On publishing

Prof. Frank Geels, SPRU DPhil day

23 May 2011

Structure1. General intro

2. Articles make contributions in debates

3. Review process

4. Impact factors and REF

1. Intro: Role of articles (books?) in science

• Science as debate (rather than ‘truth’)

• Articles as communication device

• Articles should make contribution in debate for certain peer group/audience

• ‘Debate pull’ rather than ‘idea push’

2. Types of contributions to debate

I) Some debates are ‘out there’, and you can make (small) contributions such as

1. Descriptive, ad-hoc reporting: “this is what I found, saw, experienced”

2. Systematically collected data with some reflection or lesson (identify trends, developments, and implications).

3. Make a point, observation or suggestion with regard to other claims, views, perspectives. Sometimes supported with an example or case.

4. Develop and illustrate ‘conceptual language’. May deteriorate into proliferation of new ‘words’ and concepts (jargon).

II) Construct new debate and make contributions (Locke and Golden-Biddle, 1997)

1) Create bridges: identify two unrelated streams around a topic and claim to bring them together

2) Progression: place yourself in an ongoing stream of work that progresses in a particular direction.

3) Rival theories: Identify ‘competing explanations’, and explain why incommensurable, or test which one is better

4) Fill ‘gap’ in literature and use building blocks to construct a new perspective

Choices, trade-offs, dilemmas

Option 1) Is more safe + standard wayBut may lead to boring (uncited) papers

Rousseeuw, P.J., 1991, ‘Why the wrong papers get published’, Chance: New Directions for Statistics and Computing, 4(1), 41-43

Horrobin, D.F., 1990, ‘The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1438-1441

Option 2) Is more difficult, riskyBut rewarding if it succeeds- Get new topics on agenda - Develop new perspectives

3. Review process1. Submit paper to journal

2. Editor decides: desk-reject, send for review

3. Review reports come back (4-12 months)A) Accept as isB) Minor revisionsC) Major revisions (there is potentially something interesting)D) Reject (no contribution, weak methods, poor theory)

4. Editor makes decision and informs author5. Author makes changes and resubmits

Understand the reviewers

Difficult to find reviewers

They do not get paid, have little time, and easily get irritated if paper is:

• Not clear (about contribution)

• Over-promises and makes too grand claims

• Not clearly structured

Dealing with reviewer comments

If moderate reviews (R&R), then• try to please the reviewers• but also stick to your own argument;

Frey, B.S., 2003, ‘Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success’, Public Choice, 116, 205-223

Don’t need to accept every review commentyou can try to convince editor (judge)

Publication is partly negotiation

Article rejection• Happens to all of usGans, J. and Shepherd, G., 1994, ‘How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic

articles by leading economists’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 165-179

• But remains ‘painful’ (pride, ego)

Review process is partly a lottery• Some reviewers are hostile and want to kill your paper• Sometimes they are chosen by the editor to do that

But sometimes it works well better papers

Personal advicePublishing difficult in the beginning: - What are debates?- What counts as contribution?

1) Team up with experienced colleague (combine your data with his/her framing)

2) Present your work, ask feedback etc.3) Start with modest contributions (one point in debate)4) Choose the right journal:- Which hosts the debate- Which your audience/peer group reads- Has high standing (impact factors)

4. Impact factors and REFBackground• Research funders want value for money:

excellent research, relevant research

• Trend towards ‘accountability’ and measurement/control/management

• Use of quantitative data to measure ‘performance’: number of articles + impact factors of journals

Impact factor

The 2003 impact factor for journal X is calculated as A/B

A = the number of times articles published in X in 2001-2 were cited in indexed journals during 2003

B = the number of articles, reviews, proceedings or notes published in X in 2001-2

Web of science (ISI) publishes yearly impact factors for different ‘fields’

1. Anthropology 19. History 37. Psychologyy, Experimental2. Area studies 20. History & Philosophy of

Science38. Psychology, Mathematical

3. Business 21. History of Social Sciences 39. Psychology, Multidisciplinary

4. Business, Finance 22. Industrial Relations & Labour

40. Psychology, Psychoanalysis

5. Communication 23. Information Science & Library Science

41. Psychology, Social

6. Criminology & Penology 24. International Relations 42. Public Administration7. Demography 25. Law 43. Public, Environmental &

