Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Presented by: Filip DochyDate: Thursday 10 July 2008
Learning and Instruction
Educational Research Review
HOW TO PUBLISH WORKSHOP
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH REVIEW
Electronic submission and manuscript management system of submission For full instructions on online submission to Educational Research review go to http://ees.elsevier.com/edurev/ Major criteria in the review and the selection process is the degree to which an article advances the sciences of education.
The focus will be on European work in the field. However, contributions from non-European experts as well as non-members of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction are encouraged.
Editorial Board Editor:
Filip Dochy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium Email: [email protected]
Associate Editors:S.R. Goldman, University Illinois, USA
Email: [email protected]
R.Lowe, Curtin University of Technology, AustraliaEmail: [email protected]
L. Mason, University of Padova, Italy Email: [email protected]
2. Educational Research Review
The Educational Research Review is an international Journal addressed to researchers and various agencies interested in the review of studies and theoretical papers in education at any level. PHD students are offered the opportunity to publish their systematic reviews of research findings.
Contributions:- Research reviews:
Reviews aimed at comparing extant theory and data. Such reviews include empirical data and comprehensive critical discussion about
the theories and methods used. It is expected to provide new insights about new research possibilities or questions in the field.
- Theoretical contributions:Relating issues, comparisons, and analyses to the application of methods and models to the educational process.
- Forum papers:Shorter articles presenting new ideas, or responses to published material stimulating debate, but well founded in the existing literature.
- Thematic Reviews:Reviews based on the analysis of particular areas of the literature, or based on a particular point of view, model or method.
- Research critiques:Reviews on selected educational topics reflecting implications for the field of education and giving well founded critiques and alternatives.
- Methodological reviews:Reviews concerning the methods or methodologies used in education. Such reviews focus on issues such as research design, sampling techniques, sample size, research procedures, data collection, methods of analysis, software, etc.
6
Reviewing – the fundamentals• Regular articles submitted to Learning and Instruction
and Educational Research Review are initially reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and 3 reviewers
• The editor requests that the article be reviewed within 3-4 weeks
• Articles are revised until 3 reviewers agree on either acceptance or rejection or until the editor decides that the reviewers’ criticisms have been addressed satisfactorily
• The reviewers’ reports provide advice for editors to assist them in reaching a decision on a submitted paper
7
Reviewing – the fundamentals• If a report is not received within 4 weeks after being
sent to the reviewers the editorial office will contact them and send a reminder (reviewers accept an invitation to review within a few days)
• The final decision concerning a manuscript lies with the editor
• If there is a notable disagreement between the reports of the reviewers, a new reviewer may be consulted for advice
• The anonymity of the reviewers and authors is strictly preserved
8
Reviewing – the fundamentals• Reviewers should not communicate directly with
authors• All manuscripts and supplementary material are
treated as confidential by the editors and only disclosed to the reviewer
• The aim is to have a response to the author 8-10 weeks after initial receipt of the manuscript
• Meeting these schedule objectives requires extra effort on the part of the editorial staff, editor and reviewer
• If reviewers treat others the way they would like to be treated as authors, working together we can achieve these objectives
9
Reviewing – the fundamentals
• Proper journal for one’s work• Clear relation to the Guide to Authors• Reviewers need to review the manuscript
with this in mind
10
Rejection Rates of L&I and Edurev?
Example
11
Questions
12
Don’t give up
13
14
15
16
Reviewing – the fundamentals
Focus on Building Blocks of an empirical manuscript
• Abstract and Overview
• Introduction – Hypotheses / Predictions
• Methodology
• Results and Discussion
• Conclusion
• References, Tables, Figures
17
Reviewing – the fundamentals
Focus on Building Blocks of a review manuscript
• Abstract and Overview• Introduction, problem statement• Methodology for reviewing – type of
review• Narrative review or meta-analysis• Results and Discussion• Conclusion• References, Tables, Figures
18
The Abstract
• Provides short description of the perspective and purpose of the paper. Does not overemphasize perspective by providing a literature review
• Gives key methodology and number of participants, as well as key results (recall that abstract is what is readily seen in electronic searching) but minimizes experimental details.
• Offers a short description of the interpretation/conclusion
• Brief--<150 words
19
The Abstract
Role of Reviewer:• Prior to commenting on Abstract, if necessary,
add a short (few sentence) summary of article, indicating a general comprehension of article, its importance, your enthusiasm.
• Avoid ad hominem remarks and excessive or pointlessly clever and sarcastic remarks. Remember that reviewer comments can be hurtful. If you must “vent”, add such remarks to “comments to editor.”
20
The Introduction - Hypotheses • The introduction should be concise and to-the-point• Provides proper perspective consistent with nature of
journal• Cites original and important work plus recent reviews
for mature areas• Minimizes cites (refs) for related developments that are
now well accepted (>30 cites probably too many)• States purpose of paper and research strategy
adopted to answer the question but does not give results and/or discussion or a summary of the paper (abstract should do this)
• Does not overstep the design and outcome of the research
21
The Introduction - Hypotheses
Role of Reviewer:• To comment on effectiveness, clarity,
organization
• To comment on the appropriateness of the hypotheses
• To suggest changes in organization
• To document grammar, style problems
• To point authors to appropriate cites
22
Methodology• Include subchapters on (a) Design, (b) Participants, (c)
Instruments, (d) Procedure• Include all important details so that the reader can repeat the work.
