural & Applied Sciences, Economics, Marketing, Law, Mathematics, Humanities, Languages & Literature.

a Thomson Reuters Researchers ID Indexed Journal (ID is L-7296-2015) SCOPUS Evaluation Tracking ID (GE-IJMR)- 78AC760705C9AC43 SCOPUS Evaluation Tracking ID (GE-

IJER)- 4D249C6F975E005F SCOPUS Evaluation Tracking ID (IRJMC)- DC623AA145ECE1F0 SCOPUS Evaluation Tracking ID (IRJME)- 83E99C0A84CEEACD SCOPUS Evaluation Tracking ID (IRJMEIT)- E36AF00A60452C72 SCOPUS Evaluation Tracking ID (IRJHRSS)- 6971A4120D297CC9 SCOPUS Evaluation Tracking ID (IRJHLL)- 750C505A18140F64 SCOPUS Evaluation Tracking ID (IRJNAS)- BD36038B9EFA6DB5

Print & Online Journals

GE- International Journal of Management Research (GE-IJMR) Impact Factor-5.779 ISSN (O): (2321-1709), ISSN (P): (2394-4226) GE- International Journal of Engineering Research (GE-IJER) Impact Factor-5.613 ISSN (O): (2321-1717), ISSN (P): (2394-420X) International Research Journal of Human Resources & Social Sciences (IRJHRSS)

200

4/18/2018

Paper Accepted…Unless the Letter Was Forged - The Scholarly Kitchen

Paper Accepted…Unless the Letter Was Forged By

ANGELA COCHRAN | APR 18, 2018

AUTHORS ETHICS PEER REVIEW

Predation. It’s discussed all the time. Predatory journals are scamming unsuspecting authors by promising quick publication, and low, low fees to a never-heard-of-before open access journal. Alternatively, it may be true that some authors are the ones taking advantage of low cost OA (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/02/28/predatorypublishing-rational-response-poorly-governed-academic-incentives/) in order to push through shoddy work and get credit for it. Conferences are another headache (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/predatory-conferencesnow-outnumber-official-scholarly-events). Researchers attend conferences to get their work published and to network.

There is no shortage of conferences promising to do just that only for attendees to realize when they get there that all is not what was advertised. In fact, a new website with a familiar name (https://thinkcheckattend.org/) is offering attendees help in identifying these conferences.

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/04/18/paper-acceptedunless-letter-forged/?informz=1

1/7

4/18/2018

Paper Accepted…Unless the Letter Was Forged - The Scholarly Kitchen

Another scam seems to be taking hold in certain parts of the world. Over the last 5 years, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has become aware of seven fake acceptance letters for our journals. Here’s how this goes: An author contacts us and says, “Thank you for accepting my paper. Your letter said that the paper would be in the December issue but I looked and it’s not there. Please inform me of the new publication date.”

We’ve never seen this paper. The author helpfully provides a copy of the acceptance letter.

The letterhead is similar to ours, though we don’t send accept letters on this letterhead and a map was added to the background. There is no actual journal title. The letter does promise a publication date, which we never provide. There is an editor signature. That’s an ASCE Editor, but not his signature. The other signature belongs to my boss, though his title is wrong.

The letter, as if to convey more legitimacy, includes logos for DOAJ, Crossref, and other various indices. The DOI prefix is incorrect and ASCE does not have an Open Access journal, so none are included in DOAJ. We received two letters, both from authors in Iran, that look exactly like this one. I suspect that there are others out there.

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/04/18/paper-acceptedunless-letter-forged/?informz=1

2/7

4/18/2018

Paper Accepted…Unless the Letter Was Forged - The Scholarly Kitchen

In another instance, an author asked about publication. He contacted the editor, who broke the bad news that we’ve never seen this paper. This author provided email correspondence. He had come in contact with a man who claimed to be a friend of the editor. This man promised to help get the paper published in the journal. This “friend” collected a submission fee and upon providing a fake acceptance letter, he collected a publication fee. ASCE charges neither. The editor had never heard of this “friend.”

Our first fake acceptance letter was several years ago when a young man asked if we could move the publication of his paper up. The acceptance letter said we would publish it in the August issue and he would prefer June. He provided a letter, signed by the editor, which was a forgery. He sent us an image of a posting on a university bulletin board (the physical kind) that offered to help get papers published in our journal and two other related journals.

Another letter we received was remarkable in its fanfare. The author presented us with a red “PowerPoint” slide looking certificate. It had starbursts blazoned with the word “accepted” and the journal title in big bold letters.

Forged Acceptance Letters I love a good mystery and so I try to track these things down. I was able to trace still one more letter back to an editing service in China. The author gave me some email correspondence that I was able to match to a URL. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/04/18/paper-acceptedunless-letter-forged/?informz=1

3/7

4/18/2018

Paper Accepted…Unless the Letter Was Forged - The Scholarly Kitchen

I am very careful about how to respond to these authors. I explain that we don’t have the paper, never did; that we don’t charge fees for submission or publication; and that unfortunately the entire thing is a fraud. I ask for more information: Would you mind telling me to whom you submitted your paper?

What did they promise you?

Did you pay them any money?

I never hear back from the authors at this point. They are either afraid to get in trouble or embarrassed that they were duped.

I struggle with what to do next. Do I email the institution and let them know that someone took advantage of researchers there? This is especially a concern when there is a flyer posted on a department board, or someone who is in contact with the researcher and pretends to be a friend to the editor.

In these cases, the author is being wronged. It seems like adding fuel to the fire by telling their dean that they were duped. At the same time, we have seen seven cases and there is no way there aren’t a whole lot more out there. Of the seven discovered, two were Iranian authors and five were authors from China.

What about your journals? I talk to other publishers and ask them about these cases all the time. I spoke to a room full of publishers at PSP about this as well. I have only heard of one other publisher finding fake acceptance letters like this. There is no mention on the COPE website of incidents. I find it very hard to believe that ASCE journal authors are predominantly getting caught up in this kind of scam. In other words, if it’s happening with our journals, there is no reason to believe its not happening with yours.

Companies pretending to offer “author services” while employing questionable ethics are not new. Some unscrupulous providers do “manage” the entire submission process for authors and have perpetrated peer review fraud in the process. Others, like the one I was able to track down never submitted the paper to ASCE. While there are paper mills where the authors clearly know what they are “buying,” the cases I have seen are much more likely to be scamming the authors. These phony services damage the reputation of legitimate language editing services and freelance editors in the same way that predatory journals take a bite out of responsible journals.

So what’s the damage to a specific journal? Nothing really, except that someone is promising acceptance in our journal and misrepresenting a relationship with ASCE. This certainly isn’t the only way journal titles get co-opted to benefit some other group. We regularly find conferences that advertise that the top 10 papers submitted to the meeting will be sent to one of our journals. We may eventually get an email with a zip file containing 10 papers from a conference organizer that we turn away.

It is possible to attempt some legal action against individuals or organizations co-opting journal titles for these purposes. If you can track down the original perpetrator, step one might be to send a cease and desist letter, which has a high likelihood of being ignored. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/04/18/paper-acceptedunless-letter-forged/?informz=1

4/7

4/18/2018

Paper Acceptedâ&#x20AC;ŚUnless the Letter Was Forged - The Scholarly Kitchen

Now that a definite pattern of abuse has been established for ASCE journals, I am focusing some attention to the matter in our author resources. Here are some ideas all of us could do to help our potential authors.

I suggest adding language to author guides/information/instructions about what an author should expect to happen: 1. Only the corresponding author can submit a manuscript 2. All papers are submitted to our submission site* (include the URL) 3. A confirmation email will be sent to the author upon successful submission (include information about from whom the email will come) 4. Give an example of the format of our manuscript numbers 5. Explain upfront about fees 6. Give an idea of the timeline for first decision and what the typical process looks like (we never accept an original submission) 7. Explain that all correspondence related to the review and acceptance of the paper will come from emails generated by the submission system 8. Refer authors to the Think.Check.Submit (https://thinkchecksubmit.org/). page for more information.

As publishers, we could certainly choose to do nothing. We are not getting scammed; however, people who want to publish in our journals are getting scammed. My hope is that we can all continue to educate authors to avoid these unfortunate events and also make institutions in other countries where this fraud seems to be centered aware of the issues. *One reason why authors from outside English speaking countries may feel the need to rely on a helper for submissions is because the submission sites are written by and for English speakers. Many submission systems will offer foreign language translation sites but in the end of the day, we want all the questions answered in English. Still, we can probably do better to watch what we ask for and how we ask for it in order to be more mindful of non-native English speakers.

Angela Cochran @ACOCHRAN12733

Angela Cochran is the Associate Publisher and Journals Director at the American Society of Civil Engineers. She is past-president of the Council of Science Editors.

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/04/18/paper-acceptedunless-letter-forged/?informz=1

5/7

4/18/2018

Predatory conferences ‘now outnumber official scholarly events’ | THE News

Help us tailor your experience: Which one of these best describes you?

A Student

Becoming a student

I work in HE None of these

Source: Getty Imitation game: predatory symposia now outnumber learned society events because of demand to present internationally

“Predatory” conferences now outnumber o cial events organised by scholarly societies following an explosion in the number of such symposia held across the world, a researcher has warned.

Tens of thousands of academics are now likely to be paying to give papers at conferences of questionable value because of the “incredible demand” to present at international events, often the “di erence between getting hired or promoted or not”, said James McCrostie, associate professor at Daito Bunka University (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/daitobunka-university) in Japan, who researches the issue.

“I can attend a predatory conference somewhere in Japan nearly every week of the year,” he warned, although the most proli c organisers tend to centre their operations on major cities including London, Paris, Dubai and Bangkok.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/predatory-conferences-now-outnumber-official-scholarly-events

2/15

4/18/2018

Predatory conferences ‘now outnumber official scholarly events’ | THE News

Ignorance of predatory conferences means warning signs are missed (/blog/ignorance-predatory-conferences-means-warningsigns-are-missed)

(/blog/ignorance-predatoryconferences-meanswarning-signs-are-missed)

READ MORE

Times Higher Education examined the activities of one conference organiser, the World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (Waset), after it was contacted by a UK cybersecurity worker who attended one of Waset’s events in Copenhagen earlier this month.

The event – titled the 19th International Conference on Political Psychology (https://www.waset.org/conference/2017/10/copenhagen/ICPP/program?forceTentative=1) – was billed as an “interdisciplinary platform for researchers, practitioners and educators” in that eld and its website appeared consistent with other reputable conferences, he told THE. However, after having his paper accepted and travelling to Denmark, he was left sorely disappointed: proceedings were compressed into two hours on the rst morning and one on the second, and barely 10 people attended the event, held in a single small room, he said.

With other speakers addressing subjects as diverse as robots, solar energy, Islamic nance and food safety, he concluded that multiple “conferences” had been loaded into the same room.

“We lost the conference registration fee of €450 (£400), plus roughly £400 for the ight and two nights’ accommodation,” he said. He has subsequently found 153 accepted submissions from UK academics listed by Waset in 2017 alone, which, if they all paid the same, would represent registration revenue of €68,850.

Subsequent research into Waset, which is registered in the United Arab Emirates, shows that it will hold some 183 events in 2018, although these will cover almost 60,000 individual “conferences” – averaging 320 at each event.

Conferences are scheduled almost every day up until the end of 2030.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/predatory-conferences-now-outnumber-official-scholarly-events

3/15

4/18/2018

Predatory conferences ‘now outnumber official scholarly events’ | THE News

“Many might question why anyone would sign up…but to the untrained eye, however, the site is pretty consistent with other legitimate conferences I’ve previously spoken at,” said the researcher.

“The giveaways are certainly there if you dig a little deeper, but rst you have to have your suspicions aroused,” he said, adding that his US research collaborators had mistakenly believed that the event was linked to the International Society of Political Psychology.

“We came across the event by googling it – if you’re looking for a niche conference and happen upon it, everything looks quite legitimate,” he said. "Other academics I've spoken to have said they want to give their PhD students a chance to speak at a conference, so don’t go for the most prestigious ones, but [they] have no idea what these events actually are.”

The last Waset event to take place in London occurred on 19 October at the Holiday Inn, in Wembley, where events take place each month. According to Waset’s site, 387 separate conferences were due to take place that day, while January’s event will host 618 “conferences”.

Universities should do more to raise awareness (https://wasetwatch.wordpress.com/) about these events, the researcher said, adding that “he had no knowledge” of the problems associated with such conferences.

THE has been unable to contact Waset.

Mr McCrostie said that he was not surprised that UK-based scholars had fallen prey to organisers of predatory conferences.

“Multidisciplinary events that combine di erent elds into one conference like Waset does should be a huge red ag, but there are academics who legitimately haven’t heard of the term,” he said.

Universities, especially graduate schools, have done “essentially nothing” to raise awareness of the issue, he added.

The bigger problem is a failure to properly research the conference organiser before accepting invitations, submitting papers or agreeing to host events, Mr McCrostie added.

“Scholars seem to spend more time considering the timing and location of a conference than doing basic research into the organisation behind it,” he said.

Mr McCrostie said that the need for action was urgent if scholarly standards were to be maintained.

“In terms of sheer numbers, predatory conferences by for-pro t companies now outnumber legitimate events put on by scholarly societies,” he warned. “Predatory conference organisers have seen the demand and are doing their best to meet it.”

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/predatory-conferences-now-outnumber-official-scholarly-events

4/15

3/22/2017

A Scholarly Sting Operation Shines a Light on ‘Predatory’ Journals ­ The New York Times

https://nyti.ms/2mQUwH6

SCIENCE

A Scholarly Sting Operation Shines a Light on ‘Predatory’ Journals

By GINA KOLATA MARCH 22, 2017

The applicant’s nom de plume was not exactly subtle, if you know Polish. The middle initial and surname of the author, Anna O. Szust, mean “fraudster.” Her publications were fake and her degrees were fake. The book chapters she listed among her publications could not be found, but perhaps that should not have been a surprise because the book publishers were fake, too.

Yet, when Dr. Fraud applied to 360 randomly selected open­access academic journals asking to be an editor, 48 accepted her and four made her editor in chief.

She got two offers to start a new journal and be its editor. One journal sent her an email saying, “It’s our pleasure to add your name as our editor in chief for the journal with no responsibilities.”

Little did they know that they had fallen for a sting, plotted and carried out by a group of researchers who wanted to draw attention to and systematically document the seamy side of open­access publishing. While those types of journals began with earnest aspirations to make scientific papers available to everyone, their proliferation has had unintended consequences.

Traditional journals typically are supported by subscribers who pay a fee while authors pay nothing to be published. Nonsubscribers can only read papers if they pay the journal for each one they want to see.

203 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/science/open­access­journals.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story­heading&module=second­co… 1/5

3/22/2017

A Scholarly Sting Operation Shines a Light on ‘Predatory’ Journals ­ The New York Times

Open­access journals reverse that model. The authors pay and the published papers are free to anyone who cares to read them.

Publishing in an open­access journal can be expensive — the highly regarded Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals charge from $1,495 to $2,900 to publish a paper, with the fee dependent on which of its journals accepts the paper.

Not everyone anticipated what would happen next, or to what extent it would happen. The open­access business model spawned a shadowy world of what have been called predatory journals. They may have similar names to legitimate journals, but exist by publishing just about anything sent to them for a fee that can range from under $100 to thousands of dollars.

The fee often is between $100 and $400, said Jeffery Beall, scholarly communications librarian at the University of Colorado, Denver, as the journals compete for paying customers. Of course, it is easier for predatory journals to have low fees because their expenses are minimal.

The researchers decided not to list any of the fake journals that they uncovered in the sting, saying that some have names so close to those of legitimate journals that it would be confusing.

There are now thousands of fake open­access journals, about as many as legitimate ones, according to one of the creators of Dr. Fraud, Katarzyna Pisanski, a researcher in the School of Psychology at the University of Sussex in England, and her colleagues.

It was that alternate world that Dr. Fraud tapped into. The legitimate journals rejected her application out of hand, but many fake ones did not hesitate to take her on.

The investigators, writing about their sting operation in Nature, said they had seen young colleagues fall for the blandishments of predatory journals, not realizing that the emails they received were from publications that only wanted their money.

Dr. Pisanski and her colleagues wanted to help researchers understand how fake journals operated.

204 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/science/open­access­journals.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story­heading&module=second­co… 2/5

3/22/2017

A Scholarly Sting Operation Shines a Light on ‘Predatory’ Journals ­ The New York Times

“The emails can be very flattering,” Dr. Pisanski said, telling the recipients they are “eminent researchers” and “inviting” them to contribute. When researchers respond and send in papers, “they are published at lightning speed, often without peer review,” she said.

But not everyone who publishes in these journals is an innocent dupe. Dr. Beall, who until recently published a list of predatory journals, said he believes many researchers know exactly what they are doing when they publish there.

“I believe there are countless researchers and academics, currently employed, who have secured jobs, promotions, and tenure using publications in pay­to­publish journals as part of their credentials and experience for the jobs and promotions they got,” Dr. Beall said.

And it can require real diligence on the part of employers to ferret out those questionable publications, Dr. Beall said.

“Examining someone’s publications now requires close scrutiny,” Dr. Beall said.

“Merely eyeballing a C.V. is insufficient now.”

David Knutson, the manager of communications at PLOS, said that young researchers may feel relentless pressure to publish, at all costs.

“These authors are shopping around their papers,” he said. “There is so much pressure to publish.”

As for Dr. Fraud, she got some lucrative offers. One journal suggested she organize a conference, whose papers would then be published; she would get 40 percent of the proceeds. Another invited her to start a new journal and offered her 30 percent of the profits.

Dr. Pisanski and her colleagues told the journals that accepted Dr. Fraud that she wanted to withdraw her application to be an editor. But it was not easy to withdraw.

Dr. Fraud remains listed as a member of the editorial boards of at least 11 of those journals. She is also listed as a member of conference­organizing committees.

205 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/science/open­access­journals.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story­heading&module=second­co… 3/5

$Q ,QWHUYLHZ ZLWK -HIIUH\ %HDOO _ 7KH 6FKRODUO\ .LWFKHQ

7KH 6FKRODUO\ .LWFKHQ AUTHORS, BUSINESS MODELS, COMMERCE, CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS, ETHICS, LIBRARIES, OPEN ACCESS

$Q ,QWHUYLHZ ZLWK -HIIUH\ %HDOO POSTED BY JOSEPH ESPOSITO ‫ڄ‬ FEB 8, 2016 ‫ڄ‬ 44 COMMENTS FILED UNDER BEALLʹS LIST, BOHANNON, DOAJ, JEFFREY BEALL, OPEN ACCESS, PREDATORY PUBLISHERS, SCIENCE Image via Jeffrey Beall [Note from Joe Esposito: Not long ago Jeffrey Beall took a swipe at the Scholarly Kitchen. The consternation of my fellow Chefs was evident in the discussion that followed: What’s he getting at? What motivates him? Why is he doing this? Rather than speculate, I thought it would be a good idea to allow Beall to speak in his own voice. The interview below was conducted via email. Beall reviewed all final questions and responses.]

Esposito: What first drew your interest to open access (OA) publishing and caused you to study it?

Beall: I first became interested in questionable journals and publishers in 2008, when, as an assistant professor on tenure track, I began to receive ungrammatical spam emails from fishy‑ looking gold open access publishers, publishers I had never heard of before. I used to print them out and keep the printouts in a blue folder. I eventually drew up a short list of the suspicious publishers (this was really before mega‑journals had appeared) and quietly published the list on an old blog I had.

Esposito: At what point did you come up with the term “predatory” to describe the fishy‑looking publishers?

Beall: In 2010. I first used the term in this article published in a journal called The Charleston Advisor.

Esposito: In that paper you write: “These publishers are predatory because their mission is not to promote, preserve, and make available scholarship; instead, their mission is to exploit the author‑pays, Open‑Access model for their own profit.”

Your formulation seems to leave open the possibility of Gold open access publication that is not exploitative.

Is that indeed your point of view?

206

Beall: Correct, in theory, there’s nothing really wrong with the gold open access model, and there

KWWS VFKRODUO\NLWFKHQ VVSQHW RUJ DQ LQWHUYLHZ ZLWK MHIIUH\ EHDOO

$Q ,QWHUYLHZ ZLWK -HIIUH\ %HDOO _ 7KH 6FKRODUO\ .LWFKHQ

Beall: Correct, in theory, thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s nothing really wrong with the gold open access model, and there are numerous examples of it working well. While the model does have a builtâ&#x20AC;&#x2018;in conflict of interest (more papers accepted leads to more revenue), itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the exploitation of the model for gratuitous profit that is of concern, and not so much the model itself. There are many hundreds of OA journals and publishers that are not on my lists.

Esposito: Could you provide some examples of Gold OA journals that subscribe to good principles for publishing? That is, what are some journals that are not predatory, in your view?

Beall: The particular niche Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve carved out involves identifying predatory or otherwise lowâ&#x20AC;&#x2018; quality or deceptive scholarly journals. Although I receive many requests to identify good or highâ&#x20AC;&#x2018;quality journals, I choose to leave this identification to others, especially those in the particular fields the journals represent.

Esposito: You have been criticized for supporting a blacklist instead of working toward a whitelist. Do you have any views of the relative merits of blacklists and whitelists?

Beall: Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve had lots of conversations about the strengths and weaknesses of journal whitelists and blacklists, and every one has been interesting. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. There are examples where whitelists have been shown to be monumental failures.

For example, the Bohannon sting in Science two years ago found that 45% of a sample of publishers included in DOAJ accepted a bogus paper submitted for publication. I know that DOAJ has tried to make improvements, but in fact, in my opinion, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s never really recovered from this telling, major failure.

Because youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re not an academic yourself, you may not realize or understand the amount of spam that researchers receive today. They are bombarded with spam emails from predatory publishers, many of whom are easily able to defeat spam filters. For those needing to eliminate questionable or lowâ&#x20AC;&#x2018;quality journals or publishers from consideration, a blacklist has great value as a timeâ&#x20AC;&#x2018; saving device. You can quickly check whether a journalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s publisher is on the list, and if it is, you can immediately remove it from consideration, saving valuable time. My lists are used by governments and universities and colleges around the world and are found especially valuable in developing countries, where predatory publishers especially target researchers.

Esposito: Have you codified the criteria for evaluation of a journal before putting it onto your list? If you have, are the criteria publicly available?

Beall:  Yes, the criteria, currently in the 3rd edition, are available here.

Esposito: The current version of that document was posted a year ago, yet you are often criticized for not being transparent about your practices. Have your practices changed over the years? Have you been listening to your critics and modifying your practices where you saw a reason to?

Beall: My work has benefited from the help, assistance, and guidance of many valuable mentors over the years. Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve gotten tremendous support, much of it given quietly, and I am very grateful for it. I receive emails almost daily thanking me for my work.

The criteria document, now in its third edition, reflects changes in scholarly open access 207 KWWS VFKRODUO\NLWFKHQ VVSQHW RUJ DQ LQWHUYLHZ ZLWK MHIIUH\ EHDOO publishing and the evaluation and criticism of it.

$Q ,QWHUYLHZ ZLWK -HIIUH\ %HDOO _ 7KH 6FKRODUO\ .LWFKHQ The criteria document, now in its third edition, reflects changes in scholarly open access publishing and the evaluation and criticism of it.

In most cases, the evaluation of predatory publishers and journals is easy and obvious, and there is no disagreement. For example, if an open access journal promises a oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2018;week peer review and falsely claims to have an impact factor, few will disagree that it should be flagged.

Your repeated references to unnamed critics are fallacious. Youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re begging the question of whether they or their arguments are credible. Predatory journals and publishers are hurting science and corrupting scholarly communication.

Esposito: You criticized DOAJ for including publishers you termed predatory. Subsequently DOAJ changed its guidelines for inclusion, but there was never any acknowledgment of your role in this. What is your view of DOAJ as it is currently constituted? Do you think DOAJ has been listening to you and learning, but failing to make an acknowledgment?

Beall: I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t think DOAJ made any decisions or changed their policies based on anything I said or did. I think they tightened up their inclusion criteria as a result of the Bohannon sting and not because of me. For information on whether DOAJ has been listening, I would refer you to them.

But in point of fact, I have not been speaking to DOAJ â&#x20AC;&#x201D; we have no dialog.

DOAJ has been victimized by predatory publishers. The idea of creating a directory of open access journals is a good one. Predatory publishers are experts at appearing like legitimate publishers, and many have been fooled or misled by them (victimized by them, essentially), including the compilers of directories or other similar databases.

Esposito: If you could change any one thing in scholarly communications â&#x20AC;&#x201D; say, by announcing a policy that everybody would adhere to â&#x20AC;&#x201D; what would that one thing be? You are welcome to offer more than one idea.

Beall: Easy: we need to end the system of payments from authors. Authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2018;financed scholarly publishing is corrupting scholarly communication.

Esposito: I want to be sure I understand you on this point. To an earlier question you replied that although you focus on identifying OA publishers of little or no merit, you believed that there are useful OA venues.

But your response just now seems to suggest that all Gold OA is a bad thing. Can you clarify your position?

Beall: I stand by both statements. I know some would love to catch me in a contradiction and declare victory, but some things are ambiguous, and at universities we specialize in dealing with ambiguities and uncertainties.

You brought up the concept of selfâ&#x20AC;&#x2018;contradiction, so I am reminded that in late 2013 you authored a mean and hurtful blog post in The Scholarly Kitchen entitled â&#x20AC;&#x153;Parting Company with Jeffrey Beall.â&#x20AC;? Why are you communicating with me now after so firmly declaring an intention to end contact with me?

Esposito: Gold OA now captures about 3 percent of total revenues for journals. It is growing. Do you see it reaching a plateau at some point or even declining, or will the growth continue?

208 KWWS VFKRODUO\NLWFKHQ VVSQHW RUJ DQ LQWHUYLHZ ZLWK MHIIUH\ EHDOO

Beall: Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m sorry â&#x20AC;&#x201D; I am not really qualified to answer this question. I would refer you to someone

$Q ,QWHUYLHZ ZLWK -HIIUH\ %HDOO _ 7KH 6FKRODUO\ .LWFKHQ

Beall: Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m sorry â&#x20AC;&#x201D; I am not really qualified to answer this question. I would refer you to someone at STM or Outsell. I am focused on helping researchers avoid being victimized by bogus and corrupt open access publishers and journals and not on making industry forecasts.

Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the source for that statistic, anyway? Does it include all the revenue earned by the thousands of journals on my lists, including all those based in South Asia and West Africa? I suspect not. Most research on OA journals excludes the journals on my lists and instead exclusively uses DOAJ as a source of titles to study, so most studies on OA donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t tell the whole story.

Esposito: As Gold OA does not involve the curatorial activity of a library, what changes has the advent of OA brought about in a libraryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s operations?

Beall: Actually, this is a key question. I think Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve read your comments about scholarly open access publishing disintermediating academic libraries, and I agree. No longer stewards of physical collections, academic librarians have to find new ways to add value to information in the college and university context.

One of the ways that weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re doing this is by helping faculty, students, and postâ&#x20AC;&#x2018;docs navigate the entire research process, from initial literature review to final publication of the research results in a journal or monograph.

As you know, there are many corrupt and lowâ&#x20AC;&#x2018;quality businesses appearing, firms offering services to researchers at different places along the research cycle, with predatory publishers among the most salient of these. The particular niche Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve carved out is to help researchers avoid being victimized by such publishers, and many librarians have assisted me in this, and I am grateful for their help. Other academic libraries provide the same service using different methods.

As the role of consumer switches from libraries to researchers, academic librarians have the opportunity to share valuable skills and information with university researchers.

Esposito: What policies can be implemented on an institutional level to identify and marginalize, and perhaps to eliminate, predatory publishers?

Beall: Sir, I am not a specialist in higher education policy, so I cannot provide a complete answer to this question. All I know is that there are predatory publishers and journals that are victimizing researchers, and I am doing all I can to get the word out and help researchers avoid being hurt by them.

I do know that there are academic departments, colleges, and universities â&#x20AC;&#x201D; and even a few governments â&#x20AC;&#x201D; that find my lists valuable and use them for evaluation purposes, i.e., as a component of their policies. Many individuals use them as well.

Esposito: What didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t I ask you that you would like to comment on?

Beall: Here are two things that I think are important that I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t think weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve discussed: 1. Predatory journals and the threat to the integrity of science.

209

South African researcher Nicoli Nattrass writes about the concept she calls the â&#x20AC;&#x153;imprimatur of

KWWS VFKRODUO\NLWFKHQ VVSQHW RUJ DQ LQWHUYLHZ ZLWK MHIIUH\ EHDOO

3/27/2017

When Your Scholarship Goes to Court | Vitae

Kelli Marshall Instructor at DePaul University

With Support From

When Your Scholarship Goes to Court Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Google+ E­mail

March 27, 2017

Image by Rocío Garro, Creative Commons I do research on Hollywood song­and­dance man Gene Kelly. I study his work, his star image, and his fandom. Last year, I was sued for my scholarship.

211 https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1746­when­your­scholarship­goes­to­court?cid=VTEVPMSED1

1/5

3/27/2017

When Your Scholarship Goes to Court | Vitae

In 2015, I signed a contract with the University Press of Mississippi to edit a collection of Gene Kelly's interviews, spanning nearly 50 years. My book would be part of a longstanding series of collected interviews from respected filmmakers like John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock, Martin Scorsese, and Spike Lee. Lest anyone forget, in addition to being a bankable Hollywood star, dancer, and choreographer, Gene Kelly was a director (and co­director) with nearly 20 films and television specials under his belt.

When you compile a collection like this, you must get permission from those who own copyright to republish the original work — be it a poem, short story, essay, or in my case, written and spoken interviews.

Permissions 101: Challenges and Realities First, securing permissions can take a matter of minutes or hours. Indeed, I almost instantly secured permissions for several of Gene Kelly's interviews, via email and phone calls. The copyright holders were speedy and gracious.

Conversely, the process can also take weeks or months. If the publication in which the original work appeared is now defunct, if the conglomerate who owns copyright has a backlog of requests and/or takes its time responding to yours, or if the copyright holder is deceased, securing permissions can be difficult and time­consuming.

For example, in his 2004 essay, “The Economic Challenges to Anthologies,” Cary Nelson recalls his involvement with Robert Frost's publisher. After five months of trying to secure permissions to include a Frost poem in a poetry anthology, Nelson sent an express mail letter to the publisher saying his press “would reprint the poems (and give a fee of $50 per poem) unless [they] heard otherwise within 48 hours.” Nelson happily reports, “That got a response.”

Sometimes unconventional approaches work.

Second, acquiring permissions can be expensive since some copyright owners charge to reprint the material. My academic press allotted a certain amount of money to cover the cost of reprint fees. For example, to include Gene Kelly's interviews in my collection, copyright holders requested amounts ranging from nothing (“gratis”) up to $600 for a single interview. For most of the Kelly interviews, the reprint fees were between $50 and $300.

Third, your publisher’s allotment for reprint fees will likely determine which materials you can — and can’t — include in your collection. For instance, if your press only allocates $2,000 for the cost of reprints and your three “best” texts are $600 each, you won't have much of a collection. In many ways, the permissions process dictates the outcome of your book.

One outcome of the permissions process that I did not expect, however, was being sued.

212 https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1746­when­your­scholarship­goes­to­court?cid=VTEVPMSED1

2/5

3/27/2017

When Your Scholarship Goes to Court | Vitae

A Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against You I was busily seeking permissions when Kelly's widow sued the university press and me for copyright infringement. According to her complaint: “The Plaintiff has been and still is the sole proprietor of all right, title, and interest in and to the copyrights in the Interviews.”

Or as Tech Dirt explained it, “Kelly's widow, who was married to Gene Kelly for the last seven years of his life, claims that she holds the copyright on every interview that Kelly ever did.” If that was the case, then my intent to publish and disseminate Kelly's interviews in a book without her permission would, as Kelly’s widow alleged, constitute “infringement under the United States Copyright laws.”

My collection of interviews was necessarily put on hold. During this time, I continued to prepare lectures and teach my classes. I graded quizzes and attended faculty meetings. I dined out with my husband and posted pictures of my cocker spaniel to social media. In short, I assumed a normal life. But — to borrow the words of a grad student sued for copyright infringement by the H.R.R. Tolkien estate — “the lawsuit consumed my life; it was all I could think about.”

I spent my commutes to and from work answering messages from lawyers rather than (my normal) gazing out the train window. I began to resent the Google Alerts I'd set up for my name when it notified me of new articles on the lawsuit rather than on my scholarship. On Twitter, I witnessed lawyers and law professors talking about my case and the fuzziness of America's copyright laws. In the meantime, my students and colleagues had no idea I was being sued — that is, until our university’s student newspaper featured the headline “Professor Sued for Copyright of Gene Kelly Interviews.” Then the questions came, most of which I could not answer.

Handling It — By Not Smoking Weed Unlike the Tolkien graduate student, I did not “hole up” in my house and “smoke weed” until “my friends and family thought I'd disappeared.” Instead, I handled the scenario as best I could and was grateful each day for the university press's unwavering support.

Still, I would not wish this experience on other scholars. Should you find yourself in court for your scholarship, I can offer some advice: Do not throw away or delete anything. If your lawsuit makes it to the discovery stage (mine did not), lawyers may obtain “any information that pertains to any issue in the lawsuit.” That includes not only “facts about the case” and “the identity of others who may know something about the case,” but also documents and emails. So do not toss anything case­related in a literal or virtual trash bin.

213 https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1746­when­your­scholarship­goes­to­court?cid=VTEVPMSED1

3/5

3/27/2017

When Your Scholarship Goes to Court | Vitae

Cease written conversations about the lawsuit. Again, since anything you've written about the dispute could be discoverable, it's best to limit that information. What's not discoverable under the law: information confidentially exchanged between husband and wife, lawyer and client, doctor and patient, and religious adviser and advisee. Those relationships are “given a special legal protection known as privilege.”

Seek out potential helpful organizations. You're an academic. Use your research skills and make yourself aware of organizations that, depending on the charges brought against you, could potentially assist you and your case, e.g., the American Association of University Professors, Stanford University's Fair Use Project.

Surround yourself with supporters. Even though you may not be able to share legal information with your friends, family, and colleagues, having them around during this time is crucial — for normalcy, for encouragement, for levity.

