html5-img
1 / 12

Writing For Researchers

This workshop provides guidance on publishing research papers, writing successful proposals, and maintaining a work-life balance. Topics include choosing journals, submitting papers, handling reviewers' responses, and dealing with rejection.

bsykes
Télécharger la présentation

Writing For Researchers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Writing For Researchers 2006 NSF Minority Faculty Development Workshop Jul 30-Aug 2 Malcolm J. Andrews National Security Fellow, LANL Professor Mechanical Eng., Texas A&M Univ. Tel: (505) 606-1430 E-mail (LANL): mandrews@lanl.gov E-mail (TAMU): mandrews@tamu.edu

  2. Purpose • How to get published. • How to write winning proposals. • Balancing the job.

  3. How to get published • When to write a paper. • How to choose a journal. • How to write a paper for submission. • How to submit a paper. • The Editor/Assoc. Editors view. • Handling reviewers responses & rejection.

  4. When to write a paper • Is the work “archival”. • How “needed” is the work. • How “new” is the field. • Is # of publications more important than quality? • Write-up as research progresses – reviewer feedback is useful and the final thesis is better. • Don’t “let the reviewer decide” on the quality of the work.

  5. How to choose a journal • Know your field and choose accordingly. • Impact factor (higher the better). • The very best journals expect the very best papers – one idea is probably not enough. • If in doubt contact the editor – ask after how fast and acceptance rates. • Take a look at current papers in the journal (helps with quality and format).

  6. How to write a paper for submission • Read the journal instructions – if you don’t keep to the guidelines you will probably get a rejection. • Keep abstracts/conclusions short and useful. • Make your results easy to read (use sensible fonts). • Acknowledge previous work well. • Interpret your results, don’t simply state them. • Tables are a very useful way to summarize limited results. • Write your references completely and in the format of the journal (some reviewers check this very carefully). • Limit acknowledgements to collaborators or sponsors – family is not a good idea. • Give a clear schematic or a diagram of the process – don’t assume the reviewer is an expert at mind reading. • Write good English – get someone to read your paper prior to submission.

  7. How to submit a paper • Read the submission instructions for the journal. • If allowed then suggest 3 possible reviewers who are knowledgeable about the field, are not collaborators, and presumably not enemies! • Contact the Assoc. Ed. if you have concerns – e.g. expedited review, typical review time period. • Make sure all the paper is there – keep a copy of what was submitted. • Once submitted the paper will be reviewed “as is” so get it right first time, otherwise you may get a rejection for silly reasons. • Don’t expect too much of Editors or Reviewers – make their life easy as they are very busy people.

  8. Editor/Assoc Ed. View • Pleased to answer author questions, but typically handling >10 papers at any one time, so you may need to be patient. • It is hard finding good reviewers. • Complaining to an Editor about an Assoc. Editor without first explaining the problem to the Associate Ed. is not helpful. • As an AE I do not review papers I am handling – I leave that to the reviewers. • We do make mistakes, so if you think there is a problem please let us know and be specific. • We want you to get useful feedback, but we cannot control what a reviewer puts in an online review. • Suggestions on how we can improve the process is always appreciated.

  9. Handling reviews and rejection • Be “penitent” - don’t disagree but clarify. • Make your rebuttal well formatted and easy to read (perhaps the AE won’t need to send back to the reviewer – this should be your goal). • Respond to ALL the comments. • Don’t delay too long (<1 month). • Rejection – we’ve all had papers rejected, and it hurts when the reasons seem wrong. An appeal probably won’t work, but don’t turn around and resubmit without first updating the paper in response to reviewer comments (most likely the same reviewers will be used even at another journal). If you feel there is a mistake, contact the AE and explain your concern.

  10. How to write a wining proposal • Work hard and fail many times! • “Need” – why is it important. • Hypothesis. • How are you going to do the work. • The budget should reflect the work to be done. • Input from senior faculty – collaborate. • Talk with sponsors. • Informed consent. • Propose things you are truly interested in – it comes across in the proposal. • Reference other related work (could be a reviewer!). • Getting $ is difficult!

  11. Balancing the job • Work, sleep, and everything else (1/3, 1/3, 1/3) • What is your goal • Publications • Service • Getting $ • Teaching • Consulting • Books

  12. 4 times 4 Rule of Thumb(Junkins, 2006) • Recruit and find ways to support 4 or more excellent graduate students. • Write and submit 4 excellent journal papers each year. • Write and submit 4 or more strong research proposals each year. • Attend 4 or more national/international meetings each year and present one or more well written and delivered papers at each – join organization.

More Related