Academic writing and publishing research awku mardan


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Academic writing and publishing research awku mardan

  1. 1. INSIGHTS INTO ACADEMIC WRITING AND PUBLISHING RESEARCH Dr. Muhammad Ramzan PhD (University of Malaya), MLISc-Gold MedalistChairman, Foundation for Authentic Information and Research (FAIR)
  2. 2.  Session One: Writing for publishing What and why to publish? Where to publish? Writing and presenting conference papers Session Two: Publishing in a scientific journals Writing a quality manuscript Finding publishing avenues & choosing the right journal Publishing process Review process and its handling Impact factor and HEC accredited journals Session Three: Converting thesis into journal articles and books Books publishing: online publishing and self publishing Enhancing impact of your research
  3. 3.  Identify a problem Find out what others have done Develop a solution Show your solution: Hunting for facts or  That works better and truth about a subject sound & complete An organized scientific investigation to solve problems, test hypotheses, develop or invent new theories, formulas and products
  4. 4.  It is based on the work of others. It can be replicated (duplicated). It is generalizable to other settings. It is based on some logical rationale and tied to theory. It is doable! It generates new questions or is cyclical in nature. It is incremental. It is apolitical activity that should be undertaken for the betterment of society.
  5. 5.  The opposites of what have been discussed. Looking for something when it simply is not to be found. Plagiarizing other people’s work. Falsifying data to prove a point. Misrepresenting information and misleading participants.
  6. 6.  To get PhDs, M. Phil., Masters and Bachelors?? To provide solutions to complex problems To investigate laws of nature To make new discoveries To develop new products To save costs To improve our life Human desires
  7. 7.  Ideally  to share research findings and discoveries with the hope of improving the quality of life Practically  To get funding  to get promoted  to get a job  to retain job  Being acknowledged
  8. 8.  Every research needs good and proper documentation. To attend conferences. To share research results with other researchers. To get views for improvement of your research. To obtain some form of degree. To get recognition and promotion
  9. 9. What to publish?•Journals seek papers that advance knowledge andunderstanding, by•Presenting new, original methods or results•Reviewing a field or summarizing a particular topicin a way that rationalizes published results or createsa new perspective on debates•Applying best available methods to a particularpolicy problem
  10. 10. They don’t wantThey want • Duplications• Originality• Advances in • Reports of no scientificknowledge and interestunderstanding • Work out of date• Appropriate methods • Inappropriate methodsand conclusions• Readability or conclusions• Studies that meet • Studies withethical standards insufficient data
  11. 11. • Have you done something new and interesting?• Have you checked the latest results in the field?• Have the findings been verified?• Have the appropriate controls been performed?• Do your findings tell a nice story or is the storyincomplete?• Is the work directly related to a current hot topic?• Have you provided solutions to any difficultproblems?If all answers are “yes”, then start preparing yourmanuscript.
  12. 12.  Theses: MS/MPhil /PhD Conference publications  Focus on a piece of work with limited discussion Journal publications  More complete (extensive) discussion Monographs / Book chapters / Text books Book review Working paper
  13. 13.  Conferences: 100 – 500 submissions with a 10-25% acceptance rate Journals: 30% acceptance rate with long lead times Publishers: publishing houses, online, self publishing Subject: narrow, medium, broad Region: National, European, Americas, Asia The higher the level the more competitive For students it is most successful to focus on a narrow focused workshop or conference
  14. 14. FAIR--RCTD
  15. 15. FAIR--RCTD
  16. 16. Credit:www.imageafter.comFAIR--RCTD
  17. 17.  Create deadlines using short papers to kick- start your publications Meet collaborators, friends, age cohort Plug into the wider profession and gain an understanding of fashions, trends, tribes, taboos, discourses - and where the LSE sits Bring together oral wisdoms, gossip, tips Book exhibitions, meet with publishers, network at dinners, receptions, bars FAIR--RCTD
  18. 18.  Key socializing venues – networking Spot potential examiners, meet key academics and hear professional gossip Gain valuable critiques of your work – determine what needs to be changed or improved Meet others in your peer group involved in the same areas of research (future collaboration potential here) See how the job market works (early stages) and enter it (later stages) FAIR--RCTD
  19. 19.  Location  Local institution - known audience  International conference—first time ???  Big cities, tourist places-Hotels Global conferences  Huge attendance but often tiny audiences at individual panels – real action in bars, book fairs, receptions, attendance >1000, papers >1000, sessions>50  Audience  Postgraduate conferences  Specialist groups in your profession- wider audience  Cost—Visa could be a factor, sponsorship, HEC  Announcements on discussion groups, newsletters, website, associations, universities FAIR--RCTD
