Academic Writing Workshop

June  19th,  2015  

Welcome  and  introduc/ons  

Informal  discussion  with    Associate  Professor  David  

Holloway  

The  process  of  wri/ng  

Top  down  or  bo5om  up  or  somewhere  in  between?  

From  wri/ng  to  publishing  

•  How  do  I  decide  which  journal?  

•  Journal  guidelines  for  authors  

•  Reviewer  guidelines  

•  Responding  to  reviewers  

Which  journal?    •  Does  my  arFcle  suits  the  journal?    

•  What  are  the  journal  aims  and  scope?  

•  Who  is  your  intended  audience?  Who  do  you  really  want  to  read  this  –  policy  makers,  pracFFoners,  other  academics  in  your  field  …?  

•  What  discipline  am  I  publishing  in?  Do  I  have  a  discipline?  

•  Is  ranking  important  to  you  and  why?  Different  rankings.  

•  If  not  ranked  highly,  is  it  the  Editorial  Board  of  the  journal  that  is  important  to  you?  

Mmmh  …  Rankings  Journals) ERA)

2014)List)

ERA)2010)Rank)

Scopus) ABDC)Rank)SJR) SNIP)

Journal( of( Australian( Indigenous(Issues(

(listed(

(B(

(not(listed(

(

not(listed(

Impact( Assessment( and( Project(Appraisal((IAPA)(((

((listed(

((

C(

((1.385(

((1.583(

((

C(Journal(of(Cleaner(Production(( (

(listed(

((A(

((

1.699(

((

2.516(

(not(listed(

Rural(Society(Journal( ((

listed(

((

C(

((

0.259(

((

0.548(

((

not(listed(Academy( of( Taiwan( Business(Management(Review(

(listed(

(B(

(not(listed(

(B(

!SNIP:  Source  Normalized  Impact  per  Paper  measures  contextual  citaFon  impact  by  weighFng  citaFons  based  on  the  total  number  of  citaFons  in  a  subject  field.  SJR:  SCImago  Journal  Rank  is  weighted  by  the  presFge  of  a  journal.    Subject  field,  quality  and  reputaFon  of  the  journal  have  a  direct  effect  on  the  value  of  a  citaFon.    SJR  also  normalizes  for  differences  in  citaFon  behavior  between  subject  fields.  

Disciplinarity  and  rankings  

A*  Journals  in  ERA  2010  Rankings  

Journal  guidelines  for  authors    Common  S/pula/ons  •  Abstract  (nature  and  length)  •  Keywords  and  research  highlights  •  ArFcle  type  (research,  review,  commentary,  etc.)  

•  ArFcle  lengths  •  Format  (font,  margins,  tables,  figures,  spelling)  

•  Referencing  Instruc/ons  vary  from  vague    

to  extremely  precise  

Reviewer  guidelines    Common  Review  Criteria  •  Suitability  of  material  presented  •  Validity  of  the  work  reported    (e.g.  robust  methodology)  

•  Importance  to  the  target  readership  •  Originality  of  material  presented  •  ContribuFon  of  material  presented  •  Applicability  of  material  presented  •  Readability  of  manuscript  

Sample  Review  Guidelines  In  making  a  report  the  referee  is  requested  to  pay  par/cular  aSen/on  to  the  following  points:  a)    Are  there  any  obvious  faults  in  the  empirical  basis,  or  theoreFcal  reasoning?  b)    Are  there  any  demonstrable  errors  in  mathemaFcs,  calculaFons,  units,  etc.?  c)    Are  all  tables  or  figures  appropriate,  comprehensible  and  accurate?  d)    Is  the  order  of  presentaFon  logical  (allowing  for  individual  preferences)?  e)    Are  there  any  parts  which  should  be  expanded  or  condensed,  if  so  which?  f)     Are  there  any  addiFonal  references  that  should  be  considered,  if  so  which?  

Please  recommend  one  of  the  following:  1  -­‐  Accept  in  present  form  2  -­‐  Accept  subject  to  amendments  3  -­‐  Encourage  author  to  revise  the  paper  and  resubmit    4  -­‐  Paper  unsuitable  but  of  publishable  quality    5  -­‐  Reject.  

Responding  to  reviewers    How  might  one  respond  to  the  feedback  below:    

•  “Somewhere  in  the  methodology  sec2on,  the  author  needs  to  address  his/her  complicated  role  as  both  a  guide  and  tourism  researcher.  To  what  extent  does  this  compromise  the  data?  Are  par2cipants  more  inclined  to  rave  about  the  poli2cally  transforma2ve  impact  of  their  experiences  when  their  interviewer  is  a  representa2ve  of  the  NGO”?  

•  There  are  2  footnotes  ...  This  journal  along  with  many  others  nowadays  tends  to  avoid  footnotes,  so  they  deserve  par2cular  scru2ny.  The  footnote  on  page  3  is  in  effect  a  statement  of  methodology,  and  the  only  statement  of  methodology  in  the  paper.  The  normal  model  is  for  a  clear  statement  of  methodology  to  be  provided.  My  advice  would  be  to  delete  the  footnote,  but  insert  a  much  clearer  paragraph  or  even  sec2on  of  the  paper  describing  the  methodology.    

Conflic/ng  reviews    Reviewer  1:  •  A  very  well  wri5en  arFcle  that  explains  in  a  perFnent  manner  the  gap  that  is  being  

created  among  policy  formaFon  and  implementaFon  by  taking  into  consideraFon  the  stakeholders  engagement.  I  highly  recommend  this  arFcle  to  be  published  with  no  alteraFon.  

Reviewer  2:  •  This  fairly  well  wri5en  manuscript  provides  an  assessment  of  a  tourism  planning  

process  that  took  place  during  the  early  and  mid  part  of  the  last  decade  in  the  Northern  Territory  of  Australia.    There  is  li5le  content  in  this  manuscript  that  reflects  the  creaFon  of  new  knowledge  or  any  unique  contribuFon.  The  manuscript  does  a  fairly  good  job  of  summarizing  the  extant  knowledge  on  planning  theory  but  I  wonder  how  much  of  this  is  new  to  the  literature.    

Editor:  •  I  have  personally  read  your  paper  and  think  that  it  will  add  to                                                                    

the  current  literature  significantly  

CollaboraFon  and  authorship  Risks  –  rights  -­‐  responsibiliFes  

Ideas  for  other  topics