1 / 19

On publishing

On publishing. Prof. Frank Geels, SPRU DPhil day 23 May 2011. Structure. General intro Articles make contributions in debates Review process Impact factors and REF. 1. Intro: Role of articles (books?) in science. Science as debate (rather than ‘truth’)

serenity-mccarty
Download Presentation

On publishing

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. On publishing Prof. Frank Geels, SPRU DPhil day 23 May 2011

  2. Structure • General intro • Articles make contributions in debates • Review process • Impact factors and REF

  3. 1. Intro: Role of articles (books?) in science • Science as debate (rather than ‘truth’) • Articles as communication device • Articles should make contribution in debate for certain peer group/audience • ‘Debate pull’ rather than ‘idea push’

  4. 2. Types of contributions to debate I) Some debates are ‘out there’, and you can make (small) contributions such as 1. Descriptive, ad-hoc reporting: “this is what I found, saw, experienced” 2. Systematically collected data with some reflection or lesson (identify trends, developments, and implications). 3. Make a point, observation or suggestion with regard to other claims, views, perspectives. Sometimes supported with an example or case. 4. Develop and illustrate ‘conceptual language’. May deteriorate into proliferation of new ‘words’ and concepts (jargon).

  5. II) Construct new debate and make contributions (Locke and Golden-Biddle, 1997) 1) Create bridges: identify two unrelated streams around a topic and claim to bring them together 2) Progression: place yourself in an ongoing stream of work that progresses in a particular direction. 3) Rival theories: Identify ‘competing explanations’, and explain why incommensurable, or test which one is better 4) Fill ‘gap’ in literature and use building blocks to construct a new perspective

  6. Choices, trade-offs, dilemmas Option 1) Is more safe + standard way But may lead to boring (uncited) papers Rousseeuw, P.J., 1991, ‘Why the wrong papers get published’, Chance: New Directions for Statistics and Computing, 4(1), 41-43 Horrobin, D.F., 1990, ‘The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1438-1441 Option 2) Is more difficult, risky But rewarding if it succeeds • Get new topics on agenda • Develop new perspectives

  7. 3. Review process 1. Submit paper to journal 2. Editor decides: desk-reject, send for review 3. Review reports come back (4-12 months) A) Accept as is B) Minor revisions C) Major revisions (there is potentially something interesting) D) Reject (no contribution, weak methods, poor theory) 4. Editor makes decision and informs author 5. Author makes changes and resubmits

  8. Understand the reviewers Difficult to find reviewers They do not get paid, have little time, and easily get irritated if paper is: • Not clear (about contribution) • Over-promises and makes too grand claims • Not clearly structured

  9. Dealing with reviewer comments If moderate reviews (R&R), then • try to please the reviewers • but also stick to your own argument; Frey, B.S., 2003, ‘Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success’, Public Choice, 116, 205-223 Don’t need to accept every review comment you can try to convince editor (judge)  Publication is partly negotiation

  10. Article rejection • Happens to all of us Gans, J. and Shepherd, G., 1994, ‘How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 165-179 • But remains ‘painful’ (pride, ego) Review process is partly a lottery • Some reviewers are hostile and want to kill your paper • Sometimes they are chosen by the editor to do that But sometimes it works well  better papers

  11. Personal advice Publishing difficult in the beginning: • What are debates? • What counts as contribution? 1) Team up with experienced colleague (combine your data with his/her framing) 2) Present your work, ask feedback etc. 3) Start with modest contributions (one point in debate) 4) Choose the right journal: • Which hosts the debate • Which your audience/peer group reads • Has high standing (impact factors)

  12. 4. Impact factors and REF Background • Research funders want value for money: excellent research, relevant research • Trend towards ‘accountability’ and measurement/control/management • Use of quantitative data to measure ‘performance’: number of articles + impact factors of journals

  13. Impact factor The 2003 impact factor for journal X is calculated as A/B A = the number of times articles published in X in 2001-2 were cited in indexed journals during 2003 B = the number of articles, reviews, proceedings or notes published in X in 2001-2

  14. Web of science (ISI) publishes yearly impact factors for different ‘fields’

  15. 10. History and Philosophy of Science

  16. Journals with higher impact factors are often seen as better, higher quality • Often have higher ‘rejection rates’ (up to 90%) But: • Larger fields have higher impact factors • New and interdisciplinary fields/journals score lower • Dominated by English language journals • Journals with long lead times score lower

  17. REF (Research Excellence Framework) • 5 year exercise which influences HEFCE funding to universities • Journal articles 65% of score • Consists of different panels: B&M, IR&P • Panels make lists of journal rankings: 4, 3, 2, 1 star-journals • Different weighting/points: • 0 points for 1 star • 1 point for 2 star • 10 points for 3 star • 30 points for 4 star

  18. Choice of journals is important • For your career (indicator of excellence) • For universities (translates into money) But also think of other criteria: • Which journal hosts the debate • Which journals does your audience/peer group read • Has high standing (impact factors)

  19. References Locke, K. and Golden-Biddle, K., 1997, 'Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and "problematizing" in organizational studies', The Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1023-1062 Rousseeuw, P.J., 1991, ‘Why the wrong papers get published’, Chance: New Directions for Statistics and Computing, 4(1), 41-43 Horrobin, D.F., 1990, ‘The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1438-1441 Gans, J. and Shepherd, G., 1994, ‘How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 165-179

More Related