  20. 20.  Fast dissemination of research / ideas. Documenting progress of your research.  Sequence of conference papers often will lead to a journal paper. Great experience (even if rejected). In academia, your career depends upon them. Networking. There is a not-so-very-well-known benefit (a very well-kept secret), which is … New ideas presented at conferences Ideas/work in progress Innovations requiring feedback Projects, works in progress Cutting edge ideas 20
  21. 21.  Conferences have different submission requirements.  Be sure to be familiar with requirements / deadlines!  General trend is towards requiring the submission of full paper or “extended” summaries for review. ▪ Typical of the more “prestigious” conferences. ▪ Driven by the desire to have high-quality papers. How can one fairly review a single page summary?  Some conferences still require only one-page summary or an abstract of paper. 21
  22. 22.  For conferences that require an abstract or paper summary, there is limited space to state your case. Some simple rules:  Use space efficiently, and don’t be modest,  Don’t waste too much time with background and review, but be sure to place work in context of other work,  State, in positive terms, why your work is important, and the impact it will have, or “may” have,  Convince the reader/reviewer that they really must read your paper, and …  Author reputation (unfortunately) may influence decision. 22
  23. 23.  Clarity in presentation  Are you trying to impress the reader?  Or trying to explain something to the reader? Placing your work in proper context Relevance/Applications/Impact Grammar  “That” and “Which” Efficient and effective use of graphics, tables, illustrations. Structure, layout and presentation. Familiarize yourself with the conference and what is expected in the papers! Also remember: You are probably too close to your work! 23
  24. 24.  Fundamental Fact In spite of what you believe, only a handful of people will read your paper – make it have impact on those that do. How do you have an Impact?  Not necessary to have the most earth-shaking results (these are rare), but rather … One of the best conference papers I have ever read. 24
  25. 25.  Title – Eye catcher Abstract – The teaser Introduction – Wow – important, cool, relevant Background – Related work by others The new stuff – High impact Experiments, tests, analysis – Convincing/honest Summary/Conclusions – Assume only thing read References – Careful balance: complete sampling, not too many self-references 25
  26. 26.  Short - between 6,000 and 7,000 words Focus on one idea or argument, not on multiple themes – so do not try to incorporate your entire PhD into a paper Paper should be a good illustration of your work (e.g., not on a topic peripheral to your PhD or research expertise, in order to fit within a panel theme) Paper should be designed for publication and meet publication standards in terms of style of presentation and methods FAIR--RCTD
  27. 27.  A conference proposal/abstract should be an accurate and concise summary of what the paper delivers Check the ‗Call for Papers‘ carefully  What are the key themes of the conference?  What kind of presentation will you do?  How long should the abstract be?  When is the deadline for submission? FAIR--RCTD
  28. 28.  ‗Need to know‘ criterion should guide abstract  What do organisers need to know to assess whether to accept the paper and where to place it in a panel? Core argument/bottom-line findings should form centre-piece of the abstract Don‘t waste words on literature review or methodology FAIR--RCTD
  29. 29.  Write a proposal/abstract for the conference of your choice Follow the ‗Call for Papers‘ guidelines in the example you brought in, EXCEPT stick to a maximum of 200 words If you haven‘t brought a ‗Call for Papers‘, then try using one of the spare copies at the front of the room FAIR--RCTD
  30. 30.  Sentence 1 – a hook, indication of motivation (for you and reader) Sentences 2 –3 – formulation of research problem/question Sentences 3 – 4 – outline of core finding (maybe a sideways glance at method) Sentences 5 – 6 - implications FAIR--RCTD
  31. 31.  Pass your abstract to the person on your left Read the abstract you have in front of you and think about what you might do to improve it Feed back to the person who handed you their abstract, and get feedback on your own abstract FAIR--RCTD
  32. 32.  Fitting our “ideas” and “results” into four pages. As beginners, we all think this is impossible.  “How can I say all this STUFF in only four pages?”  So, you try to cram everything you have to say into the four pages using micro-fonts and mini- margins. MISTAKE!  Who are you trying to impress?  How much are people going to remember?  What is your purpose in writing the paper?  A gazillion equations will impress no one. 32
  33. 33.  Importance of title: the eye-catcher Importance of abstract: the teaserAbstract should be written and composed in a way that reader is compelled to read the whole paper 33
  34. 34.  Authorship. It is very easy for one to believe he/she has a claim on a result. The lines around a person’s inspiration and innovation are very thin, and typically the result of many inputs from many sources. My advice. 34
  35. 35.  Reviewers are people too Reviewers are not atypical from your readership, and are generally very knowledgeable. The conference paper review process often times is (unfortunately) pressing and less than perfect.  A reviewer may have to turn around 10-20 reviews within a matter of weeks.  You should write your paper with this understanding. 35
