Workshop: How UA Libraries Can Assist You In Publishing: Tools, Techniques, & Tips

– Okay, well, let’s see here. We’re gonna try to stay on schedule. You know, we’re gonna keep
moving on right ahead. I’ve got a couple minutes after 9:30, and we got the agenda here, so we’re gonna see how we proceed here. And over the course, you know, small turnout and hopefully no surprise with it being week of Thanksgiving. Are we recording now, John? – [John] We are, we’re goin’. – We’re goin’, okay. I’ve got my agenda
right here in my pocket. All right, so, week of
Thanksgiving, small crowd here. But wanna, of course, give thanks, week of Thanksgiving here. I’m thankful for my colleagues,
my wonderful colleagues, for attending and presenting
and working with this again. I believe this is the
third time we’ve done this. This gets better and better each time, and that’s the way that things should, should do that, give ’em more experience, and things come together. You learn from your
mistakes and move ahead. Anyway, I want to welcome all of you. Come on in, welcome to the workshop here, How UA Libraries Can
Assist You in Publishing. Got Tools, Techniques, and Tips. And as you’re coming in,
we’ve got a signup notebook up here at the front. If you will, put your name and
your email address on there. After the presentation,
maybe after Thanksgiving, but I will send you a follow-up email, and if you would like to receive a copy of this presentation, audio-video copy, we’re recording this today, so
we can send that out to you. There will be people,
as has been in the past, they contact me afterwards and say, “I really wanted to be there. “I couldn’t make it. “Was it recorded?” Well, like I said, this is
third time we’ve done this, and the second time we’ve recorded it. So, we will give a recording out to you. We appreciate you and your interest, and we appreciate your patience with us as we get this pulled together. It’s just wonderful the
technology we have here, and again, like I said, my colleagues. We’ve got John Ezell over here. He’s working the technology. He’s pulling this together,
and I thank him for doing that. Then I wanna thank my
colleagues, my coworkers here. I’ve got Karen Chapman. She’s the director of Branch Services, and she’ll be one of our speakers today. And we’ve got Vince Scalfani. He works at the science
region here in the library. He’s another one of our speakers. And we also have Seung Eun Jung, and she is with the
Department of Human Nutrition and Hospitality Management. Her specialty is in nutrition. Of course, that’s very relevant with this week of Thanksgiving. We tend to eat a little too
much of the good, sweet stuff, and it’s not very nutritious, but maybe she can give me some pointers on what to go for that’s very nutritious. All right, and so, as we’re
going throughout this, if you have any questions, feel free. I know this is more of
a drop in, drop out, and you may have other commitments
that you have to go to. So, we want you to be able
to get your questions. We will have time at
the end for a Q and A. But personally, the way I like to do it, feel free to stop me if you’ve
got a question along the way, but like I said, we will have
time for Q and A at the end. And always, you can
follow up with an email or a phone call and reach out and touch. So, that’s fine. My name is Paul Brothers, and I work in the Bruno Business Library. Me and my colleagues, we
all have varying levels and degrees of experience with publishing. We want to present some
resources to you today. We’ve got several databases the university library subscribes to. We have access if you’re
affiliated here with UA. So, we’ve got these resources
that you can use to help, these tools that you can use
to help with your publishing. And then, each of our speakers will give you valuable
information based on their personal experience with publishing. So, this is a really rich time of learning about the resources, some of the resources
we have here for you, and then getting firsthand experience, firsthand knowledge from
those who have published and are publishing, and look
to publish in the future. So, it’s a great opportunity. We’re getting, talk a little too much, so I’m gonna go ahead and
try to stay on schedule. Our first speaker is
Professor Karen Chapman, and I’m gonna turn it over to her now. Appreciate your patience, and I look forward to hearing from Karen. Thank you. (audience applauding) – All right, thanks, Paul. Now, Paul asked us to share
with you our background. So, my first slide here is
a little bit about myself, so know my credentials and how I feel like I have some things to share. I did make a mistake on
this slide, I’m so sorry. It’s four editorial boards, not five. I got a little carried away there. I have published throughout my career, and I now serve on these editorial boards, and I review for several journals, both in business and library science. I’ll be telling you some
about tools and tips for getting published, and I’ll also, in a little while, I’ll tell you sort of what the
reviewers’ point of view is and what happens when
you submit your article, what the reviewer is looking for. Okay, let’s start off
with some really basic, which is the format of a research article. The outline that you see
on the screen right there is very standard, very typical. This is almost any
subject, you’re gonna see a research article organized like this. You’ll have the introduction
where you’re going to explain what it is that you’re researching. You wanna explain why it’s important. And then the literature review, where you’re going to give
an overview of the literature that’s related to what you did. It may be that you will
also wanna cite articles that use the methodology as what you did. Then at the end of your literature review, you need to explain how
your research builds on this prior work. All right? Then, you’ll have the methodology. You wanna explain in enough detail that the reviewer can understand exactly what you did along the way. Again, if you’re using methodology
someone else developed, then go ahead and
reference that and cite it. Then you wanna give your
results, and then the discussion. Sometimes these are combined. Sometimes it makes sense to combine them. I think, in most cases,
what you’re gonna see is just this presentation of results and then you will have
a discussion section where you’ll talk about the implications. What do those results actually mean? Did they answer your question? What do they tell us? Then finally, the conclusion. Two pieces of the conclusion that you’re gonna wanna include are limitations of the study, was there something about your sample, was it something about
your research question, is there something you
weren’t able to address? And then suggestions for future research. What would the next steps be? So, all of those are typically contained in a research article and laid
out very much in that order. Okay. I’m just going to kind
of describe a little bit about the process, the thought process
you’re gonna go through when you’re working on publishing. The first thing you wanna do is make sure you have a good idea, something that you’re
really interested in, because you’re gonna be spending a long time working on this. Articles do not come quickly. So, make sure it’s something
you’re really interested in, you get excited about. Now, I do recommend that
you choose your journal very early on, even as you’re figuring out what you’re going to research. Because it’s really
gonna be helpful to you if you know who your
audience is going to be when you do your article. You wanna think about, who
would want to know about this? Who would be interested in this research? And then what journals
serve that audience? The other thing is that you wanna review the author guidelines for that journal and make sure that what you do, what you put together as a final product, fits what they’re looking for. You wanna look at issues of that journal. Just make sure that they’re
actually publishing articles of that type or similar articles. Then you’ll know that they
are gonna be more likely to accept what you’ve done. So, identifying that journal early on is going to be really helpful to you when you’re putting everything together. Okay, again, you’re
gonna do your research, and then after you’ve done your research, you’re going to start
preparing your paper. Look at the authors. I’ll be saying this over and over again. I think the other piece is a lot, too. Check the author guidelines, because the author guidelines are really your explanation of all the
pieces you need to produce. Do they like grass? They don’t like grass. They want photographs? They don’t like photographs. Look at other articles in the journal. Go back and check the author guidelines. Make sure when you’re
preparing your article, you set it up the way that they want it. Some journals will say, for example, when you prepare tables,
go ahead and put them in with the text and submit one document. But others will say,
no, we want each graph or each table to be its own document. That sounds kinda like a minor thing, but when you’re putting
everything together, you need to make sure that
you set it up correctly. So, check the author guidelines, make sure that you’re doing
what they’ve asked you to do. You reach a point, you
check the author guidelines, you have all the pieces
that they’ve asked for, and you submit. You’re probably gonna do that in an electronic submission platform. They probably have a link you click on. I’m actually on the editorial
board with a journal where they don’t do that. You really just email a
Word document to the editor. That’s what you do. But that’s pretty rare these days. Most publishers have an online platform where you go in, you fill out a form, and you upload your files. Okay, then you wait and you wait, and reviewers check your work. And then they send back response, and the most likely response is gonna be a request to revise. It may be small revision,
it may be large revision. We’re gonna talk about that more later. We’re gonna talk about
most of these pieces later. This is just the overview. But then you will need to respond to what the reviewers have asked for, and you might have to go through this process more than once. You might do a revision, send it back. They might want more revisions. Then you’ll have to do
that and send it back. Just keep doing that. As long as they are
interested in your article and they keep giving you suggestions, just keep improving your article until it reaches the point where
they’re ready to accept it. Okay, and let me repeat again, choose your target journal early. I have found that to be really key, because it helps me know
who I’m writing for. As soon as I write that
introduction, for example, I know what audience I’m writing for. It’s the readers of this journal. The journal explains their scope. And so, I understand who these
people are I’m writing for, and that way, I can write in a way that’s going to appeal to that audience. I really like this tip to write as you go. I did that once. I had a co-author who had mastered this, and I was working with
her, and we would … She had some ideas that she pitched to me, and I said, “Yeah, I’d like
to work on that with you,” and she’d already done the introduction. As we did the lit review together, she was writing that lit review as we were collecting the data. She was writing up the methodology. When we were finished,
I send her my results, and she plugged them in, and then we discussed what it meant. And she wrote that up
and hit the conclusion, and submit it. And it was so smooth
and wonderful and fast, and I thought, “Wow, I
should do that every time.” Haven’t done it since
because I just don’t have the self-discipline to do it, honestly. I’m really bad. I do the whole thing. What appeals to me is not the writing. What appeals to me is
figuring out the methodology and doing the data collection and then seeing an answer
emerge from the data. That’s what is fascinating
to me, not the writing. And so, I put off the
writing until last minute, last minute, until
everything else is done. And then I sit down and try
to write the whole thing. Let me tell you, it’s
not the way to do it. Take some advice and try to
write pieces of it as you go. Okay, the title needs to be clear. I know people think catchy
titles will get attention. But if people don’t understand
what your article’s about, they might look at that catchy title like, oh, that’s clever. I wonder what that article’s about. And then they’re not gonna click on it. So, think about something
like Google Scholar. When you go into Google Scholar, you see the title of the
article and maybe two lines. So, you don’t get much
help in Google Scholar, with them telling people
what your article’s about. Your title needs to tell people
what your article’s about if you want them to open
it and read it and use it. So, make sure your title is clear. If you use that subtitle
and really pin down what you’re talking about in your title. Then, my last suggestion would be to use a good professional name. Think about, from the
very first publication, be consistent what name you use. Think about using a middle
name or middle initial to distinguish your name
from other people’s. That’s something no one said to me, and I didn’t use a middle initial, and now I have all these publications with just a first and last name. Unfortunately, you’d think
Karen Chapman wouldn’t be a terribly common name, but it is. So, somebody searches for
works by Karen Chapman, and since I don’t have a middle initial, their search pulls back Karen S. Chapman, Karen J. Chapman, Karen Z. Chapman, and again, the others who are like me that are just Karen Chapman,
and it’s a big mess. So, if you want people to be
able to identify your work, and know who your are, make sure, right from the beginning, you figure out what your
professional name is, and use that name. Okay, now, there are two things that I want to show you very quickly. I know I’m running over time, so try and go a little faster here. All right. Two tips that you need to know about. Staff directory on the library’s homepage. Now, I hope you’ve all seen
the library homepage before. I don’t know if you’ve
ever paid any attention to the staff directory. When I click on that, I get this nice page with members of the library
staff and librarians. And what I want to bring to your attention is this little liaison area, where you can choose a subject. I clicked on that, and
this is the box that I got. So, now I can choose a department. They should pretty much line
up with university departments. We can choose a department
and see who the librarian is, who is assigned to that department. So, I see James Gilbreath is the librarian for the advertising public
relations department. That means he is a resource person for you if you’re in that department. And he is absolutely at your service. If you are stuck trying
to find a document, if you need to know …
maybe you’re trying to do your literature search,
and the searches don’t seem to be pulling up what you’re expecting, talk to your librarian. The librarian knows how to do
searches in your databases. The librarian can give you
advice on which databases you ought to be in. So, this person is very much
a resource person for you. They will welcome you coming to them and asking you for assistance
with your research project. Okay, the other thing I
wanna show you is a database. I’m going to go to research
tools and choose databases. And the one I have in mind is
called SAGE Research Methods, and I click on the S, scroll down, and I’m going to click on
SAGE Research Methods Online. This is a very special kind of database. This is not the kind of
database that you search when you’re doing your literature
review to find articles. This database is for researchers, so what it has in it is materials to help you do your research. We have a nice search box, and I know the temptation
is to jump right in and put something in the search box, but I’m gonna scroll down the page first. Here are the different types
of things we have here. They have books, they
have reference books, encyclopedias, they have videos, books about quantitative methods, books about qualitative methods. The cases actually
illustrate different methods. So, if you think you’re
going to do something, say you’re gonna use focus groups, and you’d like to see where someone else has used focus groups and
kind of how they set them up and how they reported it, go into cases, and they
will show you some examples. Datasets, if you’re gonna
run statistical tests you’re not familiar with. Go in here and find some place where they provided you with datasets so you have all this
data you can practice on before you get your data. Then Project Planner, we’re
look at in just a moment. They also have podcasts. Now, SAGE does mostly
cater to social sciences, but you can see from
this list of subjects, they do offer things for
other subjects, as well. So, you can even click on
this and see the most used, most likely things for your
particular subject area. All right, now let’s quickly do a search, and I’m gonna use my focus group
example one more time here. It gives me definition,
and now you can see the very first one,
focus group methodology. It’s telling me how to use focus groups. You can limit it over on the side. We have not subscribed
to every single piece of this database. You might wanna click on available to me, to make sure you’re actually gonna be able to see what’s here. But if the book is listed there, you’re gonna be able to
see it on the screen. Then you can also break it down if there’s a particular type
of thing you’re looking for, and you can use these
filters to break it down. Okay, let me also show
you a few more things in the research tools. I’m gonna skip over the methods map. Greeting lists, you
can actually save these things that are useful to you in a list and give it a name. You can make that list public. So, for example, if
you’re teaching a class, you want your students to
read some of this stuff, you can create a list, give it a name, and then put a link to
it in Blackboard Learn. You can also read other people’s lists. If someone else, maybe
you’re doing focus groups, you think, “Well, I wonder if someone else “has already pulled together all “the best stuff on focus groups?” Go in and see if somebody
created a list plan. Project Planner I did
wanna show you because it’s basically like
what we are doing today. It’s the steps in your research. When you click on something, it tells you a little bit about what you need to do at that stage in your research, it provides you with all these
questions and the answers. We do a literature review. And here’s brief answer,
and then most of the time, they will provide you one of these methods where you can click on it, and it will pull up some helps on how to do whatever they’re talking
about in that question. This is a really nice thing to do, too. There’s a stage in the research
you’re not comfortable with, you want to go through and get a little more information on that. Then finally, sorry, research
tools, which stats test. If statistics is just not your thing, this might be of some help to you, because it just walks you
through these questions. I’m just gonna kinda randomly answer here. When you get down to the end, I’m just taking the first one each time, let’s see where that gets us. Then it tells you what test, what statistical test they
recommend in that situation. That could be kinda helpful. Now, of course, each one has a link. You can click here to get lots of sources. You can click on the
specific discussion points that they raise here. Okay, so those are two
really good places to look to get information on
how to do your research. And that’s your librarian
and SAGE Research Methods. Yeah. – [Paul] Thank you. (audience applauding) – Because you can arrange the content and, right after citations. So, there’s quite a few of those. Each journal will tell you in here, expect you to compose
your work, all right? You also have these filters over here. These are very helpful. I’m gonna encourage you
to take a look at these. There’s that dropdown box there. We’ll just quickly go over some of these. You can get into the content
by these different filters, by the disciplines here that they have. You can see they cover a lot
of different subject areas. Accounting, computer science, and then they’ve got these
different topics here under these disciplines. So, you can find really
quickly what type of journal that you can submit your work to. It’s an amazing and very deep
and wide area of publishing. There’s a lot of different ways that you get your work published. Thousands of publications. So, you can see here,
going down this list, and some of the disciplines, computer science, economics and finance, there’s health administration, management. I’m just naming a few of those, just to quickly kinda gloss most of those. Nursing. And then, again, like I said,
you got your topics up here. All right? I’m not gonna cover each of these aspects, just for sake of time. But we got, also, here, impact factor. So, in your field, in your department, some day you find yourself in an academia, and you’re in a park, and you want to … Your school says you need to
publish in certain journals, and certain journals that
have a particular reach or particular impact factor, they’re prevalent in your field. So, you can specify here the impact factor of your publication. Over here, they’ve got these peer reviews. These are different types
of publications here. I like how they quickly identify the types of what these are. We throw these terms out
in the library world. Blind reviews, double blind reviews. So, basically, on the blind review, the reviewer identity is confidential. You’re submitting your
work to that journal, and you don’t know who
is reviewing it, okay? That’s non (mumbles). Then the double blind,
not only is the author, not only is the reviewer
identity concealed, but that reviewer doesn’t know you. So, there’s both those opportunities there to provide for that anonymity there, okay? Then there’s, of course, editorial open where both the author and reviewer, the identities are known. Over here, this is an
important aspect here, the open access. This is something that, just real briefly, the libraries are really
encouraging authors, future authors, to consider open access. We want to think this is
the way of the future, and we believe that it is. If you are publishing something that is published with grant money, typically, if it’s tax payer supported grant funding, there are requirements
that your publishing has to be open access. It has to be available for
other tax payers to see what type of research you’ve done. So, they don’t have to go and
pay to access your article. They should be able to freely
access it over the internet. That’s what the open access is. It’s available to anyone and obtainable through the internet. They can get to your content. One of the reasons why libraries are really strongly encouraging this is because the cost of accessing these thousands of journals
