Publishing

1
Publishing

• Paul Nightingale

2

• Why publish?

3

• Contribute to a gift economy

4

• Contribute our ideas to a gift economy
• Quality control through peer review

5

• Contribute our ideas to a gift economy
• Quality control through peer review
• Learning writing, reviewing and networking

6

• Contribute our ideas to a gift economy
• Quality control through peer review
• Learning
• Recognition and career development

7

• Contribute our ideas to a gift economy
• Quality control through peer review
• Learning
• Recognition and career development
• Raising money, attracting students

8
Peer Review 1.01

• Editors find experts views if paper is
• Appropriate for journal

9
Peer Review 1.01

• Editors find experts views if paper is
• Appropriate for journal
• Significant high quality

10
Peer Review 1.01

• Editors find experts views if paper is
• Appropriate for journal
• Significant high quality
• Valid methods research

11
Peer Review 1.01

• Editors find experts views if paper is
• Appropriate for journal
• Significant high quality
• Valid methods research
• Correct conclusion

12
Peer Review 1.01

• Editors find experts views if paper is
• Appropriate for journal
• Significant high quality
• Valid methods research
• Correct conclusion
• Clear presentation

13
Bias in Peer Review

• Peters and Ceci
• 12 pre-published articles obscure addresses
• 16/18 recommend reject, 8/9 rejected by editors
• Mahoney
• 5 papers to 75 reviewers bias positive results,
  0.30 correlation publication contribution, but
  0.94 methodology contribution

14
Quality of Peer Reviewers

• Gottfredson
• Quality forecasts 0.24 correlation to citations
• Starbuck
• Reviewers correlate only 0.3 with quality, over
  half articles published are not among best
• Over-estimates?

15
Personal Experience

• All ICC reviewers are excellent, and provide a
  world class service entirely free of any bias!
• People who review my own work and grant proposals
  are fools who should never be allowed near a
  review process. (not true)

16
Personal experience

• Very clear there are very strong personal biases
  in peer review.
• Lesson to learn - dont get upset by reviews! And
  go to conferences.

17
Lessons of Peer Review

• Match the paper to the journal!

18
Lessons of Peer Review

• Match the paper to the journal!
• Write a decent paper

19
Lessons of Peer Review

• Match the paper to the journal!
• Write a decent paper
• Have proper methods

20
Lessons of Peer Review

• Match the paper to the journal!
• Write a decent paper
• Have proper methods
• Get someone to review it before sending (conf)

21
Lessons of Peer Review

• Match the paper to the journal!
• Write a decent paper
• Have proper methods
• Get someone to review it before sending (conf)
• Ask if you have something the world wants

22
Sociology of Interesting

• It has long been thought that a theorist is
  considered great because his theories are true,
  but this is false. A theorist is considered
  great, not because his theories are true, but
  because they are interesting
• Interesting theories deny certain assumptions of
  their audience, while non-interesting theories
  affirm certain assumptions of their audience

23
Sociology of Interesting

• Reflected in structure of papers 1) It has long
  been thought 2) but this is false 3) prove (2)
  4) with consequences x, y, z.
• What seems to be disorganised is organised what
  seems heterogeneous/homogeneous general/local
  stable/unstable effective/ineffective good/bad

24

• focus on readers assumptions

25
Sørensen

• Readers dont like
• Great ideas papers
• Where authors havent checked what they say in
  their paper hasnt been said before or is relevant

26
Sørensen

• Readers dont like
• Great ideas papers
• Other peoples ideas paper
• Ive read a great book, here it is

27
Sørensen

• Readers dont like
• Great ideas papers
• Other peoples ideas paper
• Cool stuff papers
• Again unlinked to existing work or theory

28
Sørensen

• Readers dont like
• Great ideas papers
• Other peoples ideas paper
• Cool stuff papers
• Theory papers
• Ive just come up with this great idea, I
  havent bothered to check if anyone has already
  done it, or how it relates to the literature, but
  let me tell you about it.

29
Sørensen

• Readers dont like
• Great ideas papers
• Other peoples ideas paper
• Cool stuff papers
• Theory papers
• Multiple point papers
• Ive just finished this research project and we
  found all this cool stuff that we are just going
  to randomly put in a paper.

30
Sørensen

• Standard structure (to both copy deviate from)

31
Sørensen

• One point per paper!

32
Sørensen

• Ask
• What is problem domain? broad area of research

33
Sørensen

• Ask
• What is the problem domain?
• What is the problem? specific area of research

34
Sørensen

• Ask
• What is the problem domain?
• What is specific problem?
• What is research approach?
• position your contribution within an existing
  body of literature, highlighting similarities and
  differences

35
Sørensen

• Ask
• What is problem domain?
• What is specific problem?
• What is research approach?
• What have others done?
• What makes this paper specific and part of a
  cumulative contribution to knowledge

36
Sørensen

• Ask
• What is problem domain?
• What is specific problem?
• What is research approach?
• What have others done?
• What are the results?
• What did we find, how reliable, and how does this
  paper contribute to knowledge, what does it mean
  to reader

37

• Fake a top down writing process

38
Conclusion

• One idea - have a pipeline
• One recommendation read Sorensen

39
Mike Hobdays Patented Thesis Tool

• 1. Objectives Empirical Theory
• 2. Question?
• 3. Rational/Motivation Now? Theory? Sector?
• 4. Argument/Idea
• 5. Context Fit with intended readership
• 6. Methods and Data structure/weakness