  36. 36.  Authors take negative reviews personally.  ―Why don‘t they understand?‖  ―Are they stupid?‖ Use negative reviews to your benefit.  Free advice on how to make your paper better.  Reviewers are usually correct. 36
  37. 37.  You are home free.  Make sure you conform to the format and length.  Make sure you get your paper submitted on time.  Use a spell checker ▪ Do not stop here … this is only one check. ▪ Be careful of the proverbial ―the the‖ (not the rock group) 37
  38. 38.  The presentation of your conference paper. Writing journal papers  Much more complex and involved.  Huge variety of archival publications  Structure, technical content, writing style, and graphics.  The review and revision process  Citations, credit, and plagiarism. 38
  39. 39.  Substantial changes More data, deeper analysis and discussion of findings Use of tables, charts, diagrams Clear findings and new directions Thorough review of recent literature Links to existing research Point to new areas of investigation
  40. 40.  Normal (written) form is:  What do readers really need to know? Conference (presentation) form is:  What does the audience really need to see on screen?  What do listeners really need to have explained to them? FAIR--RCTD
  41. 41.  However literary your normal style, plan the talk as a sequence of exhibits Put all that you want to say/show on screen, in a user-friendly manner Practice timings for your talk Aim for a fast, well-paced start – do not ‗warm up‘ the audience to your subject Sell the paper – don‘t be hesitant FAIR--RCTD
  42. 42.  Organise your talk into 3 minute chunks, planning for one display per chunk Use PowerPoint (not Word) to compose your displays Text should be free-standing and readily understandable without you speaking (audience will deconstruct it like that) Try to avoid a build-up of slides or too many ‗flying bullets‘ – delays exposition and too controlling FAIR--RCTD
  43. 43.  Pick a font that is visible to someone in the back row - like this one Put equations and quantitative tables into separate image screens, magnified so that the smallest subscript is visible Preferably use summary data tables, rather than detailed ones Pick the best feasible fonts for display FAIR--RCTD
  44. 44.  Seminars ... 30 to 40 minutes UK international conferences - 20 minutes per paper, then questions; normally 2 or 3 papers per panel US and most international conferences - 10 to 15 minutes per paper, followed by questions; often 4 or 5 papers per panel Workshops and intensive conferences – 20-30 minutes per paper, followed by one- hour discussion time FAIR--RCTD
  45. 45. FAIR--RCTD
  46. 46. SCARY CONFERENCE VISION - real life is more prosaic FAIR--RCTD
  47. 47.  Check the venue in advance for size and features – may indicate audience size Conference slots respond to multiple factors, including competition, timings etc – so don‘t regard small audiences, dribbling in late, in an over- large room, as unusual or depressing Alternatively beware of an over-large audience, cramped and uncomfortable in too small a room FAIR--RCTD
  48. 48.  Presentation facilities vary unpredictably - you need to be adaptable  Take Powerpoint slides in two storage formats (e.g. USB stick and CD).  Email slides to seminar hosts.  Take an OHP copy of slides  Print readable ‗handout‘ copies of slides for a realistic audience (say 25)  Take 10-15 full paper copies, for zealots FAIR--RCTD
  49. 49.
  50. 50. FAIR--RCTD
  51. 51. FAIR--RCTD
  52. 52. RANDOM UNIVERSITY ROOM –functional but depressing, nodaylight, blackboard! Credit: FAIR--RCTD
  53. 53. SMALL ROOM HAZARDS – noOHP, no screen, table dominatingthe space,.. + dogs! CREDFIT: FAIR--RCTD
  54. 54. LARGE ROOM HAZARDS – long thinroom, audience obstructs each others’view, no equipment for visual displays Credit: FAIR--RCTD
  55. 55. SUBTLE HAZARDS - half the audiencecan’t see the OHP, narrow tables, anduncomfortable seating arrangment FAIR--RCTD
  56. 56. Things to aim for, ideallyStand up, and use clear, varied slidesfor best feasible delivery Credit: FAIR--RCTD
  57. 57. Things to aim for, cont’dFor large audiences (just in case)– Think of the view from the back row FAIR--RCTD
  58. 58. Ideal seminar room – central display screen+ OHP, wide tables, space for movingaround, good lighting, smallish group FAIR--RCTD Credit:
  59. 59. FAIR--RCTD
  60. 60. INDIVIDUAL AND BLOC INCENTIVES UNDER WEIGHTED VOTING *STARTBADLY – Patrick Dunleavy and Rolf HoijerI’ve printed LSE Public Policy Group, London School of Economics and Political Science,my cover Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AEpage in tinyfont and Abstract: Pioneering work by Laver and Benoit (LB) argues that a drive by individual legislator’s to maximize their per capita Shapley-Shubik power scores could explain the evolution of party systems in legislatures. But LB’s analysis exhibits several problems.slapped it Theoretically their utility premises are incompletely specified and would lead to systematically irrational and short-termist behaviour by members of vote blocs. Methodologically LB focus on a complex ratio variable, whose patterning essentially dependson the OHP on another largely unanalysed variable, the power index scores of whole vote blocs. LB have no framework for economically analysing variations in power index scores across very numerous and diverse voting situations. Empirically LB’s account radically mis-specifies theslide factors conditioning blocs’ incentives or actors’ incentives. We show that: (i) they offer an exaggerated picture of the scope for defection; and (ii) their emphasis on the importance of ‘dominant bloc’ status for the largest bloc is incorrect - dominance is often empirically trivial in shaping bloc scores when there are more than five blocs. Instead, the factors that do influence blocs’ scores are predictable, (if complex), patterns, which repeat in recognizable ways across weighted voting situations, for any given threshold level. We demonstrate a method for mapping these scores comprehensively and economically, and for analysing influences on the scores precisely. FAIR--RCTD
  61. 61. analysis, and his lonely faith in the value of other effective number indices, for which there has been little or no take-up in the existing literature. By contrast we believe that the wider effective number family has little to offer, and that continuing to use unmodified N 2 in particular in quantitative applications cannot be defended because of the defects set outMAINTAIN here. In our view averaging N2 scores with the 1/V1 score creates a simple but usefulCONSIS- variant of the effective number index, Nb:TENCY: (3)‘Some ofyou may The data demands of equation (3) are no greater than for the N2 index, and Nb and N2 arenot be able highly correlated with each other. Yet this straightforward modification has useful effects. Figure 6 shows the minimum and maximum fragmentation lines for Nb with between 2 andto see the 8 parties, and also includes the 1/V1 line and the overall maximum fragmentation line for Nb (with a 1 per cent floor for party sizes, as before). The averaging of N2 and 1/V1subscripts creates much less curved minimum fragmentation lines. And although there are still transitions in their slopes around the anchor points, they are much less sharp than with N too The maximum fragmentation lines for different relevant numbers of parties are alsowell’ considerably straightened out under Nb, without strongly visible curves close to their terminal anchor points. The overall maximum fragmentation line for Nb is appreciably lower than the 1/V12 line under N2. In fact the Nb maximum fragmentation line runs quite close to but slightly above the N3 maximum line shown in Figure 1. For instance, with V1 at 60 per cent, the maximum Nb score is more than half a party less than with N2 ; and at 50 per cent support the Nb upper limit is 3 parties, instead of 4 for N2. Thus the Nb index delivers many of the same benefits in terms of more realistically denominated scores as N 3, but it avoids N3’s severe kinks around anchor points (which is evident in Figure 4). Table 2 shows how the N2, Nb and Molinar measures behave empirically across the FAIR--RCTD
  62. 62. Figure 7.1: How health boards compareTABLES – Trtmnt rates/pop Argyll & Clyde 33212.42complex, diffic Ayrshire & Arran 33200.32ult to Border Dumfries & 72331.011 31699.21read, weak Gallowayheading/title, Fife Forth Valley 22876.55 29748.33unnecessary Grampian 27681.49 31827.222abbreviations, Greater Glasgow space wasted Highland Lanarkshire 33855.18 23909.83between data Lothian 31768.41points Orkney 21727.37 Shetland 28233.25 Tayside 50259.21 Western Isles 30840.19 1 . 2. . Includes Berwick in 1997-98 only Estimates only due to data problems FAIR--RCTD
  63. 63. CHARTS –3D FIGURE 7.4: HOW HEALTH BOARDS COMPARE 80000design, small 70000and thin, weak 60000 50000 40000heading, no 30000 20000logic to 10000 0arrangement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15of bars, labels T rtm nt ra te s /po pin a legend,key details in Key: The health boards are as follows: 1 Ayre & Clyde; 2 Ayrshire & Arran; 3 Border; 4 Dumfries & Galloway; 5 Fife; 6 Forth Valley; 7 Grampian; 8 Greater Glasgow; 9 Highland; 10 Lanarkshire; 11 Lothian; 12 Orkney; 13 Shetland; 14 Tayside; 15 Western Isles.micro font FAIR--RCTD
  64. 64. Table 5: The extreme bloc sizes and per capita SS values in the triads, quinns and sevens areas i. Triads area Bloc sizes Per capita SS scores Description Blocs V1 V2 V3 V1 V2 V3 DiffVERY Bottom left cell Bottom right cell All 4 8 26 48 44 26 25 1.28 0.69 0.76 1.28 1.33 0.05 0.64 0.57LARGE 14 20 24 38 32 28 26 25 0.88 1.0 1.2 1.28 1.22 0.45 0.33 0.13TABLES – 26 26 26 25 1.28 1.28 1.33 0.05 Top right cell 4 48 48 3 0.69 0.69 11.11 10.42 8 44 44 7 0.76 0.76 4.76 4.0 14 38 38 13 0.88 0.88 2.38 1.4multiple 20 24 26 32 28 26 32 28 26 19 23 25 1.0 1.2 1.28 1.0 1.2 1.28 1.67 1.39 1.33 0.67 0.19 0.05smudges of ii. Quinns area Bloc sizes Per capita SS scoresmicro font are Description Bottom left cell Blocs All V1 17 V2-V4 17 V5 17 V1 1.18 V2-V4 1.18 V5 1.18 0 Diffnot ideal for Bottom right cell 6 8 14 31 29 23 17 17 0.65 0.69 0.87 1.18 1.18 0.53 0.49 0.45presenting full Top cell 20 6 8 17 24 23 17 24 23 17 3 5 1.18 0.69 0.76 1.18 0.69 0.76 1.18 6.67 4.0 0 5.98 3.24regression iii. Sevens area 14 20 20 17 20 17 11 17 1.0 1.18 1.0 1.18 1.82 1.18 0 0.18results to a Description Blocs V1 Bloc sizes V2-V4 V5-V6 V7 V1 Per capita SS scores V2-V4 V5-V6 V7 Diff.crowded room Bottom left cell Bottom right cell All 6 8 14 13 21 15 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 1.10 0.68 0.95 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 0 0.42 0.15 0 Top cell 6 16 16 13 9 0.89 0.89 1.10 1.59 0.70 8 14 14 13 11 1.02 1.02 1.10 1.30 0.28 14 13 13 13 13 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 0 FAIR--RCTD
