"How to Publish" Virtual Learning Series, Session Two: Preparing a Paper for Success
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
0 j'aime•615 vues
Series: These workshops have been developed specifically for graduate students (masters or doctoral) who hope to begin publishing soon but aren't sure where to start. Each session will include insight, resources, and hands-on activities designed to increase your knowledge and confidence about the scholarly publishing process. Although these sessions are designed with SHSU graduate students in mind, other individuals are also welcome. Session: Learn tips for formatting, submitting, and successfully navigating the peer review and revision process.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
Similaire à "How to Publish" Virtual Learning Series, Session Two: Preparing a Paper for Success
Similaire à "How to Publish" Virtual Learning Series, Session Two: Preparing a Paper for Success (20)
Plus de Erin Owens
Plus de Erin Owens (16)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
"How to Publish" Virtual Learning Series, Session Two: Preparing a Paper for Success
- 1. HOW TO PUBLISH SERIES PREPARING A PAPER FOR SUCCESS Presented by Erin Owens, Professor, SHSU 26 Mar 2021 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC-SA)
- 2. OUR GOALS • Recognize the differences between scholarly and class / dissertation writing. • Identify strategies to ensure manuscript is as ready as possible for submission. • Discuss how to navigate the publishing process, including peer review, revisions, and acceptance or rejection.
- 3. STUDENT VERSUS SCHOLARLY WRITING Think about your dissertation, thesis, or any paper you wrote for a class. What aspects of this paper do you imagine you would need to change in order to convert that student writing to scholarly writing? Share your thoughts in the chat! Photo by Dan Counsell on Unsplash, used under CC0 license
- 4. Infographic from Editage Insights, https://www.editage.com/insights/9-differences-between-a-thesis-and-a-journal-article. Displayed in two pieces for readability.
- 5. Infographic from Editage Insights, https://www.editage.com/insights/9-differences-between-a-thesis-and-a-journal-article. Displayed in two pieces for readability.
- 6. FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS! • Section headings • Headers and footers • Footnotes and endnotes • Citation style • Standard or custom style? • Edition of style manual • DOIs and URLs • Beware computer-generated citations • Abstract vs. structured abstract • “Extras” • Key takeaways, Implications for Practice,... Photo by Nick Fewings on Unsplash, used under CC0 license
- 7. PROOFREAD PERSISTENTLY • Use a ruler to focus on one line at a time. • Look for errors you have often made in past writing. • Look for just one type of error on each read-through. • Take breaks between writing & editing, between each round of editing. Let it sit over night or longer. • Read it backwards, one sentence at a time. • Read it out loud and listen for oddities. • Ask a colleague to read it. Adapted from University of Arkansas-Little Rock’s Writing Center: https://ualr.edu/writingcenter/tips-for-effective-proofreading/ Photo by hannah grace on Unsplash, used under CC0 license
- 8. ANONYMIZE YOUR SUBMISSION • Author names/titles • Institutional references • Don’t forget URLs! • Identifiable citations to authors’ past publications • File properties • Step by step instructions for Microsoft Office and Adobe PDF, from the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Photo by Jaroslav Devia on Unsplash, used under CC0 license
- 9. NAVIGATING PEER REVIEW Image by Peter Fischer from Pixabay, used under CC0 license
- 10. RESPONDING TO REVIEWERS Photo by jean wimmerlin on Unsplash, used under CC0 license
- 11. A WORD ABOUT CO-AUTHOR CONSENSUS Photo by Zackary Drucker from The Gender Spectrum Collection, used under CC-BY-NC-ND license.
- 12. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? Chalkboard/hand image by Daniel Reche from Pixabay, used under CC0 license. Text added. Step 1 = Submit. Step 2 = ? Step 3 = Article!
- 13. COPING WITH REJECTION If you have faced rejection professionally, ... (job application, dissertation proposal, grant application, conference proposal, article submission, ... ) ...what helped you to cope with that feeling of rejection? Share your comments in the chat! Photo by Steve Johnson on Unsplash, used under CC0 license
- 14. COPING WITH REJECTION "While most of us can handle a certain amount of frustration, rejection, and disappointment, it's the cumulative effect of this negativity that can lead to exhaustion, paralysis, and/or depression. The problem occurs when we internalize the negativity and allow rejection to impact our sense of our own intellectual capacity, self- worth, and enjoyment of our work.“ ~ Kerry Ann Rockquemore, PhD Founder, National Center for Faculty Development & Diversity
- 15. FINAL THOUGHTS Photo by S O C I A L . C U T on Unsplash, used under CC0 license
- 16. SELECTED RESOURCES • Resources on How to Write a Scholarly Article: https://shsulibraryguides.org/publish-early • Excellent Ebooks on Revising Dissertations: • Revising Your Dissertation: Advice from leading editors • From Dissertation to Book (2nd ed.) • On responding to peer reviewer’s comments: • Writing a Response to Reviewer Comments, by Meghan Duffy, the Dynamic Ecology blog, May 26, 2015 • "I submitted to Journal X but all I got was this lousy revision" - Why being given a “revise” decision is a beginning, not an end, by Christopher Tancock, 21 Aug 2018, for Authors' Update (Elsevier) • Do's and don'ts for responding to peer reviewers' comments, by Shazia Khanam, 17 Oct 2013, for Editage Insights. Includes a free downloadable template for responding to reviewer comments. • Understanding and dealing with coercive citation practices requests from editors: ttps://shsulibraryguides.org/publish-early/coercive • Author Contribution statements with the CRediT taxonomy: https://casrai.org/credit/
- 17. THANK YOU! QUESTIONS? Erin Owens Professor / Scholarly Communications Librarian SHSU Newton Gresham Library 936-294-4567 eowens@shsu.edu ORCID researcher profile: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9520-9314 * Slides and recordings from this and other sessions in this series will be available at: https://shsulibraryguides.org/publish-early/slides
Notes de l'éditeur
- This infographic is specific to a thesis, but many of these points carry over to any class paper. Your purpose and audience are very different. You will be able to omit some of the contextual background that is included in class papers to demonstrate your knowledge, because most of your peer scholar audience will already share that background knowledge. You will maintain only enough introductory information to make clear the problem and purpose of your article.
- Your methodology can often be condensed, and you do not need to include the depth of definitions and origins for each method or underpinning theory as you might do in a dissertation. Your references list will be much less comprehensive. List only works you have actually cited, and cite only those works that are needed to identify the existing state of research on the topic, gaps in that research, and where your study fits.
- Anonymous or “double blind” peer review can help to minimize the bias that comes from knowing an individual—whether that means favoring a friend or disfavoring a competitor. However, it is important to be aware that other forms of bias may remain. Even without your name or institution, a reviewer may make assumptions about the country or state your research centers on, your topic or methodology, and a dialect that emerges from your writing. Those assumptions, whether accurate or not, may color how they view the work you have produced. Just as some made-up examples: They may decide that qualitative research about children’s feelings sounds like research that would be done by a woman, and subconsciously they may believe that women are not as knowledgeable in the field, and their review may be paternalistic or patronizing as a result. Or English might be your second language as an author, and if that is reflected in some of your vocabulary and syntax choices, the reviewer may, subconsciously or consciously, view the paper as weaker, even if the ideas themselves are sound. Keep in mind that you may face these other less direct forms of bias. If you feel that a reviewer’s comments are unfair and prejudiced, you should courteously bring that to the editor’s attention.
- Patience is the watchword! Peer review takes time. Remember that the editors and reviewers are faculty and researchers themselves. The editor needs time to review your submission for general appropriateness to the scope. Then they must select reviewers knowledgeable in the topic and send invitations. The reviewers need time to consider the invitation and accept, then time to actually review the paper and draft constructive feedback. If a reviewer declines or is late with submitting, this will add to the total time. Once the reviews are in, the editor must read and evaluate them, decide whether any inappropriate comments should be removed, and then draft their decision letter based on their own assessment of the paper and all compiled reviewer feedback. If reviews are contradictory, the editor may decide to seek yet another opinion after the initial review period has ended, which will make things take that much longer. Be patient and compassionate for the labor your peers are providing.
- Revisions requested – it is very normal to go through at least one round of revisions, sometimes several. Do not assume that it reflects poorly on your research or writing. The goal is to shape your article into the best version of itself. When you receive the reviewer and editor comments on your paper, some suggestions will be reasonable, you will see how they make the paper better, and you will make them. Some will be contradictory, two reviewers telling you two different things, and you will have to make a reasoned choice. And some suggestions will reflect changes that you can’t or won’t make for any of a variety of reasons. You need to communicate ALL of this when you submit your revised draft. Your response should address the major comments and explain what change you made OR why you opted not to make a change. You don’t need to cow-tow to your reviewers, but your response should be respectful of their time and opinions. The structure of this response can take many forms; some people write out a narrative like a letter. I prefer a table in Microsoft Word, with one column summarizing the reviewer comment and another column explaining my action or response. Note that you don’t necessarily have to respond to every miniscule comment; with suggestions about a word choice here and a comma there, you can either make the change or ignore it. But substantive issues should warrant a response. The Selected Resources slide at the end of this presentation links to some good resources about developing strong responses to reviewers.
- Ensure that all co-authors have a say in making revisions and addressing reviewer comments Ensure that all co-authors are on the same page about who contributed what and how those contributions will be attributed. Constructing Author Contribution statements.
- Sometimes your revised manuscript will go through another round of peer review, sometimes only editorial review. A paper can go through almost limitless rounds of review, if both the editor and the author continue to feel like progress is being made and the end result is worthwhile. If your paper is eventually accepted, no further revisions required, it then goes into copyediting. A copyeditor checks all the small details, like the journal’s preferred spelling of a word, and makes sure all the journal’s required components are present, like a copyright statement or the dates the paper was submitted and accepted. Sometimes the copyedited version will be sent back to the author for a final glance, sometimes not. Next the article goes into layout. One long column of text from Microsoft Word gets formatted into columns according to how the journal is printed. Images and figures are sized and arranged within the flow of text. And so forth. Sometimes a formatted file called “proofs” will be sent back to the author for a final glance, sometimes not. Finally the article goes into production, where it’s actually placed into the issue (digitally, of course) and prepared to “go to print,” which I say in quotation marks since many journals are no longer physically printed, but we still use the same name for the finalized publication phase. Some journals will post the article’s content on their website before it is officially “in print,” so that readers can access it more quickly. They may include a tag for some status like “online before print,” and often the article will not yet include volume, issue, or page numbers. Finally it appears in print, either on paper or in an official digital issue with volume, issue, and page numbers. Now the publishing process is truly complete.
- A rejection does not necessarily mean your paper was bad, it may have simply been a bad fit for that journal. A rejection of one paper is not a rejection of all your work and ideas. You may simply need to work on how you communicate your work. A rejection of a paper is not a rejection of YOU. It is not personal. Recognize that all researchers experience rejection. You must try not to internalize it. If you are too prone to internalizing and suffering from rejection, academia may not be a healthy career for you to pursue.