1 / 17

Getting published

Getting published. Professor Karen Pine School of Psychology University of Hertfordshire. Getting published…. True or false?. Editors invite authors to publish Peer review is reliable I have to pay to get a paper published If my paper gets rejected I should bin it

tab
Télécharger la présentation

Getting published

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. Getting published Professor Karen Pine School of Psychology University of Hertfordshire PGwT South East Workshop Dec. 2009

  2. Getting published….. PGwT South East Workshop Dec. 2009

  3. True or false? • Editors invite authors to publish • Peer review is reliable • I have to pay to get a paper published • If my paper gets rejected I should bin it • I will be paid if my paper is published • The best papers get published • The worst papers get rejected PGwT South East Workshop Dec. 2009

  4. Why publish? PGwT South East Workshop Dec. 2009

  5. Why? • Research is not finished • until it is published • To learn from feedback • Personal validation • Repay others • To disseminate • For your career – • Credibility, advancement prestige. PGwT South East Workshop Dec. 2009

  6. PGwT South East Workshop Dec. 2009

  7. Who? • Not just brainy scientists • Academics • PhD students • You! Authors on paper? You Your supervisor Your collaborators PGwT South East Workshop Dec. 2009

  8. Where? • Journals in your area • Impact factors • http://wok.mimas.ac.uk • Special issues • Book chapters (?) PGwT South East Workshop Dec. 2009

  9. When? • While it’s current • While findings are fresh in your mind • Allow time to write • Publish within two years of PhD • From submission to acceptance can be between 6 – 24months. PGwT South East Workshop Dec. 2009

  10. What? • Say something new, interesting or important • that is YOURS and UNPUBLISHED elsewhere • But don’t go out on a limb – set in the context of other literature/previous findings • Be clear – what is the message of the paper? • What is its worthiness? • Usually 2-6,000 words with 250 word abstract and minimal tables and figures • Write for the journal you have in mind • Draft and redraft, get feedback from others PGwT South East Workshop Dec. 2009

  11. What’s your message? • Think about your main finding so far (or imagine your perfect set of results). • Write a title for your paper that succinctly says what you’ve found • Finish this sentence: The importance of this finding is that……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. PGwT South East Workshop Dec. 2009

  12. Keep it simple. • Use clear, direct language. • Focus ONLY on the main findings. • Organise the points, don’t meander. • Get feedback on drafts before submitting • …… • Ask as many people as you can – you can always thank them in the paper later! PGwT South East Workshop Dec. 2009

  13. How? Submit to editor Electronically via journal website Editorrejects Editor sends for review (2 or 3 experts) (Revise &) send to another journal Reviewers report back to editor Editorrejects Editoraccepts Editorinvites resubmission Appeal? Resubmit to editor PGwT South East Workshop Dec. 2009

  14. Peer Review PGwT South East Workshop Dec. 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRBWLpYCPY

  15. Peer Review • The foundation on which contemporary science is built (or a flawed process?) • Papers reviewed blind and reviewers anonymous • Reviews vary – you will get at least one savage one in your career - don’t take it personally • See revise and resubmit as part of the writing process • If invited to resubmit – deal with every comment from each reviewer • Remember prejudices/vested interests of reviewers • “The author of this article really ought to try to work in a field that's more commensurate with his level of mental abilities” • Review received by Prof R Sternberg, author of over 200 articles and ex-president of the American Psychological Society. • http://gradpsych.apags.org/may03/peerreview.cfm PGwT South East Workshop Dec. 2009

  16. If they had given up…….. • George Zweig’s paper announcing the discovery of quarks, one of the fundamental building blocks of matter, was rejected by Physical Review Letters. It was eventually issued as a CERN report. • Berson and Yalow’s work on radioimmunoassay, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by both Science and the Journal of Clinical Investigation. It was eventually published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. • Krebs’ work on the citric acid cycle, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by Nature. It was published in Experientia. • Wiesner’s paper introducing quantum cryptography was initially rejected, finally appearing well over a decade after it was written. PGwT South East Workshop Dec. 2009

  17. Qualities of a published researcher PGwT South East Workshop Dec. 2009

More Related