  65. 65. FAIR--RCTD
  66. 66. Strong exposition – properdisplay, visible fonts, speaker visible…and using pointer for details Credit: FAIR--RCTD
  67. 67. FAIR--RCTD
  68. 68. Treatment ratesHealth boards per 100,000 people Upper outlier Figure 7.2: HowBorder 723Tayside 503 Upper outlier Scotland’s healthHighland 339 boards comparedAyrshire andArran 332 Upper quartile in treatingArgyll and Clyde 332 cataracts, 1998-9Lothian 318 financial yearGreater Glasgow 318Dumfries and 317 MedianGallowayWestern Isles 308 Notes:Treatment rates perForth Valley 297 100,000 peopleShetland 282 The range is 506, and theGrampian 277 Lower quartile midspread (dQ) is 55.Lanarkshire 239 Source: National AuditFife 229 Office, 1999.Orkney 217Mean treatment rate 335 FAIR--RCTD
  69. 69.  Get membership of professional societies Subscribe conference announcements Visit university websites Explore Google Study conference themes carefully Prepare paper for target theme Select conferences that publish proceedings Invite comments Q&A for you conference paper Improve and aim for publication in a reputed journal
  70. 70.  Fast publication Usually need a smaller idea  Smaller trick can be acceptable  Depends on conference Just accept or reject; no rewrite  It may be incomplete  It may lack key references Good for networking and Q&A
  71. 71.  Academic reputation  Journals have 4xtime more status than conferences Gives a quality stamp  Reviewers demand corrections & clarifications Archive your work  Wider scope  More theory and technical information  More references Highly competitive  Accept 36%  Reject 58%  Refer to other Journal 3%  Withdrawn 3%
  72. 72.  1.Time to write the paper? - has a significant advancement been made? - is the hypothesis straightforward? - did the experiments test the hypothesis? - are the controls appropriate and sufficient? - can you describe the study in 1 or 2 minutes? - can the key message be written in 1 or 2 sentences? 2. Tables and figures - must be clear and concise - should be self-explanatory
  73. 73. 3. Read references - will help in choosing journal - better insight into possible reviewers4. Choose journal - study ―instructions to authors‖ - think about possible reviewers - quality of journal ―impact factor‖5. Tentative title and summary6. Choose authors
  74. 74. Writing a quality article
  75. 75. IntroductionLiterature ReviewMethodologyDataResultsPolicy Discussion
  76. 76. It should be clear from the introduction:•What is the policy issue that the paper will address?•Why is this issue important (across countries)?•What is the new understanding that the paper will bring tothis issue?•How will it do this?•Why is the chosen country case(s) or method appropriate forthis purpose?•Also, define any key or non-standard terms
  77. 77. The main purposes are to locate your study within existingknowledge and to show the gap(s) that your study aims to fill:•Don’t write an extensive review of the field•Do ensure that the literature cited is balanced, up to date andrelevant•Don’t cite disproportionately your own work or work thatsupports your findings while ignoring contradictory studies•Do highlight the gaps in knowledge that you will seek to fill•Don’t describe methods, results or conclusions
  78. 78. You should provide enough information for reviewers and readers tobe able to know:•Which model or methods you used•Possible weaknesses or limitations in your analysis. Don’t explain anestablished methodology from scratch, simply supply a seminal orrecent reference•Do explain aspects that are critical in your context, e.g. where theremight be an inevitable problem and how you tackled that
  79. 79. • What data were collected / used?• How were they collected? – Methodology – Sampling (+ response rate)• Critical assessment – Representativeness – Possible sources of bias• Include survey instrument as an appendix to assistreviewers
  80. 80. Present the main findings that address the questionoutlined in the introduction•Use figures and tables to summarize data•Show the results of statistical analysis•Compare “like with like”•Don’t duplicate data among tables, figures and text•Don’t use graphics to illustrate data that can easilybe summarized with text
  81. 81. •How the results relate to the study’s aims and hypotheses•How the findings relate to those of other studies•All possible interpretations of your findings•Limitations of the study•Important questions that remain unanswered by the study•What lessons policy makers should derive from thefindings
  82. 82. •Making “grand claims” that are not supported by thedataExample: “This novel treatment will massively reducethe prevalence of malaria in developing countries”•Introducing new results or terms•Straying into policy discussions that the study shedsno direct light on
  83. 83. The quality of an abstract will strongly influence thewillingness of reviewers to review the paper andultimately the interest of readers to read itA good abstract:•Is brief and specific•Accurately conveys what readers can expect from thepaper•Uses no technical jargon and cites no references•Is written in good EnglishUse the abstract to “sell” your article
  84. 84. • Consult and apply the list of guidelines in the“Guide for Authors”– This will save time for you, the editor and theproduction team• Ensure that you adhere to the correct:– Word limits– Reference format– Presentation of figures and tables– Layout (e.g. line spacing, section headings)• Failure to do so shows a lack of respect
