Getting Published A Personal Perspective Peter Hernon, Professor, Simmons College, Boston.
-
Upload
ella-jacobs -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of Getting Published A Personal Perspective Peter Hernon, Professor, Simmons College, Boston.
Topics Covered Today
• Perspectives
Peter Hernon 2
Editor
Author
Improving LIS literature
Developing and implementing a research agenda
Advantages of Being Published
• Making a professional contribution• Adding to knowledge and perhaps practice• Influencing others• Achieving recognition in the profession• Adding to one’s knowledge and experiences• Creating opportunities for one’s self
Peter Hernon 4
Reminder: Publication does not equal cited, read, downloaded
Components of a “Research” Study Submitted for Publication
• Perhaps an abstract and a brief background• Reflective Inquiry
• Procedures
• Limitations• Findings
• Discussion• Conclusion• References and Appendices
Peter Hernon 5
Problem statement, including study’s value; literature review, including relevant theory; objectives, research questions, hypotheses
Research design, methodology(ies), data quality
Appropriate data analysis
Publishing in a Journal?
• Which one?– Peer-reviewed?
• Double blind review?
• How decide on a journal?• Is topic appropriate to readership• Impact of journal on profession
Peter Hernon 6
OR, HOW ABOUT PLACEMENT IN “OPEN ACCESS” SOURCE?
Editor and Reviewer Expectations
Peter Hernon 7
– Demonstrate effective inclusion of components of research study
• Well written• Break new ground• Strong support of study value• Adhere to journal style and submission
requirements
Written Presentation—Some Reminders
• Separate Findings from Discussion• Conclusion is not a summary• Sloppiness
Peter Hernon 8
Repetition of the same word (or thoughts)
Typos and misspelling (even in citations)
Errors in citations
Mismatch between text references and bibliography
Written Presentation (continued)
• Awkward writing
Peter Hernon 9
Verb/noun disagreement
Incorrect verb tense
Dense writing, use of passive voice and personal pronouns
Lack of transition between sentences and paragraphs
Common Reasons for Rejection
• Stage One (Time of submission)
Perhaps revision necessary before ready for review
Peter Hernon 11
•Paper outside scope of journal—not a good fit
•Poor writing
More Reasons
• During review
Peter Hernon 12
•Poor scholarship or weaknesses in developing and “bonding” research components
•Few new insights emerge
•Lack of generalization—or “how we done it good”
•Failure to address “so what” in justifying study value
How Might LIS Research Be Improved?
• Authors– Better adherence to components of research
• As
Peter Hernon 13
Problem statement
Literature review
Literature Review
• Places the problem statement in the context of previous knowledge, identifies variables that previous investigations have found significant or insignificant, and suggests factors to consider in setting the procedures for a research proposal
• Evaluates past research in the context of the problem statement and the procedures
• Alerts the researcher and the readers about “danger signs” which previous research encountered (e.g., a low response rate).
Peter Hernon 14
Literature Review (continued)
• More than a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries
• Organized around and directly related to the problem statement or theme, must synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known, must identify areas of disagreement or controversy in the literature, and should present insights useful in setting up a study
Peter Hernon 15
Literature Review (continued)
• Indicates what has been published on a topic by scholars and researchers. It neither summarizes findings nor identifies all the literature produced on a topic; instead, keep the focus on the problem statement itself. The author makes a judgment call concerning which works to include
Peter Hernon 16
Literature Review (continued)
Peter Hernon 17
What is the scope of my literature review? What types of publications am I using (e.g., journals, books, government documents, popular media)? What disciplines are relevant to my study or review?
Does the literature review contain relevant works, regardless of the literature in which they appear?
Have I related the works to my theme or indicated how they apply to what I am studying? Have I critically analyzed and synthesized the literature I use? In other words, do not limit the review to a rote listing of study findings—-relate the literature to your problem statement, methodology, or report theme.
Have I organized the review in a logical manner, with good transition between sentences and paragraphs?
Do my citations conform to required style manual?
More on Authors
Peter Hernon 19
Include more cross-disciplinary and international literature
Don’t mischaracterize literature
Include relevant theory/model
Attract broader readership, including those outside LIS
Journals
Peter Hernon 20
Have reviewers (and editors) who truly understand what research is—application of components of research
Envisioning Your Own Research
Peter Hernon 21
Develop a research agenda
Select from itEnsure you select something important that will hold your interest
Accomplishments PeopleTransformation
abilities
Directors
Senior management team
Other managers
Professional/support staff
Meet challenges
Develop as leaders and change agents
Deal with uncertainty, stress, and burnout
Engage in mentoring
Library Engagement beyond library
A learning organization
Service leadership
Team
Effectiveness
Accountability
Creation of shared vision
Partnerships (campus, other libraries)
Student outcomes
Student learning outcomes
Meeting customer needs and expectations
Transparency
Explaining
Leadership recognition
renewal
mentoring
traits
organizationalculture
judgment calls
Planning, goal setting, evaluation, reporting
Talent management
Example: Research Agenda
Readings
• From Library & Information Science Research:
Peter Hernon 24
“What Is a Problem Statement?” 29 (2007): 307-309
“Reading Literature and Literature Reviews,” 29(4)(2007): 451-454 (Juris Dilevko)
“A Research Study’s Reflective Inquiry,” 30 (2008): 163-164
“Procedures: Research Design,” 31 (2009), forthcoming
“Reliability and Validity,” 31 (2009), forthcoming