Realize you might be in a David­Goliath situation. If you're involved with the family estate of a celebrity or a famous creator (as were I and the Tolkien grad student), you may have to come to terms with the mismatched situation in which you find yourself. As Rebecca F. Ganz points out in "A Portrait of the Artist's Estate as a Copyright Problem," most family estates "have the money to litigate just to protect the image of the deceased" while scholars, who "rely on the text or the creative work in question just to continue their work," often do not. Indeed, sometimes you have to know when to bow out of certain projects — and redirect your scholarship, as I've done.

Four months after I was sued, the judge in California granted our motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Despite the judge's ruling in our favor, I chose not to move forward with the book after realizing I had neither the time nor the resources to endure another potential lawsuit. Even though I know I made the right decision (for me), I regret this for my research. I regret this for academia and the university press. But mostly, I regret this for the fans of Gene Kelly.

Kelli Marshall teaches media and cinema­studies courses in the College of Communications at DePaul University.

Follow her on Twitter at @kellimarshall.

Read More from Kelli

This article relates to…

214 https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1746­when­your­scholarship­goes­to­court?cid=VTEVPMSED1

4/5

Plagiarism and Intellectual Property The relationship between plagiarism and intellectual property law Academic writing is based on the use of text, acknowledging how we stand on the shoulders of giants, finding support for our ideas, and providing additional information for our readers. This kind of textual borrowing is possible because we do not consider intellectual property the same as real property, and therefore it can be borrowed without asking permission. However, there are a number of rules considering how intellectual property is used that reflect the values of academic writing regarding how it should be acknowledged, its rhetorical importance in establishing a claim, and its role in collaborative nature of research where resources are shared

Additional Resources   

Fair Use Too Often Goes Unused Intellectual Property, Long Story Short Georgia States’s Fair Use Checklist

216

CHECKLIST Analysis of Call for papers Name

Date

Purpose of checklist

Layout

Completed

Notes

range of journals

Completed

Notes

Editor and editorial board

Completed

Notes

Peer Review

Completed

Notes

Publisher and location

Completed

217

Creative Commons and Fair Use

Creative Commons and Fair Use are different approaches to give more control to the creator of intellectual property and more access to users. Intellectual property is not the same as real property (e.g. a computer or a car) in that within often unclear dimensions you have the right to use it without asking their permission of the owner or creator.

Creative Commons was designed by lawyers as an alternative to traditional laws and norms relating to intellectual property. First, lawyers, more than anybody, recognized how often disputes over intellectual property had to be resolved in court, so they attempted to design an alternate system that could avoid the constant litigation. Second, traditional copyright was identical regardless of the nature of the intellectual property and the goals of the creator. Creative Commons allowed the creators to place a number of constraints, but not every constraint, on the use of their property.

Fair use was developed from the U.S. constitution that created intellectual property laws different from how physical property is owned and controlled. The idea is that intellectual property has an important role in education and science that physical property does not.

Think of fair use as a rubric sometimes like those teachers use in giving grades. There are four categories: the amount used, the nature of the property, the loss of money to the owner, and the gain of money to the user. These categories are somewhat vague and therefore it is often up to the judge to determine the legal status of a piece of intellectual property.

However, you can make these judgements yourself to determine whether you feel your use of someoneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intellectual property is an example of fair use.

Intellectual property was designed to have a limited copyright although over the years the period of copyright has grown longer and longer. There is another category called public domain, which often includes intellectual property whose copyright status has expired.

Public domain works can be used without such considerations.

Creative Commons Alternative forms of copyright Creative Commons is a means that creators of intellectual property can control how their work is distributed. Unlike traditional forms of copyright, creative commonsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; licenses do not assume that all materials are copyrighted in the same way and that disagreements do not have to be litigated. Creative Commons licenses cover whether attribution is required, whether derivatives can be made, and whether there could be commercial uses. Before distributing a work, the author can go to the Creative Commons website (www.creativecommons.com), choose a license and fix on their work.

220

Thomas Jefferson on Fair Use Fair use is the concept that allows us to borrow texts, print, image, and music, without always having to ask permission of the author or creator. Without this concept, it would be very difficult for us to write good academic papers. Thomas Jefferson, who would be the third president of the United States, introduced the concept of fair use into the United States Constitution. Jefferson believed that intellectual property should be protected to encourage its production and to help in the development of science and education. He believed that sharing intellectual property did not diminish its value. When a piece of intellectual property can be used under the fair use principal depends on its economic impact, the amount being used, and the purpose of its use. Therefore, whether any use of intellectual property is covered by fair use is always controversial.

219

It is the policy of the IEEE to own the copyright to the technical contributions it publishes on behalf of the interests of the IEEE, its authors, and their employers, and to facilitate the appropriate reuse of this material by others.

As further described in our Copyright Agreement (the Copyright Agreement), in consideration for publication of the article, the authors assign to the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association (AREUEA) all copyright in the article.

Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be asked to complete a 'Journal Publishing Agreement' (for more information on this and copyright see http://www.elsevier.com/copyright). Acceptance of the agreement will ensure the widest possible dissemination of information. An e‐mail will be sent to the corresponding author confirming receipt of the manuscript together with a 'Journal Publishing Agreement' form or a link to the online version of this agreement.

Subscribers may reproduce tables of contents or prepare lists of articles including abstracts for internal circulation within their institutions. Permission of the Publisher is required for resale or distribution outside the institution and for all other derivative works, including compilations and translations (please consulthttp://www.elsevier.com/permissions). If excerpts from other copyrighted works are included, the author(s) must obtain written permission from the copyright owners and credit the source(s) in the article. Elsevier has preprinted forms for use by authors in these cases: please consult http://www.elsevier.com/permissions.

Authors retain copyright of their work, but must grant an exclusive publication license to Science and AAAS for their paper to be accepted for publication.

Before final acceptance of a manuscript, authors must grant Science an exclusive license to publish the paper (although authors retain copyright), and must also provide clear disclosures of their authorship/contribution to the manuscript and any potential conflicts of interest. These certifications take place at the revision stage (after peer review), and can be made electronically as part of the process of uploading the revised manuscript using our online system. Alternatively, authors can download and print PDF versions of these forms, which can be faxed back to Science at (202) 289-7562.

Permission to reproduce copyright material, for print and online publication in perpetuity, must be cleared and if necessary paid for by the author; this includes applications and payments to DACS, ARS, and similar licensing agencies where appropriate. Evidence in writing that such permissions have been secured from the rights‐holder must be made available to the editors. It is also the author's

221

responsibility to include acknowledgements as stipulated by the particular institutions. Oxford Journals can offer information and documentation to assist authors in securing print and online permissions: please see the Guidelines for Authors section When publishing an article in Oxford Journals, for the majority of the titles on our list you are not required to assign copyright to Oxford University Press and/or the learned society concerned. In addition to this, you retain a wide range of rights concerning future re-use of the material as detailed in the Publication Rights Policies section on our Web site (see url below this section).

For the uses specified in that section, please note that there is no need for you to apply for written permission from Oxford University Press in advance. Please go ahead with the use ensuring that a full acknowledgment is made to the original source of the material including the journal name, volume, issue, page numbers, year of publication, title of article and to Oxford University Press and/or the learned society.

The only exception to this is for the re-use of material for commercial purposes, as defined in the information available via the above url. Permission for this kind of re-use is required and can be obtained by using Rightslink by completing the process described above.

222

FAIR USE CHECKLIST Name:

Date:

Class or Project: Course and Term: Title of Copyrighted Work: Author and Publisher: Portion(s) to be used (e.g., pages, timer counts): Instructions: The checklist is a tool that allows you to perform a rigorous fair use analysis, and each portion of the checklist below should be completed. Not all of the factors will be present in any given situation. Check only those factors that apply to your use.

Where there are counter factors, usually one or the other applies. No single item or factor is determinative of fair use, but several factors carry different weights as indicated below. The final determination is based on a weighing or balancing of the four factors. You do not need to have all factors or all details pointing in favor of or against fair use. You should consult the Legal Affairs office at your institution or at the Office of the Board of Regents if you have questions regarding analysis of the four factors.

For more information regarding the fair use factors, please see the fair use sections of the Policy on the Use of Copyrighted Works in Education and Research for the University System of Georgia, which can be found on the web at http://www.usg.edu/copyright/.

Complete and retain a copy of this checklist for each “fair use” of a copyrighted work in order to establish a “reasonable and good faith” attempt at applying fair use should any dispute regarding such use arise.

223

Factor 1: Purpose and Character of the Use Weighs in Favor of Fair Use

Weighs Against Fair Use

□ The use is for the purpose of teaching in □ The use is for a commercial

a non-profit educational institution (including multiple copies for classroom use).

purpose.

□ The use is for criticism, comment, news

□ Mirror image copying without the

reporting, or parody or transforms the presentation or use.

addition of criticism, comment, news reporting or parody or transformation of presentation or use.

□ The use is necessary to achieve an

□ The use is not necessary to achieve

intended educational purpose.

an intended educational purpose.

□ Distribution is limited by password to

□ Unlimited or uncontrolled

students within a class for the term of the course; student may download, print, or save the materials for own use, but not further distribute; student acknowledges copyrighted nature of the materials.

distribution.

Factor 2: Nature of the Work Give this factor less weight when the work is published, non-consumable, and nonfictional.

Weighs in Favor of Fair Use

Weighs Against Fair Use

□ The work is non-fictional in nature.

□ The work is fictional or highly

creative (art, music, novel, film, play, poetry). □ The work is non-fictional in nature, and

□ The work is non-fictional in nature

author opinion, subjective description and evaluative expression do not dominate the work.

and, author opinion, subjective description and evaluative expression dominate the work.

□The work is a “non-consumable” work

□ The work is a consumable work

(e.g., standard book or similar publication). □ The original work has been published.

(e.g., workbook or test). □ The original work has never been

published.

224

Factor 3: Amount and Substantiality of Portion Used There is no bright line rule regarding the amount of use that will be deemed fair— amounts less than 10% have been deemed unfair whereas amounts more than 10% have been deemed fair based on the other factors. You should avoid using a portion that is the “heart of the work.”

Weighs Against Fair Use

Weighs in Favor of Fair Use □ A decidedly small amount such as

□ Multiple chapters of the work are

one chapter or less of the work is used.

used.

□ Amount used is narrowly tailored to

□ Amount used is more than necessary

accomplish a legitimate purpose in the course curriculum.

to accomplish a legitimate purpose in the course curriculum.

□ A small number of chapters of the

□ Multiple chapters of the work are

work are used, and you have concluded that both the “effect on the market” and the “purpose and character of the use” favor fair use.

used, and you have not concluded that both the “effect on the market” and the “purpose and character of the use” favor fair use.

Factor 4: Effect on Market for Original Please note that you must own a lawfully acquired or purchased copy of the original work that is used. This factor carries the most weight, but it is not so weighty that it determines the outcome of the fair use analysis. Favorable fair use results with respect to the above three factors (including a neutral finding regarding nature of the work) may outweigh unfavorable results here.

Weighs in Favor of Fair Use

Weighs Against Fair Use

□ The work as a whole is currently

□ The work as a whole is currently

available for purchase, and a conveniently and efficiently accessible and reasonably priced digital license is not available.

available for purchase, and a conveniently and efficiently accessible and reasonably priced digital license is available.

□ The work as a whole is not available

□ The work as a whole is not available

for purchase, and a digital license is not available.

for purchase, and a digital license is available.

225

The Scholarly Kitchen

Guest Post — Academics and Copyright Ownership: Ignorant, Confused or Misled?

By

SCHOLARLY KITCHEN | OCT 31, 2017

AUTHORITY COMMERCE CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS COPYRIGHT OPEN ACCESS SOCIAL MEDIA SOCIOLOGY

Editor’s Note: Today’s post is by Elizabeth Gadd (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4509-7785), Research Policy Manager (Publications), Loughborough University.

The recent law suit against ResearchGate (http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature.2017.22793) brought by Elsevier and the American Chemical Society follows hard upon the $15 million damages awarded to Elsevier (http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature.2017.22196) in their recent case against Sci-Hub. These are just the latest actions in a long line of scholarly copyright wars. As far back as 2001, Stephen Pinfield found (http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december01/pinfield/12pinfield.html) that academics were illegally posting publisher’s copyright content on ArXiv — a practice since dubbed ‘Black Open Access’ (Bjork, 2017 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1096/abstract)). A series of subsequent studies have reported a similar disregard for publisher copyright policies (e.g., Antelmann, 2006 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1087/095315106776387011/abstract); Troll Covey, 2009 (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/262847/pdf)) culminating in Jamali’s 2017 study (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-0172291-4) that suggested just over half of all papers on ResearchGate were illegally posted publisher PDFs. This has led to a perception that academics just don’t care about or understand copyright and that someone needs to take responsibility for getting those academics a copyright education. There is no doubt some truth in this, but I think the situation is slightly more complex than that. In fact, I think that the keys to resolving this may rest in the hands of publishers, but in using those keys publishers may pay a high price.

Let me explain what I mean by walking through a number of theories I have come to over the years regarding academics’ understanding of copyright.

226

Theory 1: Academics occupy a broad spectrum of copyright knowledge, beliefs and confusion It is no longer fair to say that academics know nothing about copyright. Twenty years ago you may have seen very little variation among academics in terms of their understanding as to who owns copyright. Indeed, a study by the ALPSP in 2002 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Authors-Electronic-Publishing-ResearchCommunication/dp/0907341233) found that 79% of respondents quite confidently claimed to own the copyright in their research papers (this was unlikely as around 90% of publishers asked for copyright transfer at the time (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2003/00000016/00000004/art00009)). However the open access (OA) movement has brought with it greater awareness of copyright issues as OA advocates have called for academics to retain their copyright so they can self-archive their work; and funders have demanded increasingly liberal reuse licenses (e.g., CC-BY) which have not been universally supported. However, this has also brought with it higher levels of uncertainty and a greater range of beliefs. A recent survey by Kudos (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/04/07/updated-figures-scale-nature-researchers-use-scholarly-collaborationnetworks/) showed a very mixed bag when it came to academicsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; views on publisher copyright policies. There were both those who thought they were fair (39%) and unfair (27%), straightforward (48%) and complicated (34%), restrictive (42%) and not restrictive (34%), and both fit (44%) and unfit (23%) for purpose. Only 20% didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t think it was necessary to check a publisher copyright policy before posting to a Social Networking Site (SNS), suggesting the majority had a greater understanding that copyright may not actually belong to them. There is confusion as there has always been, but not all academics are confused, and the confused ones are not confused in the same way.

227

Theory 2: Academics display cognitive dissonance in relation to copyright practices There is no shortage of studies that show that academics believe that copyright is rightfully theirs and they should retain it (Swan, 1999 (http://www.catchword.com/cgi-bin/cgi? body=linker&ini=xref&reqdoi=10.1087/09531519950145742%5Cnhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/19 Swan,2002 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Authors-Electronic-Publishing-Research-Communication/dp/0907341233); Pila,2010 (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1618172); Rahmatian, 2014 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lest.12040/abstract); Davies, 2015 (http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10734-015-9884-8)). However, academics do assign copyright to publishers in large numbers, some freely (41%) but more reluctantly (49%) (Gadd et al, 2003a (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdf/10.1108/00220410310698239)). It has been suggested to me that this is a form of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance describes the practice of believing one thing (e.g., smoking kills) and doing another (e.g., smoking). There are many commentators who put academics’ reluctant copyright transfer activity down to a desperation to get published at any cost. There is no doubt some truth in this. However there are other examples of cognitive dissonance in relation to copyright practices (such as posting a paper on ResearchGate knowing you have assigned copyright to the publisher) which lead me to wondering whether something else is at play.

I go on to expound on this in theories 3 and 4.

Theory 3: Scholarly culture is different to copyright culture When academics are asked about how they want to protect their OA papers, and use others’ OA papers, they do not demand the full range of protection or usage rights offered by copyright law or e-journal license agreements (Gadd et al, 2003b (http://jis.sagepub.com/content/29/5/333.short),c (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0961000603353005); Rowley et al, 2017 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23710/abstract)). However, they are principally concerned to protect what copyright wonks would call their “moral rights”, i.e., their right to author attribution (paternity right) and the right to object to derogatory treatment of their works (integrity right) (Gadd, et al, 2003b (http://jis.sagepub.com/content/29/5/333.short); Gadd et al, 2007 (http://jis.sagepub.com/content/33/6/686.short); Rowley et al, 2017 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23710/abstract)). Unfortunately, depending on your circumstances and where you are in the world, moral rights may or may not apply to scholarly works. Interestingly, recent demands by funders to make journal articles available under CC-BY licenses have met with objections for entirely the same reason: CC-BY promises authors’ attribution, but not the right to prevent unauthorized derivative works, some of which they might consider derogatory. What we see at work here is the tension between what I would call ‘copyright culture’ and scholarly culture. I use the term ‘copyright culture’ to refer to the range of copyright legislation, licenses, policies and practices that impact on scholarly activity. I believe the two cultures exist in a sort of Venn diagram relationship with areas of overlap and areas of distinct separateness.

228

Venn Diagram – scholarly and copyright culture.

Thus, you have: 1) practices that are legal under copyright but are contrary to scholarly culture; 2) practices that are accepted scholarly culture, but are not supported by copyright; and 3) practices in the middle where copyright supports or overlaps with scholarly culture. An example of 1) might be the taking of a CC-BY licensed work and selling it: definitely legal but definitely contrary to accepted scholarly norms. An example of 2) might be attributing 500 authors on a journal paper. Copyright law has clear guidelines as to what constitutes authorship and you’d struggle to argue that 500 individuals were joint authors (and therefore copyright owners) of 5,000 words. However, it is accepted scholarly culture to attribute large research groups on research papers. An example of 3) might be where a work is plagiarized (infringement of accepted scholarly culture) and copyright law allows the copyright owner to bring a court case based on infringement of copyright.

Theory 4: For academics, scholarly culture takes priority over copyright culture So, going back to our cognitive dissonance theory, the way that individuals ease the tension caused by cognitive dissonance is to either change their practices (stop smoking) or change their beliefs (perhaps the ‘smoking kills’ evidence is wrong?). It would appear that academics deal with their copyright cognitive dissonance through giving priority to the beliefs and practices of scholarly culture, over and above that of copyright culture. We see this at work in the Kudos survey (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/04/07/updated-figures-scale-nature-researchers-usescholarly-collaboration-networks/) where 83% of academics felt that copyright policies should be respected, but at the same time 63% felt that despite such policies, academics should be allowed to post their papers on SNS. From recent evidence, it looks like that for the majority of academics, given the choice of aligning themselves with scholarly culture (sharing papers with their peers) or copyright culture (adhering to copyright policies) the former wins.

Theory 5: Academics believe there is greater overlap between copyright culture and scholarly culture than there actually is

229

This leads me on to my most important theory, and one which I think throws the most light on academics’ copyright practices. I would suggest that one of the key reasons that academics allow themselves to give greater priority to scholarly culture over copyright culture is that they believe that copyright supports (overlaps with) scholarly culture to a greater extent than it actually does. Thus, academics continue to assign copyright to publishers despite preferring not to because they see copyright assignment as an integral part of scholarly culture — the scholarly publication process — and it is to scholarly culture that academics are the most loyal. So, how have academics come to the conclusion that copyright culture supports scholarly culture, when open access advocates and librarians have been saying that it does not, and have been calling on them to retain copyright for so long? Well, to a large extent I think these beliefs have their roots in publisher’s efforts to convince academics that they both share the same commitment to scholarly culture and have developed a copyright framework that will support scholarly activity.

Thus, an analysis of publisher copyright transfer agreements in 2003 found that the primary justification for such agreements was to enable the publication of, and greater copyright protection for, the resulting work (Gadd et al, 2003d (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1087/095315103322422053/abstract)). In some cases copyright transfer was presented as a legal requirement. Certainly, most manuscript submission systems now make copyright transfer or exclusive license agreements an integral and unavoidable step in the publication process. However, when academics started objecting to the idea of copyright transfer, in the mid-2000’s many larger commercial publishers moved away from copyright transfer agreements and instead started introducing ‘exclusive licenses’ (Inger & Gardner,2013 (https://www.alpsp.org/reports-publications/scholarly-journals-publishing-practice-academic-journal-publisherspolicies-and-practices-in-online-publishing-fourth-survey-2013/125702)). These have almost exactly the same effect as copyright transfer agreements (they are an exclusive transfer of all rights under copyright) but they are more palatable to academic authors as they think they are retaining “copyright” and thereby all the rights that copyright bestows. Thus on exclusive licenses you will see phrases such as “copyright remains mine as the author…” (Sage).

This blurring of the facts can leave academics with the view that they have more rights than they really do.

I believe it is for this reason we see academics posting their research papers onto SNS. Yes, academics are confused about copyright. However, their commitment to scholarly culture is the dominant force, and their belief that copyright supports this culture is shored up by publisher messages. So, on publisher web pages you will see statements such as “authors retain significant rights to use and share their own published articles. Elsevier supports the need for authors to share, disseminate and maximize the impact of their research (https://www.elsevier.com/about/ourbusiness/policies/copyright)“ or “Where possible, Emerald seeks to obtain copyright for the material it publishes, without authors giving up their moral or scholarly rights to reuse their work (http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/authors/writing/author_rights.htm).” When academics are being sent such messages, it is not surprising that they believe they have the necessary rights to engage with scholarly culture in whatever way they see fit. To accuse academics of copyright ignorance or infringement in such circumstances is tantamount to tripping someone up and then telling them off for falling over.

To accuse academics of copyright ignorance or infringement in such circumstances is tantamount to tripping someone up and then telling them off for falling over.

230

So why don’t publishers send stronger and clearer messages to individual academics around what constitutes copyright infringement? Well, it would seem that by doing so, they would also be sending a message to academics that their interests don’t align: that when it comes down to it, publishers are primarily supportive of copyright culture and the exclusive rights it gives them, rather than scholarly culture which is something quite different. Indeed when the American Psychological Association recently issued take-down notices to various sites (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/06/curtailing-journal-articles.aspx.) — including 80 university websites — which hosted ‘illegal’ copies of their papers, such was the outcry from academics that they quickly re-focused their attention onto ‘commercial piracy sites’ instead. However, it is not the sites that post these papers, it is academics themselves. By focusing on the sites as infringing rather than individual academics it further obfuscates the fact that academics’ copyright practices are not in line with publishers’ copyright policies. As a result academics are insulated from the sting in the tail of copyright culture and they can continue in their belief that copyright culture supports their scholarly practice.

I am not defending copyright infringement. I seek only to offer an explanation for it. And to suggest publishers may actually be contributing to the problem that they believe is affecting them so badly. Until academics recognize that the current copyright culture is not in alignment with their preferred scholarly communication practices, they will not change their copyright infringing behaviors. However, there is a risk with copyright education of this nature. If academics become aware that publisher interests do not align with their own, and the term ‘illegal sharing’ is not an oxymoron, but an actual possibility, they may not only change their copyright infringing behavior, but their copyright assignment behavior. This is what librarians and OA advocates have been calling for all along as they believe it would leave academics in a much stronger position to engage with scholarly culture — the sharing of their research papers — on their own terms.

In actual fact, relying on academics to retain copyright may no longer be necessary to achieve this end with the increase in ‘Harvard-style’ licenses. These are non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual license grants from an author to their institution to enable them to make their journal articles and conference papers available on Institutional Repositories, often under a Creative Commons license. There are currently about 70 institutions in the US (Fruin & Sutton, 2016 (http://crl.acrl.org/content/early/2015/09/24/crl15-809.full.pdf+html.)) with such a license, and the UK, led by Imperial College London, is developing a version of their own called the UK Scholarly Communication Licence (http://ukscl.ac.uk/) (UK-SCL) (Banks, 2016 (http://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.292/)). On the face of it, this will align copyright culture with scholarly communication culture to a far greater extent and will allow academics to share their papers on SNS as well as using them in other ways. However, there is clearly confusion among some academics around this and significant concerns from publishers (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/07/26/missing-target-uk-scholarly-communications-license/). Whatever the outcome of this initiative, the UK-SCL is at least forcing some of these issues to the surface and seems to be resulting in an open (if tense) dialogue regarding the overlap and differences between copyright culture and scholarly practice.

Acknowledgements The author is grateful to Rick Anderson, Charlie Rapple, Charles Oppenheim, Jane Secker and Chris Morrison for useful discussions around earlier drafts of this piece, and to the editorial team at Learned Publishing.

231

147

Summaries and Abstracts COMPARING SUMMARIES AND ABSTRACTS

Abstracts can be important for peer reviewers to evaluate. When you are asked to peer review an articile, often all you get to see is the abstract. It is important that the abstract correctly mirror the article. There are no fixed rules for creating an abstract, but usually it contains a little bit of information from each part of the article.

239

ABSTRACT EXAMPLE Digital storytelling is a form of multimedia where personal narratives are remixed with images, photos, and music i. In this paper, I explore the questions raised by implementing digital stories in multilingual academic writing classes ii. I first discuss the goals of the courses for introducing students to the values and norms for academic writing, with importance given to the voice of the author and the use of textual borrowing. In the second part of the paper, I discuss the ways in which digital storytelling, which has primarily been developed outside the classroom in workshops and after school activities, can be implemented in a second language classroom iii. I argue that digital storytelling is one of the best forms of digital literacy for introducing students to the goals of the academic classroom. iv In the final section, I provide examples of student digital stories to illustrate how the students developed their voices in their personal narratives and borrowed multimedia to expand on those narratives v. I conclude with suggestions that future research explore ways to help students learn to transfer the approaches they take to digital storytelling to their traditional academic writing assignments. vi KEYWORDS ESL, higher education, technology and digital media, academic writing, digital literacy, multimodality, Visual literacy, second language writing, textual borrowing, voice, intertextuality

i

Definition of topic What the paper is going to be about iii Discuss literature review iv Main argument of paper v Data section and results vi Comclusion and implications ii

8/6/2019

Study says authors exaggerate their findings in paper abstracts

5G Stocks Set T Learn about the 3 comp poised to dominate the for years.

Breakthrough Investor

#News (/news)

#Books And Publishing (/Books)

Abstract ‘Spin’ Study says authors exaggerate their ndings in paper abstracts, and that's a problem when readers take them at face value.

By Colleen Flaherty // August 6, 2019 7 COMMENTS (/NEWS/2019/08/06/STUDY-SAYS-AUTHORS-EXAGGERATE-THEIR-FINDINGS-PAPER-ABSTRACTS#DISQUS_THREAD)

GETTY IMAGES

We’ve all been told not to judge a book by its cover. But we shouldn’t be judging academic studies by their abstracts, either, according to a new paper (https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2019/07/04/bmjebm-2019111176) in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. The study -- which found exaggerated claims in more than half of paper abstracts analyzed -- pertains to psychology and psychiatry research. It notes that “spin” is troublesome in those elds because it can impact clinical care decisions. But the authors say that this kind of exaggeration happens in other elds, too.

“Researchers are encouraged to conduct studies and report ndings according to the highest ethical standards,” the paper says, meaning “reporting results completely, in accordance with a protocol that outlines primary and secondary endpoints and prespeci ed subgroups and statistical analyses.”

Yet authors are free to choose “how to report or interpret study results.” And in an abstract, in particular, they may include “only the results they want to highlight or the conclusions they wish to draw.” https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/08/06/study-says-authors-exaggerate-their-findings-paper-abstracts

1/12

8/6/2019

Study says authors exaggerate their findings in paper abstracts

In a word: spin.

Based on the idea that randomized controlled trials often inform

(//careers.insidehighered.com? utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorial-

how patients are treated, researchers used PubMed to nd

site&utm_content=article-promo-box-

these kinds of studies. Their sample included those published

link&utm_campaign=jobs)

from 2012-17 in well-regarded psychology and psychiatry journals: JAMA Psychiatry, American Journal of Psychiatry, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Psychological Medicine, British Journal of Psychiatry and Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Crucially, they analyzed only trials with results that were not

Search Over 35,000 Jobs Keyword or Location

Search

Browse all jobs on Inside Higher Ed Careers » (//careers.insidehighered.com? utm_source=ihe&utm_medium=editorialsite&utm_content=article-promo-boxlink&utm_campaign=jobs)

statistically signi cant, and therefore were susceptible to spin -116 in all.

Evidence of spin included focusing only on statistically signi cant results, interpreting nonsigni cant results or equivalent, using favorable rhetoric with regard to the nonsigni cant results and declaring that an intervention was bene cial despite its statistical insigni cance.

How often did articles’ abstracts exaggerate the actual ndings? More than half the time, or 56 percent. Spin happened in 2 percent of titles, 21 percent of abstract results sections and 49 percent of abstract conclusion sections. Fifteen percent of abstracts had spin in both their results and conclusion sections.

Spin was more common in studies that compared a proposed treatment with typical care or placebo than in other kinds of studies. But industry funding was not associated with a greater likelihood of exaggeration, as just 10 of 65 spun trials had any of this kind of funding.

The study notes several limitations, including that looking for spin is inherently subjective work. But it says that it’s important to guard against spin because researchers have an ethical obligation to honestly and clearly report their results and because spinning an abstract “may mislead physicians who are attempting to draw conclusions about a treatment for patients.” Physicians read only an article abstract, versus the entire article, a majority of the time, it says, citing prior research (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1046%2Fj.15251497.2000.00202.x) on the matter, and many editorial decisions (https://www.bmj.com/content/329/7464/470) are based on the abstract alone. Positive results are also more likely to be published in the rst place, the paper notes, citing one study that found 15 percent of peer reviewers asked authors to spin their manuscripts.

What’s to be done? Journal editors may consider inviting reviewers to comment on the presence of spin, the article suggests.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/08/06/study-says-authors-exaggerate-their-findings-paper-abstracts

2/12

8/6/2019

Study says authors exaggerate their findings in paper abstracts

Reporting guidelines also are used by several journals already to “ensure accurate and transparent reporting of clinical trial results, and the use of such guidelines improves trial reporting,” the paper says. While the recent Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (http://www.consort-statement.org) on abstracts don’t contain language discouraging spin, it says, “research reporting could be improved by discouraging spin in abstracts.”

Lead author Sam Jellison, a medical student at Oklahoma State University, underscored that his paper is not the rst (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/185952) to explore academic spin. Yet making more readers “aware of what spin is might be the rst and largest step to take to ght this problem,” he said.

Jellison said that the existing literature suggests spin is not unique to psychology and psychiatry, and that those elds are actually “middle of the road” in terms of prevalence.

Philip Cohen, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland at College Park who blogs (https://familyinequality.wordpress.com) about research, pointed out that reviewers already look at abstracts as part of their process, so in addition to the journal editor, "reviewers should be able to see if the abstract is overstating the ndings.”

Still, a common way that sociologists in ate research ndings in general is to mention those that are not statistically signi cant while downplaying the lack of signi cance, attributing it to a small sample or using phrases such as “does not reach statistical signi cance,” he said, “as if the effect is just trying but can't quite get there.”

Beyond questions of spin, Cohen said there is surely a problem with “people only publishing, or journals only accepting, dramatic ndings,” he said. So the greatest source of exaggeration is probably in what gets published at all, with null ndings or those that contradict existing positive results never seeing the light of day -- what Cohen noted has been called the " le drawer" problem.

While psychology isn't alone in the spin room, the eld has had its share of data integrity and public perception problems. A landmark study (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/28/landmark-study-suggestsmost-psychology-studies-dont-yield-reproducible-results) in 2015, for example, found that most psychology studies don’t yield reproducible results.

Brian Nosek, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and lead author on the reproducibility study, said that spin involves two “connected problems,” neither of which is easy to solve. Authors are “incentivized to present their ndings in the best possible light for publishability and impact, and readers often don't read the paper.”

As an author, he said, “even if I want to avoid spin,” it’s “entirely reasonable for me to try make the narrative of my title and abstract as engaging as possible so that people will read the paper.” And at the same time, it’s “very di cult to capture the complexity of almost any research nding in a phrase or short abstract.” It’s really a “skill” to present “complex ndings brie y without losing accuracy.” https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/08/06/study-says-authors-exaggerate-their-findings-paper-abstracts

3/12

8/6/2019

Study says authors exaggerate their findings in paper abstracts

As a reader, Nosek continued, “even if I want to make the best possible decisions based on research evidence, I don't have time to read and evaluate everything deeply." In some cases, he said, "I need to be able to trust that the information conveyed brie y is accurate and actionable.”

Ultimately, when “decisions are important, we should have higher expectations of readers to gather the information necessary to make good decisions,” he said. “But we need to recognize pragmatic realities and develop better tools for readers to calibrate the con dence in the claims they see in brief, and provide cues prompting them to dig more deeply when the evidence is uncertain.”

It’s also “in our collective interest to provide authors more training in communicating their ndings in abstracts and press releases," Nosek added.

Read more by Colleen Flaherty

jump to comments (#comment-target)

(/print/news/2019/08/06/studysays-authors-exaggerate-theirndings-paper-abstracts)

Be the rst to know. (https://www.insidehighered.com/content/signinside-higher-eds-newsletters) Get our free daily newsletter. (https://www.insidehighered.com/content/signinside-higher-eds-newsletters)

Work/School Email

Yes, please!

I have read and agree to the terms of Inside Higher Ed’s Privacy Policy.*

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/08/06/study-says-authors-exaggerate-their-findings-paper-abstracts

4/12

are not in any sense salaried employees of The Ohio State University. Fellows may find it helpful to consult Internal Revenue Service Publications No. 520, Scholarships and Fellowships, No. 920, and, if abroad, No. 54, Tax Guide for U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad, and also. These are available at http://www.irs.gov Progress (Reports): All active fellows are expected to be making progress on their project and are required to submit an Annual Progress Report. These reports should normally be brief and informative. Detailed descriptions of research protocols are not necessary. Major highlights such as publications, awards, patents, or discoveries are particularly useful.

Annual Symposium: All fellows will be required to participate in an annual symposium that will include posters, presentations and guest lecturers.

Participation in Pelotonia: The fellow and fellow’s mentor will be required to ride in Pelotonia during each year of appointment. If either the fellow or mentor is not able to ride in Pelotonia, they may choose to be a “virtual rider” instead. As a virtual rider, they will have the same expectations as a regular rider.

Change in Field of Study or Research Plan: Minor changes in a fellow’s research project may be made without the approval of the Fellowship Program. A major change in a project -- one that alters the project to the extent that it is significantly different from that originally submitted with the Fellowship application (e.g., a change in major field of study) -- requires the prior approval of the Pelotonia Fellowship Program. If a fellow changes labs, they need to end their fellowship and recompete with the new mentor/project.