that we have access to through the databases that, well, (mumbles) web science
and the scope is what … Those don’t actually
have the content in them, but they have the links out to the content through other databases. But the point is, it’s very expensive for the libraries to access this content. We have approximately
600 different databases that the libraries subscribe to, plus approximately 100 software packages which we can use for various things, statistical software, and
just it runs the gamut. But it’s very expensive. Several million dollars per year to have access to these databases, is just very expensive. So, we want to be able
to provide the content, but you can see the content, the cost is just, it increases every year. The cost just continues to go up. So, with the open access, that will allow more people
to receive the content, and receive it with much lower cost, okay? But we’re still a long
ways from getting to that, where all the content is
completely free to access. So, it’s a model that’s changing. Anyway, I really encourage
you to explore that. These are the different
types of open access models that are currently out there now. So, we’d really encourage you to publish your work in open access fashion. Also, we really are covering that really here in this presentation, but we have an institutional
repository here at UA, and it’s a great resource. We encourage you to explore that. There’s a lot of really good
research articles in there, research content. So, take a look at that. It’s called the Institutional Repository. All right, so, miss open access. All right, so, over here with
two tables, just quickly. I’m gonna put in a publication. Again, there are thousands
of publications here. But one of the publications that we use, and now published in, is the Journal of Business and
Finance Librarianship, okay? We’ll bring it up here. It has an eight percent,
so it’s kind of … Sometimes it would probably
bring it up that way, but. Journal of Business and
Finance Librarianship. Hit enter there, okay? So, here is the publication. All right, so this is very specific to my area of work, okay? This is where business
librarians, like myself, this is one of our top
tier journals, okay? This ka-bells directory
tells you some things about the Journal of Business
and Finance Librarianship. Again, you can access a profile like this for thousands and
thousands of publications here at ka-bells, okay? I’ll just use this as an example. Some of the things that
you can find in here, and again, just scratch the surface. Don’t have time to cover
all the aspects here. But they tell you some things about, for student published risk, Taylor and Francis, is
published quarterly, okay? Over here in the about, this
is what we’re gonna have here, if you click on the metrics, and if you click on contact
information of publisher. It tells you about the disciplines here, educational technology
and library science, economics and finance, okay? Some other disciplines there (mumbles). Some academia, that’s the audience, and published quarterly. It gives you the international
standard serial number, okay? When the publication was started, 1990. Tells you about the
publication here, okay? So, more content about the journal and who the audience
is, and what typically the types of articles they publish, okay? They tell you about this
mission, the guidelines here. So, they publish on the web now, okay? The length of the articles, generally, the length of the publications. The percentage of the invited articles. They give you the acceptance rate, okay? 50 percent, that’s pretty
good acceptance rate. Some publications have a
very small acceptance rate. Five percent, not unusual, okay? The style, American
Psychological Association, APA. It’s a double blind
peer review publication. Typically two to three
months to review it. They send you comments, okay? They screen for plagiarism, okay? But you got here to the
journal website, okay? Need help preparing the manuscript? Lots of links on here. Very helpful resource, okay? Then they got these other metrics up here. You can take a look at
these and explore more items about the content and how
they did the rankings, and that sort of thing like that. But couple of things, too,
when you’re in academia, you’re in your department, usually, your university, your college will have certain
publications that are relevant for your particular field. Some where your authors, your colleagues have been publishing, and they’re geared toward
a specific discipline. Sometimes the expectation is maybe there that you will publish in
those particular ones. So, you can go in here and you can use something like ka-bells and
you can get that information about those specific publications. Just enter the name of the publication and you’ll get to that directory. Use the profile information for
that particular publication. So, you can see, again, it covers a lot of different disciplines, but it’s profile information about the thousands and thousands
of academic journals where you can publish. All right, so, turn it back over to Karen, and she’s gonna give some information on the reviewer’s point of view now. – Okay. Now, when you submit your article, reviewer is gonna take a look at it and deem it worthy of publication or not. The reviewer is kinda bad
guy in your process, right? This is the person who stands between you and a published article. However, the reviewer
is really just trying to make sure that your article is, that your paper is well prepared and is something that’s gonna convey good, positive information to the readers. So, try not to think of the
reviewer as the bad guy, although, it’s hard not
to do that, I admit. All right, so, you can see on the screen some sample questions. Let me tell you a little bit about how it actually works
from the reviewer’s side. You’re gonna submit your article through some kind of electronic form or upload, and everything. And the system will probably, if you submit multiple documents, the system will kind
of attach them together and create one PDF that has all
of your text and your charts and everything in one place. The editor will go in the system, and the system will probably identify some suggested reviewers based on keywords you might have entered. You might have been
asked to supply the names of reviewers in some fields. That’s common. The editor has to decide
who’s gonna review it. They use their system or their own … The system or their own
knowledge of the subject and who the reviewers are, and they select a few people, and they put their names in. The system sends that person
an automated email, says, “Your name has come up. “Would you be willing
to review this paper?” It gives the title and the abstract. So, the reviewer has a
little bit of information to look at say, “Yeah,
this is something I’m good “with reviewing, I can do this.” Occasionally, I’ve gotten these emails. I look at the abstract and think, “Why did they think I was qualified? “I can’t possibly make reasonable comments “on this article,” and I have to say, “No, I’m not going to
review this article.” So, you get your reviewers. There are often two or three. Three is pretty common. And the reviewer gets the paper, and they’re told a deadline. Usually, the reviewer is
given three to four weeks. Or, at least, that’s been my experience. Three weeks or four weeks. So, the two to three
months it takes to review is not the reviewer the whole time. Some of that is the editor and the paper working its
way through the system. The reviewer probably has
three weeks or four weeks to actually review the paper. The reviewer also has
normally a form to fill out. These questions on the