  85. 85. Poor English annoys reviewers. It wastes their time, thetime of editors and of the production team – if the papergets that far!•Always read your paper through in full before yousubmit•If English is not your first language, get a colleague orfriend to edit your manuscript before you submit it•Specialist scientific editing services are commerciallyavailable at different rates
  86. 86.  Periodical directories  Ulrich’s International Periodical Directory, AuthorAid, Emerald Literary Network, DOA Journals Indexing/citation databases  Perish or publish, ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar  Science citation index, Social sciences citation index Online databases  Business Source Premier, Emerald Insights, Science Direct, Sage Professional association websites  AMA, Academy of Management HEC website: list of accredited journals Publishers association websites
  87. 87. 89
  88. 88. 90
  89. 89. 91
  90. 90. 92
  91. 91. 93
  92. 92. 94
  93. 93. Publication Process Completion of research Preparation of manuscript Submission of manuscript Assignment and review Decision Rejection Revision Resubmission Re-review Acceptance Rejection Publication
  94. 94.  Look at your reference list Ask your colleagues for advice Think about who will want to read your paper Read papers from short-listed journals Put your shortlist of journals in rank order, from first choice to last choice Discuss your choice with your co-authors 97
  95. 95.  Referring system Citation scores Circulation Journal type Time lag Reputation of editors Professional vs. commercial ownership Quality of production 98
  96. 96.  Impact factor: average number of times published papers are cited up to two years after publication. Immediacy Index : average number of times published papers are cited during year of publication. The h-index reflects both the number of publications and the number of citations per publication. It serves as an alternative to journal impact factor in evaluation of the impact of the work of a particular researcher. Because only the most highly cited articles contribute to the h- index.
  97. 97.  Format of the paper is determined by the journal Check their web site for information Differences from one journal to another:  Style of references  Tables and figures  Line spacing  Font  Word limit  Writing style  File type 100
  98. 98.  Guidelines for authors Process of submission Acknowledgement by editor 101
  99. 99.  Paying for publication Copyright agreement by author Decision of issue to include paper Copy editing Proof reading Printing Notification of publishing to author Delivery of printed issue and off-prints 102
  100. 100. The Review Process
  101. 101. Don’t submit your first draft to a journal!•Get “friendly” comments from colleagues (andcoauthors!) before you submit•Test the paper out at workshops or in aconference to see hat response it gets there
  102. 102.  First scanning by editor Selection of reviewers Double blind review Time for review Decision of reviewers Communication of decision to author Acceptance, rejection or revision Submission and review of revised version Final decision 105
  103. 103.  Does the article add to what is already known? Is the article demonstrably related to what has been previously written? Are the arguments employed valid in terms of the body of knowledge? Is the article easy to read? Do the arguments flow logically? Are the conclusions strong? 106
  104. 104. Send for review Reject without formal review• Accept as is• Minor revisions• Major revisions• Submit a shorter paper• Reject
  105. 105. 108
  106. 106. Carefully study the reviewers’ comments andprepare a detailed letter of response•Respond to all points•If you disagree with a reviewer, provide a politerebuttal, explaining your reasonsPerform additional calculations, re-run models orconsult additional references if requested– these usually serve to make the final paperstronger
  107. 107. Make adjustments and attach explanationDon’t feel obligated to make all recommended changesDon’t take comments personallyBe polite in all correspondence 110
  108. 108.  The topic does not relate to the journal’s aims The paper does not appear to have engaged with the work of others in the same area and may therefore be repetitious The paper’s purpose is unclear The argument in the paper is under-developed The claims made by the paper are not justified The style/length/format is not what’s requested by the journal
  109. 109.  The paper is poorly presented with missing references, typos, poor grammar etc. Confirmatory (not novel), no new ideas or discovery Poor experimental design - Poor controls - Hypothesis not adequately tested Data in not current Inappropriate for journal Poorly written
  110. 110. • No public policy story – Business marketing – Technical papers (e.g. testing new technologies) – “pre-policy” work• No clear link or contribution to international debates – “not done here before” – Local worldviewThese papers are appropriate for national journals
  111. 111. Don’t take it personally!•Only 25% of papers are accepted•Try to understand why the paper has been rejected•Evaluate honestly – will your paper meet therequirements of another journal with the addition ofmore data or other changes as suggested by thereferees?•There can occasionally be an element of bad luck!
