Reviewing Manuscript for P ublication Workshop KESSA 2014

1. Reviewing Manuscript for Publication WorkshopKESSA 2014 Faith Maina Ph.D. (SUNY Oswego) KefaOtiso Ph.D. (Bowling Green) Francis Koti Ph.D. (Northern Alabama)

2. Purpose • Overview of peer review process • Elements included in quality review • Practice review

3. Overview of Peer Review Process

4. Review Process

5. Elements included in quality review

6. Titles • Specific (differentiate from the thousands of articles in the area) • Concise (15 words or less) • Variables (what exactly is being studied) • Participants (who is in the study) • Main title and subtitle (specific variables)

7. Abstracts • Concise (100-250 words) • Purpose of study • Research methodology (qualitative) • Instruments (interviews, surveys, content analysis, observations) • Results (only highlights)

8. Introductions & Literature Reviews • Introduce the problem area • Establish its importance • Provide an overview of the relevant literature • Show how the current study will advance knowledge in the area • Describe specific questions, purposes in the last paragraph of this section

9. Literature Reviews • Selective referencing (citing only important references) • Critical review (strengths and weaknesses of previously done studies) • Currency of the literature (published in recent years) • Limited use of direct quotes • Topic to topic (themes) • Coherent essay with logical transitions • Conceptual definition (brief)

10. Methodology • Setting (study site) • Population (who resides in that site) • Sampling • Instruments • Procedure

11. Sampling • Sample Population/ only those who participated in the study) • Diverse (if this is significant to the research question) • Demographics (age, gender, level of education, job group etc.) • Size (if small, consider profiling each participant)

12. Instruments • Interviews (actual interview schedule) • Focus group interviews (organized around themes) • Content analysis (documents, videos, pictures etc.) • Observation (observation schedule)

13. Procedure • Entry into study site • Letters seeking permission from relevant authorities • Informed consent for participants • Administration of instruments

14. Analysis and Results • Coding (method of analysis) • Trustworthiness • Member checking • Descriptions of observations • Clearly organized by themes (allow voice of participants to be heard through direct quotes)

15. Discussion, Conclusions & Outcomes • Brief summary of purpose and highlights of results • Limitations (methodological flaws) • Link to literature (only work cited in the introduction and literature review) • Interpretation of results (offer explanation of unexpected findings) • Implications (what actions should be taken) • Future research (point to a specific direction)

16. References • Only the work cited in the text • APA style

17. Practice Exercise

18. Evaluating a ManuscriptPractice Exercise For each one, rate the extent of appropriateness where 5 is the highest rating. N/A (not applicable) I/I (insufficient information to make a judgement) • Title Very satisfactory 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsatisfactory NA I/I Explain: • Abstract Very satisfactory 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsatisfactory NA I/I Explain: • Introduction Very satisfactory 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsatisfactory NA I/I Explain:

19. Review Cont.’ Literature • Very satisfactory 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsatisfactory NA I/I Explain: Sample • Very satisfactory 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsatisfactory NA I/I Explain: Instrument • Very satisfactory 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsatisfactory NA I/I Explain:

20. Review Cont.’ • Analysis Results Very satisfactory 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsatisfactory NA I/I Explain: • Discussion and Conclusion Very satisfactory 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsatisfactory NA I/I Explain:

21. Providing Feedback

22. Role of Reviewer • Provide a rating (reject, invite major/minor revisions, accept) • Comments to authors • Professional and respectful tone • Corrective feedback • Confidential comments to associate editor