- Количество слайдов: 60
An Insider’s Guide to Getting Published in Research Journals Białystok 2012 Marcin Dembowski Regional Manager – Eastern Europe, Russian & CIS Countries
Agenda for the morning session 1. Explaining the publishing process 2. Measuring quality and maximising impact • Journal rankings • Usage • Research impact 3. Surviving peer review • What editors/reviewers look for • How to revise an article • Why you might be rejected, and how to respond 4. Questions
Emerald – who we are • A leading independent publisher of business, management, economics and social science research • We publish research which makes a significant contribution to practice • Formed 1967, independently owned, 300 employees • Publishing offices in US, UK, China, India and Malaysia; sales/service offices in Canada, Dubai, Brazil, Japan and Australia • 300+ peer reviewed journals (54 in ISI) • 2000+ book series, e-books, stand-alone volumes
Research you can use Emerald is … • International – Over 1, 700 university libraries worldwide, including 95 of the FT top 100 business schools – Potential readership of over 16 million • Inclusive – theory and practice, rigour and relevance – Supportive of scholarly research • Committed to improve author and reader experiences • Concerned about globally responsible publishing – We believe the world needs better management and we publish materials to reach this goal
Collaborative work • Emerald collaborates with many international associations, including: – the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) – the Academy of Management (AOM) – the European Business Schools Librarians Group (EBSLG) – the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) – the European Aeronautics Science Network (EASN)
We publish in 28 subject areas • Full list of Emerald titles: http: //www. emeraldinsight. com/journals http: //books. emeraldinsight. com
Measuring quality and maximising impact
European journal rankings (based on EURAM research 2008) • Some countries have official national rankings – France, Germany, Italy, Norway (Finland plan for 2013) • Some countries follow rankings of neighbouring country – Austria>Germany, Ireland>UK, (Switzerland>Germany) • Some countries use supra-national rankings, such as Thomson Reuters (ISI) or ABS – Spain (& Belgium, Slovenia) follow ISI, UK follows ABS • Some countries have no official national ranking, although some universities create their own rankings – Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden
Thomson Reuters (ISI) The ‘best known’ journal ranking • Thomson Reuters is a subsidiary of the Thomson Group and is based in Philadelphia, USA • The ‘Web of Science’ database scores 12, 000 selected journals with ‘Impact Factors’ based on journal citations • The latest Thomson Reuters statistics were published in June 2010 for the year 2009 • Emerald currently has 54 journals and 3 book series ranked on what is still commonly known as ‘ISI’
Thomson Reuters (ISI) What does that mean? ISI is the most well known ranking • It determines tenure, authorship and funding in many universities worldwide BUT… • It is heavily weighted towards North America • Data gathering has been questioned • Citation is not the only way of measuring impact • Feedback from rejected journals is unclear
Rankings are not always helpful • A ranking system takes a qualitative phenomenon (research) and quantifies it • Particular rankings enshrine particular ideologies – so you need to find out what those are – To allocate resources? – To emphasise a particular tradition of research? – To compare across disciplines? • As someone once said: “When do we stop counting and start thinking? ”
Other measures of quality? There are other indicators to measure quality such as: • number of downloads (utility) • dissemination of journal (where it is read) • quality of the authors • number of editors from top business schools • relevance of content and publishing ethos • links to societies/associations • internationality What is your publishing priority? • Do you want 5 articles in ‘low ranked’ journals or 1 article in a ‘top ranked’ journal? • Do you want to publish in national journals, or international?
What do we mean by ‘impact’? Research impacts upon these areas
Why do we care about impact? • We have a long-standing Publishing Philosophy: - bridging the gap between theory and practice - rigour and relevance - making the world better managed - Research You Can Use • How can we publish business and management research without caring about the impact on the wider world? • Demonstrates our belief in the value of academic research to the broader social environment
Questions for discussion Choosing a journal • What are your most important factors when choosing a journal? • Which resources do you use to research the journals you publish in? • Which rankings do you use? How important are they? • Who do you ask for advice? • What is the best journal in your field? Why? Supporting publication • How can Emerald support you to publish in international peerreviewed journals? • What are the barriers to publication, particularly for early career academics? • Are journals with a regional focus more welcome or less welcome?
