Getting your Education Work Published

Heather Petcovic, Western Michigan University

and

Kristen St. John, James Madison University

Introduction – Why are we Here?Our purpose:

(1)To build participants’ knowledge of, and capacity for, publishing their work in geoscience education• Geoscientists who are new

to publishing education work

• Geoscience education researchers who are looking to expand their work to new journals

(2)To provide peer support for participants’ geoscience education manuscripts in progress

Anthony D. Feig (2013) The Allochthon of Misfit Toys. Journal of Geoscience Education: August 2013, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 306-317

Introduction – What are we Doing Today?Agenda:

1:30 Welcome and Introductory Remarks

1:40 Group activity: Compare and contrast geoscience, G-SOTL, and GER manuscripts

2:15 Presentation: Nuts and bolts of manuscript submission and peer review in geoscience education

3:00 Panel Q&A: Tips, tricks, successes, and challenges in publishing work in science education

3:30 Individual/small group work on manuscripts

4:15 Adjourn

Introduction – Who are We?

Please introduce yourselves:

1. Who you are

2. Where you work

3. What kind of research you do

4. Your publishing experience

5. What you hope to get out of today

Geoscience vs. Geoscience Education ManuscriptsGroup activity (Think, Pair, Share)

What are the similarities and differences among these papers?Focus on what is communicated and how it is communicated.

Geoscience vs. Geoscience Education Manuscripts

All publications have similar essential content:• Background: Their problem is placed in context of prior

work (which is cited) and context is described• Statement of Purpose• Methods• Results• Discussion/Implications (broaden back out of specifics of

their study to see broader implications)

Other observations more related to format:• The above content should be also addressed in a good

abstract• All papers have references• Figures and tables are a valuable way to tell the

story/support claims

Geo Ed understand and improve geoscience teaching and learning

Geo Ed study population is often part of context

Geo Ed qualitative and quantitative, includes social science methods

Differences

Geoscience Education: G-SoTL vs. GER

SoTL = Scholarship of Teaching and LearningG-SoTL = Geoscience SoTL

What is the difference between SoTL and DBER?DBER = Discipline-based Education

ResearchGER = Geoscience Education Research

Modified from http://www.unl.edu/dber/action-research-sotl-dber

• May or may not be published

• Systematically gather data that leads to self-reflection, improved teaching practices, and improved student learning

• Specific to a course and the instructor’s personal context, but must have broader applications

• Descriptive, innovation addresses learning goals

• Goal is to improve one’s own teaching practice, through innovations in pedagogy and curriculum

• Usually published in peer-reviewed journals

• Systematically gather data that leads to knowledge and theory for improved teaching and student learning within a discipline

• Broadly applicable beyond a single course or instructional context

• Addresses research questions/hypotheses

• Goal is to test theory and produce generalizable findings focused on a discipline

Geoscience Education: G-SoTL vs. GERIs the distinction really this clear (or important)?

Of course not, just helps us to conceptualize and communicate

There can be a continuum or overlap between the two

G-SoTL GERWhere does your work fall on this continuum?

Small group discussion

Questions, thoughts or concerns?

Research vs. EvaluationWhat is the difference between research and evaluation in

education?RESEARCH: EVALUATION:

http://www.ottobremer.org/sites/default/files/fact-sheets/OBF_flashcards_201402.pdf and personal communication with Bridget Zimmerman, SUNY Buffalo State evaluator

• Ultimate test of value is contribution to knowledge or understanding of a particular group, problem, or issue.

• Quality and importance judged by peer review in a discipline.

• Questions originate with scholars in a discipline.

• Goal is to test theory and produce generalizable findings.

• “How (why) it works?” • “How well did it work?”

• Ultimate test of value is usefulness to improve effectiveness. A distinguishing characteristic of evaluation is that, it is grounded in the everyday realities of organizations.

• Quality and importance judged by those who will use the findings to make decisions.

• Questions originate with key stakeholders and primary intended users.

• Goal it to determine the effectiveness of a specific program, intervention, or model.

Research vs. Evaluation

Is the distinction really this clear (or important)?

Of course not, just helps us to conceptualize and communicate

Most scholars see a continuum or overlap between the two

http://www.uniteforsight.org/evaluation-course/module10

Research vs. Evaluation

Group activity (Think, Pair, Share)

Pull out the two geoscience education papers and find examples of research and evaluation.

Research

Evaluation

Where does your work fall on this continuum?

Small group discussion

Questions, thoughts or concerns?

Break!

On Peer Review

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16

Structure of the Journal of Geoscience EducationEditor-in-Chief

(Kristen St. John)

Research Editor(Alison Stokes)

Associate Editors (10-12)

Peer Reviewers

Curriculum & Instruction

Editor (Heather Petcovic)

JGE: Types of PapersResearch Papers

Empirical Research papers describe data collection and analyses to answer a specific geocognition or geoscience education research question or test a hypothesis.

