Download
1 / 16
160 likes | 274 Vues
Professional Development: Issues in Publishing. HPRG. Points for Discussion. Big Picture Types of journals Impact Factor Audience Books and Book Chapters Getting Started Action Editor – Reviewers Processing Times Writing, Understanding and Responding to Reviews
E N D
Points for Discussion Big Picture Types of journals Impact Factor Audience Books and Book Chapters Getting Started Action Editor – Reviewers Processing Times Writing, Understanding and Responding to Reviews Effective Writing Strategies Posters Versus Papers Authorship Collaboration Papers From a Single Data Set
Big Picture – Speaking and Motives Scientific publishing is like speaking in a large conference center that includes rooms of various sizes, with different interest groups, rules for determining who speaks, etc. Motives – Why am I doing this? (Advance career? Help people? Make a comfortable living? Advance science – i.e., discovery and understanding? Some blend?) Motives make a difference. For example: If goal is to advance career, then one might be inclined to “speak” as often as possible regardless of whether one has much to say and to do so in the most prestigious “rooms”. If goal is to help people, then one might be inclined to “speak” about things that have potential for this and to audiences also interested in helping. If goal is to make a comfortable living, one might be inclined to “speak” only enough to obtain satisfactory raises, etc. If goal is to advance science, one might be inclined to “speak” only when one has something noteworthy to say. One might even speak “privately” or relatively so. *From a scientific perspective, the key is not how often you “speak”, but rather what you say when you “open your mouth”.
Big Picture - Legacy Regardless of your motive(s), it is good to be mindful that when you publish, you create a written record or legacy – one of which you probably want to be proud. When we depart, will folks know anything they might not have known in our absence? Also good to be mindful that your publishing years are limited. This means that you might want to choose carefully directions in which you invest energy. Probably don’t want to look up at 70 and see a smattering of disconnected and unsubstantiated musings. Traditionally considered important to publish programmatically, i.e. around a limited number of themes. Also wise to think big, reflecting on fundamental processes and phenomena or ones that possess profound practical significance (e.g., Loftus’ work on reconstructive memory). Might want to shy away from small scale “reactive” papers, confirmations of the obvious, minor incremental work, etc.
Types of Journals Empirical or Mostly So (e.g., JEP) Full Length Review (e.g., Psychological Bulletin) Brief Review (e.g., Current Directions in Psychological Science) Research Program (e.g., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology) Theoretical (e.g., Psychological Review) Theoretical With Commentary (e.g., Psychological Inquiry) Full-Length – Frequently with Multiple Studies (e.g., JPSP) Brief Empirical Report (e.g., Psychological Science)
Impact Factors (IFs) Average citation per paper over preceding two years. Can range from fraction to 30s (rare), with “acceptable” generally not falling below 1 and good loosely 3 or above. Obvious Lesson: Most papers don’t get cited much. Less Obvious Point of Note: IFs should be taken with grain of salt. Can be manipulated and are difficult to compare moving across journals. Review and theory papers tend to be cited especially well. Thus, journals that publish them tend to enjoy especially high IFs. Journals that include commentaries on target articles – especially many commentaries - have elevated IFs because the commentaries all cite the target article. Journals that access large audiences have larger pools available for citation. Journals that have developed reputations as prestigious get cited more because authors cite articles in them to add “authority” to their work. IF computation allows outlier papers with high cites to artificially inflate impact perception. *Many unimportant papers appear in high-impact journals and many important ones appear in low-impact journals. Very important not to judge publications by their IF “cover”.
Audience In preparing to write and submit, always wise to reflect on the audience you are trying to reach. Applied? Health? Social? Clinical? Etc. Different audiences can have different traditions, biases, concerns, standards and degrees of expertise in particular topic areas. A MS might be embraced by one audience, but roundly rejected by another. Even if accepted, a MS might have little influence if published in the wrong outlet – a voice in the wilderness.
Books and Book Chapters BOOKS Types – edited volumes on theme, monographs reviewing research program, textbooks, perspective volumes summarizing state of some science, etc. Some have argued that books are less significant now than they once were. Wise to attend carefully to publisher. There has been much consolidation in publishing, but you want to go with familiar name such as APA Press, Cambridge, Guilford, Oxford, Sage. Textbooks sometimes provide few academic credit points, being seen as money-making efforts. However, there are exceptions. BOOK CHAPTERS Can be more or less useful for reaching target audience(s). Much depends on editors and publisher, also nature of the volume. Tend to accrue fewer academic credit points than empirical pieces, which has led some to invest less effort in them. I tend to invest the same effort for multiple reasons. Want to help the editors produce the more impactful volume possible. Want to maintain quality in my broader body of work. Have learned that chapters – even ones in obscure volumes - can in fact reach sizable audience.
Getting Started JOURNALS Go to web site. Read and follow instructions for authors Most – but not all - will want APA style. Will likely be submitting via online portal BOOKS Go to web site. Read and follow instructions for authors Will almost certainly be required to provide a prospectus. If edited volume, will likely need chapter abstracts. Might be asked to provide 1-3 chapters. People sometimes submit completed MSs. BOOK CHAPTERs - Follow editor lead.
Action Editor - Reviewers Journal submissions typically go to chief editor (CE). CE will assign to an action editor (AE), who will process MS. AE will send MS to reviewers. KEYS: Make sure you feel comfortable with AE assignment. Usually no control over selection of reviewers, although you could conceivably be asked to offer suggestions or you might do so spontaneously. Number of reviewers can vary according to journal. AEs often want opinions of a couple of experts and at least one “outsider”. Tendency to select people cited, also a tendency for reviewers to be more likely to accept if they are cited, which can create a favorable bias for the author(s) – for which a good AE should adjust. A negative bias can occur when an article argues against an existing idea, finding etc. in the literature. A good AE should adjust for this as well. AEs are supposed to be experts, but frequently know little about specific papers. Further, they are supposed to be objective, but frequently are friendly with – or want to be friendly with – reviewers. Thus, they can be swayed.
Processing Times JOURNAL SUBMISSIONS Once stable, now highly variable. Weeks to months – with some journals still taking as much as a year. Wise to check out web site for information. BOOK CHAPTERS Also variable, although something like 6 months is common. Authors commonly given 6-12 months to prepare their chapter. Deadlines tend to be flexible, but good idea to be on time early in career. Editors might be willing to wait on an established person, but dump a new voice.
Reviews: Writing Try to be open-minded. Try to assess the big picture, not getting caught up in details. Writing: Are the ideas clear? Does the Introduction include an appropriate literature review? Does it make clear the need for the research? Does it include specific hypotheses derived from a well-developed conceptual analysis? Does the Discussion make proper extensions? Study well designed? Data properly analyzed? Do the findings tell us anything definitive? Proper conclusions drawn? Magnitude of contribution – how much will this advance the field? Might additional work be needed? If a review paper - is empirical aspect sufficiently comprehensive? Proper conclusions? Appropriate consideration of related theories, especially ones that might offer different “take”? If theory paper – is it fresh? Is it logical coherent? Is it falsifiable? Is there at least preliminary or indirect empirical evidence?
Reviews: Understanding and Responding Options frequently, (1) accept, (2) minor revision, (3) major revision, and (4) reject. Most ambiguity surrounds option 3. Can get hints by reading carefully action letter. Reject can be appealed, but wise to appeal cautiously. Learn when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em. Bear in mind that there usually are good or even better places to go. Have seen MSs rejected at Tier 2 journals and accepted at Tier 1 journals. Good to bear in mind that the AE is part of a relatively small community of scientists with whom you will likely be spending a lot of time. Also good to bear in mind that we tend to develop reputations within the community.
Writing Strategies Think like a reviewer. Prepare manuscript with writing bullets from previous slide in mind. Think of your audience. Is the reviewer likely to know much about these ideas or this type of work? Is the reviewer likely to care more about theory or practical application? ETC. Try to express professionally and precisely, but with minimal jargon. Avoid “hiding” behind scientific sounding words and phrases. Avoid trendy clichés. Try to be succinct. Especially nowadays, readers prefer that you get to the point. Minimize acronyms.
Posters Versus Papers Posters good for conveying early tastes of new findings. Also good for getting travel funding and giving graduate students a chance to fly a bit in a conference setting. Posters obviously are highly compressed relative to papers. Typically room to convey only bare bones of idea, what was found and conclusions. Elaboration typically occurs via discussion between person a attending poster and people wandering through poster hall. Vast majority of posters are accepted. Not unusual for 90+ percent hit rate. Paper submissions rejected much more frequently. Top journals can have rejection rates of 90% or above. For your vita, papers will carry much more weight, but posters are definitely worth including. A vita filled with posters, but containing few papers, could convey negative message.