(Details that were previously published can be omitted but broad summaries of those experiments should be included)
• Give vendors (and addresses) for commercial instruments and parts
• Present proper control experiments• Include, if relevant, theoretical (mathematical) modeling or add an
“Analyses” section that gives details on the qualitative or statistical analysis
• Avoid adding comments and discussion • Write in the past tense, passive voiceRole of Reviewer:• see whether the above has been applied with all the necessary
details• comment on possible methodological flaws and shortcomings
23
Results and Discussion
Include the hypotheses that are tested each time. Continue with description of experimental results. Include “on going conclusions” if appropriate
Use figures to illustrate typical results. Minimize figures despite the cliché: “a figure is worth a thousand words. . .”
Include descriptions of “simple outcome” in text—not in tables or figures. “Minimize white space!”
Avoid excessively enthusiastic interpretations (Eschew words such as “novel” “first time” “first ever” “paradigm-changing” etc. Allow others to draw such conclusions)
Insure interpretations and interim conclusions are justified Comment on suitability of data, tables, figures, etc for inclusion as
supplementary material, e.g., in Appendix
24
Results and Discussion (cont’d)
Role of Reviewer:• Suggest organization changes, improvements in presentation and style• Comment on logic and justification of the analyses applied, conclusions and
interpretations• Detail concisely and carefully required changes (recall that author must respond or
rebut your requirements!). Minimize the number, if possible. Avoid “thinking out loud”
• Consolidate as one item suggested changes in style, grammar, and other small changes
• Comment on number of figures, tables, schemes, their need and their quality• Require or suggest other experiments. Make clear the need for such. Defer to
editor if you are unsure whether new experiments are essential or would be more appropriate for future studies
• When suggesting further work, be cognizant of nature of submission—is it a communication, application note, full article?
25
Conclusions
• Present global and specific conclusions in relation to the hypotheses
• Indicate uses and extensions if appropriate• Suggest future experiments and indicate those that are
underway• Do not summarize paper (abstract is for that purpose)• Avoid judgments about impact• Envisage implications for education• State the limitations of the study
26
Conclusions (cont’d)
Role of reviewer:• Comment on validity and generality of
conclusions. Request “toning down” claims to generality that are not justified
• Request removal of redundancies and summaries
27
References, Tables, FiguresRole of Reviewer:• Check, if possible, accuracy of cites• Comment on number of cites, if necessary• Point out redundancies, incomplete cites (missing volume nos, page
numbers, author spellings)• Comment on footnotes in ref list (often footnotes can be included in text
material)• Comment on need for figures, their quality, legibility (recall figs are often
published in one column)• Request removal from figure excessive legend material, headers from
instrument software, excessive axis labels• Request removal of discussion in figure legends and table titles• Comment on consistency of presentation (consistent font, size)• Comment on need for color in figures (recall color is allowed in electronic
versions but expensive in print version)• Comment on Table footnotes and request additional ones
Reviewing – the Mechanics
Online Reviewing
Christopher Tancock, Elsevier Ltd.
29
Introduction• JLI and EDUREV use the Elsevier Editorial System (EES)
for managing the submission/review process• The following slides will outline the mechanics of completing
an online review for the journals• The process involves:
• Invitation by e-mail• Accept/decline from within e-mail by invitee• Automatic login to relevant webpage• If invite accepted, completion of online review form• Thank you email upon completion of review
30
Invitation by E-mail• The reviewer is invited by e-mail from the EES system of the journal
• The e-mail contains “Accept/Decline”
links which the reviewer uses
to indicate their decision
• Depending on the manuscript, the
abstract is included in the invitation e- mail
31
Reviewer Accepts Invitation
• After agreeing, the reviewer is automatically logged into the EES system
32
Pending Reviewer Assignment• The reviewer can now view basic manuscript information
• The reviewer can download a PDF of the manuscript via the
“View Submission” link
• When ready, the reviewer can then
“Submit their Recommendation”
33
Free Scopus access 30 days
• Scopus is the world's largest single abstracting and indexing database, covering more than 14,000 scientific, technical and medical titles, from over 4000 international publishers
• Scopus allows you to see how many times a certain paper/ author has been cited
34
How to use Scopus?
• On the start page (Basic Search Tab), type the journal name in Source title. Then, hit search.
• For now, the papers are not yet organized according to the number of citations. Click on Cited By to change this
• You can also do an Author search in the same way
35
Submitting the Review• The reviewer chooses a recommendation
from the drop-down list
• More information can be found under Reviewer Instructions
• The reviewer submits the review, confirming it is correct before sending it to the Editor
36
Reviewer Instructions
37
Acknowledgement of Completed Review • Upon completion
of the review, the reviewer receives a “Thank You” e-mailconfirming that the review has been received
Discussion & Feedback
Led by the editors
39
Discussion & Feedback
In preparation for this workshop you were asked to read the article with the title: “Goal conflicts and self-regulation. A new look on students’ off-task behaviour”
(If you don’t already have a copy, you will find one in your info pack)
Would you publish this article?
