Context- today’s agenda

1. Context- today’s agenda • preamble – the current focus on excellence in teaching & research • the literature process – what is it and how does it work? • some generalisations • why do research? • issues with academic research • demotivators to new research in any field • a model for the new researcher in any field • examples

2. Context • 1987 - 1991 - Ph.D. London Royal Holloway • 1991 - 1993 - Metropolitan Police, Hammersmith • 1993 -1995 - University of Natal, Durban SA • 1995 - present - University of Brighton

3. Why do we need to publish here and now? • RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) dictate government research funding • assesses research outputs i.e. publications, funding (grants), patents etc. • QAA Subject Reviews mean that even excellence in teaching requires research output

4. How is knowledge archived & disseminated? • initially, conferences – these may have outputs called proceedings (proc.) or abstracts which can be publishable • rapid communications in JOURNALS • normal articles in journals • review articles look at a focused topic • knowledge eventually ends up in books

5. Background - what is The Literature? • the literature is the means of disseminating & archiving knowledge • Standard, quality research is submitted to journals… • …to be peer-reviewed by referees (aka reviewers) • …..for potential publication in the journals

6. Background - what is a Journal? • A journal is a serious periodical, the content of which is ultimately decided upon by…. • ….an editor • …who is accountable to the Editorial Board….. • …who are experts in the field… • they ensure the integrity of the Journal • editors need articles as much as authors need publications

7. Background - what is a Journal?

8. Background - what is a Journal?

9. How much is there? example • In biomedical science two million journal articles are currently published annually • a clinician needs to read 17 articles a day every day of the year simply to remain current in their field of practice • The National Library of Medicine’s Medline archives 31,000 new citations per month • 20,000 biomedical journals available & approx. 6000 articles are published every day

10. The paradox of publishing • editorial boards, reviewers, contributors and often editors are academics who are unpaid for these services • the publishing houses effectively charge academics for reading their own work • move toward publishing on-line to bypass the publishing houses

11. The Process – why? • do you remember George Taylor ? • why did George Taylor get so upset? • here’s a clue….. • it was something to do with…… • the Eloi and the Morlocks….. • …well - the Eloi actually….

12. The Process – why?

13. The Process (1): • researcher decides they have a quantum for publication (in science an article’s worth of work = +/- 1 year’s laboratory work) • must be unpublished, noteworthy and innovative i.e. make a new contribution to the knowledge • (may initially report at a conference) • if earth-moving, may submit a rapid communication (e.g. Tetrahedron Letters or JCS Chem. Comm.)

14. The Process (2): • ….otherwise chooses a normal journal (see later slide) & prepares an article in the House Style according to The Instructions for Authors (not advice to…) • a brief comment about order of authors…. • you will see more fights about this than anything else • can depend on the house style, a general model is……

15. The Process (3): authorship protocols M H Sosabowski, K Herson, A W Lloyd and P Bell School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, University of Brighton, Cockcroft Building, Moulsecoomb, Brighton, BN2 4GJ, United Kingdom. An evaluation of information technology use among first-year pharmacy students Am. J. Pharm. Educ.624 433-438 1998

16. The Process (4): authorship protocols MH Sosabowski*, K Herson, GWJ Olivier, AW Lloyd and P Bell Wrote paper, other contributors may be elder statesman ‘first’, ‘starred’ of group (often or ‘corresponding’ supervisor or author grant holder) An evaluation of information technology use among first-year pharmacy students Am. J. Pharm. Educ.624 433-438 1998

17. The Process (6): reference protocols M H Sosabowski, K Herson, A W Lloyd and P Bell An evaluation of information technology use among first-year pharmacy students Am. J. Pharm. Educ.62 4 433-438 (1998) volume pages Abbreviated journal title part (year)

18. The Process (7): collaboration Implementation Strategies for Educational Intranet Resources Katie Herson, Michael H Sosabowski*, and Andrew W Lloyd School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, University of Brighton, Cockcroft Building, Moulsecoomb, Brighton, BN2 4GJ, United Kingdom. Stephen Flowers, Cameron Paine and Becci Newton Business School, University of Brighton, Mithras House, Lewes Road, Brighton, BN2 4AT, United Kingdom. (British Journal of Educational Technology31 1 47-55 2000 )

19. The Process (8): • any-way… multiple copies of paper sent to journal editor… • …. article received by editor, author sent a dated letter of receipt with MS# (cf. being scooped) • editor sends to +/- 3 referees (experts in the field) for review & commentary

20. The Process (9): • referees read and assess according to Instructions for Referees • referees decide to • accept without change(s) • accept with change(s) (expand Hal) • reject (but with commentary as if the article will eventually be published) • ….based upon novelty, relevance and (to a lesser degree) adherence to IFA & length • editor has final decision • If refs accept, (s)he may correct minor grammatical & typographical matters

21. The Process (10): • editor informs corresponding author of decision • if accept will often request article on disc – authors may now consider their article to be in press • galley proofs sent to corresponding author, checked, corrected (see next slide) & returned (major changes are chargeable to author)

22. The Process (11): • galley proof changes require meticulous pedantism • e.g. Suppose you annotate an MS with: insert “and” • do you mean insert and • …or insert “and” ? • best to explain each change on MS AND spell it out on an accompanyment

23. The Process (11):

24. The Process – which journal? • try The Journal of Whatever it is you’re doing • or, which journal appears most in your references? • start realistically i.e. local bottom-shelf journals • try not to be driven by impact factors – these skew the direction of articles from their intended readership

25. The Process – why? • attempt to ensure the integrity of the literature • ensures that experiments are consistently repeatable and data is properly scrutinised • prevents flawed, inaccurate or made-up data from being published • (although some slips through the net – e.g. Cold Fusion papers, recent retraction in Nature)

26. The Process – why? Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Quist D, Chapela IH. Nature 2001 Nov 29;414(6863):541-3

27. The Process – why? Biodiversity (Communications arising): maize transgene results in Mexico are artefacts. Kaplinsky N, Braun D, Lisch D, Hay A, Hake S, Freeling M. Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA.

28. Editorial note In our 29 November issue, we published the paper "Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico" by David Quist and Ignacio Chapela. Subsequently, we received several criticisms of the paper, to which we obtained responses from the authors and consulted referees over the exchanges. In the meantime, the authors agreed to obtain further data, on a timetable agreed with us, that might prove beyond reasonable doubt that transgenes have indeed become integrated into the maize genome. The authors have now obtained some additional data, but there is disagreement between them and a referee as to whether these results significantly bolster their argument. In light of these discussions and the diverse advice received, Nature has concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper. As the authors nevertheless wish to stand by the available evidence for their conclusions, we feel it best simply to make these circumstances clear, to publish the criticisms, the authors' response and new data, and to allow our readers to judge the science for themselves. Editor, Nature

29. From paper to e-journals

30. From paper to e-journals - advantages • accessibility • flexibility • less cumbersome • quicker

31. From paper to e-journals – disadvantages • if you stop your subscription you lose your archive • potential for copying/collusion/plagiarism etc. • not everyone has a computer

32. Pt II – The Paradox of being a researcher who teaches or a teacher who does some research “Bob the Builder, Dentist, TV repairman,cardiac surgeon – Audi repairs a speciality” Do you want your loft extension done by Bob ? Then why do we ask ourselves to be excellent at two discrete activities requiring separate skill sets?

33. University research - generalisations • Hitherto; teaching staff have been (are?) measured by research outputs • research = prestige • teaching = routine • staff are required and assumed to be competent at teaching… • ...and therefore often don’t see the point in enhancing their teaching • except during Subject Reviews? • promotion is rarely offered or sought on the basis of excellence in teaching alone

34. Moreover:- • the above often ensures that poor teachers remain so • staff can be divided roughly into: • the excellent teachers and • the excellent researchers • few excel at both (focus) • (empty vessels often make most noise)

35. Why do research? • we are supposed to • (scholarly activity) • personal development • if teaching staff are up-to-date with the literature and contributing to it, this is apparent in their teaching • i.e. the students see the difference

36. Science research • has a long lag time between concept and application • is very focused… • …said focus can obscure whatever’s happening to one side • when focused, researchers often become too absorbed and unobjective

37. Motivating for research outputs • one approach toward fostering a research-oriented climate is to encourage entrepreneurism in research • seeing and seizing the opportunities… • …by which we mean looking for opportunities in hitherto unlooked places for publishing and driving research forward • research output from one’s teaching is such an opportunity • and opportunities can exist in the most unlikely of circumstances

38. Research – getting started for the new researcher M H Sosabowski and P Powell Preparation and reaction of some 2-thienyl and 3-thienyl-pyridazinones and -pyridazines J. Chem. Res. (S) 8 314-315 1995, J. Chem. Res. (M) 1901-1912 1995 M H Sosabowski and P Powell Coupling of organotin reagents with aryl, acyl and heteroaryl halides: synthesis of pyridazine and quinoxalone derivatives J. Chem. Res. (S) 10 402-403 1995, J. Chem. Res. (M) 2422-2434 1995 M H Sosabowski, and P PowellCoupling of organotin reagents with aryl, acyl and heteroaryl halides Part 2: preparation of derivatised thienylpyridinesJ. Chem. Res. (S) 5 156-157 1997, J. Chem. Res. (M), 1064-1074 1997

39. Research – getting started for the new researcher • research needn’t necessarily require large funding, or particularly profound ideas • new researchers are often put off by the apparent requirement for the above • the first research paper is always the most difficult

40. Research – demotivating factors • fear of failure • non-acceptance that we are all different • apparent complexity of obtaining funds • can’t get funding without papers, can’t get papers without funding • pressure to publish from above • RAE protocols esp. impact factors

41. Research – getting started for the new researcher – a model • find an idea/experiment – needn’t be profound, preferably related to teaching • measure that which is measurable • do it - write it up • write a note to a realistically-placed journal • expect to have it rejected first time around • persevere • opportunities exist in the most unlikely of circumstances

42. Teaching from research M H Sosabowski J Sosabowski and J Zweit Labelling of deferoxamine-folate with zirconium-89: a potential tumour targeting PET radiopharmaceutical J. Label. Comp. Radiopharm.37 372-374 1998

43. Teaching from research

44. Teaching from research MDP-Tc-99m scan

45. Teaching from research CT scan

46. Where’s the opportunity? MPharm Program: Dr Sosabowski’s radioimaging modalities course with almanac of sporting injuries  (Hal’s 100 greatest sporting injury moments)

47. Research – learning whilst teaching • Registering for a degree out of one’s field widens the spectrum of experience • 1994 -1997 MBA, University of Durban-Westville, then University of Brighton • Dissertation, ‘IT in the University Learning Experience’

48. Research – learning whilst teaching M H Sosabowski, K Herson, A W Lloyd and P Bell An evaluation of information technology use among first-year pharmacy students Am. J. Pharm. Educ.624 433-438 1998

49. Research - learning whilst teaching M H Sosabowski, K Herson and A W Lloyd Identifying and overcoming staff resistance to computer based learning and teaching methods - shedding millstones to achieve milestones Active Learning9 26-31 1999

50. Research- taking advantage from necessity