1. Revisiting: The Editorial Fallacy
The notion of the "editorial fallacy", the misconception that all a publisher must focus on is producing high quality material, has popped up recently in several posts. In this post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Joseph Esposito revisits his 2010 post on the disruptive publishing environment, in which publishers cannot rely on a purely editorial strategy, as many of the issues now facing them are not editorial in nature.
The blog post says (quote): The publishers of journals know that not all things are equal. There are significant advantages to those few publishers that can offer bundling (the "big deal") and technology platforms. These are not editorial matters. As the pressure on library budgets increases, the market share of the larger journals publishers is likely to grow, as smaller publishers are more vulnerable to library budget-cutting. While editorial concerns are part of every budget-cutting exercise, the resilience of the larger publishers in the face of such cuts has little to do with editorial quality and much to do with market position. The independent publishers of distinguished journals can bemoan the fallen times, but they would do better to understand that their editorial strategy and their business strategy are not one and the same.……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. How to increase your likelihood of publishing in peer reviewed journals
Writing about your research is one thing but knowing how to write an article for publication in a peer reviewed journal is quite another. From his perspective as a journal editor, Hugh McLaughlin, in his post in The Impact Blog, offers some helpful tips and insights, ranging from demonstrating your familiarity with your chosen journal and what it has published to the importance of paying attention to the 'heavy lifting'.
The blog post says (quote): Writing is not merely a technical activity but an emotional one as it sets out our position on an issue, our standpoint on a debate and our claim to being an author or academic. This is especially so in peer reviewed journals where your work is likely to be assessed by two unknown peers, which can result in a painful reviews. Once published, your views cannot be retracted, they are there for all time for others to view and judge. However, if you wish to be considered as a serious academic, want to secure tenure, promotion or be submitted to the next Research Excellence Framework, being published is non-negotiable……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. How to Use Altmetrics to Showcase Engagement Efforts for Promotion and Tenure
Public outreach is becoming increasingly important for researchers going up for tenure. But how can you document the effects your engagement efforts are having? Altmetrics have been suggested in the past, but is it even possible to shoehorn that kind of newfangled data into a traditional promotion and tenure dossier format? Though not yet well-known, we're learning that using altmetrics in one's promotion and tenure dossier is a valuable way to provide hard evidence that online engagement strategies are working to connect researchers with the general public, notes Stacy Konkiel in the Altmetric Blog.
The blog post says (quote): A promotion and tenure dossier often contains a personal statement or tenure narrative, which allows you to outline your important career, research and academic contributions, and your service to the university. The Personal Statement provides an opportunity to dig down into some of the qualitative altmetrics data for research. For example, facts like as "My research was cited in a World Bank report on Malaria" can be discovered using altmetrics tools and included in this dossier section……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Should You "Revise and Resubmit"?
With everyone in a rush to get work published quickly, authors are sometimes torn on what to do when major revisions are requested. In her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Angela Cochran examines the pros and cons of seeing the process through, or cutting bait mid way.
The blog post says (quote): In many fields, the reviewer pool is smaller than you would think. It is not uncommon for the same reviewer to get the same paper back again. The reviewer reviews a paper for Journal A and it is declined. Detailed feedback was provided. That same reviewer gets the exact same paper from Journal B. Feeling ticked that all of the feedback was ignored, the reviewer either declines the invitation to review and tells the editor why, or accepts the invitation and tells the author that he/she is still recommending the paper be declined. Where taking a paper elsewhere might work is when its clear from reviews that the paper is not a good fit for the journal. In this case, an author may do well to skip to a more appropriate journal.……………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply