1 / 21

April 16, 2012 Vancouver, BC, CANADA

How To Get Published: Guidance From Emerging and Senior Scholars Ethical Issues and Understanding the Review Process Patricia B. Elmore Southern Illinois University. April 16, 2012 Vancouver, BC, CANADA. Editing and Reviewing Experience. Editor or Co-Editor Educational Researcher

lee-romero
Download Presentation

April 16, 2012 Vancouver, BC, CANADA

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. How To Get Published:Guidance From Emerging and Senior ScholarsEthical Issues and Understanding the Review ProcessPatricia B. ElmoreSouthern Illinois University April 16, 2012 Vancouver, BC, CANADA

  2. Editing and Reviewing Experience Editor or Co-Editor Educational Researcher Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research Editorial Boards American Educational Research Journal – Section on Teaching Learning and Human Development Applied Measurement in Education Educational and Psychological Measurement Journal of Educational Psychology Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development

  3. Strategies for Getting Published • Ethical Issues & Reporting Standards • The Review Process • Submitting a Manuscript • Understanding the Review Process • Deciphering the Editor’s Letter • Revising and Resubmitting the Manuscript • Regrouping after Rejection

  4. What You Need to Know About Ethical Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper “Ethical Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper” American Physiological Society, 2008

  5. What You Need to Know About Ethical Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper “Ethical Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper” American Physiological Society, 2008

  6. What You Need to Know About Ethical Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper “Ethical Issues When Writing a Scientific Paper” American Physiological Society, 2008

  7. AERA Code of Ethics American Educational Research Association. (2011). Code of Ethics. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 145-156.

  8. AERA Standards Reporting Research Findings American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33-40.

  9. AERA Standards Reporting Research Findings Two overarching principles: “First, reports of empirical research should be warranted; that is, adequate evidence should be provided to justify the results and conclusions” (p. 33)

  10. AERA Standards Reporting Research Findings “Second, reports of empirical research should be transparent; that is, reporting should make explicit the logic of inquiry and activities that led from the development of the initial interest topic, problem or research question; through the definition, collection, and analysis of empirical data or evidence; the articulated outcomes of the study” (p. 33)

  11. AERA Standards Reporting Research Findings American Educational Research Association. (2009). Standards for reporting on humanities-oriented research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 38(6), 481-486.

  12. Journal Guidelines Do NOT Deviate from Published Manuscript Submission Guidelines • Style Specified—APA, MLA, Chicago • Manuscript Length—Word Count • Abstract Length and Form • Tables, Figures, and Illustrations

  13. APA Publication Manual American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

  14. Understanding the Review Process Basic Structure of Most Journals Selection of Editors Appointment of Editorial Board Members Professional Associations Sponsoring Journals Provide • Guidelines for Editors and Authors • Ethical Standards of Association • Publication Committee for Oversight

  15. Understanding the Review Process Manuscripts Assigned to Reviewers Length of Time Between • Receipt of Manuscript and Assignment to Reviewers • Assignment to Reviewers and Receipt of Review • Receipt of Review and Editor’s Decision

  16. Understanding the Review Process Complications Mean Delays Reviewers Agree to Review But • Ignore Reminders • Send Review Weeks or Months Late • Never Complete Review Inconsistent Recommendations by Reviewers May Require Assignment to New Reviewers

  17. Deciphering the Editor’s Letter Editor’s Decision Accept Accept with Minor Revisions • Usually for Editor’s Review Revise and Resubmit • For Editor’s Review • For Re-review by Same or Different Reviewers Reject

  18. Revising and Resubmitting the Manuscript Read the Editor’s Letter Carefully Follow the Editor’s Recommendations • Whether to Submit a Revision • Timeline • Process Recommended • Discretion Provided the Author • Revisions Required and Not Negotiable Revise Manuscript and Resubmit ASAP

  19. Revising and Resubmitting the Manuscript Letter to Editor • NEVER be Defensive • Thank the Reviewers • Indicate where Reviewers’ Comments Improved the Manuscript • Provide a Detailed Enumerated List of Changes Referencing Page Numbers and Editor and Reviewer Comments

  20. Regrouping after Rejection Return to Targeting a Journal Submit Rejected Manuscript Immediately to Different Journal Incorporate Changes Only if YOU Judge the Recommended Changes Are Appropriate

  21. REMEMBER ONLY SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPTS GET PUBLISHED THANK YOU!

More Related