screen are some of the ones that the reviewer is expected to answer when they provide the review. I’ve seen this in several different ways. Sometimes it’s just a
straight question with a box, and you can type in your answer. Sometimes it’s a rating. For example, it might be a sentence. Did the paper present something new? And then you have to agree,
disagree on a Likert scale. Somehow or other, you
have to provide responses to these questions, and they’re basically standard questions for each publication that
the editor has developed. So, you can see the questions. If you are thinking about these questions when you write your paper, you can make sure that your
paper answers them, and clearly, and that way, that will
make life a lot easier for the reviewer, make it
more likely the reviewer is going to approve your paper. The reviewer also has an opportunity, there’s a box to fill in where they can send
comments directly to you that are not part of this
question-answer thing. They also have a box that they can fill in where they send confidential
comments to the editor. If they suspect you of plagiarism or if they think something’s wrong, they might use that editor
box to put that in notation. Usually, what I do is just put everything in the comments to author, and then the comments
to editor, I just say, “See the comments to the author,” because I don’t really
have anything confidential for the editor. So, the reviewer is looking
for all these things that you see on the screen. I’m not gonna read it to you, but I do wanna emphasize the last one. That so what question. Don’t overlook that one, because your research needs
to contribute in some way. It needs to have some kind of meaning. It needs to advance your
field, create new knowledge. If you’ve done something that’s … There are things you can do
that maybe you shouldn’t do. Let me give you kind of a goofy example. Doing library research,
maybe I did a study on old bound journals and
stats and what colors they are, and I’ve done a study that identifies what the predominant
journal cover color is for the different subject fields. Wow! I’ve gathered my data,
and I’ve run my tables, and I’ve done my analysis. Who cares? It doesn’t matter what color the covers of the journals are. So, make sure when you
create your research question that you know how it’s gonna contribute to the field, and make it
really clear on your paper. Okay, occasionally, it
happens that a reviewer says, “Yes, this paper is fine exactly as it is. “Accept.” And if you can get multiple
reviewers to say that at the same time, wow! That’s really good. That does not happen very often because human nature, being what it is, if you’ve got three people
reading the same paper, at least one of them is going to have a suggestion about, oh, well, that table should have a different name. Or you should create this
additional table, or something. So, it’s really more
common than … realize. Sometimes, that can be hard to take because I know I’ve had so
many times when I’ve said … when some reviewer says, “You didn’t comment on section, “so you didn’t bring this out.” And I think, “Okay, did
you read page three, “because that’s where I covered that.” You have to kinda think about
what the reviewer’s saying, and honestly, Vin is
gonna talk about response to reviewers, but you do
need to carefully consider what the reviewer’s talking about. If he thinks you didn’t say it, then maybe where you put it in the article was not the best place to put it and you need to rearrange your article. So, think about revisions, think about them carefully. If they’re minor revisions, I would say, again, I’m
gonna let Vin cover this. Sorry, I’m trying not to
step on your part here. Think about, be careful, but
do try to get on with them and get your articles turned back in. Now, when I’ve talked about this before, I’ve been really insistent on, you know, drop everything else you’re doing, get that minor revision
done, and get it back in. I was talking to an editor friend of mine. He said, “You know, you don’t
wanna send it back so fast “that it looks like you didn’t
really even pay attention “to what the reviewer said.” I thought, “Oh, okay.” So, now I’m gonna say, give it a week. You get that review back,
read it, set it aside, come back to it in a
week, and think about it, and then, though, if it’s fairly minor, go ahead and do it and send it back. All right? But make sure that you do pay attention to what the reviewer said. If it’s a major revision
that really, really changes up everything you did, changes your methodology, you need to collect more data, you need to think carefully
about whether you wanna do that or whether you want to just
try submitting somewhere else. Then, sometimes you get
a flat-out rejection. That could be because you didn’t answer that so what question very well. It could be there was a fundamental flaw in your methodology that
you didn’t even realize. It’s a learning experience, so you’ve invested in this project, so you’ll have to just stop
and think very carefully about, what do I do now? Start over again, or do I count it just as a learning experience and
move on to something else? Hopefully, you will never have
to deal with that question. Okay, Vin. – So, cover letters. Cover letters are, I think, unfortunately sometimes an afterthought. Generally, when you go
to submit your manuscript to a journal or an editor,
really, you’re submitting it to, they’ll ask you to provide a cover letter. What I’ve done now, as
I’m writing manuscripts, I try and come up with
a couple bullet points as I’m writing that I
know I want to talk about in the cover letter. That works out well. A lotta times, we kinda,
as Karen was saying, too, sometimes manuscripts can be
really great and rigorous, but they get rejected
because they’re outside the scope of the journal. And so, sometimes you can
start kind of explaining in your cover letter how
your particular article fits within the scope of a journal. Cover letters are for
the editor to read, okay? As a peer reviewer, I’ve never received
somebody’s cover letter. They generally stay with
the editorial office. I’m not an editor, but I’m
assuming they use these as sort of a prescreening. It’s your opportunity to kinda pitch your article to the editor. And so, how I’ve always approached this, and documentation I’ve
read about cover letters, is pretty standard. Please consider this
manuscript for review. You could list the title and the different
co-authors on it, if any. Tell them an overview of the manuscript in two, four sentences, what it’s about and how it fits into the journal, what the major results and significance of the manuscript are. Then, you could have
something including sentences. You could also … I was talking a little bit about the scope … just kind of explain how
it fits into the journal and who the audience is,
would potentially help. A lotta times, journals will,
on the submission platforms, they’ll make you answer
a couple of questions. They may ask you to confirm that you have not submitted your
manuscript simultaneously to two journals. A lotta times, I’ll add
that into the cover letter, as well, that this hasn’t
been submitted elsewhere. It’s only been submitted to
your journal for consideration. So, my tips are that
they’re really important because it’s likely the … I don’t think editors sit there and read the entire article, right? They’re gonna start with the cover letter and they might skim your article, okay? It’s the first thing that they see, so spend some time on it and really try and sell your article to
them with this cover letter. Generally, half a page to a
page at most, I would say. You don’t want a 10-page
cover letter, right? Because if you need 10
