Preparing Future Faculty Workshop November 8, 2008 Dr. Charles Carver Department of Psychology

1. Preparing Future Faculty Workshop November 8, 2008 Dr. Charles Carver Department of Psychology

2. Publishing: Getting Your Work to Your Desired Audience

3. Presentation at conferences versus publication in journals Using meetings to present vs staying up with the field Different disciplines have different customs Consult within your discipline

4. To publish well: Choose an interesting problem to examine (duh) (An entire separate session on issues in writing) Aim for clarity, simplicity, linearity After you polish, get a couple of people to read it

5. Select an appropriate journal Masthead statements for content Indices of quality (opinions, to impact factor, to readership) Know early what indices of quality are emphasized by your department (e.g., opinions vs impact factor)

6. Aim high, but not ludicrously so Accept that your work will not always make it at the best journal Understand the hierarchy in an area In your reading, think about what differentiates articles in better versus less-good journals

7. The review process Editors, Associate Editors, editorial boards, ad hoc reviewers Variability in process among “Action Editors”: “Vote counters” versus “deciders”

8. The decision letter On first submission, virtually nothing is accepted A rejection with an opportunity to resubmit a revision is a terrific outcome Anything that leaves the door open a crack is a good outcome

9. The revision process Criticism stings, and reviews are a large dose of criticism Let the sting fade before jumping in, but don’t wait too long Line by line report of how you changed in response to reviews

10. A reply letter is often very long It will be used as road map to navigate the revised paper Disagreeing with reviewer points Tone should be grateful for the help, if possible, but at least not argumentative

11. Revise for Journal A, or turn to Journal B? The odds go up if you have the chance to revise Presumably you have gone to the better journal first Sometimes you would have to revise in unacceptable ways

12. Even if you do turn to Journal B, revise before you do so If the prior reviewers have had difficulties, other people will too It is not unheard of for Journal B to go to some of the same people as Journal A used

13. You must be able to tolerate rejection and criticism, if you are going to survive and prosper in this line of work Persistence is an important key to success in academia

16. Exempt from requirements of 45 CFR 46 : (1) Research on normal educational practices (2) Research using educational tests, unless there is link from subject to a test result that would place subject at risk

17. Exempt from requirements of 45 CFR 46 : (3) Research on public officials or candidates for office (4) Research on existing data: if publicly available, or if data are recorded without link to the subject

18. Exempt from requirements of 45 CFR 46 : (5) Research by agency heads on public benefit programs (6) Food quality, or taste, research

19. Catch 22: You cannot decide for yourself whether your project is exempt

20. Submit the protocol, claim exempt status (specify category), cross your fingers If staff review and chair concur, you are approved, done forever, as long as there are no changes No continuing report, no follow-up