1 / 18

投稿國際期刊的經驗談

投稿國際期刊的經驗談 王德育 (T.Y. Wang) Illinois State University 政大政治系客座教授 tywang@ilstu.edu My discussion is based on my experiences As an Author As a Reviewer As a Co-Editor, Asia, Journal of Asian and African Studies The Meaning of Referee Review

jana
Télécharger la présentation

投稿國際期刊的經驗談

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. 投稿國際期刊的經驗談 王德育 (T.Y. Wang) Illinois State University 政大政治系客座教授 tywang@ilstu.edu

  2. My discussion is based on my experiences • As an Author • As a Reviewer • As a Co-Editor, Asia, Journal of Asian and African Studies

  3. The Meaning of Referee Review • Institutionalized Skepticism (制度性的懷疑) = Quality Control • Institutionalized skepticism aims to avoid the type 1 error: publishing a paper that should not have been published

  4. High standards of scholarly works is a collective responsibility • It is also called Peer Review • Usually an anonymous process

  5. Assessment by peers as a basis for judgment of their publishability • is this research important? • is the methodology sound? • is the analysis correct and logically coherent?

  6. The fate of the manuscript is determined by the reviewers • The editor acts as a middle man and exercises some discretion

  7. Some General Guidelines: • Identify intended audience and appropriate journals • Begin submission to the top journals

  8. Manuscripts should be prepared in details even though much will not appear in the final printed product • Have thoughtful/complete citations

  9. Try to make reviewer’s job easier (e.g., proofreading, eloquent writing, clear research questions) • Follow the journal guidelines (esp. page length) • Prepare an abstract

  10. Manuscript preparations: • Clear research questions • in question format • in paragraph(s) • Help reviewers identify theoretical/policy significance

  11. Literature Review • plays an important role in reviewer’s decision • studies should be grouped and assessed collectively (見林不見樹) • Note trends and themes, as well as gaps

  12. If you have a quantitative paper • the data analysis should be an essay • keep the statistics in tables • minimize the use of numbers in the main text

  13. Conclusions • link findings to your research questions • policy/theoretical implications

  14. When you receive a rejection • Don’t be frustrated • Consider reviewers’ criticisms for revisions • Submit to the next journal

  15. What to do if you receive a R&R (revise and re-submit) • explain revisions in a cover letter • don’t be afraid to contact the editor if there is confusion or conflict of opinions

  16. make a good argument if you disagree with the reviewer’s criticism, but be humble and polite

  17. The language problem: • proofread by a professional • co-authorship

  18. Patterson, Samuel. 1994. “The Itch to Publish in Political Science.” Rita J. Simon and James J. Fyfe. Editors as Gatekeepers (Lanham, Marland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers): 3-19 • Caputo, Richard K. 2004. “Advice for those Wanting to Publish Quantitative Research.” Family in Society, v.85, no.3: 401-404

More Related