pages to tell the editor how important your article is, it’s probably not that important. Or maybe it’s really, really important, you should just put that
in, in my experience. Okay, the submission process, as Karen talked a little
bit about this already, pay attention to the author guidelines. Even the same publisher,
each publisher might have several journals. Even journals within the same publisher have different guidelines. So, you have to be really careful and pay attention to them. These are things like citation styles. They seem like little details,
but they could be important for that particular journal,
for editing processes. Also, it doesn’t make
any peer reviewers happy if you don’t follow the guidelines, right? You have sections that
are mislabeled or missing, or figures that are not the
correct format, and so forth. So, make it easier on everybody
by following the guidelines. There’s lots of different
submission platforms. They vary tremendously. I would just encourage you set aside, when you’re ready to submit, you’ve got all your materials ready, set aside several hours to do this, because it can take a while
to register for an account, to upload all documentation. As Karen said, sometimes you will go into the submission platform and they’ll want you to split up files, like main manuscript, then
figure one, figure two. So, you might have to do multiple uploads. Take your time with it. Don’t rush it. There’s not a whole lot
of publisher anymore that have you email articles, unless they’re really small publishers, and maybe you’d only have
one journal (mumbles). Every time I’ve submitted an article, I’ve always had to submit potential names of peer reviewers. The way I get these is, generally, in my citations, right, the
references that I’m citing to the article give me a good idea about who’s an expert in this field. I try and pick authors that I’m citing and that have published related studies. Because, ultimately, right,
the idea of peer review is to get really helpful feedback. And so, why not suggest names of people that you think will give
really helpful feedback, okay? There are some ethical
considerations here, which we won’t go into too much detail. But generally, stay away, don’t
suggest your friends, right, or other co-authors. You wanna keep it as unbiased
of a cover review as you can. Okay? Response to reviewer comments. Generally, you will
receive reviewer comments. I’ve only had it happen to me twice where manuscript’s been published as is. And actually, it’s
really, it’s a sorta dance that you made it through peer review without having any major comments, or even minor comments, for that matter. But then I’ve always felt disappointed that I didn’t get peer reviewer comments. So, it’s sort of an
interesting feeling, actually, that you don’t get feedback, because most peer reviewers
will kinda break down, well, at least in my experience, will break your article down into things that they sort of liked, things that need major revision, and then minor comments. So, I’ve always appreciated
the sentences about things that they really liked. (mumbles) So, again, with this, take your time. You want to address to any reviewer, and sometimes the editor
will even have some comments. A lot of those are
copyediting type things. But you’ll still want
to address everything. There might be very good reasons
to not address a concern. Maybe if you were to address the concern, it would take two years, or
it’s not really necessary. It’s outside. Kind of the classic line
that I always use is this, it’s outside the scope of this article. So, you kind of argue, hey,
this is a really good idea, but it doesn’t change the conclusion. It’s in the significance of this article. That’s more of a future work type thing. So, you could disagree respectfully. Just say why you can’t address something or why addressing that is not critical to the significance of the
article or the conclusions. Generally, it’s a good idea
to start a new document and put every reviewer comment, number one, and then your response, number two, and then the response. You could break things out
if they’ve organized them. Maybe it’s the major stuff first. Then you could group all
of like the copyediting or stylistic type of comments at the end. Generally, with those, if they say, if it’s a word choice, or if they say, use active voice versus passive voice, I’ll just group all those together and just say, “Thank you
for the suggestions.” This is complete, done, right? You don’t need to have a whole
thought explanation on that. Though, I’ll say, be patient. Some peer reviewers focus a
little too much on grammar and things like that. Generally, I’ve found that it
does improve the manuscript. So, I generally just accept
that there are revisions, and add them in. But focus on the real major revisions, the scientific content, making sure if there’s
any major revisions, that you handle those appropriately first. There’s always that one reviewer, and that you kinda scratch
your head and wonder if they read the manuscript. And, hey, you didn’t address this, but then it’s three
paragraphs on page seven. As Karen said, just be patient, because a lotta times, that
actually can be a signal that maybe organization’s
a little out of place. What I’ve done, how to
address comments like that, or you need to address
something that you did, is, I’ll add a few sentences to it and change the organization around, and I’ll say that. Generally, I’ve never had a
response back from an editor that I didn’t address it (mumbles). So, these things, these documents, these response to reviewers’
documents can get quite long. But take it one-by-one. I’ve never had a bad experience
where I’ve got a response to a reviewer’s document
and it hasn’t gone through. So, it’s always been
a positive experience. All right, I’ll turn it over to … – A lot of beneficial keys
from publication process. So, as an assistant professor, I’m just gonna share this personal publication process with you. My name is Seung Eun Jung, assistant professor for human nutrition, and this is my fourth year. I’m also a dietician, as well. My research focuses on
food-related behaviors and psychosocial determinants associated with nutritional status. Currently, I have 17
peer-reviewed publications and currently working on few risk (mumbles) research projects. That’s just a little bit of
my background information. We already covered why
your paper can be rejected. Once you get an email
saying that your paper is rejected for publication, that’s really embarrassing. But, again, Dr. Karen already mentioned that sometimes we heard comments that might impact on your
emotion and your days. My advice for you in
that type of situation, don’t take it personally. I mean, and also, sometimes
the publication process is really complex and variable. There are several reasons that why they rejected your paper, because sometimes, they reject your paper because your paper is out of their scope of their particular journal. I really wanna reemphasize,
it’s really, really important to find a good journal. I mean, the best state journal
for your research paper. Also, when you get a rejection email, don’t simply turn around and resubmit your
rejected paper elsewhere, without making any revisions. You take time and overcome
your initial shock, and take a look at the reviewers’ comments and suggestions really, really carefully. Also try to understand their point of view in a constructive way to
improve your manuscript. Based on their comments and suggestions, you revise your manuscript, and then you find another home that have a best stake
for your research paper, and then you resubmit your research paper. I think that that’s the first advice that I would need to share with you. Also, another thing
