Producing papers from your PhD

Producing papers from your PhD Dr Martin Hagger University of Nottingham

Introduction: Why Publish? • Publishing is not a luxury for just a few but a must-do for academics paid to both produce and share knowledge • Publishing is a necessary, highly, time-consuming activity to • Seek scholarly recognition • Obtain funding in the future • Gain promotion • Success when attempting publishing is key

Choosing a Journal: The Impact Factor (IF) • The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) created the IF as means of measuring number of times ‘average article’ was cited over a particular time period • It would evaluate the journal’s relative importance • While IF is only one measure, it has become the proxy measure for journal quality • IF measures the frequency with which the ‘average article’ in a journal has been cited in a particular year/period • A ratio between citations and recent citable items published, calculated by dividing the number of cites a journal received for publications in a two year period (e.g., 2004 and 2005) by the number of articles published in those two years

The IF: An Example • Psychology & Health • published 46 and 50 articles in 2006 and 2007, respectively • those articles were cited 116 and 84 times in those years • adding the two figures results in 96 and 200 for the numerator and denominator, respectively • dividing the two results in an IF = 2.083

The IF: Some Insights • Sometime IF is not everything • Some journals have ‘weak’ IF but are read by the people you want to target • Journals in Psychology often have comparatively low IF’s compared to other fields (e.g., medicine) • Also look at who publishes in the journals – that will give an indication of who reads them • Don’t be afraid to ‘go outside’ e.g. applied journals • Often gain a lot more knowledge of theories and methods by reading and publishing in other fields

The Number of Citations (NC) • To be considered given the new research-related evaluation rules (e.g., REF - Research Excellence Framework, in the UK) • Focus on ‘bibliometrics’ to quantify research performance • Number of citations of an academic’s work… including additional citation meta-data for papers • How many times is a given individual’s paper cited by other individual papers? • How many times is that paper cited, per paper? • And how many of these citations are self-citations?

The Publishing ‘Game’ • Publishing is not easy • Only very few manage to get published in peer journals! • But it’s not impossible • There are few things one can do to improve the chances of getting published… other than submitting a ‘good’ paper

What makes a good paper?

What makes a ‘good’ paper • A HIGH QUALITY EMPIRICAL RESEARCH PAPER NEEDS… • Originality • Makes a contribution to the literature/knowledge • Has a clear theoretical basis of the research • Appropriate design and methods – addresses hypotheses • High standard of writing • Strong data and statistical analyses • Conclusions based on data

Framing the article well and choosing the right journal • Rank journals to consider in hierarchical order • Target audience? • Area of interest: ‘mainstream’ psychology, applied psychology, other applied disciplines (e.g. medicine, occupation, ergonomics, biology) • Impact factor? Number of Citations? • Acceptance rate? • Highly-ranked journals often have acceptance rates of less than 30

Other aspects to consider or suggest ?

Framing the article well and choosing the right journal (cont.) • Qualitative vs. quantitative work • Applied/practice vs. formative/theoretical • Empirical or review (systematic/meta-analysis/narrative) • Length (original article/research note/commentary/review) • Scope – will it reach target audience • Level of contribution • Types of articles typically accepted/published

Preparing an Abstract • Essential components • Contextualize • Aims/unique contribution • Methods (sample, design, measures) • Findings/analyses • Conclusion • Others?

Responding to Reviewers’ Comments The are quite a few typical editorial decisions (although journals do differ!) • Accept with no modifications required • Accept subject to minor amendments • Accept subject to major modifications • Revise and resubmit (either minor or substantial revisions requested) • Reject (no opportunity to resubmit)

Responding to Reviewers’ Comments (cont.) • Revise the manuscript considering ALL OF the reviewer's comments • Answer in a letter to the Editor and provide a point by point to EACH comment • Include original comments and mark your response clearly • DO NOT include personal criticisms • Remain impartial and view this as an ‘opportunity’

Responding to Reviewers’ Comments (cont.) • Whether there are a few, or many, points mentioned by the reviewers, the author(s) MUST respond to ALL of them • You do not have to accept all requested changes but you must provide a rebuttal to justify your reasons • Indicate the location of all the changes made (e.g., page and line numbers, coloured text,tracked changes)

Follow publication/author guidelines • Carefully check and verify the journal instructions • If possible, not only the authors’ but the reviewers’ instructions as well • See other papers published in the same journal • Style, layout and content • Avoid ridiculous mistakes • Erroneous statistical signs, inaccurate manuscript structure, wrong referencing style, etc. • Get the APA (6th Ed.) manual, you’ll probably need it! • Make your work difficult to be rejected!