For more information contact: marie.gibbons@osumc.edu cancer.osu.edu/pelotoniafellows

PREPARING FOR CONFERENCES CONFERENCES AND PUBLICATION Conferences can be seen as part of the publication process both in terms of their overall role in helping you prepare your document for publication and in terms of the type of writing needed to submit a proposal. Since conference attendance remains expensive, students need to be selective in choosing a conference. Students can take a variety of factors into consideration when choosing to attend a conference.

Since conferences can be a important place to share your research, it is important to find a conference where one can network with people who can respond to their research. Conferences can be large or small; large conferences tend to be on a general topic while small conferences tend to focus on a specific topic. Large conferences tend to be in large cities that have the hotel space to accommodate all the attendees. Small conferences can have more flexible venues although they are often sponosred by small organizations or universities, so they can be anywhere.

Conference networking occur anywhere in the conference, in sessions, in the hallways, in social and individual events. If you are looking for a job, even in the future, it is important that are always prepared to be evaluated by potential jobs. Therefore, you need to be well prepared when you make your presentation and act appropriately even when you are socializing. It can be useful to attend the conference before you present to see what kinds of papers are given, whether they are read or talked about, and the kinds of feedback presenters receive.

The conference proposal should respond to the particular needs of the audience. It should be relevant to the type of audience and be relevant to the audience. As with grants, conference proposals should reflect the values of the organization that is sponsoring the conference. The TESOL organization provides appliers with a rubric that you can use to evaluate your proposal.

159

160

2/12/2018

2018 Call for Proposals - American Association for Applied Linguistics Print Page | Contact Us | Quick Links | Sign Out

Enter search criteria...

Search »

MENU

2018 Call for Proposals Conference » 2018 Conference in Chicago » Call for Proposals

Share |

Quick Links Profile Home Manage Profile Messages Membership Info Refer a Colleague

Latest News more March 24-27, 2018 Chicago, Illinois Call for Proposals The 2018 conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL) will be held at the Sheraton Grand Chicago in Chicago, Illinois.

Nationally and internationally, the AAAL conference has a reputation as a comprehensive and stimulating conference including in-depth colloquia and paper sessions, topical and thought-provoking plenary presentations, excellent book exhibits, and plentiful opportunities for networking.

Table of Contents 1. Plenary Speaker and Invited Colloquia Information 2. Strands 3. Proposals 1. Individual Papers 2. Posters 3. Roundtable Discussions 4. Colloquia 5. Shorter Paper Sessions 6. AV Equipment 4. Proposal Format 5. Evaluation of Proposals 6. Proposal Policies 7. Submission Process 8. Requests for Meeting Spaces

1/30/2018 AAAL 2018 Book Award Winner Announced 1/3/2018 AAAL 2018 Research Article Award Winner Announced

Calendar

more

11/9/2017 » 3/31/2018 Call for Papers: 51ST ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR APPLIED LINGUISTICS 11/15/2017 » 2/19/2018 Call for Papers: 3rd International Conference on the Sociolinguistics of Immigration (Slimig2018)

Plenary Speaker and Invited Colloquia Information

http://www.aaal.org/page/2018CFP

1/6

2/12/2018

2018 Call for Proposals - American Association for Applied Linguistics

We have created an exciting program for the 2018 conference, acknowledging the wide range of research interests in applied linguistics. Check out the plenary speakers and invited colloquia using the following links.

Details of Plenary Speakers can be found here.

Details of Invited Colloquia can be found here.

STRANDS Proposals are welcome in the following topic strands: Analysis of Discourse and Interaction (DIS) Assessment and Evaluation (ASE) Bilingual, Immersion, Heritage, and Minority Education (BIH) Corpus Linguistics (COR) Educational Linguistics (EDU) Language Cognition and Brain Research (COG) Language and Ideology (LID) Language and Technology (TEC) Language Maintenance and Revitalization (LMR) Language Planning and Policy (LPP) Language, Culture, Socialization and Pragmatics (LCS) Reading, Writing, and Literacy (RWL) Research Methodology (REM) Second and Foreign Language Pedagogy (PED) Second Language Acquisition, Language Acquisition, and Attrition (SLA) Sociolinguistics (SOC) Text Analysis (Written Discourse) (TXT) Translation and Interpretation (TRI) Vocabulary and Lexical Studies (VOC)

AAAL is no longer accepting submissions Submission Deadline: August 16, 2017, 5:00 pm Eastern Daylight Time PROPOSALS Proposals are invited for individual papers, colloquia, posters, roundtable discussions, and shared shorter paper sessions. The deadline for proposal submission is 5:00 p.m. on August 16, 2017 (EDT; UTC-4). The deadline is an absolute deadline. If you need to renew your membership or create a guest account, you should do so at least 3 hours before the submissions deadline, to allow for changes to take place in the system. Requests relating to membership or guest accounts later than this may mean that you are unable to submit your abstract by the deadline.

INDIVIDUAL PAPERS: Papers are formal presentations on a contribution of original knowledge by one or more authors within a thirty-minute period, including 20 minutes for presentation and 10 minutes for discussion.

Paper presentations will be organized into sessions of 2-3 papers grouped by strand or theme.

There will not be designated session chairs. When their presentation time http://www.aaal.org/page/2018CFP

2/6

2/12/2018

2018 Call for Proposals - American Association for Applied Linguistics

comes, presenters must announce their session title, introduce themselves briefly, and start their presentation. All presenters must present their work during their scheduled time. No time changes will be allowed even if the previous presenter is absent or has finished early.

Each presenter must make sure that they respect their allocated time in order to allow for the other presenters in the session to set up their equipment and start on time.

POSTERS: Poster presentations are intended for face-to-face discussions of research. Posters are especially effective for information that can be presented visually (e.g., charts, graphs, tables, diagrams). Prospective presenters are encouraged to consider posters, because of the opportunity they provide for inclusion of more presenters and topics in the program and for extended discussion with other researchers.

Each poster session will be 1.5 hours in length. Presenters are encouraged to be present to discuss their posters for the duration of their scheduled time, however are only required to be present at their posters during the coffee breaks scheduled within the session to which they have been allocated. For the rest of the period, presenters may choose to stay at their poster board at their discretion. The bulletin boards for mounting the posters are four feet by eight feet in size. One poster presenter will use the front and another presenter will use the back.

ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS: Roundtable discussions present an opportunity for informal, in-depth discussions between presenters and attendees on a specific topic. They are particularly well suited for works-in-progress and are not meant to be formal paper presentations. Â The advantage of roundtable sessions is that they allow for stimulating conversations and networking opportunities among participants on shared research interests.

Roundtable discussions will be held in a large room with several sessions taking place at the same time at different tables. Each table will be organized by strand or theme. Each presenter will be assigned to a table that seats up to twelve attendees. Presenters will be allocated 30 minutes: 10-15 minutes to speak on their topic and 15-20 minutes for group discussion. The purpose is not to present on a finished project but rather to address a specific topic in such a way as to engender wholegroup discussion. There will be no roundtable session chairs, although there will be a time-keeper. We encourage roundtable presenters to prepare handouts or laptop PowerPoint slides to accompany their presentations.

COLLOQUIA: Some colloquia are invited by the conference chair, but others may be proposed by AAAL members. Colloquia allow for extended discussion on a particular topic. They are presented in two different blocks of time: 1 hour and 40 minutes (typically 3-4 presenters, plus discussant(s)) or 3 hours (typically 5-6 presenters, plus discussant(s)).

Colloquium organizers must designate the specific time block for the proposed colloquium. Because the purpose of this format is to foster dialogue among attendees, generous time allowance should be made throughout the colloquium for extended audience discussion of the papers presented. Colloquium organizers serve as the liaisons between participants in the colloquium and the program committee, and are therefore responsible for communication among the presenters and discussants.

SHORTER PAPER SESSIONS: Conferences in many other academic fields limit presentations of full papers to a maximum of ten minutes; paper sessions are thematically linked. This has some advantages: it encourages conciseness and focus; it allows more papers to be accepted; and it http://www.aaal.org/page/2018CFP

3/6

2/12/2018

2018 Call for Proposals - American Association for Applied Linguistics

allows more time for discussion. Sessions in this format will consist of three individual TEN-MINUTE ONLY PAPERS within a one-hour time slot.

The three papers will be presented in the normal way, each with one or two minutes for clarification questions, followed by up to 30 minutes of discussion after all three papers have been presented.

This submission type is a single individual shorter paper. The thematic linking of the three papers in the session will be made by the organizing committee, who will group together as far as possible papers from the same strand, or which are otherwise thematically linked.

AV EQUIPMENT: Please note that AV equipment will not be available for Posters or Roundtable Discussions. Presenters may bring handouts or use their laptops if they wish. However, be advised that the computers will have to operate on battery as there will be no outlets.

Proposal Format Please note the following word limits: Title: 20 Words Abstract: 300 Words Summary: 50 Words Please note that for a colloquium proposal: 1. The colloquium organizer must provide an overview of the entire colloquium (title - 20 words, abstract - 300 words, and summary 50 words), and 2. each individual panelist must each provide a title, abstract, and summary for his/her paper in the colloquium.Â

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS All proposals are evaluated by a team of reviewers according to each of the following categories: Appropriateness and significance of the topic/issue/problem Expectation of original research Research design if an empirical study, including clearly stated questions, data sources, data collection procedures, and analytic approach Conceptual framework if a conceptual study, including integration of topic into current thinking, clear exposition of treatment of topic and contributions to the literature Manner of presentation (indicative of a clear and well-organized presentation) Proposals for roundtable sessions will also be evaluated for each of the following categories: Clarity of objectives and intended outcomes of the session Methods planned to engage participants Proposals for colloquia will also be evaluated for each of the following categories: Appropriateness and significance of the topic Presentation of original and on-going research studies OR differing or dissenting perspectives on an important issue Coherence and complementarity of the papers http://www.aaal.org/page/2018CFP

4/6

2/12/2018

2018 Call for Proposals - American Association for Applied Linguistics

Manner of presentation (clearly indicated schedule of activity, with significant amount of time allocated for discussion of the presentations and audience participation) Please note that if colloquia are accepted, the schedule of activity, including the order of presentations, will appear in the conference program as listed in the proposal and must be respected in the actual presentation of papers.

PROPOSAL POLICIES Individuals may submit a maximum of one abstract as first author, whether a paper (including shorter papers and papers presented in a colloquium), a poster, or a roundtable session. An individual may appear as a first author only once on the program. First authors are expected to present the research bearing their name, but all authors are encouraged to share in the presentation of co-authored research.

An individual may take on an additional role as a colloquium organizer or discussant. For papers, an individual may also appear as a co-author/copresenter of another paper, provided they are not first author.

All proposals (for individual papers, posters, roundtable sessions, shared shorter paper sessions and colloquia) must represent original and unpublished work that is not yet available to the AAAL membership (with the exception of material from publications in press).

Individuals who will not be attending the conference are discouraged from submitting proposals. Conference attendees highly value the discussion period at the conclusion of conference sessions.

Presenters who know that they cannot attend the conference are asked to withdraw their proposals as soon as possible to give another presenter a place on the program. If unforeseen circumstances at the last minute dictate that a presenter cannot attend the conference, a substitute will be permitted.

The author’s confirmation of attendance and presentation signifies that the author will present the paper on the day and time assigned by the conference program committee. AAAL will not respond to or consider requests for a specific time slot.

SUBMISSION PROCESS Before submitting a proposal, please read the brief descriptors for each strand, which are available through the Call for Proposals on the AAAL website. Try to submit your proposal to the strand that most closely relates to your main theme. If you are unsure, please ask a colleague, professor, or supervisor who is familiar with AAAL Conference procedures.

Before submitting a proposal, remember to check your membership status (you need to be a member or have a guest account in order to submit your proposal). PLEASE REMEMBER: If you need to renew your membership or create a guest account, you must do so at least 3 hours before the submissions deadline. Requests relating to membership or guest accounts later than this may mean that you are unable to submit your abstract by the deadline.

REQUESTS FOR MEETING SPACES Individuals or groups wishing to use rooms at the conference venue for meetings outside the conference program should make their requests http://www.aaal.org/page/2018CFP

5/6

2/12/2018

2018 Call for Proposals - American Association for Applied Linguistics

using the Meeting Request Form, which should be sent to the AAAL 2018 Conference Chair at conference@aaal.org as soon as possible, and no later than 11:59 p.m. on December 1, 2017 (EDT; UTC-4). Such meeting spaces may be required for sessions with journal editors, editorial board meetings, and other networking opportunities. Requests for meetings will be considered sympathetically, within the inevitable constraints of time and space available.

QUESTIONS Please check the FAQ section first (Available Here). For questions not covered by the FAQ section, please see below: For questions regarding the academic aspects of the conference, including proposal submission policies, please contact conference@aaal.org.

For questions regarding the practicalities of how to submit a proposal or other technical questions, please contact proposal@aaal.org.

AAAL Business Office info@aaal.org Phone: 001-678-229-2892 | Toll Free: 866-821-7700 | Fax: 001-404-393-9506 1827 Powers Ferry Road | Building 14, Suite 100 | Atlanta, GA 30339 USA © American Association for Applied Linguistics

Membership Software Powered by YourMembership :: Legal

http://www.aaal.org/page/2018CFP

6/6

3/28/2018

How to Get the Most Out of a Conference | ChronicleVitae

Manya Whitaker Assistant Professor of Education at Colorado College

How to Get the Most Out of a Conference

March 27, 2018

Image: iStock There really is no ideal time to drop everything and travel across the country to spend three days hobnobbing with strangers when you have a ton of writing and grading to do. Yet scholarly conferences remain a rite of passage â&#x20AC;&#x201D; one that some academics enjoy but most endure.

Pre-tenure faculty members, new Ph.D.s, and graduate students have the most to gain from conferencegoing â&#x20AC;&#x201D; and the most to learn about how to make the experience professionally useful. I offer my best practices on that front here, and encourage readers to share their own tips in the comments below.

Choose the right conference. Most faculty members have only enough money to attend one annual meeting a year, so the choice of conference matters. The default option is usually the https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2025-how-to-get-the-most-out-of-a-conference?cid=VTEVPMSED1

1/4

3/28/2018

How to Get the Most Out of a Conference | ChronicleVitae

discipline’s biggest conference, which may not be the best choice. If the conference is too big, with too many sessions packed too closely together, you spend too much time racing from one to another. That kind of controlled chaos does not create an environment in which people can engage in organic intellectual exchanges.

My discipline’s primary conference is held every April and attracts almost 20,000 participants across nine conference hotels. Whenever I go, I spend a lot of of time reading maps figuring out how to get from one place to the next. But a biannual conference on topics directly related to my research area has fewer than 1,000 participants and offers many more opportunities for genuine conversation and professional development.

So while it’s nice to show your face at the "big" conference early in your career, it may be more beneficial to attend smaller regional conferences, or meetings that directly involve your research.

Should you present? And if so, how?Most institutions will pay your travel costs to a conference only if you are presenting there. So once you choose which one to attend, you need to decide what to present.

Select a manuscript that is under review or close to submission-ready, because the ideas are fully formed and any feedback can be easily integrated into revisions. Besides, there is the risk of intellectual plagiarism, so you don’t want to pitch a great new idea at a conference and then have someone in the audience publish your paper before you do.

For graduate students, a poster is acceptable, but I encourage everyone to submit a paper, for several reasons: Attendance at poster sessions is abysmal in many disciplines. Your time would be better spent writing than standing beside a poster hoping someone stops by.

Round tables, symposia, and paper sessions allow you to practice talking about your research with people other than your graduate adviser.

You get valuable feedback from scholars who are genuinely interested in, and knowledgeable about, your research area.

If you’re an early-career academic, don’t overdo it with multiple presentations. You are there to build your career, not to hog the stage. You don’t need to be the center of attention; you need to be cultivating relationships and refining your research agenda.

Yes, you should attend some sessions. A running joke in academe is that no one actually attends conference sessions. That may be true of senior professors, but early-career scholars should pick a couple of sessions to listen in on — especially ones closely related to their research. https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2025-how-to-get-the-most-out-of-a-conference?cid=VTEVPMSED1

2/4

3/28/2018

How to Get the Most Out of a Conference | ChronicleVitae

Hearing about related projects might spark new ideas to enhance your own scholarship. You might also find possible collaborators whose research is topically similar to yours but focused on a different demographic, geographical location, time period, or author. Attending only one or two sessions a day means you’re more likely to pay attention. And you’ll have time to brainstorm about how you might use what you’ve heard.

Networking is the whole point. Early-career academics at conferences should be primarily focused on networking. Rather than attend four sessions a day where you sit quietly and then rush out, seek opportunities to genuinely talk with other scholars. Most of those opportunities are embedded in preconference events and in gatherings after the day’s sessions are over.

A day or so before the meeting officially begins, many conferences hold workshops and seminars for graduate students, postdocs, and assistant professors. The workshops tend to be on discrete topics — "Getting your dissertation published," "Writing grant applications," "Building an effective research agenda." There are also training sessions and more informal opportunities to talk one-on-one with senior professors interested in mentoring junior scholars. These small events are where you get professional development that doesn’t always exist within your institution.

Similarly, try to capitalize on informal networking opportunities during the meeting. For example, program officers from major grant organizations often attend academic conferences, particularly in the sciences. Sometimes they organize panels or workshops; other times, they set up shop in a random room in the main conference hotel (be sure to check the conference program). You may have to schedule a meeting with them ahead of time, but even if you don’t, drop by for a quick conversation about grant opportunities. If you are lucky, they might give you feedback on a project idea or even a quick review of your grant proposal. Meeting program officers in person is much easier than making a cold call later on, when you are stressed out by drafting a grant proposal.

You should also visit the book-exhibit hall and see what’s newly published or forthcoming in your field. Major publishers will often send editors or assistant editors to conferences to solicit book proposals from promising young scholars. You may need an appointment for an in-depth conversation, but they are happy to schedule appointments on the spot. Even if you can’t get one, it is worthwhile to browse the collections and speak with the reps about their current and forthcoming publishing goals. Bonus: There’s usually a big discount on books you purchase at the conference.

Finally, go to your institution’s cocktail party/reception. In addition to free food, you get the chance to chat with faculty members you may have never met, meet alumni, and, in general, build your campus social capital. You see a different side of people when they are in a space that allows them to let down their hair and have a good time. https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2025-how-to-get-the-most-out-of-a-conference?cid=VTEVPMSED1

3/4

3/28/2018

How to Get the Most Out of a Conference | ChronicleVitae

That said, as an early-career academic, remember that even at a cocktail reception, you are "on."

From the moment you arrive at the airport to the moment you return home, consider yourself to be on an extended job interview. Dress professionally (even on the plane). Always be prepared to discuss your research (succinctly; don’t drone on). Have business cards on hand, as well as drafts of your current manuscripts, grant applications, and/or book proposals. You never know whom you will meet on the plane, in the buffet line at breakfast, or in the hotel lobby.

Indeed, you will maximize your networking opportunities if you are present at as much of the conference as possible. Again, that doesn’t mean attending 25 sessions — it means positioning yourself to meet people. Even if you live near the conference site, try to stay in the conference hotel. Everyone passes through the conference headquarters, if only to register upon arrival.

Spend your downtime grading papers in the hotel lobby rather than in your room. Take a walk around the neighborhood, eat at nearby restaurants, and, itake advantage of any conferencesponsored tourist activities.

Your goal as an early-career academic at a scholarly conference is to expand your professional network. To do that, you must be willing to step outside of your comfort zone and cultivate your professional identity.

Manya Whitaker is an assistant professor of education at Colorado College.

Read More from Manya

This article relates to… conference networking publishing

https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2025-how-to-get-the-most-out-of-a-conference?cid=VTEVPMSED1

4/4

2/26/2018

Tips for making the most out of conferences when it comes to your career (opinion)

#Career Advice (/advice)

#Carpe Careers (/Career-Advice/Carpe-Careers)

Making the Most Out of Conferences Conferences have the potential to be great for your career, writes Derek Attig, but only if you approach them with focus and intentionality.

By Derek Attig // February 26, 2018 0 COMMENTS (/ADVICE/2018/02/26/TIPS-MAKING-MOST-OUT-CONFERENCES-WHEN-IT-COMES-YOUR-CAREEROPINION#DISQUS_THREAD)

ISTOCK/JDAWNLNK

https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2018/02/26/tips-making-most-out-conferences-when-it-comes-your-career-opinion?utm_source=Inside+Higher…

1/9

2/26/2018

Tips for making the most out of conferences when it comes to your career (opinion)

(https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_ les/styles/large/public/media/attig_conferences.jpg? itok=PMk1HKZD) Why did you go to your last conference?

When I ask graduate students that question, their initial answers tend to be pretty general: they were curious and wanted to learn, their adviser told them to go, it just seems like the sort of thing a graduate student in their department does.

“Because it seemed interesting” and “Because I was supposed to” can be perfectly good reasons to do something. But going to a conference with only those reasons in mind can make it di cult for you to take control of the experience and get everything you can out of it.

Conferences have the potential to be great for your career (https://www.universityaffairs.ca/careeradvice/beyond-the-professoriate/making-conferences-work-career/) , no matter what career path you choose.

They are excellent venues for bringing new people into your network, learning more about elds you may want to move into, establishing yourself as an in uential voice and more -- but only if you approach them with focus and intentionality. With that in mind, I will offer some strategies for going to a conference on purpose -- and for making it an impactful, career-building experience.

Determine What You Want to Get Out of the Conference A cool-sounding call for proposals or a rm nudge from your adviser might have been the original reason you chose to go to a conference. But once you’ve decided to attend, it’s worth reframing your motivations for going.

Rather than concentrating on that initial prompt, focus on your ultimate purpose: What do you want to get out of the conference? How will attending it help you make progress toward your medium- and long-term career goals?

This particular conference might, for example, be the perfect place to learn more about a professional eld you are currently exploring. It may let you make a name for yourself as an expert in your topic. It might be a great venue to connect with publishers or funders who could make an impact on your future. It could be a place to learn concrete strategies to help you do your work more effectively.

Different conferences are useful in different ways at different stages in your career. So in order to dig deep and really gure out why you are attending a conference -- and what you can get out of it -- you should consider three things.

What kind of conference is it? Is it a huge conference where thousands of people from an entire eld converge (like American Historical Association or American Chemical Society https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2018/02/26/tips-making-most-out-conferences-when-it-comes-your-career-opinion?utm_source=Inside+Higher…

2/9

2/26/2018

Tips for making the most out of conferences when it comes to your career (opinion)

meetings)? Or it more of a niche conference for people who share a relatively narrow academic or a professional focus (like Theorizing the Web (http://theorizingtheweb.tumblr.com/) or the Graduate Career Consortium annual conference (https://www.gradcareerconsortium.org/2018_conference.php) )? Is it

an academic conference, a professional conference or something in between?

Who will be there? Will this conference be primarily people you know or mostly strangers? Will it be mostly grad students or a mix of grad students and faculty members? What kind of representation from industry or government will be there, particularly from career paths you are interested in exploring? Will vendors, publishers or agencies you’ve been meaning to talk to be participating?

At what stage are you in your career? Are you nishing up your program and looking for work?

Are you still pretty early and wanting to get a broad view of your eld? Are you looking for collaborators for your research or ideas for internships? Are you working on your thesis and eager to make a name for yourself as an expert in your sub eld?

Thinking through such questions will help you clarify what you could get out of the conference.

Also, spend some time with the conference program the week before you leave. It will give you a lot of information about what this conference is all about, which is especially useful if you're new to this particular one. You can also use it to gure out what combination of sessions will best t your career-related goals for the conference. And the list of speakers gives you a head start on deciding who to seek out while there.

Set Productive but Manageable Goals Now that you’ve gured out what you want to get out of the conference, you need to set goals to help you actually get it. Grand plans are great, but if you try to do too much at a conference, you can become overwhelmed. And then you might suddenly nd yourself hiding in your hotel room eating room service and binge-watching Chopped instead of actually attending the conference.

Which is why you need to establish bite-size goals that won't overwhelm or paralyze but will help you get from A to B. Think about your big-picture motivations at the conference (building a stronger network in your eld, sharing your research and establishing authority, and so on), then break them down into steps: What smaller things have to happen in order to ful ll those larger ambitions? Those are your goals.

Let's say you want to expand your network at the conference, but you don't know where to start. "Talk to everyone you possibly can" is an ambitious goal, but also one that's likely to trip you up with its grandiosity, especially if networking doesn't come easily to you. Instead, consider smaller, more manageable goals, like these:

I will strike up two random conversations a day while waiting for sessions to start.

I will meet three new people at a networking event.

I will ask one question at a session. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2018/02/26/tips-making-most-out-conferences-when-it-comes-your-career-opinion?utm_source=Inside+Higher…

3/9

2/26/2018

Tips for making the most out of conferences when it comes to your career (opinion)

I will live-tweet one session during the conference.

If you exceed your goals, that's great! If you only just meet them, that's also great -- you're still making progress.

Celebrate and reward yourself (maybe with a single episode of Chopped). You're on your way to getting a lot out of the conference.

Be Open to Surprise Planning and goal setting are absolutely crucial to getting the most out of a conference, but make sure you stay open to being surprised as you pursue your goals.

Conferences are a perfect opportunity to embrace what career theorists call "planned happenstance," because they bring people together from different institutions, elds, backgrounds and career paths. Don't only do what’s expected or spend time only with the most obvious people. Instead, plan to be surprised by going to a networking event only tangentially related (if related at all) to your speci c purposes for attending the conference. Or sit in on a session in a eld far from yours and approach one of the speakers afterward to discuss how your disciplines might intersect. Be curious, even as you stay focused.

In the end, remember that a conference can be a great place to build a career, especially if you attend it on purpose.

Bio Derek Attig is director of career development at the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a member of the Graduate Career Consortium -- an organization providing a national voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.

Read more by Derek Attig

jump to comments (#comment-target)

(/print/advice/2018/02/26/tipsmaking-most-out-conferences-whenit-comes-your-career-opinion? width=775&height=500&iframe=true)

Be the rst to know. (https://www.insidehighered.com/content/signhttps://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2018/02/26/tips-making-most-out-conferences-when-it-comes-your-career-opinion?utm_source=Inside+Higher…

4/9

8/19/2014

Half an Hour: How to Get the Most out of a Conference 7

More

Next BlogÂť

Create Blog

Sign In

Half an Hour A place to write, half an hour, every day, just for me.

S atu rd ay , No ve mb e r 26, 2011

How to Get the Most out of a Conference MS-Word version -- PDF Version EDUCAUSE has this habit of creating placeholders for its posts and then sending RSS feeds composed solely of those placeholders. Maybe the content will be filled later, maybe it's just a program entry and will never be fleshed out, but RSS readers like me will never know; we see nothing but the headlines (and sometimes not even that!) that leave only tantalizing glimpses.

This is the case for an entry that came out today, How to Get the Most out of the Conference. By 'the Conference' I assume they mean one of the EDUCAUSE conferences, but even that useful tidbit is missing from the entry. So I am left to speculate about what could have been.

I once started a post, How to Attend a Conference. It was just a stub of a post. Yet now as I see the headline I am reminded of that unfinished project. I have attended dozens, nay, hundreds! of conferences, a guest, a presenter, a panelist, and a keynote. So I know something about how to attend a conference.

Stephen Downes Writer, philosopher, educator, journalist. Specialist in online learning and new media technologies. For social networks, papers, presentations and newsletter please visit my home page at http://www.downes.ca

Selecting The same conference every year? Some people (maybe even most people) go to the same conference every year. I know I was that way with the NAWeb conferences. It's a good thing if you can do it - you get to know the people and know the format. The second time at a conference (or at a venue) is always more productive than the first.

But if you can only attend one conference a year, make it a different conference every year. It's harder and less comfortable, but each conference is its own community and you'll get a lot more out of seeing many different communities than the same community every time.

Keeping track. What conferences are actually happening? It's easy to focus on the content of blog posts and tweets and to overlook the venue (often it's indicated with nothing but a hashtag). It's a good idea to keep track of what contents other people you read are attending. Make a list.

Many fields have someone who keeps a comprehensive list of conferences. In educational technology, Clayton R. Wright provides this valuable service, issuing a new document every six months. In philosophy PhilEvents does the job. It's better to find a list specific to the discipline, but if all else fails, Conference Alerts provides generic versions for many other fields.

How you score these conferences (if you score them at all) is up to you. Some indicators of a good conference for you are: - the volume of Twitter comments and blog posts from people you know - presentations from authors you have read and enjoyed - topics that are fascinating to you (but which you don't know a lot about)

Stephen's W eb ~ OLDaily

M icro-Learning: Its Role in Formal, Informal and Incidental Learning - 8/19/2014 Chromebox and Chromebase - definite contenders for desktop replacements - 8/19/2014 How 'Google Science' could transform academic publishing - 8/19/2014 Show Your Work - 8/19/2014 #unrules26 - Biologically, the necessary order of learning is: explore, then play, then add rigor. - 8/19/2014 -

Let's Make Some Art, Dammit

Alberton - 8/18/2014 - Stephen Downes Palmer Road Church Fair - 8/18/2014 - Stephen Downes Confederation Trail - 8/16/2014 - Stephen Downes Summerside in the Rain - 8/16/2014 - Stephen Downes Richmond Dairy - 8/14/2014 - Stephen Downes

Popular Posts

How to Write Articles and Essays Quickly and Expertly Translations: Belorussian Introduction: Four Types of Discursive Writing From time to time people express amazement at how I can get ...

Things You Really Need to Learn Guy Kawasaki last week wrote an item describing 'ten things you should learn this school year' in which readers were advised to le...

International M OOCs Past and Present OpenLearning.com , a venture born out of the University of New South Wales ( UNSW ) in Sydney, Australia. Starting this week, you can begin...

Blogs in Education Submission for a forthcoming STRIDE handbook for The Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). See related

161 http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/2011/11/how-to-get-most-out-of-conference.html

1/17

8/19/2014

Half an Hour: How to Get the Most out of a Conference handbooks here . What is...

Submitting a Proposal For many people, the only way to attend a conference is to be presenting a paper or talk at the conference. It's a sad state of affairs, and has resulted in a bloated number of conference papers and talks, but it can't be helped for now.

Conference Guides. Many conferences will have detailed guides on how to submit a proposal. Read them. They will help even if you are looking at a different conference. The ASCD conference proposal guide, for example, offers review guides that will apply to almost any conference you apply to: - how well does the proposal relate to the conference theme and strands?

- is the proposal content of current interest or a hot topic?

- has the proposal content been implemented?

- is the proposal an innovative solution, or does it offer a fresh treatment?

- does the proposal address or support solving significant problems in education?

- is the outcome or takeaway clearly defined?

Often, conferences will look for proposals in a specific format. The Pythian conference proposal guide, for example, specifies a list of sections your proposal must contain. So follow the list! The same guide also points to a number of reasons proposals fail: - the title and/or abstract too vague, ambiguous or unclear - the premise is unbelievable - the abstract is too short and doesn't describe the talk - too much material has been presented for a single talk - it's a sales pitch - it assumes reviewers are familiar with your work The proposal. It's actually pretty easy to get a proposal accepted. But (to my mind) the trick is, make the proposal specific to the conference. Don't just submit some paper you've written. Taylor your proposal to the needs of the conference. Then, in your proposal, talk specifically about the proposal. Don't try to 'set the stage' - the conference theme does that.

E-Learning Generations ( version franรงaise ) In recent years I have been working on two major concepts: first, the connectivist theory of online learning...

New Forms of Assessment: measuring what you contribute rather than what you collect Once again, as we do at the start of every school year, we are hearing about the rampant cheating that goes on, especially online, but in fa...

The Future of Online Learning: Ten Years On An M S-Word version of this essay is available at http://www.downes.ca/files/future2008.doc Spanish Translation , by Diego Leal. In the s...

The Story of Stuff - a Summary This is a summary of the contents of the video, The Story of Stuff . I regard this video as essential viewing, and its message as fundamenta...

How to Get the M ost out of a Conference M S-Word version -- PDF Version EDUCAUSE has this habit of creating placeholders for its posts and then sending RSS feeds composed solely ...

Advice for the UNESCO OER M apping Project Email written as advice to the UNESCO OER mapping initiative . This is beginning to read and sound very much like the debates around learn...

Blog Arc hive

August 2014 (2)

Typically, a proposal follos the format of 'problem-response':

July 2014 (3)

- problem - draws from published literature relevant to the conference theme, identifies a question to be answered, identifies a 'pain point' reported by customers or clients, or describes a proposition made by someone else you wish to refute. The more specific the better. Don't just give a generic description; identify instances of the problem.

M ay 2014 (10)

June 2014 (6)

- response - responds to the problem. There are many ways to do this; the best is to offer some concrete evidence of a solution. For example, you may have developed a tool that addresses such a problem. The response will consist not only of a description of the tool, but also an account of how the tool was employed in practice, and evidence from that experience that the problem was addressed.

April 2014 (6) M arch 2014 (2) February 2014 (6) January 2014 (1) December 2013 (2) November 2013 (5) October 2013 (6) September 2013 (7) July 2013 (3)

Test your proposal with your colleagues (I don't recommend putting them online ahead of the selection process because it may impede the process - I personally prefer openness but many conference organizers do not, and may react badly).

Submission: Submit several proposals but be reasonable. It's better to submit several proposals instead of just one in a season, to ensure that you are accepted. But don't submit dozens if you're only going to one conference; it takes time and effort to review a proposal and it's unfair to organizers if there's no real chance you'll actually attend the conference.

June 2013 (5) M ay 2013 (6) April 2013 (18) M arch 2013 (8) February 2013 (2) January 2013 (7) December 2012 (3) November 2012 (7) October 2012 (7)

Invited Speakers

September 2012 (7)

If you are an invited speaker, do the same thing. There's nothing worse than a speaker who gives the same canned presentation to every conference they attend. I've seen a number of talks like that, and though they are very polished, they're sterile. The presenter hasn't talked with the audience, he or she has talked to the audience.

Any speaker will have a repertoire of content they rely on - I'm not going to go into a conference and do a completely original work on constructivism - it's just not part of what I do and would require several years to develop the expertise before I could talk on it. So there are slides I will use more than once, themes (like 'groups and networks') I will return to and discuss. That's expected (and if you are being invited, people will be disappointed if you don't do the thing that got you there).

But - as they say - localize. How does what you offer tie in to the theme the conference presenters what to talk about? If you are an invited presenter especially, you have an obligation to do some research ahead of the talk - what is the topic, who are the 'big names' in that topic (and who may also have been invited to speak alongside you), what specific objectives are the conference organizers trying to achieve?