that I wanna emphasize, if you have really two good
ideas on your research paper, you might also consider
that you break it down into two different manuscript, because I think that that might be also a good strategy to improve
your odd of acceptance rate. Then, also, at some point,
after you finished up your regimen program and
you might be interested in going into tenure track
position, just like me, all the college and many
institutions probably have their expectation about
their promotion criteria. I think that, as a graduate student, I think it’s a good
practice to maintain quality and quantity of your publication, and also make sure you have
a research in progress, and manuscript be written. And also, the manuscript
in review at all time. I think that that’s gonna be something that I want to share with you. Also, just like everybody mentioned, it’s really, really important
to read author’s guidelines really carefully and make sure
your papers are consistent format and having the same
stock that they’re looking for. So, I think that that’s the one thing that I really wanna emphasize, as well. Lastly, I was the first
author for 10 manuscripts, 10 publications out of 17 publications. So, when I just got
back from my conference over the weekend, and I met my collaborators and co-authors, and they all mentioned that,
“You’re so easy to work with, “and you’re so productive
in communicating things “that we have to work on together.” So, I think, as a primary author, there are several things
that you need to know. Clear communication, and
also plan really well for all those process of
developing your manuscript process. As a first author, whenever
you have a really good idea, I usually consult with my
co-authors and collaborators. Then we also discuss what
area that each person will contribute on, on
your research paper. Also, I discuss the timeline that I expect it to be complete. Also that they will have … Because everybody are very busy. Everybody have a very busy schedule. In fact, you might have
this timeline in your mind that they might not be able
to complete their tasks within the timeline that
you have in your mind. So, I think that that’s one
thing that you should do. Also, when you’re
submitting your manuscript, make sure you keep them updated about the status of your manuscript. Hey, I submitted my manuscript. Sometimes journal send
out the automatic email to all co-authors that it’s
submitting to the journal, and things like that. But sometimes, they do not do that. So, let them know that you’re
submitting your manuscript, and it’s under review, and I received the reviewers’
comments and suggestion, and things like that. When you receive a revision
request from the journal, I usually take a look at all the comments of the reviewers’ comments
and suggestion by myself. Then I share all of
the comments with them, but at the same time, I
look at those comments very, very carefully in regarding
to different section, based on what other
co-authors’ contribution. So, I just separate the
files for each authors, my co-authors, and then
send them separate email, “Hey, these are the area
that I want you to work on “for revising our manuscript.” And so, I think a lot of times, my collaborator told me
that, “You were so easy. “Instead of getting all those
comments and suggestion, “but since you separated
this portion of my part, “it makes me so easy to work on.” So, I think that was one
strategy that I’ve been done. It was very effective. So, once you’re submitting your revision, revised manuscript again,
you let them know the status of your manuscript, as well. I think that those are
some things that I wanted to share with you today. I’m hoping that everybody
got a lot of information from this presentation. Also, I really would like to thank you for this opportunity, because I’m a fourth-year
assistant professor. And then, when Paul asked me
to be here as a guest speaker, I told him, “I don’t know
that I’m gonna be eligible “to present this type of information, “because I’m this four-year
assistant professor.” But I’m hoping the information
was beneficial to you. Thank you. (audience applauding) – Great. Thank you so much. Appreciate this. This has been very inspiring to me. I hope it has been to all of you, as well. We stuck pretty well on schedule. I’ve got us about almost 11:00, so we had a schedule there. I apologize for me going a little longer on my part there earlier. But anyway, here we
are now at the Q and A. If you have any questions,
feel free to … Let’s hear from you now. If you think of something later, you know how to get in touch with me. My email is on the
fliers, you probably saw. Some of you have already
communicated with me. So, I appreciate, and
continue the conversation. Yeah, so we really
appreciate you being here, appreciate the geo site for
helping to sponsor this. Appreciate the libraries
for allowing us to have this nice room, use this nice room here. And we’ve got some coffee,
refreshments over here, so please help yourself to those. And I’m sure there will be
others who will get in touch with me, send me an
email in the days ahead. I’ll be getting, disseminating
this out to those via email. And so, appreciate, again, to John, for coming over here at such short notice. I apologize for that, and setting up the camera
and audio, and all that. So, thank you, John, for doing that. Does anybody have any questions
for me or the panelists? Yeah? – [Audience Member] I had a
question for Miss Chapman. – Okay, Karen? – [Audience Member] You
were talking about looking at journals while you’re still writing. Would you suggest looking
at multiple journals? Do you submit one article
to multiple journals? – [Karen] No! That’s a big no-no. You want to submit to one journal. So, my suggestion was that
you had a pretty good idea of what that journal tends to
be before you start writing. That’s so that you can
target that audience and really focus, and know what
their author guidelines are, know what their scope is. We talked several times
about how important it is to make sure your
article’s within the scope. So, if you already know what
journal you’re writing for, you make sure that the way
you present your information as what you’re studying, is appropriate to that particular journal. – [Audience Member] If it gets rejected, would you be able to send
it to a different journal? – Again, the trick there, of course, is you’ve got to find another journal where your (mumbles). So, it may be necessary
to rewrite parts of it. I know that I’ve done studies where, in librarianship, librarians
have lots of different kinds of responsibilities, right? So, I would write something, and I might focus on a
particular type of responsibility and send it to the journal that
focuses on ways to do that. But then my option also would have been to maybe show how Ragged was relevant to a different area within librarianship, and send it to that journal. So, you can kind of, depending on what you’re
writing on, of course, you could write about something
super, super specific, there may not be any journals. – [Audience Member] Right. – But you can think about
how you present what you did, and what audiences would
be interested in it. That’s how you could choose what journals. – Along those same lines, I’ve always kinda thought
what you do, you know, goes to a different journal or it may reject it, or something. It seems like it’s a major
job to have to repackage your submission for the
three publishers’ tables and bibliography is really important. That’s part of the deal. – That’s right. Now, if you use something
like EndNote or RefWorks, then that will help you with your citations and bibliography, because you could just take