Manuscript Style • Journals can be very picky and seldom compromise, so make sure you pay attention to: • Manuscript length • Abstract length (and structure) • Reference style (in text and reference section) • Headings • Running head • Title/cover page • Page (and line) numbering and spacing

Manuscript Style • Journals can be very picky and seldom compromise, so make sure you pay attention to: • Table format and headings • Figure format and headings (and file types) • Format of acknowledgements, author affiliations, contact author’s details • Masked review requirements • Spelling and grammar (US English, UK English etc.) • Margins, indents • Suggestions for reviewers

Using appropriate scientific writing style • Two key messages • Read, read and re-read manuscripts! • Write, write and re-write manuscripts! • Also • Ask colleagues to look at your manuscript before submitting • One more week of work may make the difference between getting published and being rejected! • Consider collaborating with colleagues who have ‘proven’ writing ability

Using appropriate scientific writing style:Other Tips • In order to write well, you need to know your topic inside out – so you need to read – A LOT! • Broadly • Outside the field (if necessary) • Read original theoretical papers • Observe how other authors write • Pick up useful phrases, ways of wording • Use the appropriate terms

Literature searching • Electronic databases: • Web of science • Psyarticles • Medline • Select keywords – tricky if you are unfamiliar • Use trial and error • Narrow your search • Identify key articles • Central • Peripheral • Introduction vs. core content • Methodological • Look at the language, terminology, style, key prases and jargon • Consistency and accuracy

1. General context A Sample Introduction Over the past three decades, a greater awareness of the psychosocial factors involved in sport injury occurrence and rehabilitation have led to extensive research efforts on these subjects. More recently, there has been a growing interest in the psychological aspects of the return to sport following serious injury (Andersen, 2001). Two important developments have promoted this interest. First, it has increasingly been recognized that physical and psychological readiness to return to sport after injury do not always coincide (Crossman, 1997). Second, there has been an increase in the incidence of serious injury, at the elite level (e.g., Orchard & Seward, 2002). Therefore, the number of returning athletes who are physically but not necessarily psychologically prepared to re-enter training and competition may also be on the rise. This paper utilizes self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000) to examine and critique research investigations and reports on the psychosocial sport injury literature dealing with the post-injury recovery time period when the athlete is returning to training and competition. The review is based on a database search of peer-reviewed articles from Medline, Sport Discus and Psycinfo between 1970 and 2006 using a variety of search terms and combinations of terms (e.g., ‘‘return to sport’’, ‘‘psychology of athletic injury’’, ‘‘sport injury’’). Of the 192 sport injury articles retrieved 80 were deemed relevant to the present review and are discussed below. The review is divided into four sections. In Section 1, a discussion of conceptual models that have been used to describe the return to sport transition are presented. SDT is presented as a coherent theoretical framework in which to explore and understand issues related to the return-to-sport following injury (Section 2). In Section 3, the psychosocial literature on the return to sport from injury is examined within a self-determination framework. In the fourth and final section, the implications of the research findings are presented and suggestions for future research are provided in line with self-determination theoretical contentions.

2. Specific context A Sample Introduction Over the past three decades, a greater awareness of the psychosocial factors involved in sport injury occurrence and rehabilitation have led to extensive research efforts on these subjects. More recently, there has been a growing interest in the psychological aspects of the return to sport following serious injury (Andersen, 2001). Two important developments have promoted this interest. First, it has increasingly been recognized that physical and psychological readiness to return to sport after injury do not always coincide (Crossman, 1997). Second, there has been an increase in the incidence of serious injury, at the elite level (e.g., Orchard & Seward, 2002). Therefore, the number of returning athletes who are physically but not necessarily psychologically prepared to re-enter training and competition may also be on the rise. This paper utilizes self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000) to examine and critique research investigations and reports on the psychosocial sport injury literature dealing with the post-injury recovery time period when the athlete is returning to training and competition. The review is based on a database search of peer-reviewed articles from Medline, Sport Discus and Psycinfo between 1970 and 2006 using a variety of search terms and combinations of terms (e.g., ‘‘return to sport’’, ‘‘psychology of athletic injury’’, ‘‘sport injury’’). Of the 192 sport injury articles retrieved 80 were deemed relevant to the present review and are discussed below. The review is divided into four sections. In Section 1, a discussion of conceptual models that have been used to describe the return to sport transition are presented. SDT is presented as a coherent theoretical framework in which to explore and understand issues related to the return-to-sport following injury (Section 2). In Section 3, the psychosocial literature on the return to sport from injury is examined within a self-determination framework. In the fourth and final section, the implications of the research findings are presented and suggestions for future research are provided in line with self-determination theoretical contentions.