Here's an example of a talk I gave in Mexico. Notice that the slides address the conference theme exactly. I am telling the conference organizers I am taking their needs seriously and trying to address them. I describe my own work in the field, and then at the end, show how it meets their objectives.

Here's another example. I was asked to speak at a conference in Belgium, at the Flemish

August 2012 (2) July 2012 (2) June 2012 (3) M ay 2012 (1) April 2012 (5) M arch 2012 (6) February 2012 (6) January 2012 (7) December 2011 (7) November 2011 (11) October 2011 (8) September 2011 (6) August 2011 (1) July 2011 (8) June 2011 (7) M ay 2011 (10) April 2011 (2) M arch 2011 (4) February 2011 (11) January 2011 (11) December 2010 (9)

162

http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/2011/11/how-to-get-most-out-of-conference.html

2/17

8/19/2014

Half an Hour: How to Get the Most out of a Conference

Parliament. I took the venue as my starting point; the organizers wanted a talk on openness, and the audience consisted of managers and decision-makers, so I described a policy framework for open learning.

One more example. I was asked to do an online presentation on the topic of student engagement. I didn't really know the group I was talking to, so I did some background reading on the topic engagement itself. I discovered that the conference organizers had written and presented on engagement. This gave me a basis in literature I could refer to. I found a problem related to engagement in my own work, mapped it to what the organizers had written in their paper, and made some comments.

November 2010 (9) October 2010 (12) September 2010 (4) August 2010 (6) July 2010 (10) June 2010 (9) M ay 2010 (9) April 2010 (9) M arch 2010 (12) February 2010 (9)

Here's a case where I dropped the ball. I was invited to speak to Empire State College, in Saratoga Springs. Really nice people, very dedicated and very engaged. I didn't realize that the college was already committed to open and online education, so the first part of my talk, where I presented the standard advocacy argument, was unnecessary and (frankly) a bit insulting to them. If I had done my research ahead of time, I would have found the considerable common ground we have, and been abot to craft a much more compelling presentation.

January 2010 (10)

Invited speakers will also have to prepare an abstract and specify any special requirements (regular speakers are generally stuck with a small room and a standard issue digital projector). I always ask for internet access at the podium (because I like to be able to show people things). I rarely ask for sound, but if you plan to play videos, ask for room sound - people will not be able to hear your laptop speakers.

June 2009 (5)

December 2009 (3) October 2009 (8) September 2009 (7) August 2009 (4) July 2009 (15) M ay 2009 (7) April 2009 (6) M arch 2009 (17) February 2009 (7) January 2009 (6)

Planning Your Travel

December 2008 (5)

So you're proposal have been accepted (I knew it would be!) and you are planning to attend the conference. You will want to plan your travel as far ahead of time as possible. This is not so much to save money; you can get good airfares and hotel rates almost up to the point of departure. It's to give you options and choices that may not be available closer to the event.

November 2008 (7) October 2008 (7) September 2008 (6) August 2008 (16) July 2008 (11)

If you have to fly to the conference, book this first. If you're taking the train, you also want to book this first. If you're driving or taking the bus you can basically skip this step.

Arrival. When I plan airfare I always plan to arrive a full day ahead of the conference. That is, if the conference starts on the 10th, I arrive in the city and at the hotel the evening of the 8th. Yes, it's an extra day. But in my mind, it's the most important day, and especially if you're travelling internationally, a day you can't afford to skip. Here's why: - it's "jet lag day". I actually call it that. The first day in a new city is rough, even one just a couple time zones away. It gives you a chance to at least begin to get your sleep schedule on track. If you're lucky, the conference will begin the afternoon or evening of the first day, which gives you a bit more time.

- it gives you a chance to get to know the area, to find convenience stores, good pubs, rail and bus services, attractions you may want to visit. You should also explore the conference venue.

- this is an excellent time to localize your presentation. Now that you're in the city, you can get a feel for the place, take photos, and try to get a sense of where your organizers are coming from.

- and most importantly - if you miss a connection or your flight is delayed or cancelled, you won't miss half the conference! You are much more likely to be there when the conference starts (with all your luggage, which might also take an extra day in transit).

June 2008 (6) M ay 2008 (6) April 2008 (5) M arch 2008 (4) February 2008 (7) January 2008 (14) December 2007 (8) November 2007 (8) October 2007 (11) September 2007 (10) August 2007 (14) July 2007 (8) June 2007 (12) M ay 2007 (7) April 2007 (14) M arch 2007 (19) February 2007 (16) January 2007 (11)

Departure. When you leave is up to you, but unless you absolutely have to, leave no sooner than the day after the conference ends, rather than the day of the conference. This is because conference participants often have ad hoc post-conference meetings, and if you have a planed tyo catch, you won't be able to take part in them.

I also prefer to leave one or two days in the city for myself (if it's a city I visit often, this doesn't really apply). It's really nice to be able to explore a new city, and best to do it after the stress of the conference has passed. This is typically done at my own expense. Your employer should never be asked to pay for these extra days, and most all employers will refuse to pay the amount. But if you pay the extra expenses (which won't be that large) yourself, few employers will say no especially when they realize you can save hundreds of dollars on airfare by staying a couple of days.

Flight times: Do not schedule morning departures. I repeat, do not schedule morning departures. I never leave sooner than 11:00 a.m. or so. Airports are an absolute zoo in the morning, because most travellers get up early and travel first thing in the morning.

And when you're returning home from a strange country in an airport you've never been to, you don't want to be getting up at three or four in the morning, hoping you get a cab or a train, going to an airport in chaos, and trying to get onto your flight without losing half your stuff. Book a noon flight, have a nice breakfast, pack at a leisurely pace, arrive at the airport awake, and - this is the best part - you still arrive at your destination at a reasonable hour.

The Hotel. Stay at the conference hotel. Yes, it may be a bit more expensive. Maybe even a lot more expensive. But it's many times more convenient: - You won't be paying extra money for a taxi, or spending time walking back and forth - You can take a nap, take a break or get some work done in the space of a 1-hour period - You can charge your gear without having to stand guard over it - You have a place for meetings or after-hours gatherings

December 2006 (15) November 2006 (28) October 2006 (15) September 2006 (17) August 2006 (21) July 2006 (22) June 2006 (27) M ay 2006 (6) April 2006 (3) January 2006 (3) December 2005 (4) November 2005 (4) October 2005 (14) September 2005 (2) August 2005 (8) July 2005 (8) June 2005 (4) M ay 2005 (6) April 2005 (12) M arch 2005 (1)

Follow by Email

Email address... Submit

Subsc ribe

Posts Comments

Book your hotel as soon as you can, so you can get space in the days before and after the

163

http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/2011/11/how-to-get-most-out-of-conference.html

3/17

8/19/2014

Half an Hour: How to Get the Most out of a Conference

conference. Often other conferences will occupy the hotel, and space may be at a premium. But if you book well ahead, you can get a room at a reasonable rate. Also, when booking, be sure to mention the conference, and attempt to get conference rates.

Travel Agencies. If your organization has a travel agency, use that agency, because your organization may require it, but also because they may have bulk purchasing arrangements with airlines and hotels. But be careful - they may also work within constraints, such as the cost of a hotel room. Don't let them put you in a box on the outskirts of the city! (Yes, it has happened to me). Pay the extra your self, if you have to, to be put into the right hotel. Also, be very clear about your departure time preferences and seat section preferences (I really recommend window seats, because you're never disturbed, and you have a bulkhead to lean on and use as a pillow).

If you're not using a travel agency, check seat prices at both the airline and a agency site like Expedia (I always use expedia.ca when I book my own flights, and in Europe I've found lastminute.com has excellent rates, far cheaper than anything I can get in North America). If you can, try to use an agency to book the hotel. Booking directly is often a lot more expensive than booking through an agency.

Fly economy. Your students or employers are paying for the flight, and even if some company is paying for it, they're writing it off as tax deductions. I call business class 'subsidy class' - the rich receiving subsidies from the poor in order to fly in greater ease. Don't patronize that system.

Your travel budget: travel can be expensive, especially if you're not prepared for the extra costs ahead of time. Make a budget (or at least keep one in your head) and be prepared: - airfare (plus taxes, and be ready for luggage and other fees at the airport) - international fees - check ahead - many countries charge western travellers at the airport to enter or leave the country - taxi or (far better) train to the airport (it's better to take the train because trains rarely get stuck in traffic, and they're typically a quarter of the cost) - food - you will want coffee and snacks while you're travelling (and maybe a DVD, if you're me).

Plan ahead. I would have starved on my recent trip to Oslo had I not looked it up and discovered that it's one of the most expensive cities in the world (Oslo - who knoew?).

- tips - customs vary in different countries, but basically, if you interact with a human for anything more than a minute or two, you should be prepared (and happy!) to pay a tip - internet access - if you travel a lot, have a current account on t-mobile or boingo (I use boingo.com); hotel internet is either free or ridiculously expensive - plan ahead how you will access internet on site (don't depend on conference wifi; I repeat, don't depend on conference wifi, especially if you have to do things like finish your presentation or do online banking).

- booze - if you plan to drink, make a budget and stick to it - booze in bars (especially conference hotel bars) can be really expensive (in Oslo, my $50 beer budget was consumed in four beers in one night - and that was at places that can only be called dives).

- souvenirs - you will want branded t-shirts, plaques or ornaments, local food (check what you're allowed to bring home)

Travel Gear The other major expense of conference travel is travel gear. Fortunately, you can manage most of the costs by planning ahead. It's often a good idea to make a list (or to at least have a list in mind) as you prepare for conference travel.

Conference Kit. I have a 'conference kit' that is my essential conference gear, and which mostly stays in its own place at home between conferences (actually, I store it in the suitcase, so I don't even have to pack it!). The conference kit contains most of the personal items I might need on the road: - electric toothbrush, small travel toothpaste tubes, soap, comb or brush, wash cloth, travel-sized shampoo and conditioner (I use Pert so I only have one bottle), disposable razors, sunscreen - you might not need all of these, but it's really nice to have your own toiletries, so you know how your hair and skin will react - daytime cold medicine, NeoCitran (great for sleeping on the plane!), Imodium or rehydration salts, Ibutrophin or Tylenol, Strepsils and Fisherman's Friends, Polysporin (very important to treat cuts in tropical regions), Gaviscon and Rolaids - your own prescription medicine - bring the original bottles or copies of the prescription Travel Documents. You will need your passport (and possibly a Visa - check before you travel (I once

164 http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/2011/11/how-to-get-most-out-of-conference.html

4/17

8/19/2014

Half an Hour: How to Get the Most out of a Conference

had to scamper to get an Australian visa while in transit in Toronto!)), flight tickets, and hotel bookings. Bring your driver's license (but not your car keys!), credit cards and bank cards (you can use ATMs almost everywhere in the world; don't bother with travellers' cheques, and don't travel with a wad of cash).

I have an old blue passport case (I got it as a speaker's gift about ten years ago) I use to hold my travel documents (there's a zippered case for the passport and a string I can use to make sure it's attached to my body). Then, make a copy of every document and store it in a separate case. If you lose your passport (like I did once) having a spare copy will save you from huge problems (as it did for me).

When you are traveling, don't put everything on one place (when my camera bag was stolen in Spain I lost nothing but the cameras - but I heard people in the police station talking about how they had lost everything when their bag was stolen). I put travel documents in the passport case, money and cards in a wallet (front pocket only) and another secret location, electronics in another bag, etc. I once lost all my music gear from an airline seat pouch when someone swiped it while I was in the washroom - now I keep a backup iPod nano and earbuds in a separate location.

Note: these warning apply equally if you're travelling half way around the world or if you're travelling to a nearby city. Loss can happen anywhere, and it's when we get comfortable that we're the most vulnerable.

Vaccines. Check the CDC page for recommended vaccines. If you can, you should get a Twinrix vaccine against Hepatitus A and B if you're going to be doing any large amount of travel at all. If you are travelling in the country or to tropical regions, be sure to bring and use bug spray (like Deep Woods Off).

Electronics. I travel with a MacBook Pro, an iPad, and an iPod (with a backup Nano). These have of course their power cords (each neatly coiled) and connecting wires (I have two baggies containing essential cords - chargers for iPods and Pads, earbuds, USB connectors, adapters for digital projectors). If you're travelling overseas, check the power supply requirements, and purchase an adapter. I also bring an extension cord or power bar.

My cameras are in a separate bag (of course!), and I bring my nice camera, a small compact backup, and chargers and USB connectors for each. I have a nice microphone so I can record audio (both cameras record HD video). I also use a Sony Walkman to record conversations, street sounds, background noises, and whatever. It's also a local radio receiver and backup iPod! You might ask, why don't I travel with one computer, one MP3 player, and one camera, and skip the rest. It's all about having the right tool for the job. A computer's a lot easier to use than an an iPad, but the iPad is great for crowded conference audience seats (I don't know why conference organizers don't provide tables, but they often don't). The compact camera is great for the bar or busy areas where you wouldn't want a big camera, but if you want really nice photos (as I do) you want the really nice camera. And having more than one device is great for long airplane trips, because between them you have hours and hours of entertainment!

Note: power in the Americas is 110 volts, and elsewhere is 220 volts. Most of your gear will work with both (check the tiny print on the charger, power cord, or adapter - if you see 110-220 v you're OK). Some things won't! I've blown up a number of power bars!

Clothing - bring extra socks and underwear, and economize on pants and shirts. It's always wise to bring a sweater. When travelling to a cold country I wear the coat in transit (some guides say you should pack them, but coats are really bulky) and use it as a pillow (up against the bulkhead of my window seat). If you're giving a talk, have clothes designated especially for your talk - wear nice clothes when you present, even if it's informal. You're on stage. Be professional.

The Rest - I travel with a Cpap because I have sleep apnea, so I have to make sure there's always electricity where I'm sleeping (yes, sometimes organizers forget you need power, so make sure ahead of time). I also travel with my own prescription meds. I bring a travel alarm clock. And I bring my own coffee machine, coffee, filters and whitener, because you can't get good coffee anywhere!

Luggage. Don't use suitcases, and be prepared to walk with your luggage without a baggage cart. I use upright luggage, like this. I have one larger bag I check-in, and another smaller bag as carryon. Then I have my computer shoulder bag. I use a bungie cord to loops the smaller luggage to the back of the large luggage, so I can pull the two of them with one hand (matched sets will also have straps that join the two together). I either carry my computer bag over my shoulder or use another bungie cord to attach it to the tall luggage. The idea is that I can be pulling everything with one hand, and have the other hand free (for a coffee, for a phone, for my travel documents, etc.).

Preparing for the Conference A conference comes and goes in an instant. Even a long conference might only be four days long most are only one or two days. You won't have time to find your feet, even if you're arriving early.

Research the conference. Who will be there? What will they be talking about? As much as possible, scan the program, look for people (especially keynotes) talking about things that are interesting to you, and look them up on Google. Do this before the conference! Sometimes it's nice to be surprised by someone you weren't expecting, but the experience is so much more rewarding if you know where they're coming from.

165 http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/2011/11/how-to-get-most-out-of-conference.html

5/17

8/19/2014

Half an Hour: How to Get the Most out of a Conference

You also want to be looking at the program to see which sessions you want to attend. You don't have to decide right away (but if you do, create your own schedule and put it on your iPad or computer - it will be really hard to find this information at the conference itself, because they almost never post big signs with the conference program on it (they just assume everyone has their program).

Find the chatter. These days every conference has a backchannel (where or not the organizers want one). The backchannel is typically indicated with a hashtag. If you don't know the hashtag, search for the conference on Twitter. Or use a Google site:Twitter search, like this. Or just include 'hashtag' in your search, like this. If you still can't find one, ask people you know. If nobody knows, create a hashtag of your own, and put up a blog post with the name of the conference, the year, the URL, and your proposed hashtag (don't forget to Tweet using the hashtag too).

The hashtag chatter will not only highlight talks to attend and issues that are current, it will be a guide to the unofficial activities associated with the conference. If people are meeting at a pub, or getting together in an open hotel room, it will show up in the chatter (use reasonable safety precautions when travelling to new places in strange cities). It will point you to resources and background materials. Being linked to the chatter ahead of time will prepare you to get the greatest advantage of the backchannel during the conference.

Prepare your talk. It goes without saying, I suppose, but it can be the last thing you're thinking about when travelling overseas. You want to do as much as you can ahead of time, but remember, your presentation is a creation of the moment. Plan on making changes, adding local content, and more.

Mostly what I do ahead of time is to assemble resources. This is especially important if the hotel has a bad internet connection. I'll have copies of papers I want to quote in my digital library, copies of all my previous slide presentations, sometimes even downloaded versions of web pages (I just use the browser - it downloads the site and copies of all the images on the site). Sometimes I download video clips (using DownloadHelper). One day I want to use videos for my sldies instead of static images, but I need to get better at that.

It's also good to create an outline. If you have a good abstract, this has already been done for you.

Now you can fill it out. The principles I've described before work really well for presentations.

Sometimes I create an entire outline first; other times I have the outline in my mind and just author the detailed version slide by slide. The less experienced you are the more you'll need to prepare (on the bright side, once you've done this a few hundred times, you can create an interesting engaging original presentation in a few minutes right before the talk).

Create Your Presentation Page - I should do this ahead of time a lot more than I do. But what you should do is to create a web page for your presentation. This page will constitute the permanent record of your presentation, but for now it's a planning document. Your presentation page can be a blog post, a wiki page, or any other internet presence. I really recommend that it be a page rather than something transient like a blog post or social network status update. This will be an archive; treat it seriously. (In my view everyone should create their own presentation page - the fact that most people still don't is a matter of some astonishment to me).

When your proposal is first accepted, post your abstract and links to any background material you may be looking at. Especially if your talk is going to be controversial, make sure your summaries and readings are available for people to see. So - for example - when someone says you "didn't understand" their paper, you can point to your summary and ask, which part was wrong (in my case, probably nothing - but I get the "didn't understand' sour grapes a lot).

Here's a good example of what I mean. Note that even before I even arrived in Utrecht I had the background work done, and more importantly, posted online for comments and feedback. It's useful in multiple ways - like when someone says "oh he just got mad and did it in the last minute" you can point to this work and make it clear that you had in fact planned this all along (and can hardly be accused of springing a surprise attack on someone). Here's the completed presentation page of the talk finished after the event (yeah, I know it's not beautiful - but it's a great archive of the talk).

Publicize your presentation - use the conference hashtag and post a link to your presentation page on Twitter. Give people a way to give you comments (don't be disappointed if you don't get any people talk a lot about how interactive the web is, but there's a lot less actual feedback on things than you might think). Be prepared to add to your presentation right up to the day of the event.

Practice your talk. Seasoned hands have probably forgotten that people need to do this, but people who are new to the whole concept of giving talks at conferences should strive to practice their talk in front of a live audience. Don't read your talk, even in practice. Make sure you have notes, so you don't lose your place or forget what you wanted to say. But even when you practice your talk, just glance at your notes to find your place, and then speak without reading your notes.

Why? Three reasons. First, you want to hone the art of interacting with your audience, and you can't interact with them if you're staring at your notes. When you speak, you want to be looking at them, not your presentation. Second, practising this way will help you remember your presentation.

It forces you to think about what you're saying, and not to merely recite it. And third, you'll get feedback and probably a lot of support. People will tell you it's a good talk, or how to make it better.

I still do this, especially when I'm trying out an entirely new line of argument. My Speaking in LOLcats presentation was first delivered to a small conference in Richmond Hill, and then to an

166

http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/2011/11/how-to-get-most-out-of-conference.html

6/17

8/19/2014

Half an Hour: How to Get the Most out of a Conference

online course. Of course, this would have been a lot better done the other way around. Online talks are great ways to hone your conference presentations - just do a Google hangout and have people join you. Or here, I presented first to an online class (same class, different year) and then next to an international conference.

Writing Your Paper. Some conferences will require that you provide a written paper for the presentation. This means that you may be committed to having a presentation (and paper!) completely planned before you have all the information you need. That can't be helped, and you should strive to accommodate them.

Do it this way: prepare the presentation and slides first. Practice your talk a few times, if you need. Ideally you want to actually give your talk first, but if you can't, rely on the practice. Delay as long as you can, pulling your resources together, assembling your articles, links and diagrams.

Then, use the presentation outline as your essay outline. How you proceed at this point is up to you, but I sit down and do it in one draft. Maybe not necessarily start to finish (as I type this paper, for example, the organization is chronological, but I'm adding sections as I think of them).

This works really well. My paper E-Learning 2.0, for example, was created this way. Here's the link (it was published in eLearn Magazine, was their most popular paper ever, but then they broke the link and now none of the references to it work - that is why you keep your own records!). I first presented the talk to a CIDER online workshop. I adjusted a bit and presented it in Edmonton (to many of the same people!). Then I wrote the paper.

This is really common. The purpose of conferences once upon a time was to provide a forum where people could try out their partially-formed ideas before committing them to print. Over time, with the publication of conference proceedings, the conference presentation has become ossified. But I try as much as possible to use presentations to try out new ideas. That's why it's so important that I actually talk with the audience, rather than just at them. Even if there's no question-and-answer, I can get a good sense of how it was received from their expressions, and later, from the converstaions and backchannel.

The Night Before Charge your electronics. Make sure you have a full charge on ytour computer, iPod, iPad, camera batteries, and anything else you are bringing.

Print boarding passes. If you can (check your airline site), print your boarding pass. While you're at it, make sure you print backup copies of all your documents (if you don't have a photocopier, take a digital photo of the document and print that).

Use Google Maps. You may have done this at an earlier stage, but do it now, the night before you leave, so it will be fresh in your memory. Locate the conference venue, your hotel, and the airport.

If you're taking a train from the airport, locate the train station. Print out a copy (and backup) of the street map and store it with your travel documents. Use street view and walk through your route on Google before you arrive. (Seriously - I actually do this and it makes a big difference when you arrive, and you know what your hotel looks like, because you saw it on Google maps).

Make an arrival plan. The idea is that you'll be making plans before you get there. You arrive at the airport and get on the train - what stop are you getting off at? Make sure you know. Will you be able to want to the hotel or will you need a cab? Finding taxis or trains at the airport is usually very easy, but when you arrive at a train station in the middle of the city it can be confusing. Plus, there are thieves, so if you're standing there looking lost they will zero in on you. Have a plan so that when you arrive, you know what you're doing.

Sometimes, especially when you're an invited speak, your hosts will say "don't worry, leave it to us, someone will pick you up at the airport." Don't count on this. I remember arriving in Bogota for the first time - the fight was four hours late, I arrived at 10:30 at night, and my ride had bailed. What would I have done if I had not already looked up where to find taxis at the airport (there's an official stand, but it's a bit out of the way) and known the location of my hotel?

Back up your files. I always travel with a 32 gig USB drive on my keychain. I put a copy of my presentation on it, as well as a nice reading library, all my previous presentations, and a bunch of other stuff I'll write about in another post one day. The night before you leave, make sure you've updated your USB drive with backups of all your data.

Pack your bag. Fold your clothes, make sure everything fits, and don't forget to weight your luggage. Use a luggage scale. There are always restrictions. Be sure to check your connector flights - in the middle of a long trip recently a tiny airline handling one leg of my trip tried to shake me down for excess baggage fees - but I had done my homework.

167 http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/2011/11/how-to-get-most-out-of-conference.html

7/17

8/19/2014

Half an Hour: How to Get the Most out of a Conference

Travel Getting to the airport. If you're travelling from home, you may have a good idea of what to expect.

Since you're travelling at noon or later, the airport won't be a zoo. Plan to arrive an hour and a half early (that gives you an extra half hour for traffic, car accidents, disputes with the driver, delayed trains, whatever). Don't economize on your arrival time. Time spent at the airport is just as productive as time spent at home, so it's really silly to delay departure to the last minute in order to have more time at home.

Note: in many places you will need to arrive even earlier, up to three hours earlier, especially when travelling internationally. If you're not familiar with the airport, ask at the hotel, and then follow their advice.

I travel with checked luggage. I know that when you read travel guides they will say you should try to avoid checking your baggage, but I'm not really sure this is a wise idea, especially if you're on a trip of any length. Yes, your baggage might be delayed or even lost (though my luggage has never been permanently lost). And you have to wait at the carousel to get your baggage. But who cares!

You've arrived - what's the rush?

But if you don't check your luggage you're travelling with heavy and often bulky cabin baggage. You have to lug it around the airport. You have to fight with other passengers for overhead compartment space. And the stuff you need in transit - like computers and flight documents - gets mixed up with stuff you don't need to be messing with on an airplane, like underwear. You're always rationing your liquids. Being careful to make sure you have no toe-clippers. You don't have enough room for your electronics (which you absolutely must carry on - don't risk losing them) and you can't do things like bring your own coffee machine. All this to save a few minutes at the carousel?

Have a carry-on sized carry-on. Like this.They are designed to fit into the overhead bins (if you are travelling on a small plane like a CRJ or Embraer you will have to cabin-check your carry-on - don't panic, it will be there as you leave the aircraft, but keep this in mind and keep the stuff you really need in your computer bag). Don't overstuff your bag because it won't fit into the space if you do.

This may seem overly pciky but you can save yourself a lot of heartache at the check-in line or in the airplane by using the proper baggage.

As I said, arrive early. If you're going to be standing in line a long time, be sure you have something to read or listen to (an iPad is fabulous in a check-in line). If you can, print your boarding passes the night before, or otherwise, use the airport kiosk check-in. There are many options - you only need to learn them once, and then they'll save you hours every trip thereafter.

Be nice to the airline staff. Let me repeat: be nice to the airline staff.

As you approach security, put all your pocket stuff into your coat pockets (you should almost always wear a coat when you travel, because you never know where you'll end up, airplanes can be cold, and it's good to have extra pockets). You can also toss stuff into your carry-on bag, but it's a lot harder to fish out after. Don't travel with liquids in carry-ons unless you absolutely have to. You will need to remove your computer and iPad, so when you put them in your bag, put them in last so you can easily remove them. Carry your boarding pass in your hands (if they do an extra check, they will ask you for it, so it's good to have it with you and buried inside the x-ray machine). In the United States you'll have to remove your shoes (happily that insanity has not spread beyond the American border) so prepare by untying them.

Go through security right away and go straight to your gate. I always do this in strange airports.

It's important to make sure you know where your gate is as soon as possible, because you never know what's between you and your gate (in Bogota, it was an extra security check, in Oslo, there was a passport check just outside the gate).

Arrival Remove all your clothes and put them in the dresser; when you finish with your clothing, fold it neatly and put it in your suitcase (that way, you can pack to leave in just a few minutes). Put your stuff in the bathroom where you need it. In my case, I set up the Cpap and coffee machine right away, so I can spot any problems before they happen. Check your electronics, connect 168to the

http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/2011/11/how-to-get-most-out-of-conference.html

8/17

8/19/2014

Half an Hour: How to Get the Most out of a Conference

internet (if you're using in-room internet, which I really recommend if it's not too expensive), and use Skype to call hope and tell them you've arrived safely.

(I know some people use phones. I can barely make my phone work where I live, but I have no idea how to make it work when I travel. If someone has a good guide to this, that would be nice.)

On jet-lag day, get the lay of the land, catch up on email or correspondence - if your hotel internet is awful or nonexistent, find the nearest cybercafe. Find coffee shops (unless you've brought your own coffee machine) and stores and things that might be useful. Have a nice day and relax - travel is really stressful, even when everything goes well. Putter with your presentation - see what people are writing about the conference (they will also be arriving, some of them, and you can meet up if you want).

The Conference It has been a lot of work (less work with experience) but you're finally here. You're well rested, you've already had a look at the program and have a good idea what you want to see. You've been chatting with people online and have some contacts to meet for lunch or just a gab session, if you wish. You know when the official conference sessions are, and also when some unofficial meet-ups will take place.

The key rule now, after you've done all that planning, is to go with the flow. Let your interests and instincts guide you. Don't feel you have to do anything, feel free to change your schedule, and plan in the moment. Because you've done all that background work, you are now perfectly positioned to surf through the conference like a master.

The receptions. Personally I hate conference receptions because I'm just not a wine and cheese kind of person, but if you're an invited speaker you really should go to them. Being an invited guest at a conference isn't about the keynote - that's the least part of it, often. You're there because people want to meet you, and the receptions are the first and easiest way to do this.

If you're not the keynote, you should feel free to skip the receptions, and I often do. But you may want to look at it this way: free food! Remember, conference travel is expensive. You'll probably eat more than your meal allowance (assuming you have one). Your conference fees have paid for this food, and you ought to fill up. The receptions are a good way to do this.

Most receptions are stand-up and free-flow. I'm not very good at them, but here's what I've learned, that works reasonably well. Look for a smallish group of people (three of four or so).

Approach them - they will be talking - smile and nod. Then listen and get a sense of the conversation. If it's boring or personal, move on. If it's interesting, stay, and use body language to communicate your interest (for example, nod at points you agree with). If they are welcoming, they will look at you as they speak, to include you in the conversation, and may open their stance so the group circle now includes you. Wait for a natural pause in the conversation before you interject a remark. When you comment, keep it on topic. It's ideal if it's a question that helps them carry the conversation further.

If you're speaking with a group of people at a conference and someone is hanging around at the edge of your circle, look at them, open your stance, and give them an opening - because it's probably me, and if what I've just stated doesn't work, I've got nothing!

I suppose I don't need to tell you not to get hammered at the opening reception. Just remember this: the hangover will last the rest of the conference! But again - go with the flow. I remember some all-nighters with Terry Anderson and Rory McGreal that were really important to me when I was just beginning to attend conferences.

I know a lot of people approach receptions like sharks and go into them with an express intent to gather contacts, make a good impression, pass out business cards, and all the rest of it. I don't recommend this approach; it's too stressful, and it's too artificial. I would say that your main objective would be to have some great conversations. You're meeting some really interesting people. Listen with interest, ask relevant questions, and enjoy the art of a great story. And don't just focus on the work. Talk about the venue, the local attractions, or anything else that interests you.

Finally - as I write this the concept of the 'social artist' comes to mind. I first heard it from Nancy White; she credits Etienne Wenger. When you're taking part in conversations, don't think about what you want to get from the other people, don't think about what sort of impression you're making (you know, unless there's blood dripping from your nose or something). Think, instead, about how you can help the conversation. Lead by creating a space for dialogue - ask open-ended questions, venture an opinion that could be considered, say something nice about a talk you've heard.

The keynotes. A big part of the conference fee went to pay for the keynotes, so you may as well attend their talks. Often, they'll be the best speakers (but sometimes there are some real dud beware keynotes given by politicians or corporate sponsors). Also, the keynote speakers are one experience most people at the conference will have in common (they'll split off for the conference sessions). They set the tone for the conference, and many other speakers (including you!) will refer back to the keynotes during their own talks.

Whatever you do, don't sit there passively when the keynote is speaking. I know there was once upon a time when you showed the best honour to the keynote by paying strict attention and doing nothing else. As a frequent keynote, I can only say: please don't do this. Because I know what's

169

http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/2011/11/how-to-get-most-out-of-conference.html

9/17

8/19/2014

Half an Hour: How to Get the Most out of a Conference

happening - you start out with the best of intentions, but your mind wanders, you start thinking about other things, and then the talk is over and you can't remember a bit of it.

I strongly recommend taking notes. If you're a novice, take note as an outline - you will then be able to see the structure of the keynote's talk (and you'll see how it actually does fit the patterns I've talked about). You can learn a lot by how they have put together their remarks, even if you're not so interested in the subject matter. Also note the way they speak, the way they're communicating with the audience - learn from them, because you'll be on that podium soon enough.

Taking notes also helps you interact with the subject material. There's a very good chance that what the speaker says will be relevant to your own talk (especially if you've both tried to fit within the theme of the conference). You will want the notes for later, when you are making last minute additions to your slides. And if you're asked to give a report on the conference (something I think is a good idea, but which I don't personally do nearly often enough) the notes will be a lifesaver.

I really like the reasons outlined by Matt Thompson of Poynter of why you should live-blog, as they get to the core of thebenefits of taking notes: - a liveblog forces you to genuinely pay attention - it also forces you to write.

- it can be intensely engaging - itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a service to your readers - it can be a service from your users Thompson also has a really good checklist of things to do before you liveblog - have you set up, have you tested your gear, do you have the relevant facts (like speaker names, etc) handy, etc.?

See also Marshall Kirkpatrick on live-blogging.

Unless someone explicitly tells you that you shouldn't, feel free to take pictures of the speaker and some relevant slides (not every slide, you don't need all of them). You can use them on your own slides when you refer to the speaker's points (don't worry about the copyright, this falls squarely within fair use).

Finally, track the backchannel. I recommend something like Tweetdeck for this, so you can follow more than one thread and so you don't have to worry about reloading pages and all of that.

Participate - judiciously - in the conversation. I don't think Twitter is a good place for a summary of the talk, but rather should be used to highlight good quotes, express support or opposition to arguments, and to fact-check the speaker.

The whole point here is to engage with the speaker and the subject material. Don't just sit there passively and watch the presentation as though it were television - you will be bored silly and you will learn nothing. The content during a presentation is coming at you at 300 baud, and you have a 64,000 baud mind. Use that space to learn by being active, by creating, by interacting.

If your notes are half-decent, I recommend positing them online, on your blog. Too few people do this. I like to link from my presentation to the summary, but so few people really do a summary.

The best presentation summaries read like a blog post or short essay - like this. Don't try to capture everything; focus on main points - it's a summary. With any luck, the presenter will provide a recording, slides and a transcript.

A note on recording: I don't mind if you record my talks (actually, I encourage it, so I have a backup) but some people think they are protecting some big secret. So if you intend to record the entire talk, it's always a good idea to ask the presenter (at some of the larger conferences the organizers also will have to approve, because they've arranged some special deal with some company to create conference recordings - I imagine conferences like TED and Idea City are like this).

The streams. Everything I've said about engaging with the keynotes also applies to the stream speakers. Maybe even more so, because these speakers will be a lot less skilled and will have less to say.This makes it more difficult to pay attention and follow the thread of the presentation. Try to be charitable - many of the speakers will not even have read this post - they'll be jet-lagged, their presentations will be awkward, and they won't be sure of the point they're trying to make.

