Publishing in higher education

1. Publishing in Higher Education:
(some) Practical Advice
Stuart Palmer
1

2. Writing for publication – why?
 it’s fun – or is that just me?
 it’s an essential part of a scholarly approach
 it forces you to reflect on your thinking
 it’s an avenue for dissemination of your work
 it creates a track record for grant applications
 it earns research income for Deakin
 it’s an avenue for collaboration
 etc.
2

3. Writing for publication – where?
 a journal
 a book
 a book chapter
 a conference paper
 a performance
 an exhibition
 a letter to the editor
 a book review
 etc.
3

4. ‘Counting’ publications
RESEARCH OUTPUT CATEGORIES AND WEIGHTINGS
Category Internal Weight ‘DEST’ Score
A. AUTHORED BOOKS
A1 Books - Authored – research 7.0 5.0
A2 Authored – other 2.0
A3 Revision/ new edition 0.2
A4 Major research monograph 1.0
A5 Minor research monograph 0.2
A6 Research report / technical paper 0.1
A7 Edited Book 0.5
AN Other book, or book not attributed to 0.5
B. BOOK CHAPTERS
B1 Book chapter 1.0 1.0*
B2 Book chapter in non-commercially published book 0.5
BN Other book chapter, or book chapter not attributed to 0‡
C. JOURNAL ARTICLES
C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal 1.0 1.0
C2 Other contribution to refereed journal 0.3
C3 Non-refereed articles in a professional journal 0.1
C4 Letter or note 0.1
CN Other journal article 0‡
D. REVIEWS
D1 Major Review 1.0
D2 Reference Materials 0.1
E. CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS
E1 Full written paper – refereed 1.0 1.0
E2 Full written paper - non-refereed / Abstract reviewed 0.2
E3 Extract of paper 0.1
E4 Edited Volume of Conference Proceedings 0‡
F. AUDIO-VISUAL RECORDINGS 0.5
G. COMPUTER SOFTWARE 1.0
H. TECHNICAL DRAWING /ARCHITECTURAL & INDUSTRIAL DESIGN 1.0
I. PATENTS 2.0
J. CREATIVE WORKS
J1 Major original creative work 1.0
J2 Minor original creative work 0.2
J3 Poems 0.1
K. OTHER REPORT 0‡
L. CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS – Distributed / minor conferences
L1 Full written paper – refereed 0‡
L2 Full written paper - non-refereed / abstract reviewed 0‡
L3 Extract of paper 0‡
L4 Edited Volume of Conference Proceedings 0‡
M. MEDIA ARTICLE 0‡
‡Submissions not audited
*Score of 1.0 for the first chapter in a book. Subsequent chapters score less.
4

5. Research Publications Collection
RESEARCH OUTPUT CATEGORIES AND WEIGHTINGS
Internal DIISR
Category
Weight Score
A1 Books - Authored – research 7.0 5.0
B1 Book chapter 1.0 1.0*
C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal 1.0 1.0
E1 Full written paper – refereed 1.0 1.0
*Score of 1.0 for the first chapter in a book. Subsequent chapters score less.
http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/admin/pubs/
5

6. Journals – where to publish?
 seek the advice of an experienced colleague
 check the journals listed in the references of
articles you already have
 search the Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory
6

7. http://ulrichsweb.com/UlrichsWeb/
7

8. Journals – where to publish?
 seek the advice of an experienced colleague
 check the journals listed in the references of
articles you already have
 search the Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory
 consider journal impact/ranking factors
8

9. Journal impact/ranking factors
 refereed is considered better than not
 certain journals develop a reputation for
‘quality’
 journal quality is an illusive/elusive
characteristic
 journal impact/ranking factors are one
attempt to quantify journal quality
9

10. http://admin-apps.isiknowledge.com/JCR/JCR
10

11. http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php
11

12. Journal impact factors – imperfect
Impact factors and rankings derived from them
are not a perfect science! But…
 a convenient, publicly available (if imperfect)
metric of journal quality/ranking
 will inevitably be used as part of any external
national research assessment exercise
 may be used by your Faculty for internal
purposes
12

13. Journals – where to publish?
 seek the advice of an experienced colleague
 check the journals listed in the references of
articles you already have
 search the Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory
 consider journal impact factors
 consider ERA rankings
13