Theoretical Research papers describe new geocognition or geoscience education theories, including philosophies, developed to fill a theoretical or philosophical gap.

Curriculum & Instruction Papers Curriculum papers describe new materials developed for geoscience-related instruction and provide evidence of its effectiveness.

Instructional Approaches papers describe new teaching methods developed for geoscience-related instruction and provide evidence of its effectiveness.These papers go through full peer review

JGE: Types of PapersLiterature Reviews - NEW

Review articles synthesize and evaluate the published literature on a particular topic within geoscience education research or practice. Patterns and trends in the literature are described, and research gaps are identified and used to make recommendations on future directions.

Commentaries - REVISEDCommentary articles seek to provide a critical or alternative viewpoint on a key issue or provide an insight into an important development that is of broad interest to geoscience educators or researchers. A strong literature-based context is expected. Unlike a literature review article, the author gives his/her own opinions and perspectives. The Commentary category is not a venue for “data-weak” Curriculum & Instruction or Research papers, nor a venue for project reports or updates.These papers go through editorial review (minimum of 1 Editor and 1 AE) and may undergo peer review if needed

These papers go through full peer review

Peer Review at JGEAuthor submits

article to the journal

Editor-in-Chief does

initial quality check

Journal Editor screens paper

Editor sends to Associate Editor

(AE) for peer review

AE sends for peer review

Reviewers make recommendatio

n

AE makes recommendatio

n

Editor makes recommendatio

n

Editor-in-chief makes final

recommendation

Article accepted for publication

Article tentatively

accepted with revision

Article rejected (may be invited to resubmit as a

new paper)

Author asked to revise

Author makes revisions

Article rejected (may be invited to

resubmit addressing comments)

Publishing in JGE

Journal Stats (2009-2015)

Manuscripts published in 2014

No revision

1 Round of Revision

2 Rounds of Revision

3 or More Rounds of Revision

# of manuscripts

0 31 24 7

6-month time window Total # submitted manuscripts

Acceptance Rate

Days from Receipt to First Decision

Days from Receipt to Final Decision

September 2009 thru February 2010

32 67% 85 246

March 2010 thru August 2010 18 83% 132 272September 2010 thru February 2011

21 86% 181 299

March 2011 thru August 2011 22 71% 129 265September 2011 thru February 2012

27 80% 117 210

March 2012 thru August 2012 35 68% 121 204September 2012 thru February 2013

58 73% 129 178

March 2013 to August 2013 62 88% 168 224September 2013 thru February 2014

38 64% 123 190

March 2014 thru August 2014 25 50% 114 109September 2014 thru February 2015

37 (40%) (61) (65)

Publishing in JGETop Reasons for Rejecting a Paper

(C&I)

http://nagt-jge.org/action/doi/pdf/10.5408/1089-9995-61.3.253Lack of human subject IRB approval!

• Lacks a meaningful discussion of the findings (lessons learned, tips for implementation elsewhere)

• Lacks sufficient description of the curricula or instructional activity

• Work is not situated in the appropriate literature

• Does not have evidence of effectiveness of the described instruction or curricula (evaluation!)

• Does not fit the scope of C&I

• Authors did not sufficiently address reviewer/editor concerns

• Authors did not sufficiently address reviewer/editor concerns

• Lacks a meaningful discussion of the findings (appropriate literature, recognizes limitations, suggestions for future work)

• Weak or unclear methods; poor reporting of data and results

Top Reasons for Rejecting a Paper (Research)

• Work is not situated in the appropriate literature (including theory)

• Poor alignment between research questions/purpose, design, methods, and interpretations

• Does not fit the scope of Research

General Tips for Publishing

7. Create a good first impression• Follow the rules• Proofread, proofread,

proofread

Klinger, J. K., Scanlon, D., and Pressley, M. (2005). How to publish in scholarly journals: Educational Researcher 34 (14): 14-20. DOI

10.3102/0013189X034008014

3. Have a good story to tell• Focus your work on a single “take

home” message

6. Write clearly for your intended audience• Substance and style both

matter• Remember your audience

1. Know your reasons• Contribute to an ongoing

dialog• Be clear how the work

contributes to your research program

5. Connect your research to the field• Show how your work

connects to the broader literature

4. Choose your journal• Consider fit, audience, and

prestige (impact factor, open access)

• Read recent papers and the author guide

2. Discuss authorship• Clarify roles and order of

authors

Panel Q&A: Publishing Experiences

Each panelist introduce yourself:

1. Who you are 2. Where you work

3. What kind of research you do 4. Where you’ve published

5. Ups and downs 6. Top tips to pass on

Individual Working Time

Individual time to ask questions, discuss, or work on a paper

Thank you for coming!Comments and suggestions welcome.