Because of that, feel free to be mercenary with the streams. Don't treat the program as an agenda, treat it as a buffet. Pick and choose the talks you want to see and feel free to move about. One of the great things about a conference is that you don't have to stay in the room - but to take advantage of this, you have to feel free to leave. I know it's harsh, but you didn't spend thousands of dollars to watch some guy read his slides describing how he used a website for his class of 14 people.

The hardest thing when dealing with the streams is moving from place to place.Make sure you know where all the breakout rooms are so you can dash from one to the other without searching all over for it. Sometimes you'll want to switch rooms in mid-session - conferences often schedule two or three speakers to a slot, so you may want to view the first speaker in one room and the last speaker in another room (and yes - of course it's allowed. It's not a prison).

And if none of the stream speakers is interesting to you, take a break. Catch up on email, pull together your notes for a session summary, grab a snack - whatever. Sometimes the best conference experiences are had by people hanging around in the halls during the sessions (treat these conversations just like the ones at receptions and you'll be fine you'll be fine - in general, if people are seated at a table, they want to be by themselves, but if they're standing by the bar or at a standup, they welcome interaction).

170

http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/2011/11/how-to-get-most-out-of-conference.html

10/17

8/19/2014

Half an Hour: How to Get the Most out of a Conference

The big difference between the streams and the keynotes is that it's a lot easier to interact and have conversations during the streams. Because you're taking notes and engaged, you will be in a good position to ask questions. But ask genuine questions - try to draw out the person on a certain point or concept. If you think there's a criticism that should be made, make it - but in an empowering way. Because you're both engaged in the same pursuit of inquiry and truth. It's not a competition; you don't have to knock out some opponent.

The booths. Many conference (but by no means all) have vendor booths. I always make the time to go to as many of the booths as I can (a challenge at some of the bigger conferences). Why? Well for one thing, you'll never have to buy pens or coffee mugs again. There's also sometimes free clothes, pointers, and other trinkets. If you give them your business card (or let them scan your conference badge) you'll be added to their mailing list - but also eligible for some good door prizes.

Most importantly, though, the booths are offering products and services relevant to your area of interest. It's advertising, sure, but advertising tailored to you (or to as close an approximation of you as they can manage). You'll be able to watch demos, try out products, as questions (and even get answers!) about costs, service and support. Booths attune you to the trends in your field and suggest where the future is heading. When you're back at your institution and someone says "we're considering getting a SmartBoard" you can say "oh yes, I tried one at the conference, and..." (that actually happened for me).

I also feel free to engage with booth staff. Yes, they are often actors or people hired to represent the brand, but they are also tasked with collecting feedback. So if I disapprove of a company's business practices, I say so at their booth. If I have a specific feature I need, I ask for it. If I have a criticism of the product, I offer it. I'm always nice about it - but I'm a customer, they're a vendor, and I am using this experience to help them serve me (and society) better.

Don't collect paper brochures from booth staff; they're too heavy to fly home, and you'll never read them again anyways. Collect web site addresses.

Your Talk Almost before you know it, the day of your talk will arrive.

Make sure ahead of time you know exactly when your talk will take place, and in what room. You wouldn't think this comes up, but I've had more last-minute scrambles than I care to count, and so now I always take the effort to get my bearings and make sure I'll be on time.

The night before (or, if you're me, at five a.m. on talk day) you're finishing your slides.

My talk often doesn't take form until this point. Yes, I have an abstract, yes, I have a plan, but I rarely know precisely what I want to say until I've arrived at the venue, gotten a feel for the place and the people, and (ideally) been able to see some of the keynotes and other talks (that's why being the opening keynote is a special challenge).

Your slides: your slides are not your speaking notes (unless you're able to work with minimal speaking notes). Your slides are a visual aid for your audience. And unless you're a very compelling speaker, your audience will rely on them to keep tack of where they are in the talk.

It's really important to take the time and effort to prepare effective slides. I recommend a visit to Presentation Zen (or Garr Reyonolds's summaries elsewhere). And notwithstanding that there are dozens and dozens of sites giving advice on slides, here are my inviolable rules: - no more than eight lines of text per slide. Usually less. Text on images and charts count as lines of text, so don't throw up a 20-line graph. People simply can't read slides like that.

- use enough text - some people love the Lessig style, but unless you're prepared to create and time 200 slides for a half hour, don't do it. Actually, don't do it in any case. For two reasons: people who speak English as a second language will depend on the slides to follow the talk, and people reading the slides later on will want a clear message, not mysterious one-word blips.

171 http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/2011/11/how-to-get-most-out-of-conference.html

11/17

8/19/2014

Half an Hour: How to Get the Most out of a Conference

- one major image per slide. Use the rule of thirds to size and position the image.

- dark text, light background. Otherwise, your room much be very dark in order for your slides to be visible.There's been plenty of research on colour selection; take heed of it.

- use a consistent design theme throughout; you can be creative with the design, but don't overwhelm the message with it.

Your delivery: Again, there are many sites that can help you learn how to give a good talk. This is a good comprehensive guide. We've addressed the content and outline above, so here I'll focus on the delivery.And really, there are only two major rules: - speak clearly. This means speaking loudly enough for people to hear you, saying your words clearly and not mumbling.

- speak to the audience. Don't face the screen, don't read your notes, look at the audience and speak to them. If you can't speak to an audience like that, practice until you can.

This isn't just a conference skill, this is a life skill. It doesn't matter how good a scientist or researcher you are if you can't look people square in the eyes and explain your point of view.

One more tip: love your audience. I know that this may sound weird, but it really does work. When you love your audience, when your focus is on how well you can give your gift to them, everything else melts away. Just remember: they are there to hear you (if your a keynote, they actually invited you and paid your way - how could you not love them? How could you have any doubt that they really want to hear what you have to say?

I tried to find a good link for this but couldn't find one, which tells me that I need to write about this in more detail one day.

Why? Why have I lingered so much on your own talk at the conference? Because this is going to be one of the main ways you get the most out of the conference.

- a good talk will prompt questions and discussion, which will lead to much-needed suggestions and improvements to your ideas - people will want to talk to you after your talk; they may offer to exchange resources, collaborate, or in some way help you do your work (and even better: give you an opportunity to help them do their work) - your talk is like a calling card; a person who gives good, well-researched and well-presented talks will be considered for recruiting and job opportunities You can't fake your way through a good talk. That's why they're so important. People will see the real you when you are giving a talk. And they will engage (or not) based on that. So give a great talk, and become the person everyone wants to talk to!

Archiving and Recording I strongly recommend maintaining an archive of all your talks. On my presentation page, you can see the archives of some 288 talks I've given over the years (people keep asking me, so I must be doing something right).

- Your slides: upload a copy of your slides to Slideshare (or an equivalent slide hosting service).

Save .ppt versions and .pdf versions on your website (assuming you have a website). And of course, be sure you save a copy in your own filesystem.

- Audio: it's really easy to record audio and there's no excuse for not doing it. On any computer, you can download and install Audacity; this is a free and open source program that will record hundreds of hours without a problem (seriously! I've accidentally left Audacity running over the weekend and returned to find it happily recording away).

Use a good quality microphone; as mentioned above, I use a nice Audio Technica microphone. You should use some sort of directional condenser mic for the best results. Make sure the microphone is pointed toward you when you speak (it is after all a directional mic).

Save your audio as MP3. You'll need to install LAME with Audacity to do this. Here are instructions.

For audio, set the bit rate to 64 or even 32 (the default is 128) so you don't end up with huge audio files. You can store the site on your website or (better) use a free storage site like Dropbox.

- Video: it's a step up, and harder to do, but if you can, record a video of the talk. Probably the best way to do this is to use a Flip Video camera or (because they're out of production) a Kodak video camera (your regular camera will only record for 20 minutes or half an hour). I upload all my video to Blip.tv (because YouTube has size and length restrictions).

Save your archives, create a presentation page (like the ones I've been showing throughout this post), and when it's ready, Tweet it to the world and write a blog post about it.

Why? You will receive a much larger audience for your archive than you will for your presentation some of my presentations have been viewed by thousands of people online. The archive also gives prospective conference organizers some idea of what to expect if they bring you in as a speaker.

Your archive is also your calling card for prospective employers.

172 http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/2011/11/how-to-get-most-out-of-conference.html

12/17

8/19/2014

Half an Hour: How to Get the Most out of a Conference

And best of all, if you do this, others will do it too. And that helps you get the most out of any conference you attend. Imagine what it would be like to be able to replay that really influential talk you heard? Normally, the talk comes and goes, and unless you've taken really good notes, it begins to fade. But if there's a recording, you can refresh your recollection whenever you want.

After the Conference After the conference, you have two major resources that you want to cultivate: - ideas - you've seen a bunch of talks, met with and talked to people, and with any luck, have been filled with ideas. It's a really good idea to ensure you're recorded them somewhere, so you can recall them in the future if you need. You could post blog summaries online; it's also a good idea to collect and save website addresses.

You will have been exposed to dozens of resources - websites, projects, applications, products.

Take the time to review them at your leisure - they would make a great topic for a blog post later on, again keeping a record so you'll remember what you found. You may well find yourself installing a new application and using it for a while (or for a lifetime!).

- people - unless you're going to the same conference every year, you will have met a wealth of people. Now is the time to make sure you stay in touch with them. Depending on how you communicate with people, add them you your email address book, your Twitter follow list, your Facebook friends, or (my prefernence) your RSS reader.

You don't need to form a deep and permanent bond with all the people you meet at conferences.

You can't - and even if you could, you will be introduced to their friends, and their friends, and so on. But it's OK to stay network friends with most people. You'll chat from time to time, exchange messages on social networks, and be there for them when they need the answer to a question or a suggestion for a good resource.

It is best (even if a bit idealistic) to think of the people you meet at conferences as people you can help. I'm not so good at that as I should be (though I try). But I've seen it modelled really well people like Dave Cormier and Helene Fournier are people who seem to approach every interaction with the question, "what can I do for you?" Those are the best kind of people.

And - if you've followed the advice in this post - think about the impression you've left with other people. You knew where everything was ahead of time, because you took the time to check. People asked you for directions. You were interested in what they had to say and created a space for some really interesting conversations. Your presentation was on topic, interesting, clear and well presented. And you really interacted with your audience. And when you were at other presentations, you were interested and engaged, taking notes and (ideally) asking questions. Who wouldn't want to do more work with you?

Posted by Stephen Downes at 9:20 am +7 Recommend this on Google

20 comments: Jeffrey Keefer Saturday, November 26, 2011 Stephen, this is one of the best (and most complete) posts I have seen on preparing for, traveling to, attending, and returning from conferences. M y biggest surprise is that you don't travel only with carry-ons!

I have tried a number of things you have found in your experiences, though there are a few new ideas you mentioned that are on my to-do list for the 2012 travel.

Thanks for sharing all this.

Jeffrey

http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/2011/11/how-to-get-most-out-of-conference.html

173 13/17

Conference Presentations

One of the questions you need to think about when presenting at a conference is whether to read or discuss your research. Reading the paper can be boring for the audience, but it is much easier to time the length of your presentation, which is very important at a conference.

If you want to discuss your research, you should create slides which you can refer to. Again, you need to carefully design your presentation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t put too many words on a slide.

Remember, slides are free, so use as many of them as you want.

The most important parts of a presentation are the problem you are addressing and the results of your research. For a short presentation, focus on these areas, plus a short discussion and a conclusion. People come to hear your results, not your literature review.

I like to share my research, but you have to decide whether you want to risk having someone steal your research. I usually try to convert my presentation into a pdf file and share it on slideshare.com. However, this is a personal decision.

5/30/2019

Advice on how to improve your research presentations at academic conferences (opinion)

Visit A Ryan Home Today Ryan Homes

#Career Advice (/advice)

Convenient Locations With Flexible Floorplans & Fresh Designs.

Teaching Today

On Research Presentations at Conferences Junior Prof describes how she ascribed to the common practice of simply reading her research paper to attendees -- until she was forced to change her tactics for the better.

By Junior Prof // May 30, 2019 0 COMMENTS (/ADVICE/2019/05/30/ADVICE-HOW-IMPROVE-YOUR-RESEARCH-PRESENTATIONS-ACADEMIC-CONFERENCESOPINION#DISQUS_THREAD)

(https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_ les/styles/large/public/media/woman-giving-aspeech-on-stage-vector-id1066634038.jpg?itok=sGppj7W6) ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/RUDALL30

When it comes to academic conferences, it seems most of us belong to one of two groups. The rst is the research poster group, which has conversations with other scholars with the help of a visual aid. The second is https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2019/05/30/advice-how-improve-your-research-presentations-academic-conferences-opinion?utm_source=In…

1/12

5/30/2019

Advice on how to improve your research presentations at academic conferences (opinion)

the panel of papers group, where each panelist prepares a 20- to 25-minute presentation and then a discussant or moderator takes questions from the audience.

My research and my eld generally belong to the latter group. Until very recently, I have ascribed to the common practice of writing an eight-page paper and simply reading it for the attendees. But that all changed a couple of months ago.

I gave my rst conference presentation my beginning year as a graduate student. A group of friends was organizing a graduate student conference, and there was a gap on one of the panels, so they asked me to ll it in.

At the time, I had no idea what an academic conference was. I remember talking to one of the organizers and hearing her explain, “Find your favorite eight pages from a seminar paper you wrote last semester and reframe them so they stand alone. Then you’ll just read that for whoever is in the room.” Although the point of doing that completely escaped me, my impostor syndrome was intense enough not to ask any follow-up questions, and I simply did as told. To my delight, I found that the other panelists at the conference had prepared in exactly the same way.

I spent the rest of my graduate school days well aware that reading something aloud in this fashion is far from the best or most compelling presentation strategy. Yet at conference after conference, I continued the practice of showing up with my eight-page paper, slightly reframed, and reading it for the group. I attended the presentations of peers and listened to them do the same thing. I meditated on the fact that most of us don’t write in the way we would speak -- and that it’s actually quite challenging to keep track of a 50-plus-word sentence when it’s read aloud to you. But still I didn’t change my tactics. That is, until I was forced to.

The Conference That Changed It All In November, I attended a local area-studies conference. Think something along the lines of University of California, Riverside’s Asian American Studies Conference. (To my knowledge, that university does not actually host a conference like this, but you get what I mean.) The conference organizers chose to arrange events in a way that was different to anything I had previously experienced. While I can’t be sure, I believe they were looking to create a more dialogue-oriented experience.

Because of their strategies, the months leading up to the conference were also radically different from what I had previously experienced. There was no conference registration fee. The organizers wanted presenters to con rm the title of their presentation three months ahead of time. We were introduced to the other members of our panel six weeks in advance. We were asked to submit 20-page papers for a “workshop” one month out.

Three weeks out, I received the papers of my co-presenters and was asked to read them. I read each one carefully, took notes in the margins, made a list of recommended reading sources for each paper and also wrote down the questions I had for each one. I thought I was prepared. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2019/05/30/advice-how-improve-your-research-presentations-academic-conferences-opinion?utm_source=In…

2/12

5/30/2019

Advice on how to improve your research presentations at academic conferences (opinion)

When I arrived at the conference registration table, my 20-page paper in hand and my carefully annotated copies of the other papers in tow, I got my badge and was told what time I would be presenting. It turned out that my panel was scheduled rst, about 15 minutes from that moment. I met the moderator of the panel, who intended to have us read according to the alphabetical order of our last names. That meant that, within the panel, I was also rst. I began to feel a bit of pressure as I realized that I would essentially be kicking off this small conference. (As a side note, the conference did not have simultaneous sessions, which meant all of the attendees would be at each session and I was the rst paper for everyone.)

Then, the moderator said, “I’m going to ask each of you to keep your presentation to about 20 to 25 minutes; does that sound like it will work for you?” I’m con dent I started sweating immediately. I hadn’t brought anything other than the original 20-page paper I circulated. I had imagined that I’d just be meeting with the other panelists for the workshop and wouldn’t present anything for everyone else. (In hindsight, why I had believed that is unclear to me.) How was I going to get that cut down to a 20-minute presentation? I excused myself.

I pulled out my paper and started frantically looking for the “eight favorite pages” that my grad school colleague had referenced nearly a decade before. Then I had an idea. What if instead of reading the paper, I just told everyone about it? I didn’t really have time to second-guess myself, so I went with that concept.

I took my pen out and drew vicious lines through everything that was uff or context. I thought, “I’m going to be talking to a room full of area-studies scholars, so I don’t need this paragraph, or this paragraph or this one.” In other words, I was able to presume a high level of area knowledge. Then I drew a huge circle around the paragraph where I broke down my argument clearly and found the topic sentences, or most important pieces of that argument, as they were sprinkled throughout the rest of the paper, and circled those, too. I put stars next to important quotes by other people that I wanted to make sure to read. And that was about all I had time for.

Game Time After the moderator introduced me, I told the audience I would be doing something different (at least for me) and that I planned to tell everyone about my 20-page paper. I said something like, “I will slowly and carefully read for you the paragraph where I make my claim, so that it’s clear for everyone and I don’t accidently misrepresent the point I’m trying to make. Then I’ll move through each of the three sections of the paper and tell you how each is related to the larger claim. I have quotes I’d like to read that belong in each section. My hope is that, as I describe each of the three sections, you’ll see how they are related to this rst paragraph I’m about to read for you.” Then I just did it.

It felt like quite the adrenaline rush. It struck me that improvising a 25-minute presentation isn't a common activity after years behind the safety of those eight pages, and it was certainly a rst for me. I’m con dent I fumbled occasionally and that if I could play that presentation back for myself, I would hear an uncomfortable number of vocalized pauses. It was not rehearsed, and it probably came across that way.

https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2019/05/30/advice-how-improve-your-research-presentations-academic-conferences-opinion?utm_source=In…

3/12

5/30/2019

Advice on how to improve your research presentations at academic conferences (opinion)

But it was also miraculous. And here’s why:

I made eye contact with everyone almost the entire duration of the 20 to 25 minutes. I could see whose eyes were lighting up at which moment and who was completely uninterested.

Instead of reading, I genuinely felt I was sharing my ideas. You could say my teacher instincts kicked in -- that feeling that says, “You should have prepared a bit more, but also you know this stuff.”

I got con rmation during the Q&A that this kind of presentation style was more engaging.

First, I got more questions than the other panelists (who each opted to read eight pages). I do not believe I got more questions because my research was better or more interesting; I think my ideas were simply communicated more effectively. Second, several people said they had never seen a paper delivered in this ad hoc fashion but were now considering trying it themselves.

I got to talk about an article-length essay instead of eight random pages. The feedback I got was about my entire idea, not just a small part of it. Have you ever had to answer a question as follows? “Yeah, actually, that’s a great point. I talk about that in the second part of the paper, but I didn’t get to it due to time.” I didn’t have to answer any questions that way.

The whole room was in on the whole paper.

Potential Downsides I’ll be the rst to acknowledge that this presentation style is anxiety producing. I’m generally an introvert who avoids any kind of limelight and, had I had the time to do so, I would likely have talked myself out of this idea.

This strategy also means that you can’t only write eight pages. If you present orally, the way I’m suggesting, you can actually cover a lot more material than eight pages would allow. I now nd that to ll 20 to 25 minutes of time, I need to have a larger, more fully developed idea. I know that for many of us -- myself included, at times -the task of producing a longer paper while balancing other professional tasks might seem arduous.

But this will be my modus operandi from now on. Now that I’ve tested the waters, managed to not drown and walked away with a far more intellectually stimulating experience, I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to go back to the safety of the eight pages. Not to mention that I got feedback on something publication length! In prior conference experiences, I would only get feedback on a portion of an idea, so this new format may prove fruitful for the publication portion of my academic dossier, as well.

Bio https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2019/05/30/advice-how-improve-your-research-presentations-academic-conferences-opinion?utm_source=In…

4/12

POSTER SESSIONS

Poster sessions are valued differently in different conferences. In some fields, they are valued the same as are presentations. However, in other conferences, they are primarily for those whose presentations were rejected. In one conference I reviewed for, we were asked whether the presentations we had rejected might be suitable posters.

Posters can take many formats. I noticed in my doctorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; office, they had put up their posters like portraits. Each one looked like a mini research paper, with a shortened version of each section of the paper. Each poster did have a number of graphs and charts illustrating the data. Posters can go in the opposite direction, consisting of only photos or anywhere in between.

The advantage of having a poster is the opportunity to interact with more people than is usually possible at a formal session. Other conference attendees can gather around your poster to ask questions or just chat, so be prepared to answer any questions they may have.

Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a good chance to talk with many different attendees.

Preparation Guidelines for Poster Sessions TESOL Convention Your poster session is scheduled for 1 hour and 15 minutes. During that time, attendees will come and go, but they should be able to understand your poster's concepts without further explanation.

The cork board on which each poster will be mounted is 4 feet by 8 feet—your display must fit inside the wood frame so it should be smaller than the dimensions of 4 by 8.

Type and Text Because a poster is a visual communication genre, you should limit the amount of text. Where you do include text, it must be formatted to make it easy to read.

 Text should be readable from 3–6 feet away.  Using upper and lower case is preferable to using upper case only. The shapes of words are more readily recognized in lower case.  Use a sans-serif font and put title and headings in bold; for example:

Having Fun at TESOL (Arial font, bold) This guideline document is written primarily in Calibri, which is a sans-serif font. This sentence is in Times New Roman, a serif font (note the tails on the ends of each letter), and is not appropriate for a poster because it is more difficult to read from a distance.

 The best font size for the title is 90–200 points.  Headings should be 36–54 points.  Body text should be 24–36 points; for example:

We asked the following questions about having fun at TESOL (24 point, Arial) For the actual lettering of the titles and text, you can use whatever medium is available to you: computer-generated type or cut-out, stencil, or rub-on letters are all effective. Hand-lettering, however, looks unprofessional; computer-generated type is preferred.

Remember that the amount of text should be limited. (If you feel stymied by the text constraint, you can put together an epic handout, although that is not encouraged.) Phrases with bullet points (and in parallel grammatical construction!) are much better than complete sentences:

1

Illustrations and Images  Use photos or other images that are large enough to allow attendees to see them without standing right next to the poster.

 Keep all illustrations simple and bold.  Try to make all charts and tables into bold graphic color displays where the text is minimized and the symbols are maximized.  Cite images appropriately.

Charts PowerPoint chart defaults are often ineffective:

 Avoid “chart junk” and keep it simple: Get rid of anything that adds unnecessary clutter, such as grid lines, 3-D effects, and shadows.

 Label each element directly instead of relying on the graph legend.  Default text size is often too small; increase the point size of text manually.

Example 1

 The title is too general.  There are no visual cues to signal what is significant.  Values are not centered.  Too many grid lines are distracting.

4

Illustrations and Images  Use photos or other images that are large enough to allow attendees to see them without standing right next to the poster.

 Keep all illustrations simple and bold.  Try to make all charts and tables into bold graphic color displays where the text is minimized and the symbols are maximized.  Cite images appropriately.

Charts PowerPoint chart defaults are often ineffective:

 Avoid “chart junk” and keep it simple: Get rid of anything that adds unnecessary clutter, such as grid lines, 3-D effects, and shadows.

 Label each element directly instead of relying on the graph legend.  Default text size is often too small; increase the point size of text manually.

Example 1

 The title is too general.  There are no visual cues to signal what is significant.  Values are not centered.  Too many grid lines are distracting.

4

For example:

Too Much Text

Better

The term “socioacademic relationships” was used by Leki (2007) in a longitudinal study of the literacy development of multilingual, multicultural undergraduates to denote social interactions between her focal students, their peers, and faculty members “that proved to be critical to the students’ sense of satisfaction with their educational work and sometimes even to the possibility of doing that work” (p. 14).

“Socioacademic relationships” (Leki, 2007):



Were critical social interactions between university students, peers, and faculty



Affected students’ academic work

Source: J.S. Wilson, TESOL 2012 presentation.

Poster Design Layout Although the left-to-right (L-to-R) flow pattern (see below) is a typical layout for a poster presentation, other patterns are sometimes used. Select the most appropriate pattern based on the content of your presentation as well as the viewing pattern of your audience.

L-to-R Flow in Vertical Columns

Column formats are easy to read when there is a crowd in front of the poster.

2

8/7/2019

Articles Summaries that "Spoil" the Paper to Save Reader Time - The Scholarly Kitchen

Articles Summaries that “Spoil” the Paper to Save Reader Time By

LISA JANICKE HINCHLIFFE | AUG 7, 2019

READING RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY TOOLS USER EXPERIENCE

Like many other people, I often find myself trying to figure out which articles are likely to be most relevant or important for a project I am working on. I use well-established heuristics such as scanning the article title, author(s), journal name, abstract, and keywords. I also greatly appreciate various services that “push” documents to me based on algorithms that use my past reading and personal publication history to predict my future interests. None of these approaches are perfect but I benefit from them all and so my interest was piqued immediately when I heard about Paper Digest (https://www.paper-digest.com/).

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/07/articles-summaries-paper-digest/?informz=1

1/5

8/7/2019

Articles Summaries that "Spoil" the Paper to Save Reader Time - The Scholarly Kitchen

I was already following Paper Digest on Twitter (https://twitter.com/paper_digest) and so made sure to attend the Previews Session at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Society for Scholarly Publishing when I saw the founders were presenting. After they won the “People’s Choice” award at the session, I asked if they would do an interview with me for The Scholarly Kitchen as I thought others might find this technology as promising and intriguing as I do, particularly if they are — like me — often frustrated that abstracts are not as useful as it feels that they should be.

As a fan of Raganathan’s five laws of library science, I am particularly drawn to “Law 4: Save the time of the reader.”

Personally I’m hoping that someday the “push” alerts I get might be automatically enhanced by the kind of summary that Paper Digest envisions. That would be a great time-saver!

My thanks to Yasutomo Takano, co-founder of Paper Digest, for answering my questions and his colleagues Christian Mejia and Nobuko Miyairi for their contributions as well.

What is Paper Digest and why did you create it?

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/07/articles-summaries-paper-digest/?informz=1

2/5

8/7/2019

Articles Summaries that "Spoil" the Paper to Save Reader Time - The Scholarly Kitchen

Paper Digest is an AI-based academic article summarization service. Being researchers ourselves, we thought the world could use a solution to quickly grasp the core ideas of a paper without reading the whole thing. Simply put, there is too little time to read all the papers we want to. A study (https://doi.org/10.1087/20150203) says that it takes an average US faculty member 32 minutes to read a paper. Another study (https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010018) reports, when not limited to native English speakers, it takes nearly one hour per article or even longer for those in their early career stage. If we can free up time spent reading, how much more productive could our research be? Using our experience in machine learning and bibliometrics, we decided to take up this challenge.

Can you give us an example (or more than one!) of how Paper Digest can assist a researcher?

We all want to know if the paper at hand is worth reading, so we usually skim through the paper before reading more carefully. Paper Digest is trying to imitate this researcher behavior by automatically summarizing what the paper is about and what you can learn at the end. You might think “that’s what the abstract is for,” but we think the abstract is like a movie trailer with Paper Digest offering a “spoiler.” Our algorithm tries to determine seemingly important sentences from across the full text and list them out in a single page summary. The goal is to list the most central concepts in the paper so you can quickly decide whether to read the whole thing.

If someone wants to try Paper Digest, how do they get started?

We offer a simple web interface (https://www.paper-digest.com/), where you can enter a DOI or URL of the PDF full text. Paper Digest automatically lists out the key sentences of the paper, taking about 10 seconds to do so. For this to work, the paper being requested must be open access. Everything works within the web browser and you don’t have to install anything.

We also allow users to upload a PDF article and generate a summary but this works only for registered users. When registered, you can retain up to 20 recent digests on your dashboard, and can “like” sentences that you think are most helpful to understanding the paper. This reader input is also used to improve our algorithm.

What kinds of documents is Paper Digest most successful analyzing?

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/07/articles-summaries-paper-digest/?informz=1

3/5

8/7/2019

Articles Summaries that "Spoil" the Paper to Save Reader Time - The Scholarly Kitchen

Those articles with clear section headers, such as introduction, results, or conclusion would work best for obvious reasons. So-called “original articles” in STM journals usually have such a structure, even if section headers may be different from one field to another. When the key concepts of the paper include non-text format, such as math equations, our algorithm may fail because it only works for text currently. Some document types — review articles, editorial, etc.— or articles from domains that do not follow the standard STM article structure can be challenging but we aim to come up with ways to handle them.

What is the future development path for Paper Digest?

First and foremost, we want to improve our current algorithm. And for that, we need lots of datasets to feed the machine learning. We recently released a new feature to gather user feedback so the user can “like” an extracted sentence. We also want to hear from our users to understand which domains Paper Digest needs to improve in. We are also developing an API so that Paper Digest can be “called upon” rather than the user having to come to our website.

Publishers, database providers, peer-review platforms and the like will be able to embed Paper Digest through this API. The current algorithm is using the extraction-based summarization technique; that is, extract sentences verbatim from the full text. We know this approach works well for researchers as they want to see the exact sentences as they appear in the full text; however, a reader with no research background may struggle to understand extracted sentences with no context. Abstraction-based summaries would be ideal for a more general audience, or research promotion purposes, and we aim to try working on another algorithm to accommodate these needs in the future.

Who are the people on your team and what are their backgrounds?

I (Yasutomo (https://twitter.com/YasutomoTakano)) am a postdoc at the University of Tokyo. My co-founder, Cristian (https://twitter.com/c_mejia00), is also a postdoc at the Tokyo Institute of Technology. We are constantly challenged by the volume of research papers, especially when expanding into new research areas. Leveraging our specialties, we conducted citation network analysis to effectively reduce our reading pile, but the biggest pain of going through the full-text persisted, since English is not our mother tongue. We often had to turn to textbooks to gain basic domain knowledge before reading the full-text, only to find it less useful than expected. As such, Paper Digest originates from our own experiences as early-career, non-English native researchers. In early May 2018, we started working on this project — Yasutomo conceptualizing the algorithm and Cristian working on the web application. Nobuko (https://twitter.com/NobukoMiyairi), an open science enthusiast with 15+ years experience in the STM industry, has been advising us on product positioning and business strategy. If it were not for her, we wouldn’t have applied for the Catalyst Grant (https://www.digital-science.com/press-releases/digital-science-announces-new-catalyst-grant-winners2/) and received support from Digital Science. She also introduced us to the opportunity at the SSP annual meeting where we won the People’s Choice Award (https://www.sspnet.org/community/news/paper-digest-wins-ssp-previewssession-peoples-choice-award/). The three of us have skills to complement each other and it’s been a great collaboration so far.

Is there anything else you’d like to share about Paper Digest? https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/07/articles-summaries-paper-digest/?informz=1

4/5

GRANT WRITING FINDING MONEY TO DO RESEARCH Research often requires money to conduct the research, travel to sites, pay subjects, attend conferences, and even publish the paper. Therefore, it may be inportant for reseachers to obtain funding to support their research until it can be published.

Grants can come from different sources: the university, public and private instituations, agencies. They can range in size from an airplane ticket to conference to supporting multiple years of years. For many students, it means not having to work and do research at the same time.

Regardless of the source of the grant, the grant will usually reflect the values and goals of the grantor. A university may want to support service learning so it will give a grant for students who do volunteer work. It might want to support cross‐disciplinary work, so it will require that the grant be written in “plain” English so that everyone can understand it. It is important, therefore, that the writer incoporate these goals into the grant to demonstrate how they can be accomplished for the betterment of all parties.

The grant should incorporate all the goals listed in the grant offering. You grants should clearly show how your research will further the goals of the institution. You may also need to demonstrate, much like in a job interview, that you will be successful. You can show this by attaching your curriculum vitae or having a clear timeline and plan of assessment. You may also need to demonstrate that you have support from your deparment of employer both to show that others agree with your research and that you will have enough support.

It is always important to follow the exact guidelines for the grant and meet all the deadlines. However winning a grant can be a great boost to your publication prospects.

157

2/20/2018

10 Tips for Successful Grant Writing | ChronicleVitae

10 Tips for Successful Grant Writing Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Google+ E-mail

February 15, 2018

Image: Brian Taylor

By Lisa Chasan-Taber When professors advise early-career academics on grant writing, we often focus on the common mistakes and pitfalls. But up-and-coming researchers don’t just need advice on what not to do.

They need to know what goes into a successful grant proposal, too. I have some suggestions on that front — that I have gleaned from teaching grant writing for 20 years, and being continually funded by the National Institutes of Health as a principal investigator. Here, then, are my top 10 tips on how to draft a grant proposal that has the best odds of getting funded.

Tip No. 1: Start small and early. As a postdoc or a new faculty member, you are often tempted to try to "land a big grant" quickly — even in the absence of a track record. You would be better served securing a series of small grants first. Given that grant funding today is more difficult to obtain than ever before, starting early in your career and capitalizing on the advantages of your "early-career" status is key.

Grant programs specifically aimed at new faculty members and postdocs provide the highest chances for success. Those grant programs typically do not require significant preliminary data. https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2001-10-tips-for-successful-grant-writing?cid=VTEVPMSED1

1/5

2/20/2018

10 Tips for Successful Grant Writing | ChronicleVitae

Instead, funding decisions rely most heavily on your promise and potential as a candidate — your training to date, your mentors, and your topic’s importance.

Another key advantage of early-career grant programs: You are competing against a smaller pool of people — as opposed to regular grant programs where you are competing with a large pool of midcareer and senior investigators who already have established track records.

Keep in mind: Your eligibility for early-career grants will expire in a few years, so seize the opportunity while it lasts.

Tip No. 2: But dream big (with the help of a mentor). Early on in your career, it’s critical to envision your ultimate large grant. Typically a major grant (for example, an NIH R01 grant) would include five aims. Once you’ve envisioned your big grant and its five aims, your next steps become clear: Bit-by-bit, bite off small chunks of that larger project by writing small grants designed to support one or more of your five specific aims.

A series of small awards will not definitively achieve your aims, as those grants will be limited by small sample sizes and budgets. But small grants will show that each of your aims is feasible — that you can "pull it off" (more about that in Tip No. 5). This approach is critical as grant-review panels often see a large grant as the culmination of a growing body of work progressing from modest seed grants to larger and larger awards, in a cumulative fashion.

A key factor in developing a vision of your ultimate large grant will be the advice of your mentor(s). If you do not have a mentor in your department ask the chair to assign you one. It is also usually considered acceptable to seek out your own mentor. Indeed, many early-career academics assemble a mentorship team, in which each member provides guidance on different career facets (i.e., a teaching mentor, a research mentor, a work-life mentor). Consider approaching people on other campuses as well as your own.

