Pages

Thursday 19 December 2013

Fundermental Top 10 of 2013

It's that time of year, isn't it? Never mind peace on Earth and goodwill to all: give us your lists! What have you been watching? What have you been reading? Where have you gone? What have you eaten?

So, in the spirit of the season, here are the ten most read posts on the blog this year. It's like a mix tape of the best bits, and a reminder of what we've all been thinking about this year.

  1. Notes from OA Forum (January). I can't believe it's been almost a year since we held this event.
    No. 1: OA Forum
    2013 is the year that Open Access became mainstream, when we consulted on and drafted an OA Policy. This was part of the process, and maybe its popularity came from many people being in the same boat, trying to work out exactly what they were going to do about OA.
  2. Thinking Imaginatively about Impact (May). Although OA has dominated people's minds (after the REF, natch), Impact continues to have a hold. Kevin Parker of KKI
    No. 2: Impact
    Associates came and spoke about how to be creative with interpreting impact. Inspiring.
  3. EPSRC Bingo (October). Whilst Fundermentals is meant to inform with notes on meetings such as those on OA and Impact above, it's also meant to be a way of sharing frustrations - hopefully with a bit of humour. This came from reading one policy document too many.
  4. Essential Elements of a Good Application (November). A write up of a Grants Factory event this year. We brought together four academics who have had experience of the BBSRC, ESRC, AHRC and EPSRC, and it was a really useful panel session. 
    No. 4: Essential Elements
  5. AHRC: View from the Committee Room (February). I've taken part in a couple of AHRC training events this year, to talk about what we do at Kent with internal peer review. This post was writing up the hints and tips of one of the other speakers, Prof Roberta Mock of Plymouth University.
  6. H2020: Where We're at (July). As well as the growth of OA, we've all been keeping a weather eye on the development of the new European funding programme, Horizon 2020. This was an overview of the developments mid-year, after coming
    No. 6: H2020
    back from the EARMA Conference in Vienna.
  7. Meanwhile, in Moscow Airport (July). Another bit of silliness. In the summer all eyes were on Moscow Airport as whistleblower Edward Snowden fled American authorities. I couldn't help but see certain similarities between him and the Times Higher's own Phil Baty...
    No. 8: Recycling
  8. Recycling your Proposal (May). A write up from last year's Grants Factory. The low success rates of the research funding process means that applicants need to think about what to do if their bid fails. Here's some ideas.
  9. Balancing the Conflicting Demands of Academia (June). Last year we launched the Early Career Researcher Network. These were the notes from a really useful session, at which many shared their experiences, and learnt from each other.
    No. 9: Balancing
  10. Introduction to Open Access (June). So the list ends as it began: with OA. This was six months after the OA Forum, when we stopped to take breath, gather our thoughts, and try and distill what OA is all about.
Thanks to you all for reading the blog this year. If you have any thoughts or ideas on things that should be covered in 2014, drop me a line.

'I, for one, welcome our new ERC overlords'

I was very excited by the news that Kent Brockman, anchor for Channel 6 weekday news, is set to be the new President of the European Research Council.
Brockman has a long and distinguished career in current affairs programming, and has hosted Smartline, Bite Back! With Kent Brockman, and Eye on Springfield, as well as the game show Springfield Squares. 
Brockman has, however, been known to have a penchant for offensive language, letting rip once on air with what Ned Flanders called a "super swear" that shocked everyone who watched. Let's hope the frustrations of EC bureaucracy don't bring this to the fore.
Any similarity between the French Mathematician Jean-Pierre Bourguignon is purely coincidental.

Brockman

Bourguignon

Tuesday 17 December 2013

Creative Visualisation

Lifting the lid on visualisation
The AHRC has launched a competition for 'designers, graphic artists, software developers, programmers and anyone with an interest in data visualisation' to design graphs and maps showing how grants from the UK’s seven research councils are distributed.

This follows the launch of the excellent Gateway to Research database, which holds information on all the projects that have been funded by the Research Councils.

Whilst, of course, both the database and the visualisation initiative are to be applauded, I can't help but feel that the AHRC is missing a trick here. After all, it is responsible for a huge range of disciplines, and it should be encouraging all, in every discipline (and of course, across-trans-inter-multi discplines) to visualise data in a way that is appropriate to them.

Fundermentals, as ever, is willing to wade in with some suggestions. All part of its public service remit, of course.

  • Performance Artists: nothing lends itself to visualisation as much as mime. The AHRC should be encouraged to make a very large grant to someone in a stripey shirt exploring an invisible box full of data.
  • Music: plenty of scope here for an opera. Or at least a Broadway musical? If they can make up something about rollerskating trains, then surely there's endless potential in the Repertorium of English Prose Sermons?
  • Philosophy: what is data? Why are we looking at it? Who are we anyway?
  • Theology and Religion: Visualising data as a religion. All should worship the data god. Atheists and agnostics will be shown pie charts and line graphs until they recant.
  • Archaeology: we already talk about data being 'buried', of having to 'dig' for it.All you need is to see the Gateway as some kind of triumphal arch which we need to painstakingly piece together with trowels and very, very small brushes. If you could work Indiana Jones in, that would be a bonus.
  • Creative Writing: Can't be too hard to visualise data as a novel. Probably a modernist, stream-of-consciousness thing that doesn't seem to make much sense, but everyone will say is tremendously clever for fear of seeming stupid.
I've only just scratched the surface. Whatever discipline you work in, I would encourage you to go along on the 24 January and heckle: 'This is all very well, but I think it's missing something. Have you thought about incorporating some action morphology? Perhaps with a side order of aesthetic ethnography?'

