Getting Published

Some useful advice from the most recent International Communications Association newsletter on getting published, particularly aimed at graduate students. With the growing competition for academic jobs, and university funding increasingly based on research outputs, this advice is timely indeed.

Simple Tips for Publishing: A Brief Overview

Mikaela Marlow, U of Idaho and Michele Khoo, Nanyang Technological U

(Adapted from Bourne, P.E. (2005) Ten simple rules for getting published . PLoS Computational Biology, 1(5), 341-342.)

Most graduate students are aware that they will need to learn the process of publishing, in order to achieve long-term career stability. Generally, papers submitted to academic journals have a higher chance of acceptance if they are a) original, b) focused on a central idea that is interesting and concise, and c) written in a coherent and clear style. If possible, consult more experienced academic mentors for advice about revising a student paper, so that it is an acceptable manuscript for publication. Below are a few simple publishing rules presented by Bourne (2005) which we hope will serve as a guide when you are preparing a paper for submission.

Rule 1: Read and learn from others
Read as many papers as you can, mostly in your area of research, but also scan the broader field. Think about the quality of the papers you have read and strive to identify both successful and less than ideal efforts. Reviewing a plethora of research will also give you a more objective perspective of your own work.

Rule 2: Good editors and reviewers will be objective about your work
Strive to develop and present a quality manuscript. The review process can improve the quality of your work. However, reviews may be less beneficial if there are fundamental flaws to your work. Do your best to develop articles that are logical, organized, and rooted in sound methodology.

Rule 3: Strengthen your writing skills
The ability to express complex ideas clearly is essential for success in publishing. Manuscripts that are not well-written will require extensive copyediting, if they are even accepted. Also, ensure that you edit all documents extensively prior to submission.

Rule 4: Learn to live with rejection and revisions
The best response to a rejected paper or a paper with major revisions is to acknowledge the reviewers' comments and respond in an objective manner. If the reviews about the quality of your paper are not ideal, accept it and move on. If a major revision is requested, work on it and address every point given.

Rule 5: Ingredients of good science and reporting
Intriguing articles provide organized and sufficient coverage of the relevant literature, sound methodology and analysis, in addition to thought-provoking discussion. Be mindful of these ingredients when you are reviewing the first draft of your paper. Besides your mentor, get the opinions of other colleagues, including those who are not directly involved in your topic area.

Rule 6: Strive to be a reviewer early in your career
Reviewing other papers will help you learn to write better papers. One way to become a reviewer is to offer to do a preliminary review on papers that others may be currently reviewing. Request to review the final review that was completed by your mentor (or others) and objectively assess the quality of your initial review. Over time, you will have a better understanding of the review process and the necessary elements of successful publications. This will also help you in deciding where to send your paper for publication.

Rule 7: Decide early where to try and publish your paper
Many journals have a presubmission enquiry system. You should use it to get a sense of the novelty of your work and whether the selected journal will be interested in accepting your paper.

Media Research methodologies

Introduction To Critical Enquiry Research

In this presentation given last night (Monday), some of the points that were emphasised in the group discussion were:

• The merits of triangulation i.e. verifying your analysis by having a diversity of sources of information e.g. primary source documents as well as interviews;
• Having three comparative case studies if using a case study methodology;
• Matching the scope of your research activity to the resources available to you as a PhD student;
• The fact that most PhD student do more than is required to get their PhD, and how to think about research design in order to minimise the likelihood of this;
• Thinking about both the significance of your project (the 'So what?' question), and the extent to which you have provided an innovative contribution to your research field.
  

Introduction To Critical Enquiry Research

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: methodology media)

Guest lecture to postgraduate students in Creative Industries Faculty, QUT, 22 September, 2008


SlideShare Link

HASS in the Capital - Day #2

Day 2 of HASS in the Capital, hosted in Canberra by the Council of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences. A lot of the discussion was about process and futures for CHASS, but the main event was the address to the National Press Club by Senator Kim Carr, the Minister for Industry, Innovation, Science and Research. The full text of Senator Carr's speech can be accessed here.

Senator Carr's speech contained a number of new initiatives, including the Australian Laureate scheme to replace Federation Fellowships, new policies to promote international research linkages, and a new Head of the CSIRO. For those who think that the arts and humanities have something to offer national innovation policies, Senator Carr is very interested in developing such links at a practical level.

What was striking was that the questions at the National Press Club are only asked by the assembled (small) group of journalists, who receive the speech in advance. It was fascinating to note that of the 10 questions, only two could be said to relate to the Minister's themes in the speech around education and research, and one of those was asked by the moderator, Ken Randall. Others came with set question about the car industry, the textile industry, carbon reduction policy (two questions, including one by Glenn Milne (see earlier post)), and one on whether it would be innovation if the Minister's department started using green pens instead of red pens.

A game of two halves. Good speech; crap questions from the media. This may be about how CHASS has to do more to make its issues more relevant to the media, but it also showed a high degree of laziness among the assembled journalists.