14. ERA journal ranking (still relevant!)
Excellence in Research for Australia
http://www.arc.gov.au/era/default.htm
Draft journal ranking list
 A* ≈top 5%
 A ≈next 15%
 B ≈next 25%
 C the rest ≈55%
 (Unranked)
14

15. ERA journal ranking - Education
1300 Education
1301 Education Systems
1302 Curriculum and Pedagogy
1303 Specialist Studies in Education
All up, 795 journals ranked under ‘1300s’
46 A* journals
113 A journals
Many (>≈100) other discipline education
journals ranked as well
15

16. Journal rankings - general
Not all ‘good’ journals are high ranked
But ‘all’ high ranked journals are ‘good’
Ranking is important
Aim for the top, and work down if you have too
If you pitch low you will get published
16

17. Conferences – general(isations)
Good for profile and networking
But, expensive in money and time
Fully refereed only (unless there’s a reason)
-some international conferences are not
-most ‘serious’ Australian conferences address DEEWR criteria
Don't attend only as a ‘spectator’
Always have at least one paper for presentation
17

18. Books / book chapters
18

19. The call for papers
19

20. Work already done
20

21. The love job – yes, but not too many
21

22. The publication syndicate
Palmer, S. and Holt, D. (online early), Examining student satisfaction with wholly online
learning, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
Holt, D. and Palmer, S. (in print), Quality in flexible, online and distance education at Deakin
University: from dual mode to integrated mode practices, in Padhi, N. (ed), Total Quality
Management Of Distance Education, Routledge: New York.
Palmer, S., Holt, D. and Bray, S. (2008), Does the discussion help? The impact of a formally
assessed online discussion on final student results, British Journal of Educational
Technology, v39, n5, pp. 847-858.
Holt, D. and Palmer, S. (2007), Staff exercising ‘choice’; students exercising ‘choice’:
wholly online learning at an Australian University, 24th Annual Conference of the
Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Singapore.
Palmer, S., White, R. and Holt, D. (2007), Conceptions of Teaching with Integrity Online in
Higher Education: a Case in the Field of Engineering, ED-MEDIA 2007, Vancouver.
22

23. Two different reviews – same paper
“I picked up this paper expecting to find a detailed
investigation of the issues surrounding professional
accreditation and distance education in the engineering field
in Australia but was greatly disappointed. The paper does
deal with the issues of accreditation, but is does so as a
polemic. Its evidentiary base is weak and even the
arguments that it makes are self-contradictory.”
“This is a valuable contribution to a debate that has not yet
truly begun. It is of importance at this critical juncture in
the development of higher education where the expertise of
distance educators will be called upon to shore up the
deficiencies of campus-based programmes.”
23

24. You can challenge reviewers
“Reviewer 1 questions why learning outcomes/achievement was
not used as an outcome/output indicator. As noted by reviewer 1,
we have already highlighted the link identified in the literature
between learning outcomes and student satisfaction. However, in
the project presented here, due to the human research ethics
approval process requiring that survey responses be anonymous,
we were not able to match survey response data sets with the
corresponding individual student academic results. Hence, we are
unable to use learning outcomes/achievement as an output
indicator directly. Instead, based on the literature, we use self-
reported student satisfaction as a proxy for quality of student
engagement and learning outcomes/achievement. We have now
made the logic of this research methodology more overt in the
paper.”
24

25. Be strategic
 plan to write
 start with quantity, but move to quality
25

26. Making a start – just do it
26

27. Be strategic
 plan to write
 start with quantity, but move to quality
 work hard
 pounce on opportunities
 take a ‘portfolio’ approach
 if you have a choice, finish the manuscript
 finish off what you’ve started
27

28. Research Pubs Collection – Now DRO!
28

29. Keep in touch with editors
 chase the status of submitted manuscripts
 don’t burn your bridges
 ERA has been a good ‘talking point’
 do manuscript reviews, etc.
 advance preview of new work and ideas
 examples of what to do
 and, what not to do
 editors remember and appreciate
29

30. Writing
 write with a publication target in mind
 know their manuscript requirements
 EndNote (or whatever) is your friend –
reference libraries
 EndNote is your friend – style files
 it can be painful to get started
 practise makes perfect
 nothing beats sending off a manuscript…
 …except getting it accepted!
30

31. Thank you for your time
31