Before you start…………. • You must have a clear topic or topics to be reviewed, what is your research question? Griffith Business School
Publishing your research – where to begin? • Are you working on a Doctoral or Master’s thesis? • Have you completed a project which concluded successfully? • Are you wrestling with a problem with no clear solution? • Do you have an opinion or observation about business practice? • Have you given a presentation or conference paper? • If so, you have the basis for a publishable paper
There are 1, 000’s of published studies • You need to be an authority on your topic • You need to be able to clearly summarise what is already known about your topic(s) • You must demonstrate an awareness of what has gone on before and what is going on now
How to find relevant papers • Google Scholar provides a great starting point • Universities have journal databases • Enter your key words – start broadly then narrow your search, use synonyms (these can be found in Word)
Task 1: Can you answer (some of) the following?
Think of a literature review as a jigsaw puzzle
Surviving peer review
Research is all about peer review 1. You need to avoid a desk reject 2. You may need to revise and resubmit 3. You will almost certainly need to alter your paper
‘Journals are ongoing conversations between scholars’ (Lorraine Eden) • Study the author guidelines, and read the journal, to understand the conversation • You will be ‘desk rejected’ if you appear to be unaware of what has being said, or why you are submitting
The Process • Submission is an important step on the road to being published • Reviewers are selected for their expertise by the Editors • They do sometimes make mistakes and their opinions may not be valid • But generally they raise genuine concerns about the work – conceptualization, execution and/or interpretation of the work
The Process • Their comments are aimed at maintaining the quality of papers publish in the journal, the overall journal reputation and ultimately at improving your work to attain a high standard of academic writing.
Target! “Many papers are desk rejected because they simply don’t fulfil journal requirements. They don’t even go into the review process. ” • Identify a few possible target journals but be realistic • Follow the Author Guidelines: scope, type of paper, word length, references style, etc • Find where to send your paper (editor, regional editor, subject area editor) … • … and how to send it (email, hard copy, online submission) • Send an outline or abstract to editor: is it suitable? how can it be made so? • Read at least one issue of the journal
Don’t do this Dear Sir I am a student at University of Vaasa, Finland. I want to publish my articles with you. Please send me details. Regards …
Example of author guidelines Every journal published will have detailed notes and guidelines
Plagiarism and referencing • Plagiarism (from the Latin plagium meaning ‘a kidnapping’) is the act of taking someone else’s work and pretending it is yours. It is considered fraud! • It isn’t always detected in peer review but electronic tools can help • Emerald’s entire portfolio is included in i. Thenticate web-based software from i. Paradigms (http: //www. ithenticate. com) • View Emerald’s Plagiarism Policy online (http: //info. emeraldinsight. com/about/ policies/plagiarism. htm)
Copyright • As the author, you need to ensure that you get permission to use content you have not created • If you don’t, it may delay your paper being published • Supply written confirmation from the copyright holder when submitting your manuscript • If permission cannot be cleared, we cannot republish that specific content • More information including a permissions request form is available at: http: //info. emeraldinsight. com/authors/writing/ permissions. htm
What makes a good paper? HINT: Editors and reviewers look for … • Originality – what’s new about subject, treatment or results? • Relevance to and extension of existing knowledge • Research methodology – are conclusions valid and objective? • Clarity, structure and quality of writing – does it communicate well? • Sound, logical progression of argument • Theoretical and practical implications (the ‘so what? ’ factors!) • Recency and relevance of references • Internationality/Global focus • Adherence to the editorial scope and objectives of the journal • A good title, keywords and a well written abstract
Some key questions • Readability – Does it communicate well? Is it clear? • Contribution – Why was it written? What’s new? Where does it fit into the ‘conversation’? Position your paper. • Credibility – Is the methodology robust? Are the conclusions valid? Do you give credit to others when due? Don’t hide limitations of research - you’ll be found out. • Applicability – What should people do with your article? Do your findings apply to the world of practice? Do they map out areas of future research? Use for teaching? • Internationality – Does the paper have a global perspective? If not, why not?
Your own peer review Let someone else see it! • show a draft to friends/colleagues and ask for honest criticism • we always get too close to our own work • remember that computer spell-check software is not foolproof!
Co-authorship? • With supervisor, different departments or institutions • Exploits individual strengths • Especially useful for cross-disciplinary research • Demonstrates the authority and rigour of the research • Increases potential pool of citations But remember • Ensure paper is edited so that it reads as one voice • Identify the person responsible for closing the project • Agree and clarify order of appearance of authors
Improving electronic dissemination • Research shows people read 20 -30 articles per month – you need to get on that shortlist • Short title containing main keyword – Emerald articles with 6 -10 words in the title are downloaded more than any others • Clear and descriptive abstract – include the keywords, keep it short • Use relevant and known keywords – not new jargon • Ensure references are correct – vital for reference linking and citation indices
Emerald requests structured abstracts 250 words or less (no more than 100 in any one section) • Purpose – Reasons for research, aims of paper • Design – Methodology, scope of study • Findings – Discussion, results • Research limitations/implications – Exclusions, next steps • Practical implications – The ‘so what? ’ factor • Social implications – Wider benefits to society • Originality/value – Who benefits, what’s new?
Revising • A request for revision is good news! – You’ve avoided a desk reject and you are in the publishing cycle – Nearly every published paper is revised at least once – So now, close the deal! • Acknowledge the editor and set a revision deadline • Clarify if in doubt – ‘This is what I understand your comments to mean…’ • Meet the revision deadline • Attach a covering letter showing how you met the reviewers’ requests (or if not, why not)
Major revisions required • As you re-read it remember – These comments are designed to help you improve your work – The reviewers see value in your work (they have not rejected it) but they see a need for more work – Reflect on the suggestions and think how they can be achieved – Think how many days work are involved and give yourself a target date to complete the re-draft
Major revisions required • The flow of the argument, maybe too much repetition • Maybe trying to say too much in one paper – One idea, one paper • Degree of explanation given • Material could be better presented – in a table, figure • More data needed • More literature to be included • Not meeting the journal guidelines
Major revisions required • Of course you could reject the reviewers comments and send the paper to another journal • But what if that journal approaches the same reviewers? • It is likely you will still get major revisions…the review process is not perfect but there tends to be some consistency
Major revisions required • Best advice is to deal with the suggested revisions in a methodical manner and send the paper back to the same journal.
After publication, promote your work • Why? • Influence policy • Raise your profile • Attract collaborators and funding • New opportunities e. g. in consulting, the media • How? • Use your network: listservs, a press release • Link to the article in your email signature • Contact the authors in your reference list • Ask the publisher to provide you with book or journal leaflets
If your paper is rejected … • Ask why Most editors will send you detailed comments. Take a deep breath, and listen carefully. • Don’t take it personally The review process is double blind for a reason. • Fix it, then try elsewhere Target your paper as closely as possible, and remember you might get the same reviewer again. • Don’t give up The more you publish, the more you get rejected – and everyone gets rejected at least once.
Possible reasons for rejections • Lack of fit (‘why was it sent to this journal’? ) • Problem with quality (inappropriate methodology, not reasonably rigorous, speculation without theoretical framework, excessively long) • Insufficient contribution (does not advance the field, a minor extension of existing work, there is no ‘gap in our understanding’, no broad principles or ‘big picture’, you over-promised but under-delivered) • Did you understand the “journal conversation”?