the collection of references and just set RefWorks
or EndNote to change it to the different style that the
other journal then supports. I’m kinda (mumbles) is that main journals have their very own style. They say it’s APA, but when
you look at their examples, it is not really quite APA. You’re right, you kind of reset everything to another shop, can be kind of a pain. But you wanna get published, so that’s just kinda
something you have to do. – [Paul] Yeah, that’s a good
point about the RefWorks. We didn’t cover that this go-around. We’ve covered it in the past, but she mentioned RefWorks and EndNote. Those are two very similar products. UA Library subscribes to both of those. They’re excellent tools for keeping up with your content. You create your own personal account, and it’s in the cloud, and it’s something that you can keep. Once you leave, you still
have access to that resource. It’s a content management
topic, device, tool. It has folders in there. You can have multiple papers
going at one time in there. Can store citations. Sometimes when you go into these databases that have articles, and you get ready to export the citation, it’ll give you those options. You can export it, click
on the RefWorks or EndNote, and the export. You open up your account,
or log into your account, and they’ll export that citation there. Then you can manage it,
like she was saying. So, when you get ready to
publish or submit your article, you got the work cited there, and you got all the citations there. It’s a wonderful labor-saving device, because you can arrange the citations by the type of style that
your journal requires, whether it’s APA, or MLA,
or Chicago, Turabian, whatever the case may be. You can arrange those
bibliography to work cite. So, if you got an article,
you’ve got a hundred citations, my goodness, it will really
save you a lot of time to just check those buttons to what citations that you want to use for that particular publication. You’ve already exported in there. Say I want these 35 citations to go in this folder for this journal, which is going to this publication. It needs to be arranged by APA style. Or now, you know what? It will check the box and it arranges those citations for you. So, it’s an incredible tool. Any other questions? – [Audience Member]
Yeah, (mumbles) kind of any experience (mumbles)? – Yeah, we actually, we are. I guess, is your question
to learn LaTeX, or just, have we ever (Audience
Member drowns out Vince)? (Audience Member mumbling) – Yeah. (Audience Member mumbling) – They can actually use that. (Audience Member mumbling) – Have you heard of OverLeaf at all? It’s like a online LaTeX platform. They have various journal, publisher, LaTeX templates built in, that I believe you can then send directly to the publisher from that platform. Maybe that will keep
sort of the formatting and layout consistent so that, when you do send that in, the LaTeX data, it’s not messing up the template. Could be something to try. But I am never personally somebody that matched their templates up. – So, (mumbles). – Yeah, so, it’s OverLeaf. I think it’s, or it might be, I’m not sure. They have their publisher templates where you can write a manuscript online, and they will convert
LaTeX to the PDF (mumbles). That’s a good question. – [Paul] Any other questions? – You might recommend, was there any resource available or anything that you can see who the publisher’s reviewers are? – Like the authors, or- – Or for authors to see-
– or peer reviewers? – who the peer reviewers are on (mumbles)? – Where? – It’s usually confidential. – What’s funny is that
you said that you always are asked to (mumbles). – But I don’t know who they pick. – But the flip side is,
I have never been asked. – Yeah. – So, apparently it’s standard in science, but not social science. – Yeah, it’s pretty common in science. I’ve signed (mumbles) my name. But I don’t know if the editor
scrapes that off or not. But I’m trying to kind
of pass that through. So, yeah, I don’t think … Because even as a peer reviewer, they specifically, you
agree to actually not share your peer review or tell anybody what manuscripts you’ve reviewed. So, it’s kind of a lockdown
system that, as it is There are a couple of hot (mumbles). That F1000Research that (mumbles) system where you can see which peer (mumbles). That’s sort of the section
right now, but (mumbles). – Did you say (mumbles) you
won’t review a certain thing? – In science engineering,
in my experience, yes, you submit what’s a potential to reviewers to the editor (mumbles). Then it’s up to the editor
to either use those or not, inside that subset of (mumbles). – Whether or not they’re
on their (mumbles)? – No, well, at least in chemistry and chemistry information field, it doesn’t really have the
words of peer reviewers. The peer reviewers are not
affiliated with the journal, other than asked to peer review an author. So, they basically go by expertise, if they can find people who
are experts on a certain area. – I guess most of your better journals or technical articles
are always peer reviewed? That’s the assumption? – Yeah, usually, for technical literature. But in engineering, there’s just a ton of conference proceedings and
other technical literature that’s not necessarily peer reviewed, but it’s still good technical literature. I don’t know if that answers
your question or not. – Yeah, but I have a
question about conferences. There’s a lot of times that you submit an article for a conference,
and it becomes published. Does that have to be peer reviewed before it’s presented to the conference? – Sometimes. Some of them are peer reviewed and the conference
proceedings are peer reviewed. Some other ones are not peer reviewed in the conference (mumbles). Some of them can be difficult to determine whether or not they’re peer reviewed. You might have to look at the journal, the journal, about this journal, or about this conference. (Audience Member mumbles) – Yeah, exactly, it’s actually (mumbles) to see if it’s peer reviewed or not. – Because frequently,
conferences, they want you to submit your paper once
before an abstract (mumbles) the paper, once before. I’m not sure if that’s
peer reviewed, or anything. – A lotta times it is. There’s panels that have reviewed them, review them, several. Yeah, so it just depends on the discipline and the conference. – [Paul] Kinda further
answered your question about the, if you know the reviewers, of where you, potential reviewers, it’s kinda like underscore
kinda what you’re saying there. Some areas, some specialty
areas, it may be only a few experts in the world on
that particular subject matter that you’re working on. You would most likely know
who those experts are. And so, that would be a very small cases, kind of the end of the tail, so to speak, that that’s, you’d know who
those potential reviewers are. Those experts are in that
particular niche area of research. We certainly do appreciate
all of you coming, and again, with some joints (mumbles), this is really good. This was, again, the Graduate
Student Association paid for the food and beverage. What was the- – [Audience Member] Heritage House. – Heritage House, yes. Very good, very good food. Help yourself to some coffee over there, and there’s some excellent
fruit and muffins, and all, so, help yourself, guys. Really good stuff. Again, if you didn’t sign
the attendance sheet, please do that. Please put your name and
your email address on here. I might be able to follow up with you and see that you get the content here, and, like I said, keep
the conversation going. If you’ve got questions,
we’d love to entertain those.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *