MEXTESOL Journal panel, 2012


Published on

Panel discussion by MEXTESOL Journal editors, given at MEXTESOL convention, 2012

Published in: Education

MEXTESOL Journal panel, 2012

  2. 2. PANEL DISCUSSION• Introduction of panelists, M. Martha Lengeling, Universidad de Guanajuato• Reasons to publish, M. Martha Lengeling• The writing process, how to structure introduction sections, Clare Marie Roche, Universidad Regional del Sureste• The process of publishing (with a focus on the MEXTESOL Journal), Uli Schrader, freelance• Review Format, Ma Guadalupe Rodriguez Bulnes, Univ Aut. De Nuevo Leon• Ethics, Rebeca E. Tapia, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla• What to do if you are not accepted, JoAnn Miller, freelance• Questions and answers, M. Martha Lengeling
  3. 3. M. Martha LengelingIntroduction to panelists The whys of publishing
  4. 4. Reasons to publish• Give voice to your ideas and opinions• Representation of your self as a professional• Updating of topics within the field• Reading within your profession• Sense of accomplishment• Improvement in writing
  5. 5. More reasons• More and more part of academic life (Beca, SNI, Perfil Deseable)• Necessary for higher academic institutions• Promotes analytical skills• Part of your profession, contribution to your profession• Why not
  6. 6. Clare Marie Roche • The writing process
  7. 7. Move 1: Establish the Research Territory• By showing that the general research area is important, central, interesting, problematic, or relevant in some way.• By introducing and reviewing items of previous research in the area.Move 2: Establish the Gap• By indicating a gap in the previous research, raising a question about it, or extending previous knowledge in some way.Move 3: Occupy Gap• By outlining the purpose of the present research.• By announcing the principal findings.• By indicating the structure of the paper.
  8. 8. Think of your Article as Contributing to a Conversation• The INTRODUCTION o tells the reader that this area of investigation is IMPORTANT. o There are things we know (that literature review) and something we don’t (the gap). You intend to fill that gap.• You will fill the gap by conducting an investigation that is careful, methodical, and performed according to accepted practice of study in the field. This is the METHOD section.
  9. 9. • Further you found something that is interesting and worthy of reporting. o You will tell us what you found. This is the RESULTS section.• Finally, you will want to explain why you got those results and how they compare to others who have investigated this area in some way. o You will need to tell us what the limitations of your study are, and what future work might be warranted. o Thus you discuss with us the way your work has changed the field. This is the DISCUSSION.
  10. 10. • Swales, J.M. & Feak, D.B. (2004). Academic Writing for Graduate Students. Michigan U Press.• Weissberg, R. & Buker, S. (1990). Writing Up Research: Experimental Research Report Writing for Students of English. Prentice Hall.• Hamp-Lyons, L. & Heasley, B. (2006). Study Writing: A Course in Writing Skills for Academic Purposes. 2nd Edition. Cambridge.
  11. 11. Uli Schrader The MEXTESOL Journal:From the reception of an article to publication
  12. 12. • A) An author requests information about submitting an article before submitting the article• The Editor-in-Chief sends the author the following documents: – The Editorial Policy of the Journal – The brief Manuscript Guidelines – The Article Review Format (as a guide for the final preparation of the article)• and answers any other questions.
  13. 13. B) An already finished article is received by the Editor-in-ChiefThe process for publishing (or not) an article which is received by theEditor-in-Chief is as follows:1)The Editor-in-Chief receives the article (which includes whether theauthor would like the article to be refereed or not) and looks it over todetermine its general suitability for the MEXTESOL Journal, and thatit is complete. She writes the author acknowledging receipt of thearticle and informs the author of the following steps.2) The Editor sends the article to the appropriate Associate Editor (forRefereed or Non-refereed Articles) who, in turn will also read it andmake a tentative decision regarding its suitability and its status as arefereed or non-refereed article. In some cases, the Editor mightsuggest that the article be sent for mentoring before it is sent to thereaders.
  14. 14. 5) Meanwhile, the two readers read and evaluate the articleaccording to the Review Format, and determine if thearticle is accepted, rejected or given a conditionedacceptance status.6) The Associate Editor receives the evaluations from thereaders and if they concur, sends them on to the author. Ifthe two readers have divergent opinions, then a third readeris consulted.7) Usually the author is asked to make revisions accordingto the comments received. The Associate Editor relaysinformation and the manuscript back and forth between theauthor and the readers as often as necessary until the articlehas the complete approval of all involved.
  15. 15. 8) The Associate Editor now turns the article overto the Style Editor who makes a final reading forediting and proofreading purposes. If additionalchanges are necessary, there may be furthercorrespondence between the Style Editor and theAssociate Editor, who communicates with theauthors.9) The Production Editor checks the references andworks with the author regarding any clarifications.
  16. 16. 10) The authors are asked to provide anunformatted final manuscript according to specificguidelines and submit it to the production manager.Suggestions are often made to make the articlemore presentable for an online format, e.g. color,image resolution, etc.11) The author is informed of the final acceptanceof the article and the approximate publication date.
  17. 17. 12) After the article is published, the authorreceives a letter from the Editor- in-Chief that thearticle has been published and is given the officialpublication reference information.
  18. 18. For non-refereed articles:The Associate Editor for Non-refereed articles andone other reviewer decide if the article is acceptedfor publication in the Journal and work togetherwith the author to prepare the manuscript forpublication.
  19. 19. Rebeca E. Tapia Ethics
  20. 20. Ethics in research: Beliefs and experience Dra. Rebeca E. Tapia Carlín BUAP
  21. 21. Aspects to consider1.Negotiating and maintaining access to research site2.Obtaining informed consent3.Protecting the identity of participants4.Avoiding plagiarism (Saldaña, 2003)
  22. 22. 1. Negotiating and maintaining access to research site• It is important to get permission from the authorities to conduct research (Richards, 2003; Tapia, 2008).• If the participants are children it is necessary to tell their parents and to get their consent (Bell, 1993), or give them the right to consent or withdraw (Saldaña, 2003).
  23. 23. 2. Obtaining informed consent• Participants need to agree to participate and should have the right to refuse to do it.• Participants need to be informed about the purpose of the research, about their identity protection and know they will not receive any harm.• The researcher must obtain the consent from the participants in the study. (Richards, 2003; Saldaña, 2003)
  24. 24. 3. Protecting the identity of participants• It is necessary to change all participants’names, including that of an identifying site, to pseudonyms guaranteeing anonymity especially if requested by the participant. (Saldaña, 2003; Tapia, 2008)
  25. 25. 4. Avoiding plagiarism• Honesty is crucial when conducting research.• Taking someone else’s work without acknowledging that it is not acceptable in research.• It is necessary to report the sources used to avoid plagiarism, especially when doing the Literature Review. (Tapia, 2008)
  26. 26. Lupita Rodríguez Bulnes • The review format
  27. 27. MEXTESOL JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW FORMAT FORNON-REFEREED ARTICLESTITLE OF THE ARTICLEDATE RECEIVEDPlease mark the appropriate column. (You can also write comments in the spaces asappropriate and use as much space as necessary.)In the last column (marked in grey) the author(s) will write where any corrections havebeen made after the original review process. This information will help the reviewerslocate the corrections easily.
  28. 28. MEXTESOL JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW FORMATTITLE OF THE ARTICLE ______________________________DATE RECEIVED ____________________________________Please mark the appropriate column. (You can also write comments in the spacesas appropriate and use as much space as necessary) YES NO NEEDS WORK 1. The article is suitable for the Mextesol Journal readership. 2. The article contains some original ideas and contributes to EFL / ESL research or teaching. 3. The article has a clear focus/sequence throughout . 4. The article shows evidence of sufficient background reading and state-of-the-art research on the topic. 5. The article contains an appropriate balance between theory and practical applications to the classroom . 6. The article is well organized and contains all the relevant sections marked with subheadings. 7. The article has a clear introduction stating the purpose of the article and a well thought-out thesis statement. 8. The ideas are clear and relatively easy to read and follow. 9. (If research-based) The research is clearly presented and contains all the relevant elements. Enough information is given to be able to replicate the study.
  29. 29. MEXTESOL JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW FORMAT cont.10. The linguistic level and the mechanics of writing are appropriate forpublication.11. There is effective diction (appropriate use of words) and effective usage(appropriate use of language).12. The conclusion shows a summary of and a personal reflection on theideas expressed in the article.13. The references and quotations are clear. The bibliography is updatedand relevant. (If a historical review, there is a good chronological sequenceand follow-up relevant to the topic.)Article status Definite Yes _________(Pease mark) Definite No __________Conditioned Yes ______SPECIFIC COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:
  30. 30. JoAnn Miller• What to do if you are not accepted
  31. 31. Did you proofread?Did someone else read it before you sent it in?
  32. 32. What about the title?Was it too long? Too short?
  33. 33. Was it a good topic?Were your ideas understood?
  34. 34. Were they your words?
  35. 35. One at a time
  36. 36. If at first you don’t succeed, write, re-write again….