Typical criticisms (journal dependent) • Paper motivation is weak – is there really a gap in our understanding? – why does the gap need filling? • Theory development is weak – theory by assertion, or reinvention of existing theory • Empirical work is weak – methodology not plausible, tests don’t rule out alternative hypotheses • ‘So what’? – nothing wrong with the paper – but nothing very insightful either – only incremental research, doesn’t affect an existing paradigm
Dealing with the comments • It makes sense to do this in a way that makes it as clear as possible to the reviewers what changes you have made – Provide a document which details the reviewer’s comments and then provide your response as to what you have done • Some authors use a table format to do this • Some include the changed text or additional text • Deal with Reviewer 1 and 2 separately – Whatever your style the focus must be on clarity
Dealing with the comments • Answer as completely as possible • Answer politely, be tactful • Answer with evidence • If you feel the reviewer has misunderstood then address the point with a good argument explaining why the reviewer is mistaken – It may be the reviewers are conflicted on a point – It is ok to use one reviewer to argue against another
Dealing with the comments • Avoid emotive language • Don’t say “We disagree completely with the reviewers comments. . . ” • Try “While the reviewer makes an interesting case in relation to…we would point out that…” and then go onto present your argument logically.
Some Don’ts • Do not submit your article to two or more journals at the same time – It is unethical – Editors do talk – You must build your publishing reputation not degrade it by following poor practice
And finally… • The process of getting your work into a peer reviewed journal can be a long and winding road. • The final acceptance email feels good to get and then when you see the journal in print and receive the reprints you get an additional buzz • Of course by then you will be well advanced in your next journal article!
Publishing your research means… • Your paper is permanent – published material enters a permanent and accessible knowledge archive – the ‘body of knowledge’ • Your paper is improved – through the interventions of editors, reviewers, sub-editors and proof-readers • Your paper is actively promoted – it becomes available to a far greater audience • Your writing is trustworthy – material which has been published carries a QA stamp. Someone apart from you thinks it’s good!
Emerald supporting authors • • Dedicated editorial and author relations support staff Quality-assured copy-editing and production service Emerald Literati Network with more than 90, 000 members Signatories of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Emerald is committed to protecting its authors’ work from copyright infringements Journals Early. Cite • Online Scholar One Manuscript Central submission process • Complimentary journal issue and five reprints upon publication Online resources For Researchers For Authors • www. emeraldinsight. com/research • How to… guides • Outstanding Doctoral Research Awards • Research Fund Awards • Emerald Research Connections • For Authors www. emeraldinsight. com/authors • How to… guides • Meet the Editor interviews and Editor news • Editing service • Annual Awards for Excellence • Calls for Papers and news of publishing opportunities Books • Marketing plan for your book including: • • • Direct mail campaigns, leaflets and brochures, media and journal advertising Conference presence and promotion A landing page for your title on the Emerald website
Beyond authorship Other important publishing work that you might wish to get involved in includes: • Book reviewing • Refereeing/peer review • Editorial advisory board membership • Contributing editorship • Regional editorship • Editorship Interested in proposing a book/series or a journal? Contact us at editorial@emeraldinsight. com • For details of opportunities in this area please do get in touch with us!
Publishing ALSO puts your work in front of the best managers of tomorrow Hong Kong UST, Indian School of Business, University of Cape Town Wharton, Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Yale, Thunderbird Business Schools IMD, INSEAD, Rotterdam, Bocconi, EM Lyon, Instituto de Empresa, ESADE, IESE London, Lancaster, Cranfield, Warwick, Saïd, Strathclyde Business Schools
Why to promote the idea among researchers? : • Quality of teaching materials within your library/university • Access to the lastes management knowledge • Quality of research results of your academics • Stronger networking in the world of international universities • Knowledge and quality of students for potentioal employers • Image and Reputation of your Universities • Profitability
… here …
… and here
Talk to us, use us! • Tell us how we can help you • Give us feedback online • Use Emerald Management e. Journals For any answers you didn’t get today (or were too shy to ask) … Marcin Dembowski +48 795 132 895 mdembowski@emeraldinsight. com Emerald Group Publishing Ltd Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley, West Yorkshire, BD 16 Write for us! 1 WA, England