3. Statement of purpose A Sample Introduction Over the past three decades, a greater awareness of the psychosocial factors involved in sport injury occurrence and rehabilitation have led to extensive research efforts on these subjects. More recently, there has been a growing interest in the psychological aspects of the return to sport following serious injury (Andersen, 2001). Two important developments have promoted this interest. First, it has increasingly been recognized that physical and psychological readiness to return to sport after injury do not always coincide (Crossman, 1997). Second, there has been an increase in the incidence of serious injury, at the elite level (e.g., Orchard & Seward, 2002). Therefore, the number of returning athletes who are physically but not necessarily psychologically prepared to re-enter training and competition may also be on the rise. This paper utilizes self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000) to examine and critique research investigations and reports on the psychosocial sport injury literature dealing with the post-injury recovery time period when the athlete is returning to training and competition. The review is based on a database search of peer-reviewed articles from Medline, Sport Discus and Psycinfo between 1970 and 2006 using a variety of search terms and combinations of terms (e.g., ‘‘return to sport’’, ‘‘psychology of athletic injury’’, ‘‘sport injury’’). Of the 192 sport injury articles retrieved 80 were deemed relevant to the present review and are discussed below. The review is divided into four sections. In Section 1, a discussion of conceptual models that have been used to describe the return to sport transition are presented. SDT is presented as a coherent theoretical framework in which to explore and understand issues related to the return-to-sport following injury (Section 2). In Section 3, the psychosocial literature on the return to sport from injury is examined within a self-determination framework. In the fourth and final section, the implications of the research findings are presented and suggestions for future research are provided in line with self-determination theoretical contentions.

4. Method overview A Sample Introduction Over the past three decades, a greater awareness of the psychosocial factors involved in sport injury occurrence and rehabilitation have led to extensive research efforts on these subjects. More recently, there has been a growing interest in the psychological aspects of the return to sport following serious injury (Andersen, 2001). Two important developments have promoted this interest. First, it has increasingly been recognized that physical and psychological readiness to return to sport after injury do not always coincide (Crossman, 1997). Second, there has been an increase in the incidence of serious injury, at the elite level (e.g., Orchard & Seward, 2002). Therefore, the number of returning athletes who are physically but not necessarily psychologically prepared to re-enter training and competition may also be on the rise. This paper utilizes self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000) to examine and critique research investigations and reports on the psychosocial sport injury literature dealing with the post-injury recovery time period when the athlete is returning to training and competition. The review is based on a database search of peer-reviewed articles from Medline, Sport Discus and Psycinfo between 1970 and 2006 using a variety of search terms and combinations of terms (e.g., ‘‘return to sport’’, ‘‘psychology of athletic injury’’, ‘‘sport injury’’). Of the 192 sport injury articles retrieved 80 were deemed relevant to the present review and are discussed below. The review is divided into four sections. In Section 1, a discussion of conceptual models that have been used to describe the return to sport transition are presented. SDT is presented as a coherent theoretical framework in which to explore and understand issues related to the return-to-sport following injury (Section 2). In Section 3, the psychosocial literature on the return to sport from injury is examined within a self-determination framework. In the fourth and final section, the implications of the research findings are presented and suggestions for future research are provided in line with self-determination theoretical contentions.

5. Summary of major points A Sample Introduction Over the past three decades, a greater awareness of the psychosocial factors involved in sport injury occurrence and rehabilitation have led to extensive research efforts on these subjects. More recently, there has been a growing interest in the psychological aspects of the return to sport following serious injury (Andersen, 2001). Two important developments have promoted this interest. First, it has increasingly been recognized that physical and psychological readiness to return to sport after injury do not always coincide (Crossman, 1997). Second, there has been an increase in the incidence of serious injury, at the elite level (e.g., Orchard & Seward, 2002). Therefore, the number of returning athletes who are physically but not necessarily psychologically prepared to re-enter training and competition may also be on the rise. This paper utilizes self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000) to examine and critique research investigations and reports on the psychosocial sport injury literature dealing with the post-injury recovery time period when the athlete is returning to training and competition. The review is based on a database search of peer-reviewed articles from Medline, Sport Discus and Psycinfo between 1970 and 2006 using a variety of search terms and combinations of terms (e.g., ‘‘return to sport’’, ‘‘psychology of athletic injury’’, ‘‘sport injury’’). Of the 192 sport injury articles retrieved 80 were deemed relevant to the present review and are discussed below. The review is divided into four sections. In Section 1, a discussion of conceptual models that have been used to describe the return to sport transition are presented. SDT is presented as a coherent theoretical framework in which to explore and understand issues related to the return-to-sport following injury (Section 2). In Section 3, the psychosocial literature on the return to sport from injury is examined within a self-determination framework. In the fourth and final section, the implications of the research findings are presented and suggestions for future research are provided in line with self-determination theoretical contentions.