  112. 112.  Decide how many articles can be published Cut-paste-edit Look into your hypotheses Systematic study of the subject area Re-write some parts Each article should be independent with all required contents Supervisor as co-author 116
  113. 113.  Seek permission from university Improve contents Improve language Re-format Catchy book title and chapter headings Prepare end book index Find publisher 117
  114. 114. Don’t assume that even an award-winningthesis is already a book – it’s probably not!
  115. 115.  Insecure document  Confident piece of work Audience: small viva panel  Audience: targeted wider Academic requirement – public establishing expertise  Communication tool – Length: 80k-100k words establishing storyline Didn’t know where you were  Length: up to 80k words going when you started  Need to know exactly where Often not an integrated whole you’re going from the start Generally contains  Must be an integrated whole weak/boring chapters;  Contains only strong/‘thesis- frequent references to other building’ chapters highlighting authors’ work as evidence of your argument; others quoted knowledge of the field where necessary/compelling Numerous examples designed  Well-chosen examples to back up ideas designed to move the story Few long or many short forward chapters, often self-standing  Several chapters of readable length, clearly linked
  116. 116.  Publish the one strong chapter as an article Publish two or three chapters as articles Send the thesis off as is and hope it gets published Revise the thesis lightly (if it was written as a book, rather than a thesis, from the start) Revise the thesis thoroughly to clarify main argument Slice the thesis to separate out and develop self- standing arguments, which may result in two books
  117. 117.  Identify what parts within the thesis are of value to a broader readership and to you Cut out any boring sections you wrote to show how well you know your subject Assess the usefulness of all the different examples you use to apply your theory/theories Take the interesting material you wrote and shape it into a compelling story This may result in previously unseen insights
  118. 118. Thesis Rethink Rewrite See larger issues Write moreRethink more ReshapeRewrite Repeat thefurther entire process Book as necessary
  119. 119.  Audience: Who will want to read this book? Length: Is it the right length, or too long? Shape: Are the chapters of even, readable length? Do I have enough examples, or too many? Narrative line: Does the book tell a coherent and compelling story? Voice: Am I the one telling the story, or am I relying too much on others’ works to forward my proposition? Density: Is the research up-to-date? Does it show that I know the long intellectual history of my subject?
  120. 120.  The best, most saleable book they can find They want to make a profit – or at least not incur a loss – in the process of publishing They expect a book to be clear – in writing style, in purpose and in argumentation They expect a good story - how you write matters as much as what you have to say
  121. 121.  The subject is timely, unique, interesting and appeals to a wide audience. The title is descriptive, invites inquiry or in some way attracts attention. It is well-written and carefully edited, with attention to spelling, grammar and sentence structure. It avoids scientific or technical terminology unfamiliar to the layperson. It is easy to read.
  122. 122.  The author is a professional in the field about which he/she is writing, and is considered an expert on the subject or has done extensive research on it. The material is well-organized. The presentation is attractive, appealing and professional-looking. It has been diligently promoted and marketed.
  123. 123.  The first things an editor looks at – and what you look at in choosing a book for purchase - are a book’s title and table of contents Title should be intriguing – but best if it’s not too general, or terminological, or long, or cute Ensure that there are no colons in your chapter headings and no repetition of what’s in the title
  124. 124.  Different publishers have different ideas about what is appropriate in terms of titles and headings Think about what books you like best that are similar to your own project and copy their style. It is likely you will want your book published by the same publishing house
  125. 125.  These add to the length/cost of the book so should be used sparingly This is especially true if colour is required There is also the issue of permissions if you are using others’ photos/illustrations Look at books which are similar to yours and see how many graphs, tables and illustrations they use Make sure that all graphs/tables are accurate and correctly labelled with source material cited
  126. 126.  A scholarly book, like an other book, has to be written with an audience in mind Your publisher wants to know the audience is large enough to warrant publication Whomever your audience (strictly academic or wider base), get an estimate of how many people there are through marketing data firms professional bodies, etc. Be realistic: monograph audiences est. 400-500
  127. 127.  Do not allow revisions to take more than a year Even a deep revision can be finished in less than twelve months Estimate one month for each chapter requiring more homework prior to revision One month for each chapter than must be rewritten in light of new research One month to revise introduction and prepare conclusion One to three months for cosmetic revision
  128. 128.  Don’t assume that even an award-winning thesis is already a book Don’t assume that a publisher or a reviewer will treat a first book as a practice exercise; it will be judged against other similar books Don’t submit a manuscript to more than one publisher without telling them you’re doing so Don’t conceal arrangements you’ve already made to publish chapters in journals or edited volumes Don’t send a manuscript to a publisher unless asked
  129. 129.  Better chances of acceptance More control over the process Higher royalties Author-friendly contracts Shorter response times Faster publication Multimedia and format options Mass market place 133
  130. 130.  E-publishing company lets you make, self-publish, print & sell print-on- demand books, eBooks. Free eBook publishing and book publishing with ... VDM Verlag a German online publishers American Booksellers Association ( UK Booksellers Association ( self publishing print on demand company self publishing print on demand company A multi-title publishing company Publishers of academic books Institutional website 134
  131. 131.  Develop your idea Write your manuscript Proofread and market test your manuscript Prepare your business plan  Who will buy your book?  How will you market and sell it? Decide how many books you will print and the format of book you want 135
  132. 132.  Get quotes for typesetting and printing Get manuscript print ready (typeset) Design the book cover Print the book Market and advertise the book Fulfill orders Collect payment and record sales 136
  133. 133. 137
  134. 134. 1. A research impact is recorded/auditable occasion of influencefrom academic research on another actor or organization • Academic impact from research are influences upon actors in academia or universities as measured by citations in other academic author‘s work. • External impact are influences on actors outside higher education, that is in business, government or civil society as measured by references in trade press, government documents or by coverage in media.
  135. 135. 2. A research impact is an occasion of influence and hence it is not the same thing as a change in outputs or activities as a results of its influence.3. A research impact is also empathetically not a claim for a clear cut social welfare gain.4. However, secondary impacts from research can be traced at a much more aggregate level and some macro-evaluation of net benefits of university research can be gauged.
  136. 136. •Citation rates are used as a basis for tracking academic impacts.The shape of citation rates vary widely across academicdisciplines•There are substantial difference in the general rate of citingacross disciplines with more cites (including self-cites) beingfound in the science that the social sciences.•The type of output chosen affects citation rates as on average abook will take longer to be referred to but will be cited for longer
  137. 137. •Use Publish or Perish, Google scholar & book search and ISIweb of Knowledge to track your citation records•Try to have a distinctive author name to be easily found•ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus have limited coverage inthe social sciences and have an American-basedgeographical bias, as well as capturing relatively fewcitations in other than English language.•Publish or Perish, Google and Scirus cover a wide range ofacademic outputs and now provide a more reliable analysis
  138. 138. •Calculating a researchers h-score and g-score provides amore robust picture of how much an authors work isvalued by peers•Journal articles account for majority of citations, booksonly account for 8-30 percent of citations. Books doimpact much h and g-scores of authors.•Simple indicators of judging citation rates, such as totalnumber of publications, total number of citations andage-weighted citation rate do not accurately capture anacademics citation success.
  139. 139. •Ensure that title names are informative and memorable andthat their abstract contains key bottom line or take awaypoints•Book authors should ensure that their titles, sub-titles aredistinctive yet appear in general Google Book searchesaround the given theme•There are difference in self-citation. However, it is may atime important to cite you own work to build further on it. Abalance approach is important.
  140. 140. •Co-authored outputs tend to generate more citationsdue to networking effect between authors in a givenresearch team•Co-authors from different universities or countries.•Go across disciplines•Use social media and web to promote your contributions•Find authors of common interest and share your paperswith them
  141. 141. •Establish academic credibility•Networking across disciplines•Personal communication skills and capacity•External reputation•Experience•Track record of successful work•Organize and participate in seminars and workshops atnational and international level•Use of web and social media
  142. 142.  Book review Flyer Book launching ceremony Email discussion groups Sending off-prints to experts/writers Newsletters/newspapers Entry in search engines Pay-per-click advertising Entry in databases Online bookstores Continued work of your students/research team 146
  143. 143.  Be continuous trained Be updated with publishing trends Are you in the book of peers Are you in the good book of editors? Are you most liked supervisor? Are you favorite co-author? Do you have unmatched skills to be liked by active researchers Do you have art to produce research from ongoing context 147
  144. 144.  Your subject has capacity to be co- researched with other disciplines Your subject has ability to integrate new context You have analytical ability to draw very unique inferences and apply over diversified context Your subject is in the interest of authors of other regions – like emerging economies case You address upcoming problems rather obsolete concepts 148
  145. 145. •Multiple submissions•Redundant publications•Plagiarism•Data fabrication and falsification•Improper use of human subjects and animals inresearch•Improper author contribution
  146. 146.  Writing for publishing is distinctive Publishing is an art It needs mastery Be systematic, no short cut Use tools and techniques to write Peers are important Collaboration is key in publishing Write good quality manuscript to sell Keep going
  147. 147. 151
  148. 148. Thank you