Occupational Health8. Economics 26. Linguistics 44. Rehabilitation9. Education & Educational Research 27. Management 45. Social Issues

10. Education, special 28. Nursing 46. Social Sciences, Biomedical11. Environmental Studies 29. Planning & Development 47. Social Sciences,

Interdisciplinary12. Ergonomics 30. Political Science 48. Social Sciences, Mathematical

Methods13. Ethics 31. Psychiatry 49. Social Work14. Ethnic Studies 32. Psychology, Applied 50. Sociology15. Family Studies 33. Psychology, Biological 51. Substance Abuse16. Geography 34. Psychology, Clinical 52. Transportation17. Gerontology 35. Psychology,

Developmental53. Urban Studies

18. Health Policy & Services 36. Psychology, Educational 54. Women's Studies

Journal 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

1 BIOL PHILOS 0.967 1.055 1.015 1.015 1.063SOC STUD SCI 1.069 0.948 0.929 1.426 1.651 1.343 1.373

PUBLIC UNDERST SCI 0.600 0.739 0.913 0.978 1.340 1.286 1.981

ISIS 0.486 0.778 0.619 0.732 0.643BRIT J PHILOS SCI 0.733 0.737 0.689 0.884PHYS PERSPECT 0.481 0.692 0.560J HIST BIOL 0.176 0.600 0.382J HIST MED ALL SCI 0.353 0.576 0.897 0.630AGR HUM VALUES (Agriculture and Human Values)

0.571 0.672 0.614

10 SOC HIST MED 0.279 0.511 0.468 0.809BRIT J HIST SCI 0.242 0.500 0.323 1.062PHILOS SCI 0.562 0.406 0.377OSIRIS 0.250 0.379 0.385CONFIGURATIONS 0.033 0.375

15 TECHNOL CULT (Technology and Culture)

0.596 0.190 0.366 0.225 0.493 0.211 0.378

SCI CONTEXT (Science in context)

0.277 0.357 0.196 0.154 0.179 0.236

ARCH HIST EXACT SCI 0.556 0.333 0.345

MED HIST 0.256 0.405 0.333 0.595 0.477 0.609STUD HIST PHILOS SCI 0.557 0.329 0.197 0.361

20 B HIST MED 0.818 0.326 0.487MINERVA 0.326 0.479 0.298 0.426SYNTHESE 0.274 0.312 0.364 0.350 0.477HIST STUD PHYS BIOL 0.143 0.280 0.263

HIST PHIL LIFE SCI 0.049 0.278 0.528HIST MATH 0.424 0.235 0.121ANN SCI 0.257 0.194 0.306HIST SCI 0.342 0.194 0.161 0.194HIST HUM SCI 0.298 0.149 0.122

29 AGR HIST (Agricultural History) 0.208 0.032 0.118 0.097

10. History and Philosophy of Science

• Journals with higher impact factors are often seen as better, higher quality

• Often have higher ‘rejection rates’ (up to 90%)

But:• Larger fields have higher impact factors• New and interdisciplinary fields/journals score lower• Dominated by English language journals• Journals with long lead times score lower

REF (Research Excellence Framework)

• 5 year exercise which influences HEFCE funding to universities

• Journal articles 65% of score• Consists of different panels: B&M, IR&P• Panels make lists of journal rankings: 4, 3, 2, 1

star-journals• Different weighting/points:• 0 points for 1 star• 1 point for 2 star• 10 points for 3 star• 30 points for 4 star

Choice of journals is important• For your career (indicator of excellence)• For universities (translates into money)

But also think of other criteria:- Which journal hosts the debate- Which journals does your audience/peer

group read- Has high standing (impact factors)

ReferencesLocke, K. and Golden-Biddle, K., 1997, 'Constructing opportunities for contribution:

Structuring intertextual coherence and "problematizing" in organizational studies', The Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1023-1062

Rousseeuw, P.J., 1991, ‘Why the wrong papers get published’, Chance: New Directions for Statistics and Computing, 4(1), 41-43

Horrobin, D.F., 1990, ‘The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1438-1441

Gans, J. and Shepherd, G., 1994, ‘How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 165-179