Tip No. 3: Look at who and what got funded before. Grant agencies typically list previous award recipients online. If not, your own institution’s grants office can provide you with a list of professors on your campus who have obtained the same grants as the ones you’re seeking. This list is critical as it shows the agency’s interest (or lack thereof) in supporting your area of research.

With a few names in hand, your next step is to ask those recipients if they are willing to share their successful applications with you — to give you a sense of the appropriate scope and depth of a successful research plan. Frame your request in that manner and people are typically happy to share.

Funding agencies may also post a list of prior and current grant reviewers and their affiliations online. Review the list and ask yourself if their expertise overlaps with the aims and https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2001-10-tips-for-successful-grant-writing?cid=VTEVPMSED1

2/5

2/20/2018

10 Tips for Successful Grant Writing | ChronicleVitae

methodology of your study. It would be a high-risk proposition to write a grant for a foundation that has never funded an application in your area of expertise before.

Some agencies post full abstracts online of both active and prior awards. They can give you a critical sense of what has been successful. Looking at the number of specific aims and the range of acceptable sample sizes will provide you with key insights as to what has appealed to your target agency in the past.

Tip No. 4: Spend half of your time on the abstract and aims. Writers of successful grant applications typically report that they spent 50 percent of their time on writing and revising their abstract and aims. When you finally start drafting your proposal, the specific aims should be the first thing you write — well before the background or methods sections.

Send a one-page sketch of your project abstract and aims to your mentor and co-investigators early in the grant-writing process with the goal of kicking off an iterative process of review and revision.

Why is this page so critical? Because of the nature of the peer-review process. Typically, only three or four academics are assigned as primary and secondary reviewers of your grant. The majority of review-panel members will only have read your proposal’s abstract. Therefore, it must not only provide a clear snapshot of the entire study, but also convey what is novel about your application.

Tip No. 5: Show that you can pull it off. This is a critical factor for reviewers. How do you demonstrate you can feasibly conduct the work?

First, if possible, collaborate on the grant with senior investigators who have conducted similar projects. A senior scholar’s involvement will be a key factor supporting your potential for success, particularly if you are early in your career.

Don’t let co-investigators appear in name only. Show established working relationships with them either via co-authored publications, co-presentations, and/or via an established mentoring relationship (e.g., as part of a training grant). Of course, much of this information will appear in the biosketches in your proposal, but you cannot rely upon reviewers to connect the dots. Make it easy for reviewers by clearly noting these prior collaborations in your "preliminary studies" section.

Finally, present evidence that you have conducted smaller-scale feasibility studies. That reassures reviewers that you, as a principal investigator, will be able to conduct your proposed aims and, ideally, translate that work into publications.

Tip No. 6: Match your methods and aims. By that I mean, include methods in the proposal that relate directly to each of your study’s aims and don’t include additional methods that do not https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2001-10-tips-for-successful-grant-writing?cid=VTEVPMSED1

3/5

2/20/2018

10 Tips for Successful Grant Writing | ChronicleVitae

correspond to any aims.

It is a great temptation among early-career researchers — driven to impress grant-proposal reviewers — to inflate the number of questions and methods their research project will involve.

In actuality, doing that will most often backfire. An overly ambitious application is one of the most common fatal flaws of an early-career application.

Instead, a focused methodological plan directly tied to your specific aims will be the most impressive to reviewers.

Tip No. 7: You can never have too many figures or tables. They make it easy for a reviewer to quickly grasp your proposal, as compared with dense text. In addition, the act of creating them will help you to crystallize your specific aims and study methods. Figures and tables can save space — reducing the amount of text necessary — which is critical to meeting the page limitations of most grant submissions.

This tip is relevant for every section of your grant application: Figures can be used to show how your specific aims interrelate, to depict study designs, and to demonstrate your anticipated results.

Tip No. 8: Seek external reviews prior to submission. The same person cannot write a grant and review it for clarity. You will miss errors, simply by virtue of your familiarity with the material.

So ask colleagues to read the application. Even a generalist can read your grant proposal with the following questions in mind: Are the goals clearly stated? Does the grant extend prior work in the field? What is the impact of your potential findings?

In fact, it may be preferable for some of your proofreaders not to have expertise in your area at all — given that members of the grant-review panel will not have expertise in every aspect of your proposal.

Putting your proposal through a mock review panel on your campus can vastly increase your chances of funding. For example, mock NIH panels simulate the agency’s review process by relying upon professors who have NIH experience to play the role of reviewers. Similarly, "Chalk Talk" seminars are also highly effective — these are informal opportunities to discuss your ideas and/or specific aims with your departmental colleagues early in the process to get immediate feedback.

If your department does not currently provide such review panels or forums, see if you can start them.

Tip No. 9: Be kind to reviewers. Making them happy should be one of your top goals. Reviewers are typically burdened with an onerous number of applications to read — in addition to their https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2001-10-tips-for-successful-grant-writing?cid=VTEVPMSED1

4/5

2/20/2018

10 Tips for Successful Grant Writing | ChronicleVitae

own responsibilities as researchers. The most effective way to leave reviewers happy: Use the grant-review criteria as subheadings in your proposal, making it easier for the panelists to fill out their review forms.

For example, reviewers typically have to complete a section on "Innovation." Thinking that the innovative aspects of your application are obvious is risky. Reviewers not only may not find your application as clearly innovative as you do, but they may not deduce its innovation at all. A clearly labeled subsection on "Innovation" not only saves the reviewer time, but gives you the opportunity to "educate" the reviewer on innovative aspects they may not have recognized on their own.

Tip No. 10: Choose a topic that you find interesting. There is nothing less conducive to your future success and day-to-day productivity than pursuing a topic for the wrong reasons (i.e., you’re not all that interested in the topic but you think it’s fundable). Having several grants in the pipeline and under review at the same time can help stack the deck in your favor. If you aren’t very interested in the project, that is likely to come through in your proposal.

Good Luck!

Lisa Chasan-Taber is a professor of epidemiology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and author of Writing Dissertation and Grant Proposals: Epidemiology, Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, published in 2014 by CRC Press

This article relates to…

Grant-Writing Grant-proposal research

https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2001-10-tips-for-successful-grant-writing?cid=VTEVPMSED1

5/5

PELOTONIA GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP GUIDELINES: Overview: The Pelotonia Fellowship Program is a cancer research fellowship program developed to train the most promising cancer scientists at The Ohio State University. This fellowship program will fund training for undergraduate, graduate, and medical students and postdoctoral fellows at The Ohio State University.

Purpose: The purpose of the Pelotonia Fellowship Training Program is to provide fellowships to promising OSU cancer researchers who have the potential to become productive and successful independent research investigators. The proposed training will offer an opportunity to enhance the applicant’s understanding of cancer research by doing research; attending classes, seminars, journal clubs and symposiums; and interacting with other groups and scientists.

Eligibility: Applicants must have passed their candidacy exam before funding begins Stipends: Awards provide 2 year stipends to fellows as a subsistence allowance during the research training experience. Fellows are in no way considered employees of The Ohio State University, therefore the awards are not provided as a condition of employment with The Ohio State University. Appointments will start autumn semester and monthly stipends will be available on the last day of each month.

Publications: Fellows should make all research results available to the public without restriction, except as is required in the interest of national security. Fellows understand that all abstracts, publications, and presentations resulting from research supported by the Pelotonia Fellowship Program must contain the acknowledgment, "This work was supported by the Pelotonia Fellowship Program. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Pelotonia Fellowship Program."

Other Fellowships / Scholarships/Employment: Fellows generally may not receive funds concurrently from any other fellowship, scholarship, employment or similar award that is intended as the primary or sole source of research support. Additional awards that are intended as supplemental or partial funding may be acceptable. This may include off-campus activities that provide minor compensation to cover travel, relocation, and local cost of living expenses.

Research Support Funding: Fellows are permitted to solicit and accept support from any appropriate sources for research expenses connected with fellowship activities such as laboratory supplies, travel, conference fees, or subscriptions.

Graduate Fellowships: As a Pelotonia fellow, you must be enrolled for a minimum of three credit hours each semester you are on appointment. It is expected that enrollments will be limited to research and departmental seminars; however, fellows may register for other degree-related coursework with adviser approval. The Pelotonia Fellowship may not be used to support any coursework taken for another degree program. While on appointment you may not hold any other type of employment/appointment. Eligibility for a Pelotonia Graduate Fellowship is contingent upon the Graduate School providing fee authorizations to cover payment of your academic tuition and fees (learning technology fees, student activity fess, parking and/or other “special” fees are not included).

Early Termination: This fellowship may be terminated early without penalty but any unpaid stipend will be forfeited. Intent to terminate a fellowship must be communicated immediately to the fellowship program director.

Income Taxes: Your stipend becomes available on the last day of each month and is subject to federal and state income taxes. Specific questions regarding taxation of fellowship funding should be referred to the US Internal Revenue Service. Fellows must bear the responsibility of paying any tax, domestic or foreign, when due. Fellows

are not in any sense salaried employees of The Ohio State University. Fellows may find it helpful to consult Internal Revenue Service Publications No. 520, Scholarships and Fellowships, No. 920, and, if abroad, No. 54, Tax Guide for U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad, and also. These are available at http://www.irs.gov Progress (Reports): All active fellows are expected to be making progress on their project and are required to submit an Annual Progress Report. These reports should normally be brief and informative. Detailed descriptions of research protocols are not necessary. Major highlights such as publications, awards, patents, or discoveries are particularly useful.

Annual Symposium: All fellows will be required to participate in an annual symposium that will include posters, presentations and guest lecturers.

Participation in Pelotonia: The fellow and fellow’s mentor will be required to ride in Pelotonia during each year of appointment. If either the fellow or mentor is not able to ride in Pelotonia, they may choose to be a “virtual rider” instead. As a virtual rider, they will have the same expectations as a regular rider.

Change in Field of Study or Research Plan: Minor changes in a fellow’s research project may be made without the approval of the Fellowship Program. A major change in a project -- one that alters the project to the extent that it is significantly different from that originally submitted with the Fellowship application (e.g., a change in major field of study) -- requires the prior approval of the Pelotonia Fellowship Program. If a fellow changes labs, they need to end their fellowship and recompete with the new mentor/project.

For more information contact: marie.gibbons@osumc.edu cancer.osu.edu/pelotoniafellows

1/30/2018

2018 President's Postdoctoral Scholars Program call for nominations | Office of Research

Senior VP for Research Caroline Whitacre to Retire Dec. 31 New Online Risk Assessment Tool Launches November 1

Categories Categories Select Category

Archives Archives Select Month

Research News The latest Ohio State University research stories.

Office of Research News 2018 President’s Postdoctoral Scholars Program call for nominations Posted: January 11, 2018 The Ohio State University President’s Postdoctoral Scholars Program (PPSP) seeks to recognize outstanding young researchers at the university and aid in the recruitment of highly qualified postdoctoral fellows who will become leaders in their fields.

The program will provide funding to support further scholarly training of PhDs and terminal degree holders who wish to pursue careers in research and creative expression. Postdoctoral research funding, professional development and faculty mentoring will be offered.

Funding Awards will provide salary support (starting at $50,000), benefits (including health insurance, paid vacation/sick leave) and up to $5,000 for research-related and program travel expenses. Each award is for a minimum of 12 months and may be renewed for an additional term upon demonstration of academic/research productivity and adequate career development as evidenced by successful implementation of a mentoring plan.

Eligibility Criteria Nominees must: Hold a PhD or other appropriate terminal degree from an accredited university before the start of their postdoctoral training.

Show evidence of superior academic achievement (such as research or creative expression outcomes, honors or other academic designation).

Obtain the sponsorship of a tenured Ohio State faculty member who is willing to serve as their primary mentor (cannot be their Ohio State dissertation advisor).

Demonstrate a commitment to a career in research and creative expression (preference will be given to candidates who wish to pursue academic careers). http://research.osu.edu/2018/01/2018-presidents-postdoctoral-scholars-program-call-for-nominations/?utm_campaign=UMAR%20onCampus%20Toda…

2/4

1/30/2018

2018 President's Postdoctoral Scholars Program call for nominations | Office of Research

Present documents demonstrating that they are legally authorized to work in the United States.

Evaluation of Nominations Faculty reviewers will evaluate candidates based on their academic accomplishments, including the strength of their research/creative expression and career potential in higher education or industry. Faculty reviewers may also take into consideration the faculty mentor/sponsors potential to work productively with the nominee and contribute to the nomineeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s career development based on their previous success in mentoring postdoctoral fellows and graduate students.

Deadline Submit nominations using the PPSP nomination form. Nominations must be received by 5 p.m. on Thursday, March 15, 2018.

For additional information and submission instructions, download the call for nominations.

Direct questions to: Marcela Hernandez, Administrative Director Office of Postdoctoral Affairs hernandez.16@osu.edu Category : Academic Centers / Featured Articles / Funding / Office of Research Home | About Us | About Ohio State Research | For Researchers | For Students | Contact Us | News

Office of Research Office of Research 208 Bricker Hall 190 North Oval Mall Columbus, OH 43210 (614) 292-1582 Maps and Directions Contact Us

Units Ohio State ADVANCE Industry Liaison Office Office of Research Compliance Office of Responsible Research Practices http://research.osu.edu/2018/01/2018-presidents-postdoctoral-scholars-program-call-for-nominations/?utm_campaign=UMAR%20onCampus%20Todaâ&#x20AC;Ś

3/4

1/30/2018

How to Fix Your Broken Grants Website | ChronicleVitae

How to Fix Your Broken Grants Website Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Google+ E-mail

January 25, 2018

By Robert M. Kahn I’ve spent a lot of time lately observing the shortcomings of campus grants-office websites.

As a director of one such office myself for a dozen years, I am overseeing an overhaul of our own website. In search of valuable information and ideas, I spent some months visiting the grantsoffice websites of more than 1,000 four-year colleges and universities across the United States.

While some of the information they offer is hidden behind a password-protected wall, enough of it is in the public view to assess how helpful it is to faculty researchers.

Although it’s rarely discussed, the campus grants office has the potential to be a major vehicle for the professional development of faculty. Beyond institutional grants, the bread-and-butter of a grants office is working closely with individual academics — especially new Ph.D.s — who need https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1987-how-to-fix-your-broken-grants-website?cid=VTEVPMSED1

1/4

1/30/2018

How to Fix Your Broken Grants Website | ChronicleVitae

grant money in order to do their research and compile a record that merits tenure and promotion.

Many institutions mistakenly assume that faculty hires come well-equipped through their graduate work to do research and obtain grants. Professional-development programs on campuses tend to be more comfortable helping professors sharpen their teaching skills rather than their grant-writing skills. As a result, faculty novices who need encouragement to pursue grants and lessons about grant-writing must depend on the campus grants office, which tries to fill the void with one-on-one counseling, periodic workshops, and information on its website.

Yet, in looking over those many websites, I saw a great number that did not provide enough of the guidance that faculty members need on grant-writing. I did not count nor code their flaws as I toured these websites, nor was my purpose to single out specific colleges for criticism.

However, I did develop a catalog of bad practices to share.

Those of us in the grants office need to ask ourselves: Does our website encourage faculty members to consult with us, or discourage them from even trying? Here are some common practices that discourage participation: You’re on your own. Many grants websites lead off with a list — or matrix — of responsibilities, identifying which responsibilities fall to a prospective Principal Investigator (PI) and which fall to other entities (e.g., the grants office, the dean, the provost).

To take the worst example I saw, one institution led off with a seven-page chart of responsibilities that assigned more than 70 of them to anyone who aspired to write a successful grant and become a PI. Another campus, less afflicted with OCD, listed 35 responsibilities, of which 26 fell onto the shoulders of the PI. The clear message to anyone contemplating writing a grant for the first time: The burden falls heavily on you. The other subliminal message was that the grants office would not be accepting responsibility for many aspects of the pre-award and post-award process. In the guise of providing helpful information, a red line was drawn between what we on the staff would and would not do.

You’re already too late. Other websites led off with timelines, laying out the steps required to prepare a grant proposal. Often those timelines present an ideal that does not match the reality of when things actually get done.

For example, the timeline will begin with a planning period that says you should begin working on your grant proposal six to eight months before the submission deadline. Experienced grants writers know that precious few academics begin preparing their proposals that far in advance. https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1987-how-to-fix-your-broken-grants-website?cid=VTEVPMSED1

2/4

1/30/2018

How to Fix Your Broken Grants Website | ChronicleVitae

However, if you are a novice, the timeline suggests that you are already hopelessly behind. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s easy to become discouraged and let an opportunity pass by, convinced youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re too late.

Rules, rules, rules. I was surprised to discover how many websites immediately lead off with elaborate instructions regarding Institutional Review Board requirements, and then move swiftly into Uniform Guidance requirements imposed by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, followed by Fly America rules, and then the multiple training sessions mandated to satisfy compliance requirements.

Those topics inevitably drain the enthusiasm of any hopeful grant writer. That information should be saved until later in the process for those faculty members who absolutely need to know. Instead, grants personnel prematurely scold and burden grants writers regarding these issues.

Forms, forms, forms. Another off-putting website convention is a prominently placed long list of forms to be filled out and the list of approvals to be obtained before a grant proposal can be officially submitted. Most forms, by nature, are not user-friendly and are viewed as bureaucratic obstacles that strangle creativity.

One campus website informed grants writers that their proposals could not be formally submitted until approved by the department chair, dean, IT office, capital planning (if facilities were involved), environmental health & safety, procurement, risk management, HR, faculty affairs, sponsored programs, and the provost. That list cannot help but send a cold shiver down the spine of a potential applicant.

Similarly, some grant sites offered flow charts that confused more than clarified. Their intention was to display a quick one-page overview to simplify a process that might be fairly complicated.

Yet I saw many a chart that looked like a maze, and must have left faculty members envisioning themselves as mice seeking a very elusive piece of cheese.

Beyond those common alienating features, I also saw ample signs of grants-office websites that had become dated and/or less helpful than they could be.

For example, it is not helpful to researchers when an ancient website has numerous dead links.

Many grants offices are clearly not reviewing their online content on a regular basis. They seem to believe that the act of creating a web page is the end of what one needs to do. No website should be an empty shell with sections sporting signs that say "Under Construction," "Coming Soon," or "Watch This Space." At a minimum, a site should be reviewed for obsolete materials every six months.

To a trained eye there are other telltale signs that a grants-office site is showing its age: https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1987-how-to-fix-your-broken-grants-website?cid=VTEVPMSED1

3/4

1/30/2018

How to Fix Your Broken Grants Website | ChronicleVitae

It uses outdated names for major databases on grant opportunities, referring to IRIS — which is now known as GrantForward — and COS — which is now called PIVOT. It refers people to the "2002 NSF User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation," instead of the 2010 version.

It discusses compliance issues in terms of OMB Circulars A-21, A-110, and A-133 instead of the new OMB Uniform Guidance (aka Title 2 CFR Part 200).

It proudly displays out-of-date newsletters on "upcoming" grant opportunities.

A website that claims to offer assistance should be robust. It should feature an extensive collection of links to potentially helpful articles and resources on finding funding opportunities, learning how to write a competitive grant proposal, and understanding the compliance issues with which grant submissions must contend.

Just to give one example: Jon Harrison, a librarian at Michigan State University, has produced a megasite on grants and grantsmanship. Every grants-office website should refer faculty and staff members to Harrison’s site.

Finally, there is a dark topic that cannot be ignored. In my journey through the grants-office websites, I occasionally came across cases of outright plagiarism.

It is never permissible to take material from someone else’s site, slap your college’s name on it, and present it as if it were produced by your own grants staff. The proper procedure is to seek permission to reproduce the author’s original work on your site — or, perhaps better, just link to the original so that it can clearly be shown to be someone else’s work. A website that directs grants writers to the many valuable resources found on the internet is doing its job.

In short, a lot of our websites need a makeover. Our offices have an important role to play in helping faculty members pursue grants and establish themselves as productive researchers.

Wouldn’t it be better if the first place they came for help — our website — actually made a positive contribution?

Robert M. Kahn is in the Office of Sponsored Programs Administration at the CUNY Advanced Science Research Center.

This article relates to… grants fellowships grad students

https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1987-how-to-fix-your-broken-grants-website?cid=VTEVPMSED1

4/4

ABSTRACTS FOR GRANT PROPOSALS AN ANALYSIS OF THE RHETORIC OF THE ABSTRACT The goals of a grant are to persuade the givers that your proposal will address the goals of the grant.

Abstracts for grants follow a template for arguing about the value of the proposal. In these examples from the winners of a grant on dealing with opioids, we can see how each winner follows the template: 1. Identifying the problem and the solution to the problem Franklin County residents affected by opiate addiction/dependence urgently need resources for recovery and treatment.

In the first sentences, the writers develop the problem and solution.

2. What research the authors have already done to support their proposal.

Our pilot research has identified areas of high overdose rates with no or limited access to recovery centers, which we term recovery deserts.

In the second sentence, the authors report on a pilot study to show that the research they want to do is feasible.

3. The third sentence deals with partnerships, which demonstrate how the research is collaborating outside of the university.

This will be done in partnership with the Central Ohio Trauma System (COTS), which currently manages a trauma data registry for all Franklin County hospitals, which includes EMS trauma data submitted by the hospitals as required by the Ohio Department of Public Safety.

4. What are the possible outcomes?

This proposal will achieve two goals: 1) improve access to real time data for Ohio State and community partners, which will allow us to determine the impact of any planned interventions and 2) work with community partners in Columbus Public Health and treatment providers to plan further outreach to those in recovery desert areas.

The outcomes reflect the goals of the people giving the money: to determine the impact, forge alliances, support treatment and outreach

Opioid Innovation Fund: winning proposals In 2017, Ohio State announced a commitment of $1.35 million to the Opioid Innovation Fund to inspire new, multidisciplinary partnerships that advance understanding of the crisis and devise new approaches to solve it. Below are summaries of the eight proposals selected for the first round of funding in March 2018.

1. “Franklin County Opioid Crisis Activity Levels (FOCAL) Map” Grant amount: $96,762 Authors: • Harvey Miller, Team Lead, 292-5207, miller.81@osu.edu • Ayaz Hyder, 247-4936, hyder.22@osu.edu • Lauren Southerland, 366-8375, Lauren.Southerland@osumc.edu Abstract: Franklin County residents affected by opiate addiction/dependence urgently need resources for recovery and treatment. Our pilot research has identified areas of high overdose rates with no or limited access to recovery centers, which we term recovery deserts. The goal of this proposal is to build on this work and implement a system to collate, track, and map, on a daily basis, data on opiate overdoses from the 22 EMS organizations in Franklin County. This will be done in partnership with the Central Ohio Trauma System (COTS), which currently manages a trauma data registry for all Franklin County hospitals, which includes EMS trauma data submitted by the hospitals as required by the Ohio Department of Public Safety. This proposal will achieve two goals: 1) improve access to real time data for Ohio State and community partners, which will allow us to determine the impact of any planned interventions and 2) work with community partners in Columbus Public Health and treatment providers to plan further outreach to those in recovery desert areas.

2. “Hospital and Community Integrated Medication Assisted Treatment (I-MAT)” Grant amount: $100,000 Authors: • Julie Teater, Principal Investigator, 614-257-3986, julie.teater@osumc.edu • Emily Kauffman, Co- Principal Investigator, 614-293-8305, emily.kauffman@osumc.edu • Kathy Lancaster, evaluator, 614-292-9916, lancaster.111@osu.edu • Michael Dick, Project Champion, 614-257-3414 • Eileen Ryan, roject Champion, 614-366-1653, eileen.ryan@osumc.edu • William Hayes, Proposal Assistant, 614-736-0102 Abstract: Opiate use disorder (OUD) frequently presents in general medical settings, such as emergency departments and hospital wards, where standard care involves either referral only or screening,

brief intervention, and referral for treatment (SBIRT). Unfortunately, SBIRT has significant limitations with this population, and most OUD patients referred to specialty addiction services receive no care or inadequate care. Recent research suggests that initiation of Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) for OUD within the emergency department, with immediate connection to community-based MAT, increases the percentage of OUD patients who receive ongoing treatment, reduces subsequent illicit opioid use, and decreases the need for inpatient addiction treatment. Based on this research, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (OSUWMC), in partnership with The Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Board of Franklin County (ADAMH-FC) and the Franklin County Opiate Action Plan Central Steering Committee, proposes the Hospital and Community Integrated Medication Assisted Treatment Initiative (I MAT). Under I-MAT, OSUWMC will pilot the initiation of MAT first within the emergency department at OSU East and then followed by an inpatient setting, with an immediate connection of the patient with ongoing community-based MAT services to at least Maryhaven, Southeast, Community for New Direction and Talbot Hall.

I-MAT builds from OSUWMC's existing experience in providing inpatient MAT at CALM,Talbot and Harding.

3. “Developing a Community-Based Integrated Care Delivery Model for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD)” Grant amount: $50,000 Author: • Thomas Huber, Principal Investigator, 614-247-6364, huber.419@osu.edu Abstract: The opioid epidemic is a multifaceted crisis that requires the coordination and collaboration between front-line stakeholders in both public safety and healthcare sectors. Most current strategies center on the immediate crisis of opioid overdose and short-term survival (including expanded access to naloxone), rather than addressing the challenge of person centered care coordination.

Through this strategy, people who survive an opioid overdose are still at high risk for relapse and death without access to continued care to facilitate recovery. Since patients receive acute care services for opioid overdose and/or withdrawal at various health and public sectors, many face challenges with post-overdose follow up and referral with high rates of relapse for OUD. Patients are often left to navigate a complex disjointed web of resources on their own both before and after relapse. Our overarching goal is to better understand ways to facilitate recovery for patients suffering from opioid use disorder. There is a critical need to understand how patients seeking to recover from opioid addiction understand their overdose/relapse process, describe what frontline personnel know about this population, and to identify where barriers and opportunities for enhanced coordination and care planning exist. Therefore, the specific aims for the project are: (1) Create a process map of the patient flow immediately 48 hours before and after access to acute care (emergency medical services (EMS), emergency department( ED), detoxification centers (DC), and police and fire (P/F)) for opioid overdose/ withdrawal to prevent relapse and support longterm recovery. (2) Build a Community-Based Integrated Care Delivery Model for Acute Episodes and Crises that addresses gaps, barriers, and best practices surrounding overdose and relapse events.

2.

4. “Virtual Reality Distraction to Reduce Opioid Pain Medication Use During Adult Burn Dressing Change” Grant amount: $50,000 Authors: • Henry Xiang, Principal Investigator, 614-355-5893, Xiang.30@osu.edu • John K. Bailey, Co- Principal Investigator, 614-293-2876, John.Bailey@osumc.edu • Jiabin Shen, Co- Principal Investigator, 614-355-5878, Shen.1061@osu.edu Abstract: Ohio is ranked No. 1 in the U.S. for opioid deaths, and statistics indicate that while the U.S. represents 5% of the world's population, U.S. citizens consume 78% of the world's oxycodone supply and 99% of manufactured hydrocodone. Research has shown that large amount of initial opioid use for acute pain management in such procedures likely leads to greater risk of chronic opioid use and addiction. The Ohio State Medical Board mandates that all pain prescriptions will need to carry the documentation which “should indicate whether there are known and available non-opiate alternatives and why it has been determined not to utilize these alternatives”. There is a pressing need to search for, and assess, non-opiate alternatives that may allow for decreased use of opioids. Virtual reality (VR) has gained increasing popularity as a potential non-pharmaceutical analgesic strategy for burn dressing change. Based on promising results of our pilot study among 59 pediatric burn patients aged 7-17 years old, we hereby propose a planning pilot study among 60 adult burn patients (18-54 years old) undergoing dressing changes at the Ohio State University Verified Burn Center to evaluate the efficacy of the VR-based Pain Alleviation Tool (VR-PAT) in reducing opioid pain medication use during adult burn dressing changes. This innovative project will likely trigger a wide adoption of affordable VR-based pain management in adult burn dressing changes and reduce the need for opioid pain medications; therefore, contribute to the Ohio and U.S. efforts in tackling the opioid epidemic.

5. “Building Recommended Practices for Working with Domestic Violence Survivors Who Use Opioids in Residential Services: A Community Engagement Approach” Grant amount: $50,000 Authors: • Cecilia Mengo, Co-Principal Investigator, 292-7679, mengo.1@osu.edu • Susan Yoon, Co-Principal Investigator, 292-3289, yoon.538@osu.edu • Kathryn Lancaster, Co-Investigator, 292-9916, lancaster.111@osu.edu • Julianna Nemeth, Consultant, 247-7142, nemeth.37@osu.edu • The Ohio Domestic Violence Network (ODVN), Community partner, 781-9651, rachelr@odvn.org Abstract: The current opioid epidemic has had an enormous impact on domestic violence (DV) agencies and survivors. Ohio’s agencies serving DV survivors in a residential setting currently lack state3.

wide guidance on better addressing the needs of survivors who struggle with opioid addiction, while also providing a safe and healing environment. Our interdisciplinary research team, in collaboration with the Ohio Domestic Violence Network (ODVN)—the federally recognized statewide coalition of Ohio’s 72 DV service providers—is proposing a needs assessment-planning project to address opioid issues in service provision. The first component of the project will entail conducting 6 focus groups with DV agencies’ staff (n=60) at a statewide summit hosted by ODVN. Information will be obtained regarding challenges DV residential programs face when working with survivors using opioids and the types of support needed to better address opioid issues in service provision. Provisions will be made in order to secure a diverse and representative sample of Ohio’s DV programs and to investigate the unique needs of agencies providing services in rural and urban settings. The second component will entail conducting phone interviews with survivors (N=150) to examine prevalence estimates of opioid use of DV survivors in shelters. Overall, findings will aid in the development of program recommendations on addressing the burden of opioid use among DV survivors accessing residential services.

6. “Additive Value of Neurofeedback Treatment for Opioid Abuse: A Pilot Study” Grant amount: $49,009.43 Authors: • Justin A. Barterian, Principal Investigator, 685-3221, Justin.Barterian@osumc.edu • Helena Rempala, Co-Principal Investigator, 293-9580, Helena.Rempala@osumc.edu Abstract: The opioid epidemic has substantially burdened families within central Ohio. The most effective medication-assisted maintenance treatments (e.g., methadone, naltrexone, and buprenorphine) still report a relapse rate of 40-60%. Neurofeedback (NF), a form of biofeedback that targets abnormal electroencephalogram (EEG) activity via operant conditioning, is a promising treatment modality that has demonstrated its effectiveness in promoting sustained recovery from substance use disorders, including alcohol, cocaine, and amphetamine addiction. Research from the last decade investigating EEG abnormalities in opioid abusing individuals indicates this population experiences substantial reduction in alpha waves, increases in low and high beta, theta, and delta activity. To date, several case studies and one randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated a significant improvement in general psychological health and reduction in opioid cravings in individuals who underwent NF training in addition to medication-assisted treatment. However, limitations of these studies include predominately male samples and lack of follow-up data. The purpose of this RCT would be to examine the added value of NF to the existing medication-assisted treatment in 24 central Ohio patients. Twelve participants would receive 30 NF sessions consisting of Sensory Motor Rhythm (SMR) training followed by alpha and theta training while 12 participants would receive treatment as usual (TAU). Data regarding cravings, overall functioning, relapse, and related mental health symptoms, would be collected at baseline, immediately post-treatment, and three- and six-months post-NF training. Treatment satisfaction rating will be collected post-treatment to assess acceptability/feasibility. Results will be used to inform treatment programs and future research projects.

4.

7. “Reducing Trauma in Opioid-Affected Families using Human-Animal Interaction Techniques: A Feasibility Study” Grant amount: $49,970 Authors: • Kelly George, Lead Principal Investigator, 614-688-3224 george.239@osu.edu • Bridget Freisthler, Co-Investigator, 614-292-285, freisthler.19@osu.edu • Teresa Burns, Co-Investigator, 614-292-8922, burns.402@osu.edu • Lucinda Miller, Co-Investigator, 614-292-7453, miller.78@osu.edu • Jodi Ford, Co-Investigator, 614-292-6862, ford.553@osu.edu • Jason Stull, Co-Investigator, 902-330-4560, IslandDogConsulting@gmail.com • K. Cole, Co-Investigator, 614-292-2625, cole.46@osu.edu Abstract: Childhood trauma is both caused by and a risk factor for substance use. In Ohio, children who have experienced trauma in the form of child abuse and neglect due to parental opioid use are at risk for a variety of long-term physical and mental problems. The opioid crisis in Ohio has resulted in more children being abused and neglected, which results in them spending more time in out-of-home care (e.g., foster care). We propose to conduct a feasibility study of a human-animal assisted intervention where trained, experienced therapy canines are present during mandated parent-child visits for opioid misusing parents in the child welfare system. We will conduct a delayed intervention design study with two groups of 8—10 families where six weeks of treatment as usual is followed by six weeks of visits with a certified canine therapy team (consisting of a therapy canine and handler). We will assess psychosocial and stress biomarker measures to assess whether incorporation of a certified canine therapy team results in reductions of trauma symptoms and measures of stress in the child and foster caregiver and if involvement in these visits alters stress biomarkers in participating canines. The short-term goal of this study is to develop procedures for integrating animals into mandated family visits for children involved with the child welfare system.

The long-term goal is to develop a new intervention approach that will increase the likelihood of reunification while reducing trauma for children who have been abused or neglected.

8. “Development of a Community and Social Network-Based Campaign to Reduce Opioid-Related Stigma and Overdose” Grant amount: $45,541.50 Authors: • JaNelle Ricks, Co-Principal Investigator, 614-292-4216, ricks.13@osu.edu • Kathryn Lancaster, Co- Principal Investigator, 614-292-9916, lancaster.111@osu.edu • Jose Rodriguez, 614-247-4325, rodriguez.923@osu.edu • Beth NeCamp, 614-293-3727, necamp.1@osu.edu • Joel Diaz, 614-561-0725, joeldiaz@equitashealth.com • Sandra Harbrecht, 614-224-8114, swh@paulwerth.com 5.

Abstract: Ohio currently leads the country in opioid-related overdose deaths. The objective of this project is to develop a bold and clear structural and social network-based opioid overdose reversal campaign within Central Ohio. This campaign will educate people who inject drugs (PWID), their friends and family, and broader community about the opioid overdose reversal medication naloxone, how to recognize and respond to an overdose, and how to access medical and community- based training and other resources. To develop this campaign, we will a) engage the services of a professional marketing firm, and b) engage the partnership of Equitas Health and other local medical centers, local TV affiliates NBC 4 and ABC 6, grassroots advocacy groups such as The Addict's Parents United, and peer group leaders from diverse Central Ohio communities. Specifically, we will use a mixed methods approach to: 1) examine structural and social level barriers, facilitators, and attitudes towards opioid overdose and reversal; 2) develop message content, characteristics, and media delivery channels for an opioid overdose reversal campaign; and 3) pilot a peer group leader (PGL)-delivered social network-based strategy to promote opioid reversal medication. Upon completion of this planning project, we will have designed and piloted a structural and social network-based overdose reversal campaign that can be expanded to include harm reduction messaging and rigorously evaluated to determine the effectiveness on opioid related overdose and other co-morbidities within central Ohio.

Rinderle | 3.22.18

6.

ANALYZING GRANTS UNDERSTANDING THE VALUES OF A GRANT Pelatonia is one of the leading contributors to cancer research at Ohio State. I want to look here at some of the values that the grant is assuming. Remember when you are writing a grant, you need to directly respond to these values.

•

• • •

• • •

The main value here is that the purpose of the grant is to support training of cancer researchers.

Thus, you need to make sure the idea of training is in the grant. You can propose a number of different area but they all must focus on training.

Since the recipients needs to have pass their candidacy exams, you might mention that you have done this.

Since the grants cover two years, your choice of research should be something that lasts that long.

You are expected to publish, although that cannot be guaranteed, you need to make sure the data is open, and you need to include an acknowledgment, in this case mentioning Pelotonia, which should have done for every paper for which you get support.

There are constraints on what other sources of income you can receive; you might mention if you have other sources of income.

Since this is for graduate students, you may need to indicate your status.

The graduate

PELOTONIA GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP GUIDELINES: Overview: The Pelotonia Fellowship Program is a cancer research fellowship program developed to train the most promising cancer scientists at The Ohio State University. This fellowship program will fund training for undergraduate, graduate, and medical students and postdoctoral fellows at The Ohio State University.

Purpose: The purpose of the Pelotonia Fellowship Training Program is to provide fellowships to promising OSU cancer researchers who have the potential to become productive and successful independent research investigators. The proposed training will offer an opportunity to enhance the applicant’s understanding of cancer research by doing research; attending classes, seminars, journal clubs and symposiums; and interacting with other groups and scientists.

Eligibility: Applicants must have passed their candidacy exam before funding begins Stipends: Awards provide 2 year stipends to fellows as a subsistence allowance during the research training experience. Fellows are in no way considered employees of The Ohio State University, therefore the awards are not provided as a condition of employment with The Ohio State University. Appointments will start autumn semester and monthly stipends will be available on the last day of each month.

Publications: Fellows should make all research results available to the public without restriction, except as is required in the interest of national security. Fellows understand that all abstracts, publications, and presentations resulting from research supported by the Pelotonia Fellowship Program must contain the acknowledgment, "This work was supported by the Pelotonia Fellowship Program. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Pelotonia Fellowship Program."

Other Fellowships / Scholarships/Employment: Fellows generally may not receive funds concurrently from any other fellowship, scholarship, employment or similar award that is intended as the primary or sole source of research support. Additional awards that are intended as supplemental or partial funding may be acceptable. This may include off-campus activities that provide minor compensation to cover travel, relocation, and local cost of living expenses.

Research Support Funding: Fellows are permitted to solicit and accept support from any appropriate sources for research expenses connected with fellowship activities such as laboratory supplies, travel, conference fees, or subscriptions.

Graduate Fellowships: As a Pelotonia fellow, you must be enrolled for a minimum of three credit hours each semester you are on appointment. It is expected that enrollments will be limited to research and departmental seminars; however, fellows may register for other degree-related coursework with adviser approval. The Pelotonia Fellowship may not be used to support any coursework taken for another degree program. While on appointment you may not hold any other type of employment/appointment. Eligibility for a Pelotonia Graduate Fellowship is contingent upon the Graduate School providing fee authorizations to cover payment of your academic tuition and fees (learning technology fees, student activity fess, parking and/or other “special” fees are not included).

Early Termination: This fellowship may be terminated early without penalty but any unpaid stipend will be forfeited. Intent to terminate a fellowship must be communicated immediately to the fellowship program director.

Income Taxes: Your stipend becomes available on the last day of each month and is subject to federal and state income taxes. Specific questions regarding taxation of fellowship funding should be referred to the US Internal Revenue Service. Fellows must bear the responsibility of paying any tax, domestic or foreign, when due. Fellows

are not in any sense salaried employees of The Ohio State University. Fellows may find it helpful to consult Internal Revenue Service Publications No. 520, Scholarships and Fellowships, No. 920, and, if abroad, No. 54, Tax Guide for U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad, and also. These are available at http://www.irs.gov Progress (Reports): All active fellows are expected to be making progress on their project and are required to submit an Annual Progress Report. These reports should normally be brief and informative. Detailed descriptions of research protocols are not necessary. Major highlights such as publications, awards, patents, or discoveries are particularly useful.

Annual Symposium: All fellows will be required to participate in an annual symposium that will include posters, presentations and guest lecturers.

Participation in Pelotonia: The fellow and fellow’s mentor will be required to ride in Pelotonia during each year of appointment. If either the fellow or mentor is not able to ride in Pelotonia, they may choose to be a “virtual rider” instead. As a virtual rider, they will have the same expectations as a regular rider.

Change in Field of Study or Research Plan: Minor changes in a fellow’s research project may be made without the approval of the Fellowship Program. A major change in a project -- one that alters the project to the extent that it is significantly different from that originally submitted with the Fellowship application (e.g., a change in major field of study) -- requires the prior approval of the Pelotonia Fellowship Program. If a fellow changes labs, they need to end their fellowship and recompete with the new mentor/project.

For more information contact: marie.gibbons@osumc.edu cancer.osu.edu/pelotoniafellows

8/7/2019

Articles Summaries that "Spoil" the Paper to Save Reader Time - The Scholarly Kitchen

Paper Digest is an AI-based academic article summarization service. Being researchers ourselves, we thought the world could use a solution to quickly grasp the core ideas of a paper without reading the whole thing. Simply put, there is too little time to read all the papers we want to. A study (https://doi.org/10.1087/20150203) says that it takes an average US faculty member 32 minutes to read a paper. Another study (https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010018) reports, when not limited to native English speakers, it takes nearly one hour per article or even longer for those in their early career stage. If we can free up time spent reading, how much more productive could our research be? Using our experience in machine learning and bibliometrics, we decided to take up this challenge.

Can you give us an example (or more than one!) of how Paper Digest can assist a researcher?

We all want to know if the paper at hand is worth reading, so we usually skim through the paper before reading more carefully. Paper Digest is trying to imitate this researcher behavior by automatically summarizing what the paper is about and what you can learn at the end. You might think “that’s what the abstract is for,” but we think the abstract is like a movie trailer with Paper Digest offering a “spoiler.” Our algorithm tries to determine seemingly important sentences from across the full text and list them out in a single page summary. The goal is to list the most central concepts in the paper so you can quickly decide whether to read the whole thing.

If someone wants to try Paper Digest, how do they get started?

We offer a simple web interface (https://www.paper-digest.com/), where you can enter a DOI or URL of the PDF full text. Paper Digest automatically lists out the key sentences of the paper, taking about 10 seconds to do so. For this to work, the paper being requested must be open access. Everything works within the web browser and you don’t have to install anything.

We also allow users to upload a PDF article and generate a summary but this works only for registered users. When registered, you can retain up to 20 recent digests on your dashboard, and can “like” sentences that you think are most helpful to understanding the paper. This reader input is also used to improve our algorithm.

What kinds of documents is Paper Digest most successful analyzing?

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/07/articles-summaries-paper-digest/?informz=1

3/5

8/7/2019

Articles Summaries that "Spoil" the Paper to Save Reader Time - The Scholarly Kitchen

Those articles with clear section headers, such as introduction, results, or conclusion would work best for obvious reasons. So-called “original articles” in STM journals usually have such a structure, even if section headers may be different from one field to another. When the key concepts of the paper include non-text format, such as math equations, our algorithm may fail because it only works for text currently. Some document types — review articles, editorial, etc.— or articles from domains that do not follow the standard STM article structure can be challenging but we aim to come up with ways to handle them.

What is the future development path for Paper Digest?

First and foremost, we want to improve our current algorithm. And for that, we need lots of datasets to feed the machine learning. We recently released a new feature to gather user feedback so the user can “like” an extracted sentence. We also want to hear from our users to understand which domains Paper Digest needs to improve in. We are also developing an API so that Paper Digest can be “called upon” rather than the user having to come to our website.

Publishers, database providers, peer-review platforms and the like will be able to embed Paper Digest through this API. The current algorithm is using the extraction-based summarization technique; that is, extract sentences verbatim from the full text. We know this approach works well for researchers as they want to see the exact sentences as they appear in the full text; however, a reader with no research background may struggle to understand extracted sentences with no context. Abstraction-based summaries would be ideal for a more general audience, or research promotion purposes, and we aim to try working on another algorithm to accommodate these needs in the future.

Who are the people on your team and what are their backgrounds?

I (Yasutomo (https://twitter.com/YasutomoTakano)) am a postdoc at the University of Tokyo. My co-founder, Cristian (https://twitter.com/c_mejia00), is also a postdoc at the Tokyo Institute of Technology. We are constantly challenged by the volume of research papers, especially when expanding into new research areas. Leveraging our specialties, we conducted citation network analysis to effectively reduce our reading pile, but the biggest pain of going through the full-text persisted, since English is not our mother tongue. We often had to turn to textbooks to gain basic domain knowledge before reading the full-text, only to find it less useful than expected. As such, Paper Digest originates from our own experiences as early-career, non-English native researchers. In early May 2018, we started working on this project — Yasutomo conceptualizing the algorithm and Cristian working on the web application. Nobuko (https://twitter.com/NobukoMiyairi), an open science enthusiast with 15+ years experience in the STM industry, has been advising us on product positioning and business strategy. If it were not for her, we wouldn’t have applied for the Catalyst Grant (https://www.digital-science.com/press-releases/digital-science-announces-new-catalyst-grant-winners2/) and received support from Digital Science. She also introduced us to the opportunity at the SSP annual meeting where we won the People’s Choice Award (https://www.sspnet.org/community/news/paper-digest-wins-ssp-previewssession-peoples-choice-award/). The three of us have skills to complement each other and it’s been a great collaboration so far.

Is there anything else you’d like to share about Paper Digest? https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/08/07/articles-summaries-paper-digest/?informz=1

4/5

Writing for Jobs CVs, Resumes, and Cover Letters

179

WRITING FOR JOBS COVER LETTERS, CVS, AND RESUMES One of the motivations for this course is that publishing will help you get a job. Writing for publication, like other forms of writing we have discussed, involves finding the values and goals for the organization offering the job.

Cover letters different depending on whether you are applying for an academic job or a business job.

Cover letters for academic jobs tend to be longer, between 1-1 ½ pages. Letters for business jobs should be shorter, often no more than three paragraphs. In all cases, the role of cover letter should develop key ideas that are in your CV or resume. These letters should highlight those areas of interest that are mentioned in the job advertisement. Cover letters and the CVs and resume cover similar areas of information; however, it should be remembered that they are not necessarily read by the same people. More information about cover letters can be found at the Purdue OWL. Curriculum Vitae (CV) are usually required for a job application for an academic job. Resumes are required for a business job. The CV can be much longer than the Resume since it can contain more topics. Resumes are often no more than one page; CVs can be as long as you need. Both are organized occurring to topics. They both have topics on your education and job experience. The topics are organized according to their importance; items within each topic are presented in reverse order. If you are a student, usually your education should come first and then your academic work experience. CVs may have topics such as your publications, conference presentations, grant awards, or community service. Both should refer to specific items in the job advertisement. Some donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t ask for references; others for names and addresses. References are not necessary unless specifically asked for.

181

CV AND RESUME WRITING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CV AND A RESUME Resumes are usually written for jobs in business and CVs are written for academic jobs. Resumes are traditionally short, no more than 2 pages. CVs are often longer since they contain many of your important accomplishments. Since papers and presentations do not necessarily matter when looking for a job in business, they are often eliminated. Despite the greater flexibility in writing CVs, there is still a necessity for carefully editing the length so that readers can easily find the important information they are looking for.

182

180

1/20/2017

How to Shorten a CV | Vitae

Karen Kelsky Founder and President at The Professor Is In

With Support From

How to Shorten a CV Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Google+ E­mail

January 10, 2017

Want more advice from Karen Kelsky? Browse The Professor Is In archives or check out The Quick and Relatively Painless Guide to Your Academic Job Search.

I'm hoping you can help me with a tricky issue regarding CV length on job applications. I am a recent Ph.D., currently on the job market in media studies, applying for both postdocs and regular faculty appointments (tenure­track and nontenure­track). Occasionally I will see application instructions that limit the length of the CV to two or three pages, and I find that a bit confusing (and

183 https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1662­how­to­shorten­a­cv?cid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en&elqTrackId=c09ebe24862b47d894b4ae0abb67…

1/5

1/20/2017

How to Shorten a CV | Vitae

frustrating). If an application requires the CV to be only two pages, or three, what am I supposed to cut?

It seems common for even an early career scholar to have a CV longer than that (even without "padding"), and, as far as I understand it from both reading your book/blog and from advice I've received from faculty advisers, it's especially important for grad students and recent graduates to show all legit evidence that they can meet the bar — by being published, by consistently presenting at conferences, by teaching courses in relevant areas, by taking on leadership and organizing roles, etc. I feel like I'm at a place in my career where I have to list things individually (because I don't yet have a full­time academic appointment), whereas a more established scholar wouldn't necessarily need to list everything individually. Just including the references takes at least half a page unless I want everything smooshed together with tiny font. Do I cut the references? Am I wrong about this? It seems strange that an early career scholar with publications, conference papers, and teaching experience would be "punished" by a length requirement on an academic CV. This question actually continues on for about a page longer than the condensed version here. I asked my editors to retain even this version— which exceeds the typical permissible query length for my column — because it so perfectly captures the combination of desperation, frustration, anxiety, and exasperation that permeates the academic job market at this point. I share it in order to sympathize and empathize: These inconsistent and apparently illogical instructions, expectations, and requirements for the job market are indeed crazy­making.

I always wonder, in particular, about the request for a short CV. Now let me pause and say clearly: If you are a regular reader of my blog and book, you know that I adamantly insist on strict page lengths for the cover letter, teaching statement, research statement, and diversity statement. I argue for such limits because of the crisis conditions in higher education. Escalating numbers of applications (anywhere from 200 to 1,000 for an opening) fall into the hands of an ever­shrinking tenure­line professoriate — which means that search committees are exhausted and easily distracted.

So I insist on — and brook almost no exceptions to — the rule of a two­page cover letter, a one­ page teaching statement, a two­to­four­page research statement (lower end for the humanities, higher end for STEM fields), and a one­to­two­page diversity statement (still variable due to the relative newness of the genre). I have no objection to the idea of short job documents.

However, even I do not advocate for a reduced CV. A CV is so simple, basic, and formulaic that it is very difficult to pad in an intrusive way. Of course people do occasionally pad their CVs — for 184 https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1662­how­to­shorten­a­cv?cid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en&elqTrackId=c09ebe24862b47d894b4ae0abb67…

2/5

1/20/2017

How to Shorten a CV | Vitae

example, by adding guest lectures or indulging in narrative flights of fancy ("my work in this position is hard to condense but encompassed a range of blah, blah, blah...") — but it's rare. And because of the list­like nature of the CV genre, such errors are easy to overlook.

It particularly makes no sense to ask for condensed CVs from early­stage academics. These junior scholars should be able to get credit for all of their productivity, which is not that extensive to begin with. Why require them to cut it? Indeed, when I have encountered the requirement of a short CV, it's almost always for a postdoc or a grant application, rather than for a tenure­track job. That still doesn't really make sense to me, but given the short­term nature of a postdoc appointment, I can appreciate the search committee's desire to limit the total number of pages requiring review.

In any case, here is how to shorten your CV. First, don't panic, don't fall apart, and don't devolve into hysterical multi­page pleas for help. You have a Ph.D. (or will soon). You are smart and capable. You can do this. It's not that hard.

Begin by understanding and accepting that search committees know what they want. They have their reasons. Do not — under any circumstances — ignore their instructions. Do not — under any circumstances — send more pages (or more documents) than requested. You will only alienate the committee, and demonstrate that you would make a bad colleague.

Here are the headings you must include in a shortened CV: Education Professional Appointments Publications Grants Awards and Honors Conferences Invited Talks Languages (if relevant to your scholarly identity; if not, skip) Here are the headings you should almost certainly jettison: Research Interests Teaching Interests Dissertation summary Service Outreach Nonacademic Work Related Professional Skills 185 https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1662­how­to­shorten­a­cv?cid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en&elqTrackId=c09ebe24862b47d894b4ae0abb67…

3/5

1/20/2017

How to Shorten a CV | Vitae

Professional Memberships References Here are some suggestions fortrimming the content of your CV: Reduce your font to 11 point (but no smaller). And use a font that in 11 point is legible to middle­aged eyes!).

Use only single­line breaks between headings (I normally recommend double­line breaks to increase white space).

Adjust the top and bottom margins to 0.75 inch instead of an inch.

Adjust your contact information to use the minimum number of lines.

Follow the same order of headings that I recommend in my general CV advice.

Under Education, list only the bare minimum info related to your degrees (Ph.D., M.A., B.A.), with no extra verbiage about dissertation, committee, additional training, and so on.

Add "Selected" to all content headings.

Retain all major publications, but feel free to remove low­impact ones such as book reviews, encyclopedia entries, conference proceedings (unless you are in a STEM field where those count), and so on.

Remove publications "in progress." List only those published or in submission.

Limit your lists of Grants and Conferences to those within the last five years or so. If that doesn't sufficiently cut length, reduce further.

Whether you prune the Teaching Experience and Service sections of your two­page CV will depend on the job ad, so consider it carefully.

Your teaching record will obviously be relevant if you’re applying for faculty jobs. But the role of teaching varies if a short CV is requested as part of a research­oriented postdoc fellowship or a grant application. Some fellowships include a major teaching element; some include very little.

The specific fellowship requirements will dictate whether or not to include any mention of teaching on the short CV. At any rate, a truncated Teaching Experience section should include a brief list of the titles of relevant courses you’ve taught, where, and when (i.e., "Fall 2016" in parentheses on the same line).

Service should almost certainly be jettisoned from a two­page CV. I give pause only because, if the postdoc has a "diversity" priority to it or some other thematic agenda, and your service or administrative work has spoken directly to that agenda, then you may want to retain just a line or two as evidence. But probably not.

Following these rules, junior scholars should have no problem producing a two­page CV. Indeed, anyone can, as long as they cut their record ever more deeply and retain only the most recent and most significant accomplishments.

186 https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1662­how­to­shorten­a­cv?cid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en&elqTrackId=c09ebe24862b47d894b4ae0abb67…

4/5

12/13/2016

Do You Speak Résumé? | Vitae

Fatimah Williams Castro Founder & CEO at Beyond the Tenure Track

With Support From

Do You Speak Résumé?

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Google+ E­mail

December 12, 2016

Image: Mary Texanna Loomis/Library of Congress Your CV is a long and detailed record of your achievements. Education, research, teaching, service — it’s all there. By contrast, a résumé is like a highlight reel. There’s a lot you’re going to have to leave out as you transform your CV into a résumé. And what you leave in will have to be reworded.

188 https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1643­do­you­speak­resume?cid=VTEVPMSED1

1/4

12/13/2016

Do You Speak Résumé? | Vitae

Unlike a CV, a résumé has to give the context for your academic achievements and experiences.

That context is usually put in the form of some challenge or problem you faced, and how you handled it. Each description on your résumé should focus on outcomes and results — illustrating your contribution to a particular solution, project, or goal.

The idea is to show a hiring manager just how you’ve used the skills you say you possess, and their relevance to the job for which you are applying.

Fair warning: You will spend a lot of time trying to describe — briefly — on your résumé what you’ve done and what you would like to do. Basically it’s a translation exercise that you will, most likely, find time­consuming and burdensome. As a career consultant, I work with Ph.D.’s who are pursuing a nonacademic career, and I’ve seen plenty of them get stuck on the rewording. Here’s a simple three­part formula I use to help people get unstuck, and to craft résumé descriptions in a way that illustrates the value and relevance of their past experience to nonacademic employers: Challenge: What was the challenge or problem?

Action: What action did you take to deal with the problem? If you worked in a group, try to describe the specific action you took that contributed to the group’s work, or your role in making the group work effectively and efficiently.

Result: What result came from the actions you took?

Now let’s put that formula into practice. Say you’re a doctoral student who has been treasurer of the university’s graduate­student association. Your initial stab at describing that service work for your résumé might look like this: Challenge: Graduate­student association took too long to reimburse its 300­plus members for out­of­pocket expenses. It was difficult to manage all the requests so reimbursements often took more than 90 days.

Action: Created a streamlined system and a form for processing reimbursements. Made form available for download on association website.

Result: Reimbursements are now processed within 30 days of receipt.

The next step is to condense that information into a single bullet­point description for your résumé. Here’s one way to do that: Treasurer, State University Graduate Student Association 2010­2012 189 https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1643­do­you­speak­resume?cid=VTEVPMSED1

2/4

12/13/2016

Do You Speak Résumé? | Vitae

Streamlined the system of processing reimbursements for a 300­member organization, reducing time to reimbursement from 90 days to 30 days.

Remember, the résumé is the highlight reel. You will have an opportunity to flesh out all the details and tell a compelling narrative about yourself in your interview. At this point, readers may be thinking, “Great, but how do I use this method to describe teaching and research that do not have clear results?”

I’m glad you asked. I used the same approach to help a creative­writing professor and award­ winning (yet financially struggling) novelist secure a job creating digital content at a media company. His CV featured a lengthy list of universities in the Unites States and abroad where he’d taught courses and workshops. No company would be interested in all the details of his many teaching assignments. However, a company might be interested to know that he can write for American and global audiences and that he has experience teaching adult and youth audiences. Here’s how we transformed that part of his CV for his résumé: Created instructional curriculum and assessments for youth and adult learners at 8 public and private universities in the U.S., Europe and the Caribbean, offering short writing intensives, residencies, and semester courses.

Note: We showed the context. We quantified some details. And we swapped academic language for industry language, and highlighted the outcomes.

If you’re serious about seeking a nonacademic job, you will have to get over the pain of trimming pages and pages of your CV down to a paragraph. I did just that with a public­health professor who wanted to move to a government agency or a foundation working on health care.

In particular, she applied for positions in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and program management. Such positions require a deep knowledge of qualitative and quantitative skills, research design, crossdisciplinary collaborations, and project management.

On her CV, that information was spread out over six pages. For her résumé, we consolidated those pages into a brief entry showing the context, quantifying the number of team members she’s worked with, stripping out the discipline­specific language, and listing the results: Convened, as part of a 6­person team, a symposium of 120 researchers and health practitioners on challenges in designing culturally appropriate and theoretically rigorous measures to study diverse aging populations. Resulted in the publication of 4 articles in the Journal of Aging and Health.

In that single description, the job applicant shows she has designed research projects, published results, worked with practitioners, organized a large meeting, and successfully collaborated.

190 https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1643­do­you­speak­resume?cid=VTEVPMSED1

3/4

12/13/2016

Do You Speak Résumé? | Vitae

It can be tempting to keep your nicely organized and well­crafted descriptions from your CV and simply cut and paste a few relevant ones to create the résumé. That simply will not do. You must describe your background and skills from the perspective of the type of position you want, and in the language and values of your potential employers. I dedicate anywhere from 8 to 12 hours to help clients convert their CV into a résumé, depending on the length of the vita and the complexity of the career transition.

If you are successful in this conversion process, you not only will have an effective résumé, but you also are more empowered to apply for the jobs you want, clearer about your skills, and focused on how to talk about yourself in the postacademic job world.

Fatimah Williams Castro is a career coach to academics in search of meaningful careers inside and outside of the academy. She consults with organizations and universities on professional development and career planning for graduate students, postdocs and faculty.

Check out her new video course “How to Expand and Explore Your Options” and other career resources at Beyond the Tenure Track and follow her on Twitter: @fatimahphd.

Read More from Fatimah

191 https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1643­do­you­speak­resume?cid=VTEVPMSED1

4/4

COVER LETTERS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPLYING FOR A JOB IN BUSINESS AND UNIVERSITY There is a big difference in writing a cover letter for a business job and for a university job. Letters for business jobs are usually very short â&#x20AC;&#x201C; often containing three paragraphs: one for introducing oneself, a second for highlighting key achievements, and a third paragraph thanking the readers and trying to set up a future meeting.

Letters for academic jobs can be longer although the three sections may be similar. Letters should not simply repeat what is in the CV but highlighting the specific needs the job requires, which can be found in the job ad.

192

Sample Cover Letter Template

http://jobsearch.about.com/od/coverlettersamples/ig/Sample-Co...

Careers

Job Searching

Share

Gallery Index: Sample Cover Letter Formats

Sample Cover Letter Template

By Alison Doyle

Copyright Alison Doyle

This cover letter template lists the information you need to include in the cover letter you submit with your resume when applying for jobs.

Read More: Targeted Cover Letters | Sample Cover Letters | Email Cover Letters | Top 10 Cover Letter Writing Tips Top Related Searches Cover Letter Template

Cover Letters

Resume

1 of 1

4/2/14 10:47 AM 193

11/12/2018

#News (/news)

Former Harvard dean's tweet against required faculty diversity statements sets off debate

#Diversity (/News/Focus/Diversity)

Making a Statement on Diversity Statements Former Harvard dean's tweet against required faculty diversity statements sets off debate.

By Colleen Flaherty // November 12, 2018 2 COMMENTS (/NEWS/2018/11/12/FORMER-HARVARD-DEANS-TWEET-AGAINST-REQUIRED-FACULTY-DIVERSITY-STATEMENTS-SETSDEBATE#DISQUS_THREAD) TWITTER

The debate over required faculty candidate statements on diversity and inclusion (https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2016/06/10/how-write-effective-diversity-statement-essay) heated up again over the weekend, after the former dean of Harvard University’s medical school shared his pointed criticism on social media.

“As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now,” Jeffrey Flier, Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor and Higginson Professor of Physiology and Medicine, tweeted (https://twitter.com/j ier/status/1061400170515054593) Saturday. “Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it.”

Flier was commenting on a recent post (https://www.the re.org/ucla-diversity-requirement-threatensacademic-freedom-trust-in-academia/) on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s website by Robert Shibley, that organization’s executive director. Shibley wrote in response to a recent news article (https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/10/18/i_pledge_allegiance_to_diversity_and_to_the_te on the political website Real Clear Investigations about required diversity statements at the University of California, Los Angeles, and elsewhere.

Shibley was critical of such required statements as chilling academic freedom, saying that by allowing “administrators to rely on broad, subjective and ideologically-loaded terms to in uence hiring decisions,” the Los Angeles campus headed in the wrong direction, away from broad public support.

Many academic freedom watchdogs value FIRE’s commentary and advocacy. But Flier’s comment -- given Harvard’s perennial cachet and the fact that it’s currently embroiled in its own legal battle (https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2018/10/29/harvard-trial-clashing-visions-future-whichcolleges-wouldnt-consider) over how it factors in diversity in admissions -- attracted widespread attention.

Comments went both ways, from describing Flier as a hero to someone painfully unaware of his own bias. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/12/former-harvard-deans-tweet-against-required-faculty-diversity-statements-sets-debate?utm_source…

1/12

11/12/2018

Former Harvard dean's tweet against required faculty diversity statements sets off debate

Here’s a sampling: Flier said via email Sunday that

Paul Bieniasz

the reaction to his initial tweet

@PaulBieniasz

was “vastly bigger than any I had

Replying to @jflier

before. Most of the comments I

I completely agree with this. Some of these statements, particularly those required by UC schools, appear to be political litmus tests. I will never make such a statement myself and will aggressively oppose their introduction elsewhere@HdxAcademy

saw were very supportive. Many

71 8:08 PM - Nov 10, 2018 See Paul Bieniasz's other Tweets

new followers. Many people I greatly respect retweeted it.

Many people reached out to me directly to thank me for ‘being brave enough to speak’ about this. I was very encouraged.”

Benjamin de Bivort @debivort Replying to @jflier

As part of coming to your view that diversity statements trivialize diversity, did you listen to STEM PoC, women, LGBTQ voices?

Because they don't seem to agree with you.

Good places to start: 254 9:39 AM - Nov 11, 2018 27 people are talking about this

As for the "expected" negative comments, Flier said he found nearly all of them “missed the point, and misunderstood why I was taking the view that I did.

Also the requisite number of crazies.”

Asked whether he was bothered by the fact that diversity statements are required for many faculty candidates, or

Jim Johnson, Ph.D.

more about how they’ll be

@JimJohnsonSci

weighed by hiring committees,

Replying to @jflier

Flier said, “At this point nobody

Well congrats you’ve got the tiki torch boys all reved up. But I’ll bite, how does a statement describing ones efforts towards diversity affect academic freedom? I also had to make statements about my teaching philosophy and research approach for tenure and my freedom survived.

knows how they would be used

485 9:47 PM - Nov 10, 2018 · Lanark Highlands, Ontario 48 people are talking about this

today or in the future. I suspect in most cases they will not have much impact. Other more traditional factors will play the greatest role in decisions.”

But many professors likely “will be trying to gure out ‘what they

Lexi Suppes @suplexi

are expected to do or say,’ to not have this held against them. That

Replying to @jflier https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/12/former-harvard-deans-tweet-against-required-faculty-diversity-statements-sets-debate?utm_source…

2/12

11/12/2018

Former Harvard dean's tweet against required faculty diversity statements sets off debate

I read these statements as asking all faculty to make a commitment to educating every student that walks into your classroom, regardless of background. A university has not only a right but an obligation to expect faculty to adhere to this.

57 2:04 AM - Nov 11, 2018

could lead to some bene cial things, and some bad behaviors.”

Flier summed up his primary objection to the “whole idea” as follows: what “should mainly be

See Lexi Suppes's other Tweets

an objective evaluation of a faculty member's

accomplishments and reputation will now potentially be in uenced by a politically contentious set of factors that will likely be gamed. And even more, this opens up academic assessment to even further inroads from political in uences, which was well known in prior history.”

None of the above has “anything to do with support for more diversity, which I fully support,” he added.

Shibley’s takedown of required diversity statements says that it’s “one thing to tell candidates that their work in the areas of equity, diversity and inclusion will be credited to them and make sure these do not go unrecognized by departments.” But it’s “entirely another to indicate to candidates that their mandatory [statement] is going to be awfully lacking if they happen to spend too much time pursuing teaching, research and service goals that may be both worthy and excellent, but which simply don’t move the needle in the direction of equity, diversity or inclusion,” he wrote.

He also asked readers to imagine that diversity, equity and inclusion be replaced by values that might not make “mainstream Republicans" uncomfortable, such as “capitalism, freedom and patriotism.”

Shibley told Inside Higher Ed that he thought it was “obvious” that committees will be more likely to offer jobs to those with "better" statements, however better is de ned, “just as they would with any other component of an application.” Otherwise, he said, what would be the point of such a requirement?

Shibley said he worried more about something else, though: that requiring such statements means “strongly nudging faculty to take a certain direction in their work,” violating their academic freedom.

“Some scholars may not, on their own, wish to pursue equality, diversity and inclusion, as de ned by UCLA or by anyone else,” he said. But with mandated diversity statements, scholar have “enormous incentive to disregard” what their "scienti c conscience" might be telling them -- if they want to advance in academe.

Statements describing one's interest in and evidence of work on equity, diversity and inclusion, are required from faculty candidates at the California university system’s Los Angeles campus, among several others.

Ricardo Vazquez, a spokesperson for Los Angeles, noted that relevant campus policy (https://ucla.app.box.com/v/edi-statement-faqs) speci cally says that these statements will not compromise academic freedom. He also said that the university’s Academic Personnel Manual (https://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_ les/apm/apm-010.pdf) “explicitly marks academic freedom as a core institutional value.”

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/12/former-harvard-deans-tweet-against-required-faculty-diversity-statements-sets-debate?utm_source…

3/12

11/12/2018

Former Harvard dean's tweet against required faculty diversity statements sets off debate

Vazquez said that asking candidates to submit an EDI statement, as they’re known on campus, doesn’t alter the main criteria for evaluating faculty candidates. Rather, the diversity statement requirement just “makes the process more explicit, accurate and salient, and offers the university a vehicle to gain better information about a candidate’s contributions to diversity and equal opportunity," he said via email. "It differs little from comparable requirements throughout higher education for a teaching statement or statement of research interests.”

University policy (https://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_ les/apm/apm-210.pdf) on that issue says contributions "in all areas of faculty achievement that promote equal opportunity and diversity should be given due recognition in the academic personnel process, and they should be evaluated and credited in the same way as other faculty achievements.”

Philip Kass, vice provost at the university’s Davis campus, is currently overseeing an open faculty search initiative (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/05/uc-davis-holding-eight-faculty-searchesfocused-candidates-contributions-diversity) that emphasizes the role of diversity work for certain hires.

Individual hiring committees will still decide how to judge or weigh those statements, however.

Kass said that he found Flier’s statement “ridiculous,” and criticized Shibley’s argument as intimating that required diversity statements were part of some “leftist plot.” Instead, he said, they're an additive part of a portfolio, just like awards or other honors.

Using himself as an example, Kass said that when he comes up for a merit review, he may or may not submit an optional statement on his work on diversity and inclusion, with the assurance that it can only help -- not hurt -- him. The same is true of Los Angeles’s initiative, he said. (Davis also requires diversity statements for faculty candidates. Statements are optional for promotion and merit decisions.)

Saying there's no requirement for as to what the statements say, Kass said they "can document the sorts of things I’m doing that go beyond the bounds of expectations with regard to equity, diversity and inclusion. But the converse is not true. I’m not penalized for not doing these things and not writing about them.”

Critics' worst fears about diversity statements are simply not true, Kass continued, in that diversity work is not a new, fourth criterion for faculty evaluations, after teaching, research and service. But, especially in a majorityminority state such as California, he said, diversity work can be an important part of teaching, research and service.

“We are a public university, and that means providing students access to a diversity of ideas and diversity of peoples and never, ever lowering our standards for academic excellence.”

Read more by Colleen Flaherty

jump to comments (#comment-target)

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/12/former-harvard-deans-tweet-against-required-faculty-diversity-statements-sets-debate?utm_source…

4/12

COVER LETTERS PURPOSES OF COVER LETTERS

Cover letters are usually short introductions to your paper that you submit the first time. Check the journal guidelines to see if there is any specific issues the editors want you to address along with your submission.

1. Any issues regarding prepublication 2. Acknowledgement of co-authors if relevant 3. Any other concerns you might have, such as length or any deviation from the guidelines.

You should also thank them for their consideration and you might want to give a very brief explanation of why you selected the journal. Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t praise the journal but you might say the reason you think the article fits

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REWARDING NON-AUTHORS Acknowledgements are added before the paper is published, so they may not affect whether the paper will be published but they may affect how the paper is read and cited. Normally, the only requirement for acknowledgements is to recognize any funding you may have received. Funders usually require acknowledgements, so they receive the recognition that their money is being used well.

Acknowledgements can also be used to thank those who gave help but do not qualify as authors. Such acknowledgements can have rhetorical importance, as do funding recognitions, that show the importance of the research and that well-known individuals support the research. Acknowledgements may also show that particular parts of the research have received some authoritative support, which can also have rhetorical importance.

2/8/2018

Writing Acknowledgments for Your Research Paper | AJE | American Journal Experts

Log in Hi !

Log Out Contact us Toggle navigation

Services Pricing About us Free Resources Author Resource Center Journal Selection Tool Get Started Popular Categories Writing a manuscript Finishing touches Choosing a journal Peer review and publication Sharing your research Research process Publication ethics Search Find us at our next event

Free Webinar on Creating Figures

ARC Home | Before You Submit

Writing Acknowledgments for Your Research Paper In another article, we discuss four criteria that must be met for an individual to qualify for manuscript authorship. In this article, we describe what types of contributions warrant mention in the acknowledgments section of a paper instead. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) describes several roles that merit acknowledgment, rather than authorship: â&#x20AC;&#x153;acquisition of funding; general supervision of a research group or general administrative support; and writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading.â&#x20AC;?

You should also acknowledge direct technical assistance, including help with animals, cells, equipment, patients, procedures, or techniques or provision of data, equipment, reagents, or samples, as well as more indirect https://www.aje.com/en/arc/editing-tip-writing-acknowledgments/

1/3

2/8/2018

Writing Acknowledgments for Your Research Paper | AJE | American Journal Experts

assistance via intellectual discussions. Note that all of these contributions are typically more mechanical, indirect, and/or one-dimensional than those of authors. Additionally, some argue that individuals who provided help and could be chosen as a peer reviewer, leading to a potential conflict of interest, should be cited.

In any case, the ICMJE states that contributors may be cited individually or collectively and that their precise contributions should be specified. e.g., “We thank Dr. X and Dr. Y for performing the surgeries” or “We thank the physicians who performed the surgeries” Institutional affiliations may or may not be mentioned, depending on the journal’s guidelines. Finally, the ICMJE encourages written permission from acknowledged individuals “because acknowledgment may imply endorsement.”

Funding sources should also be mentioned in the acknowledgments section, unless your target journal requires a separate section for this information. Whether the funding was partial or full, relevant grant numbers, and the author(s) who received the funding, if applicable, should be detailed as well. Note that acknowledging grants and fellowships is in fact required by many funding agencies and research institutions.

In contrast, contributions that are not specifically related to your research, including personal encouragement (e.g., by your friends or parents) and very general help (e.g., from a laboratory manager who purchases all supplies for your research group), should not be cited. Additionally, anonymous editors and peer reviewers are usually not thanked in the acknowledgments section; many journals (such as American Physical Society journals) explicitly discourage this practice because it is difficult to comprehensively acknowledge all anonymous support and because this practice could potentially bias reviewers.

The writing style of acknowledgments sections may vary according to the journal, but generally, these sections are written in the first person and are as succinct as possible. A statement about conflicts of interest, citation of previous publication in poster or abstract form, and other information may also be included in this section, again depending on the journal. As you proceed through revisions for one journal or if you change your target journal, remember to reformat as necessary and to update your acknowledgments if additional help was obtained during the revision, such as with editing or new experiments.

Although an acknowledgments section may be appended to the end of your manuscript or relegated to a footnote, it is not a trivial component. By acknowledging all help received with your research, you are demonstrating your integrity as a researcher, which in turn encourages continued collaboration. You may also be bolstering your colleagues’ careers, as being credited in an acknowledgments section is emerging as one of many gauges of a researcher’s professional impact beyond citations (see ImpactStory, based on altmetrics).

Furthermore, information about who provided certain data, equipment, protocols, reagents, or samples may be of help to other researchers in your field.

This editing tip has hopefully elucidated what to include in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript and why this section is significant. If you have any comments or questions, please contact us. Best wishes in your research and writing!

Tags Finishing touches Editing tips Authorship Subscribe to receive more resources and updates from AJE. Your Email Address

More News & Events Crafting an Appropriate Running Title for your Scientific Paper Choosing Effective Keywords https://www.aje.com/en/arc/editing-tip-writing-acknowledgments/

2/3

REVISION LETTERS REVISE AND RESUBMIT

When resending your revision, you are usually required to send a letter outlining the changes you have made. Your response may be as general or as detailed as you wish, but you should respond to all the suggestions the reviewers and especially the editor provides.

The most important issue is when you disagree with or cannot fulfill the suggestions.

In these cases, you need to carefully create an argument why you canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t fulfill the suggestion or disagree with them. For example, I was once asked to cite some books that were not available in the United States, so I simply thanked the editors but said I could cite them. However, when I disagree with a suggestion, I must explain why I disagree and whether I made any changes to my manuscript.

148

Dear Editors, Thank you very much for still being potentially interested in publishing our paper and giving us valuable comments and suggestions again. We tried our best to make necessary changes to respond to your concerns. As you can see in our manuscript, the parts marked in the red color indicate the major changes we made this time.

1) We added a word “perceived” before “Learning Effectiveness” in the title to help readers immediately know that we investigated the perceived effectiveness of AWE. 2) The term “process-product”, as you suggested, has been removed. Instead, we emphasized that this study is an exploratory one and employs a naturalistic classroom-based approach.

Therefore, we made changes regarding this point in INTRODUCTION, METHOD, and RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH. 3) Due to the limitation of the length, we were unable to add all the information you asked us to do. But we did try to address your concerns as much as we can. We rewrote some parts and tried to give more of our own interpretation of the findings.

4) The information in METHOD has been reorganized and more detailed explanation is also given.

5) The information in FINDING has been reorganized, as you suggested, and now it has two main parts: Pedagogical Practices with AWE and Student Perceptions of AWE Effectiveness.

A new paragraph analyzing the reasons for the instructors’ respective AWE implementations is given on p. 17. Moreover, we deleted Table 5 Opinions on the continuing use of MY Access! because that result does not seem really important. Students’ comments are much more important than those numbers.

6) We have changed our wording in many places to hedge our claims.

7) We have asked a native English speaker to read our paper and made changes in sentence structure and word choice.

Many thanks again for your time and input to help us strengthen our paper.

Sincerely,

149

COMPLAINT LETTERS SUBMITTING A COMPLAINT

Occasionally you may read an article that you disagree with and you want to file a complaint with the editor. While you not yet feel comfortable with this, this letter is a good example of how you can respond to complaints about your own writing.

150

Edinburgh/Amsterdam/Munich/Toulouse, 7 April 2014.

Dear Colleagues, We wish to draw you attention to an issue of scientific concern that involves the publication of a manuscript in PNAS (Hu et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008 Dec 9;105(49):19199-19204), the validity of the data presented in that paper, and events subsequent to that publication. We believe that the events surrounding this story are damaging to the fields of nuclear organization and steroid receptor biology, detrimental to the integrity of the scientific process and scientific publishing and a disservice to scientists who have genuine concerns about published data.

We apologize to you all for the length of this communication, but by following the discreet and official procedures for the examination of scientific integrity for the last four years, and six years after the publication of the papers concerned, we have hit a wall of silence. Therefore, we have decided to share our concerns in full to a group of respected colleagues world-wide so as to render the papers concerned open for scientific reassessment.

On 3 September 2010, we sent a formal Letter-of-Concern to UCSD, HHMI, and the NIH Office of Research Integrity (ORI), with copies to the editors of Cell and Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. In that letter we expressed our concern that a team of UCSD/HHMI investigators, led by Dr. Xiang-Dong Fu and Dr. Michael Geoff Rosenfeld, may have presented inappropriately manipulated data in two scientific publications: (1) Nuclear receptor-enhanced transcription requires motor- and LSD1-dependent gene networking in interchromatin granules. Nunez E, Kwon YS, Hutt KR, Hu Q, Cardamone MD, Ohgi KA, GarciaBassets I, Rose DW, Glass CK, Rosenfeld MG, Fu XD. Cell. 2008 Mar 21;132(6):996-1010.

(2) Enhancing nuclear receptor-induced transcription requires nuclear motor and LSD1-dependent gene networking in interchromatin granules. Hu Q, Kwon YS, Nunez E, Cardamone MD, Hutt KR, Ohgi KA, Garcia-Bassets I, Rose DW, Glass CK, Rosenfeld MG, Fu XD. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008 Dec 9;105(49):19199-19204.

The Cell paper was retracted in June 2008. The reason for the retraction, according to the authors, was a series of data duplications and transversions in the original dataset. The authors also stated in the Retraction that they continue to believe the central conclusions of the paper. One of us (BvS) expressed several serious concerns about massive data duplications and alterations to the authors around May 2008, which caused or contributed to the retraction. The Retraction text did not refer to the mistakes as data fabrication.

Surprisingly, essentially the same story was published again in PNAS in December 2008 by the same 11 authors, under almost the same title. The paper was communicated to PNAS by Dr Rosenfeld â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a National Academy member - within 10 days between submission and acceptance).

In our Letter-of-Concern we provided multiple lines of evidence that suggest a substantial amount of data reported in these two publications may not be authentic. We requested that an independent committee should investigate this matter. Our extensively documented Letter-of-Concern (54 pages) can be downloaded here.

Officials at UCSD responded that they would investigate this matter. However, it took ~16 months, until 26th January 2012, before we were interviewed via telephone by an Investigation Committee convened by UCSD. On 29th November 2012 that Committee indicated to us that it had concluded its investigation. Their report was submitted to the UCSD Office of Research Affairs on 26th December 2012. The final report from UCSD was submitted to the NIH Office of Research Integrity (ORI) on 19th June 2013, i.e., with another ~6 months delay. Since then, UCSD and ORI have declined to comment on the case, despite requests from our end.

1 151

We therefore decided to re-engage with PNAS, the journal that had published the second paper and we sent them an expression of concern on 28th January 2014. To our surprise, PNAS informed us that they had recently printed two ‘corrections’ to the Hu et al. paper. These corrections included relabeling of figure legends to indicate that the data presented were from a completely different cell line than that indicated in the original manuscript – note our concerns about MCF7 cells below. The other correction involved the replacement of micrographs for which we had provided evidence in 2010 that the images could not be correct.

We are disturbed that PNAS should consider it acceptable to post such substantial data corrections to a manuscript that is under ORI investigation, and linked to a retracted Cell paper. Moreover, in 2010 the authors indicated to PNAS that the original microscopy images are no longer available. In our considered opinion, the numerous irregularities, duplications and mistakes associated with the publication either represent an unacceptable level of inadvertent errors, or suggest repeated data manipulation.

We are deeply concerned that – more than three years after the start of a formal investigation – the scientific community still has not been informed of the outcome of that investigation. We call upon UCSD and ORI to make the main findings of their investigation available without further delay, and we urge PNAS to publish an Expression of Concern, or retract the paper.

Specific concerns: 1. We found evidence that in at least two separate instances a microscopy image was duplicated and altered so as to represent different cells and/or different experimental conditions (Cell & PNAS). This raises concerns about the authenticity of these images. a) The blue DAPI staining pattern of the nucleus (shape, position of heterochromatic foci and nucleoli) in the top right panel of Figure 2B of the PNAS paper appears strikingly similar to that of the nucleus shown in the middle of the bottom row in Figure 1D of the retracted Cell paper. It seemed likely to us that these two nuclei are one and the same, yet the original legend indicates that the image in the PNAS paper is from a cell cultured in the absence of estrogen (-E2), whilst in the retracted Cell paper this is labeled as a cell in the presence (+) of E2. Moreover, the probe hybridization signals in the two figures are completely different from each other.

2 152

b) Similarly, the DAPI (blue) images of two nuclei in the bottom row of Supplementary Figure S2A of the PNAS paper appeared to be identical, yet both the green and red FISH signals are different in each image.

An image correction has recently been posted to the PNAS paper (below). This is despite Dr Fu originally indicating to one of us (BvS) in March 2009 that raw image data were no longer available for these experiments, but had been lost due to a crashed hard-drive. From our correspondence with Dr. Randy Schekman (then Editor in Chief at PNAS) in 2010 it also became apparent that the authors could not provide the raw microscopy images; at that time the authors however stated that they had deleted the raw images from their hard drive because of disk space constraints.

The text of the correction pertaining to the PNAS Supplementary Information reads: "We regret that errors were made in two figure panels in the manuscript. The supplementary Figs. S2A and S5B each harbored an error in which the wrong DAPI-stained nucleus was incorrectly merged with the correct FISH image. The correctly merged images are now shown, with the affected panels: Fig. S2A, TFF1e, CASP7p+E2, and Fig. S5B, +E2+JP/SC35. We deeply regret carrying over these errors from a previous version of the figures and our failure to detect them at the time of publication. We apologize for any confusion that these errors may have caused."

2. We found strong statistical evidence that a large number of quantitative datasets of distance measurements between FISH probe pairs – presented as dotplots in the now retracted Cell paper, were duplicated and modified to represent measurements under different experimental conditions. BvS’ two letters together directly identify more than 15 instances of indisputable duplications. The main figures of the Cell paper together displayed 62 dotplots that represent non-control samples. Statistical analysis of the corresponding datasets indicated that about 2/3 of these datasets are nearly identical (Pearson correlation coefficient >0.995) to at least one other dataset that contains supposedly independent measurements. Furthermore, a different constant number has been added to many duplicated datasets, effectively shifting the dotplots along the y-axis.

The scale of the data duplications, the fact that the data are nearly but not exactly identical, and the inexplicable additions of different constant values, together make it highly unlikely that the incorrect data were the result of simple human errors such as inadvertent copying or mis-labeling of columns in an Excel spreadsheet.

In May and June of 2008, one of us (BvS) extensively communicated with Dr. Fu and Dr. Rosenfeld, on this issue. In his email correspondence, Dr. Fu suggested that the y-axes differ due to the use of different microscopes, which require different pixel-to-micrometer conversion factors. This explanation however does not make sense: conversion factors must be multiplied, not added. Thus it remained unclear why various constant values were added to clearly duplicated measurements. In their response of 4th May 2008, the authors also stated that ‘all primary data used to reach the conclusions were “rock-solid” and all critical experiments were independently confirmed by two additional investigators”. They went on to add that ‘we want to unambiguously state that there is no data manipulation associated with any of the experiments reported’.

On 10th June, 2008, the authors wrote notifying us (BvS) of their intention to retract the Cell paper.

3. As extensively documented in Kocanova et al, PLoS Genet 2010; 6(4):e1000922 and further substantiated by unpublished data from the Cremer lab, none of the key results can be reproduced by three independent labs. Nor are the data on TFF1-GREB interaction supported by the published ChIAPET analysis for the estrogen-receptor in MCF7 cells (Fullwood et al., Nature, 2009).

4. The expression level of the estrogen receptor is usually below detection levels in HMEC cells (Bowie et al., 2004 Oncogene; Sengupta et al 2004, Mol Cell Biochem; Koconova et al., 2010 Plos Genet), raising the question how estrogen-induced effects could have been observed. Estrogen receptor expression in the HMECs used is not presented in the PNAS paper. In response to an email

3 153

sent on 23rd October 2009, from one of us (WB) to Dr Rosenfeld, informing him of problems reproducing data in the paper, he indicated that the HMEC primary cells ‘need to be replaced every few passages from Lonza, and thus batch-to-batch variance is a big problem, stemming in part from the ratio of stroma to epithelial cells, hence the population of ER-containing cells is variable, and therefore, their response to estrogen tends to differ dramatically’. We note that this serious reproducibility problem is not mentioned anywhere in the PNAS paper.

5. In some Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) images purported to be from MCF7 breast cancer cells in the retracted Cell paper and the original version of the PNAS paper, the numbers of painted chromosomes and genes, as well as their relative positions, suggest a normal complement for these chromosomes in MCF7 breast cancer cells. This is not consistent with the fact that the MCF7 cells are aneuploid and rearranged for chromosomes 2 and 21, as reported in many previous publications (including Koconova et al., 2010 PLoS Genetics (Fig 2C); Jones et al., 2000 Cancer Genet. Cytogenet; Kytola et al., 2000 Genes Chromosomes Cancer; Neve et al., 2006 Cancer Cell; Osborne et al., 1987 Breast Cancer Res Treat.; Shadeo and Lam 2006, Breast Cancer Res.). Moreover, rearrangements on these chromosomes are confirmed by the sequence of the MCF7 genome (Hampton et al., Genome Res 2009).

The authors have recently (January 2014) posted a correction to the PNAS paper stating that images in Fig. 2 originally stated as being from MCF7 cells (aneuploid and rearranged for the chromosomes concerned), were all in fact from diploid HMECs. Most of the other micrographs presented now fail to state the cell line used. However, the legend to Figure S5 suggests that micrographs in Fig. S5B and C are from MCF7s, yet the presented images still suggest a normal diploid complement for TFF1 and GREB1 loci.

6. There are internal inconsistencies in the assignment of GREB1 and TFF1 spots to chromosome 2 and 21 territories in the control (-E2) condition in Figure 2B of the PNAS paper – originally indicated to be from MCF7 cells, but now stated as from HMECs in the corrected version. On the larger pair of chromosome territories (therefore assumed to be Chromosome 2) there are both green and red superimposed FISH signals of the two studied genes – TFF1 and GREB1, even though these two genes are supposed to be on different chromosomes (21 and 2 respectively).

4 154

7. Close inspection of (FISH) experiments suggest that several of the published images may not be genuine. In some FISH images in the Cell paper we noted nearly identical spatial and intensity patterns for the grey values of pixels allegedly recorded in separate color channels and representing colocalizing GREB1 and TFF1 genes. One of us (TC) reported this inconsistency to the Cell editor Marcus Emilie in an email on August 2, 2008.

8. The interphase chromosome paints in several images have a highly unusual rope-like appearance suggestive of inappropriate image processing or image manipulation (PNAS & Cell). Two of us (TC and WB) have decades of experience of chromosome painting using FISH, and have never seen chromosome territory images that look like this.

For detailed illustrations of these concerns, see our original Letter-of-Concern.

Sincerely, Bas van Steensel Division of Gene Regulation Netherlands Cancer Institute Amsterdam, the Netherlands b.v.steensel@nki.nl Thomas Cremer Department of Biology II LMU Biocenter Grosshadernerstr. 2 82145 Planegg-Martinsried, Germany Thomas.Cremer@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Wendy Bickmore MRC Human Genetics Unit Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine University of Edinburgh Edinburgh EH42XU, UK Wendy.Bickmore@igmm.ed.ac.uk Kerstin Bystricky LBME â&#x20AC;&#x201C; CNRS UMR5099 University of Toulouse 118 route de Narbonne 31062 Toulouse cedex, France kerstin@biotoul.fr

5 155

Grammar Reporting Verbs, Paraphrasing, Evaluation, Collocation, Specificity, Puncutation

236

WRITING A LITERATURE REVIEW JUSTYFYING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The purpose of the literature review is to justify your research questions so thinking about writing it as going in reverse order. By the end of the literature review the reader should be able to say “Of course, those are the research questions.”

The organization of the literature review should depend on the issues you want to discuss. Most of those issues should be mentioned in the introduction and then developed in the literature review.

You will need to cite a number of references in your literature review. You are trying to demonstrate you are aware of the critical literature, have built your research on previous research, and have used citations to support your claims. Most of your references will be positive, so you will need to show how the positive research supports your ideas. If there has been any research that contradicts your research, you will need to show that either your research is different or that the previous is not related to what you are studying.

Therefore, all your citation should be evaluated according to fit the current research. Many people compare a literature review to telling a story about your research. So, lie a story, the literature review should include all the literature that supports you and the literature that contradicts your goals. You may be able to “turn” the literature that contradicts your research to show how it actually supports you.

Be conservative in your use of tenses: Most of the time you will use only three tenses: present tense describes research you primarily disagrees with yours; past tense reports old research, research you may disagree with, or the results of research; present perfect is used to describe a group of research that has existed over a period of time e.g. “Research has shown..”

Hedging is very important throughout your paper. In the literature review you need to balance between showing the significance of you research and the limited nature of previous research. The more research you can show the important your research. You don’t have to discuss all the research; but this shows your problem is important. Be careful is saying that there is no research on your topic. This may indicate that your problem isn’t very important Hedging can be accomplished in a very of ways; choice of reporting verbs, tenses, adverbs. Be careful how you express your views and don’t use unnecessary words.

Editorial

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review Marco Pautasso1,2* 1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France, 2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1]. For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2]. Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3].

Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4]. For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5].

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6]. However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7].

In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience How to choose which topic to review?

There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the

literature just pondering what to review.

On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8]. The topic must at least be: (i)

(ii)

(iii)

interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary), an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9], but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature

and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here: (i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10]), keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies), use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente), define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review (Figure 1), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review, (i)

(ii)

(iii)

discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews, trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

Citation: Pautasso M (2013) Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Comput Biol 9(7): e1003149. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149 Editor: Philip E. Bourne, University of California San Diego, United States of America Published July 18, 2013 Copyright: Ă&#x; 2013 Marco Pautasso. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

Competing Interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist. * E-mail: marpauta@gmail.com

PLOS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org

1

July 2013 | Volume 9 | Issue 7 | e1003149

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply: (i) (ii)

(iii)

be thorough, use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you

selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11], but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews

focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers ‘‘to be read’’ by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12]. A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a

Figure 1. A conceptual diagram of the need for different types of literature reviews depending on the amount of published research papers and literature reviews. The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33]. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149.g001

PLOS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org

2

July 2013 | Volume 9 | Issue 7 | e1003149

predefined protocol to reduce bias [13,14].

When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15].

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused [16,17]. Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once.

The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18]. If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion.

This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19].

After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of: (i) (ii) (iii)

the major achievements in the reviewed field, the main areas of debate, and the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some

others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24].

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader’s time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20].

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it?

It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mindmapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21].

This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22].

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23]. As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft.

Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a

PLOS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org

3

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25]? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one’s own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today’s reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (‘‘sleeping beauties’’ [26])). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they July 2013 | Volume 9 | Issue 7 | e1003149

have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27–32]. I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

11. Torraco RJ (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Human Res Develop Rev 4: 356–367. doi:10.1177/ 1534484305278283.

12. Khoo CSG, Na JC, Jaidka K (2011) Analysis of the macro-level discourse structure of literature reviews. Online Info Rev 35: 255–271. doi:10.1108/14684521111128032.

13. Rosenfeld RM (1996) How to systematically review the medical literature. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 115: 53–63. doi:10.1016/S01945998(96)70137-7.

14. Cook DA, West CP (2012) Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach. Med Educ 46: 943–952. doi:10.1111/ j.1365-2923.2012.04328.x.

15. Dijkers M, The Task Force on Systematic Reviews and Guidelines (2009) The value of ‘‘traditional’’ reviews in the era of systematic reviewing. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 88: 423–430. doi:10.1097/PHM.0b013e31819c59c6.

16. Eco U (1977) Come si fa una tesi di laurea. Milan: Bompiani.

17. Hart C (1998) Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE. 18. Wagner CS, Roessner JD, Bobb K, Klein JT, Boyack KW, et al. (2011) Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature.

J Informetr 5: 14–26. doi:10.1016/ j.joi.2010.06.004.

19. Carnwell R, Daly W (2001) Strategies for the construction of a critical review of the literature.

Nurse Educ Pract 1: 57–63. doi:10.1054/ nepr.2001.0008.

20. Roberts PD, Stewart GB, Pullin AS (2006) Are review articles a reliable source of evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A comparison with medicine. Biol Conserv 132: 409–423. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.034.

21. Ridley D (2008) The literature review: a step-bystep guide for students. London: SAGE.

22. Kelleher C, Wagener T (2011) Ten guidelines for effective data visualization in scientific publications. Environ Model Softw 26: 822–827. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.12.006.

23. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH (1988) Guidelines for reading literature reviews. CMAJ 138: 697–703.

24. May RM (2011) Science as organized scepticism.

Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 369: 4685– 4689. doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0177.

25. Logan DW, Sandal M, Gardner PP, Manske M, Bateman A (2010) Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia. PLoS Comput Biol 6: e1000941. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000941.

26. van Raan AFJ (2004) Sleeping beauties in science.

Scientometrics 59: 467–472. doi:10.1023/ B:SCIE.0000018543.82441.f1.

27. Rosenberg D (2003) Early modern information overload. J Hist Ideas 64: 1–9. doi:10.1353/ jhi.2003.0017.

28. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I (2010) Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 7: e1000326. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326.

29. Bertamini M, Munafò MR (2012) Bite-size science and its undesired side effects. Perspect Psychol Sci 7: 67–71. doi:10.1177/ 1745691611429353.

30. Pautasso M (2012) Publication growth in biological sub-fields: patterns, predictability and sustainability. Sustainability 4: 3234–3247. doi:10.3390/su4123234.

31. Michels C, Schmoch U (2013) Impact of bibliometric studies on the publication behaviour of authors. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192013-1015-7. In press.

32. Tsafnat G, Dunn A, Glasziou P, Coiera E (2013) The automation of systematic reviews. BMJ 346: f139. doi:10.1136/bmj.f139.

33. Pautasso M, Döring TF, Garbelotto M, Pellis L, Jeger MJ (2012) Impacts of climate change on plant diseases - opinions and trends. Eur J Plant Pathol 133: 295–313. doi:10.1007/s10658-0129936-1.

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. DehnenSchmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

References 1. Rapple C (2011) The role of the critical review article in alleviating information overload. Annual Reviews White Paper. Available: http://www. annualreviews.org/userimages/ContentEditor/ 1300384004941/Annual_Reviews_WhitePaper_ Web_2011.pdf. Accessed May 2013.

2. Pautasso M (2010) Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases. Scientometrics 85: 193–202. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0233-5.

3. Erren TC, Cullen P, Erren M (2009) How to surf today’s information tsunami: on the craft of effective reading. Med Hypotheses 73: 278–279. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.05.002.

4. Hampton SE, Parker JN (2011) Collaboration and productivity in scientific synthesis. Bioscience 61: 900–910. doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.11.9.

5. Ketcham CM, Crawford JM (2007) The impact of review articles. Lab Invest 87: 1174–1185. doi:10.1038/labinvest.3700688.

6. Boote DN, Beile P (2005) Scholars before researchers: on the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educ Res 34: 3–15. doi:10.3102/ 0013189X034006003.

7. Budgen D, Brereton P (2006) Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.

Proc 28th Int Conf Software Engineering, ACM New York, NY, USA, pp. 1051–1052. doi:10.1145/1134285.1134500.

8. Maier HR (2013) What constitutes a good literature review and why does its quality matter?

Environ Model Softw 43: 3–4. doi:10.1016/ j.envsoft.2013.02.004.

9. Sutherland WJ, Fleishman E, Mascia MB, Pretty J, Rudd MA (2011) Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy. Methods Ecol Evol 2: 238– 247. doi:10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00083.x.

10. Maggio LA, Tannery NH, Kanter SL (2011) Reproducibility of literature search reporting in medical education reviews. Acad Med 86: 1049– 1054. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31822221e7.

PLOS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org

4

July 2013 | Volume 9 | Issue 7 | e1003149

Collocation Collocation refers to the relationship between word; that is, sometimes we use two words together and sometimes we don’t. For example, we can say “sweep the floor” but we can’t say “broom the floor” even though it makes perfect sense. Why not? I don’t know since there are no real rules; therefore, you just have to learn which words go together and which words don’t. Therefore we suggest that you use some free online computer programs that will help you judge whether your usage is acceptable. For example, if you aren’t sure whether the words go together, you can use Google N-gram (https://books.google.com/ngrams) to show how often the words have been used together. In this example, “broom the floor” is never used. N-gram does not always tell you the “correct” answer; often you have to judge that for yourself.

237

Verb Form and Tense There are two aspects of verbs we primarily focus on in this course: the tense of the verb and its form. Tense refers to factors when the action occurred, whether the claim is still true, and how strong is the claim. Form primarily refers to whether the subject or actor is performing the action or not, whether the verb is a participle, and if so, whether it is active or passive, or whether it is an infinitive. Generally, participles and infinitives are used when the verb has no subject. Infinitives are used when the action of the second verb comes after the first. If this relationship doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t exist, you can usually use a participle.

Watch this video on verb form and tense

240

Hedging with Modals When you present a claim or an argument, you cannot present it too strongly or too weakly. If it is too strong, your readers may not agree with you or accept the claim. If it is presented too weakly, your readers may find it too wish-washy and dismiss both it and you. Therefore, you can have to present the claim or argument with the proper degree of certainty. There are a number of factors that determine how certain you can be: how much evidence there is for support, how many other writers agree with you, what are the expectations of the audience, and to what extent do your readers agree. There are a number of ways in which you can hedge your claims. In this video, we are discussing the use of modals, such as “will,” “can,” “should,” “must,” and “should.”

242

Paraphrasing Paraphrasing refers to borrowing a piece of text from another source and â&#x20AC;&#x153;putting it in your words.â&#x20AC;? Unfortunately, it is difficult to define what that expression means in practice. To paraphrase you often need to change the grammar and/or the vocabulary while maintaining the meaning. Moreover, as we explain in other videos, your paraphrase needs to summarize the key ideas that you are interested is, specifically express the ideas you want to make, and be coherent with the previous sentences and more specific in expressing your meaning. How many words or phrase you can copy into your paraphrased sentence is not clear. Some words, for example, may not matter. Other times, if the word is particularly important or if it is a word that is identified with the author, you many need to put it in quotes even if it is one word.

Therefore, it is always important that you make clear who is the original author of the sentence.

244

All these sentences were plagiarized by our students . For homework correctly paraphrase them using the name of the speaker (in parenthesis) and a reporting verb.

1. (Redden) Foremost among them is that the Western style of citing sources isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Universal.

2. (Dodd) international students are confused about the norms of scholarship.

3. (Dodd) the norm is to repeat back a textbook or a professor verbatim.

4. (Dodd) respect to the source of knowledge.

5. (Dodd) plagiarism can be caused by a sign of respect to the source of knowledge.

6. (Greenblatt) different education system have different standard, for example, in Asia, people regard copying great menâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s masterpiece as a way to show respect for the authors.

7. (Dodd) the norms and practices of Western scholarship affect whether students plagiarize.

245

Commented [lu1]: paraphrase

Reporting Verbs

Reporting verbs are used as part of the citation process to (1) show who is the author of the piece and (2) to show your attitude towards what the author said. We are most concerned with (2) because we hope you will understand that you are citing the source as a means of helping you develop your argument as well as your own voice in your writing. (1) is also important since it shows that somebody else agrees with you, supports your idea, or if they happen to disagree, that their argument is problematic or incorrect.

246

1.

   

Descriptive/Informative Fact/Opinion Agree/Disagree/Don't know Strong/weak/moderate

2.

   

Descriptive/Informative Fact/Opinion Agree/Disagree/Don't know Strong/weak/moderate

3.

   

Descriptive/Informative Fact/Opinion Agree/Disagree/Don't know Strong/weak/moderate

3. He [[argues]] that the scale of experiments is too small and that it cuts off populations and communities from their proper spatial context.

4.

  

Descriptive/Informative Fact/Opinion Agree/Disagree/Don't know

4. They [[state]] that their tree-growth data are more influenced by summer than winter conditions.

5.

   

Descriptive/Informative Fact/Opinion Agree/Disagree/Don't know Strong/weak/moderate

6.

   

Descriptive/Informative Fact/Opinion Agree/Disagree/Don't know Strong/weak/moderate

5. This pattern [[suggests]] that most of the currently observed variation is due to changes and adaptations that occurred in the ancient history of the group.

6. The authors [[discuss]] most of the critical work that has been done on this broad subject.

247

1. People like Plantinga and Johnson [[claim]] the high ground without earning it, and so they seldom hold it long.

2. She also [[points out]] that political action has been, and remains, effective.

7.     8.     9.     10.    11.    12.  

Descriptive/Informative Fact/Opinion Agree/Disagree/Don't know Strong/weak/moderate Descriptive/Informative Fact/Opinion Agree/Disagree/Don't know Strong/weak/moderate Descriptive/Informative Fact/Opinion Agree/Disagree/Don't know Strong/weak/moderate Descriptive/Informative Fact/Opinion Agree/Disagree/Don't know Strong/weak/moderate Descriptive/Informative Fact/Opinion Agree/Disagree/Don't know Strong/weak/moderate Descriptive/Informative Fact/Opinion Agree/Disagree/Don't know

7. The authors seem to give little consideration to all the ways that humans can rightfully [[claim]] significant differences from the rest of the animate world.

8. Wegner [[points out]] that people do not control their lives in the way they think they do, but he never goes so far as to say what does control them.

9. The author [[discusses]] most of the major factors linking migration and microevolution.

10. Critics have [[argued]] that the patterns are also consistent with a range of different demographic histories.

11. The authors [[examine]] whether women attempted to change the status quo in their organizations

12. They also [[describe]] the peace he found when his ideas were accepted

248

Pronouns and Coherence Pronouns are used to substitute for nouns or ideas. Usually when we refer to an object, we can use a personal pronoun and when we refer to an idea, we use a demonstrative pronoun like “this.” When choosing pronouns, however, the writer should think about how we are creating coherence or cohesiveness in through our choice. When, for example, we think about the cohesiveness between sentences, we have discussed the connection between the new ideas in the first sentence and then the repetitiveness of that idea so that it becomes “old” in the next sentence. Our choices of pronouns are important in creating this cohesiveness since when either a personal pronoun or a demonstrative pronoun shows that the “old” information is connected to the “new” information in the previous sentence.

Watch this video on pronouns and coherence

249