A Sample Introduction 6. Conclusion Over the past three decades, a greater awareness of the psychosocial factors involved in sport injury occurrence and rehabilitation have led to extensive research efforts on these subjects. More recently, there has been a growing interest in the psychological aspects of the return to sport following serious injury (Andersen, 2001). Two important developments have promoted this interest. First, it has increasingly been recognized that physical and psychological readiness to return to sport after injury do not always coincide (Crossman, 1997). Second, there has been an increase in the incidence of serious injury, at the elite level (e.g., Orchard & Seward, 2002). Therefore, the number of returning athletes who are physically but not necessarily psychologically prepared to re-enter training and competition may also be on the rise. This paper utilizes self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000) to examine and critique research investigations and reports on the psychosocial sport injury literature dealing with the post-injury recovery time period when the athlete is returning to training and competition. The review is based on a database search of peer-reviewed articles from Medline, Sport Discus and Psycinfo between 1970 and 2006 using a variety of search terms and combinations of terms (e.g., ‘‘return to sport’’, ‘‘psychology of athletic injury’’, ‘‘sport injury’’). Of the 192 sport injury articles retrieved 80 were deemed relevant to the present review and are discussed below. The review is divided into four sections. In Section 1, a discussion of conceptual models that have been used to describe the return to sport transition are presented. SDT is presented as a coherent theoretical framework in which to explore and understand issues related to the return-to-sport following injury (Section 2). In Section 3, the psychosocial literature on the return to sport from injury is examined within a self-determination framework. In the fourth and final section, the implications of the research findings are presented and suggestions for future research are provided in line with self-determination theoretical contentions.

Why was my article rejected? • Original contribution  NUMBER 1 on editors’ list • Does the article make a unique (and interesting) contribution to knowledge? • Theoretical stance - explained clearly? • Hypotheses – based on theory, unique & original? • If testing ‘competing models’ are alternative hypotheses stated? • Is it appropriate for the journal? Will readership be interested? • Has the manuscript been CLEAR in articulating why its important? (MOST IMPORTANT)

Why was my article rejected? • Appropriate methods and design – does it do what it sets out to do, well and appropriately? • Methods – can they address the hypotheses? • Design – is this the right type of study? • Data analysis – appropriate, clear • Conclusions – are they based on findings? • Discussion – does it relate findings back to previous research? • Consistency – Do the section of the paper ‘add up’?

Why was my article rejected? • Writing • It doesn’t have to be Shakespeare (!), but it has to be clear and use the appropriate scientific discourse • If English is your second language it might be useful to get a native speaker to proofread • Presentation • Follow guidelines TO THE LETTER • Referencing • Make sure all key points are well referenced, and coverage is appropriate – it’s also possible to ‘over’-reference

Peer review • The peer review process of a paper is like a box of chocolates…

Peer review • “Some papers are wrongly rejected and others are wrongly accepted” (Regibeau, Managing Editor Journal of Industrial Economics; cited in Shepherd, 2006, p. 3)

Peer review • “The chances of agreement between academic referees on the value of papers submitted to journals is only slightly better than random” (Bowbrick, Times Higher Educational Supplement, 1995)

Peer review • “I was challenged by two of the cleverest researchers in Britain to publish an issue of the BMJ comprised only of papers that had failed peer review and to see if anybody noticed. I wrote back 'How do you know I haven't already done it?'” Smith (Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2006, p. 84)

Peer review • Take the reviewing process seriously and try not to take any rejection personally • Neither assume that today’s success guarantees tomorrow’s success! • What should I do if (when) the paper is rejected? • Find another journal to re-submit • Take into account ALL the reviewers’ comments and updated manuscript prior resubmission • Reviewers could get your manuscript again!

Responding to Reviewers • Never write a negative comment to the Editor/Reviewer(s) • Process your emotions before moving forward… • That won’t help your chances to publish and only winds them up… • Do respond to EACH and EVERY comment, explicitly • Do include the original comments in your response • Do highlight in the manuscript where you have made changes • Don’t make your responses ambiguous • Don’t be defensive, the reviewer’s put a lot of time in, have respect • Don’t give an argumentative or dogmatic rebuttal – make it reasoned • Don’t be afraid to concede a point as a limitation or something with which you are not familiar

Become a Reviewer! • Science is not what it was! • There are more journals now than at any time and the rate of expansion is huge • Increased pressure on authors, reviewers, and editors to get articles reviewed • EXCELLENT opportunity to gain knowledge and experience of scientific work

Become a Reviewer! • Reviewing is also contributing to science, you play a role in the expansion of knowledge • You learn while you do so • Contact editors asking to review – show some credentials and area of interest

Publish or perish… that’s the academic question! Martin.Hagger@nottingham.ac.uk

Producing papers from your PhD