Wednesday 11 December 2013

Strategic Approaches to Getting Published

Prof Sally Sheldon opened last week's Early Career Researcher Network meeting by exhorting the audience to think strategically about publication. It was easy, she suggested, to be flattered by invitations to write chapters. But these can divert you and eat up your limited time. Try to keep in mind the direction in which you want your research to develop, and what publications will help to build your profile. 'Everyone should have a publication strategy, and should review it every year or two,' she said.

Balanced Publication Portfolio

ECRs should try and develop a balanced publication portfolio. You don't always need to be targeting top journals, and sometimes you need to balance several factors:
  • Audience: who do you want to appeal to? Should you be thinking beyond your narrow disciplinary boundaries, or focussing more intensively on it?
  • Impact: do you want the findings of your research to be felt outside of academia?
  • Career Progression: will the publication help in the development of a strong CV?
  • REF: will the publication be a strong, positive contribution to your discipline?
  • Timing: do you need to get something out quickly, or work longer on a discipline-changing piece of research?
  • Co-authorship: would co-authorship help or hinder your publication record?
  • Open Access: will be increasingly important for the REF, but is it worth considering to help with your citations?

What Do Publishers Look for?

Richard Hart, Chief Executive of Hart Publishing, took over to talk about his experience as an academic publisher. In his 30 years in publishing he has seen a decline in traditional monographs. From a high in the 1980s when more than 2000 were published annually, the market has slumped so that now a tenth of that number are produced. Monographs are seen as esoteric and small scale, and in many disciplines journals are favoured.

Generally, publishers are interested in text books, or books used for professional or scholarly reference. A proposal now needs to offer a touch of brilliance, or something that might be of interest to either a broader readership, or a specific (and long term) niche. 

If you do want to write a monograph, it has to be for the right reasons: you need to have a passion for the subject, and this needs to be reflected in your proposal. Your first monograph can be career defining, and it pays to get it right. You shouldn't do it as a way of making money.

Revising your Thesis

Many ECRs assume that their theses will transfer easily into a commercially produced book. This is often based on their examiner's comments, but it is a rarity for theses to make the transition. If you are considering it, you need to:
  • think about the methodology section. You don't need a long, detailed explanation here. This was for the examiners. The average reader won't be interested;
  • similarly, strengthen your introduction and conclusion;
  • cut out repetitious linkages;
  • if your research is unorthodox, decide on your message, and emphasise it throughout;
  • update it, and add new chapters;
  • consider making the title 'Google-friendly', so that it is descriptive of the research and will be easily found on the internet;
  • find an appropriate publisher, who has published in your area, produces good quality books, and that your colleagues would recommend;
  • above all, the publisher is concerned about commercial viability. Is your research something that would appeal broadly or long term?
Thus, for a book proposal you should:
  • describe your book in 300-400 words;
  • explain your methodology;
  • give a critical literature review, to show that you understand the field, and how your research differs from what has gone before;
  • include a detailed table of contents, a brief CV, and a sample chapter;
  • if it's a thesis, include the examiner's report, and explain any plans to revise it;
  • and finally, an estimate of when you will finish writing it.
When the publishers receive the proposal, they will initially evaluate it. This is very brief - a matter of minutes - and what they're looking for is whether it is something that excites them. If it does, they will send it for peer review, and you will be given the opportunity to respond to any comments that come back from this. Approximately 20% of proposals get through to peer review. If they do go ahead and publish, you should expect roughly 3-5% of royalties.

Choosing the Right Journals

For the final part of the session, Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences) outlined what defines a 'good' journal, and how you can increase your chances of being published in them.

The idea of 'high impact' journals goes back to the fifties. It's a somewhat controversial system, and is based on the average number of citations over a two-five year period. The system is open to abuse, and varies widely between disciplines. However, it is still seen as a rough and ready indicator of esteem. 

Mick began by showing a video made by Karin Dumstrei, Senior Editor at EMBO Journal.


In it, she highlights five tips to getting your paper published:
  • Choose a project that excites you;
  • Tell a good story;
  • Select the right journal;
  • Avoid the three 'don'ts', namely: dont' overstate your case, ignore others, or hold back data;
  • Be responsible with your data - i.e. say what you see rather than what you want to see.
Mick added to this by saying that high impact journals tend to have a broader audience, so you need to:
  • avoid jargon;
  • concentrate on the message;
  • write shorter articles (eg Science articles are generally 3-4 pages);
  • avoid too much detail. Additional data can be provided in 'supplementary material'.
Whilst all articles need to overcome a number of significant hurdles, Mick highlighted the importance of a good covering letter. These have become key, as they summarise why your article is right for the journal you're targetting. Take time to get this right. Keep it succinct, but explain the novelty and importance of your research, and why you are approaching that journal in particular.

Mick finished by outlining six tips:
  • Title: make it engaging but keep it short, and avoid technical terms;
  • Story: structure your article round a good, cohesive, logical 'story';
  • Step Change: emphasis what makes your research important. Talk about 'step changes' rather than 'incremental progresssions';
  • Cover Letter: 'sell' your article;
  • Feedback: get as much critical evaluation as possible;
  • Rejection: never take no for an answer.
This final point was echoed by all the speakers. Rejection is an inevitable part of the process. Don't be discouraged, but take on board comments and criticism and keep trying.

All the slides from the session will be available on the Grants Factory SharePoint site shortly.

Monday 2 December 2013

Grants Factory: AHRC Mock Panel

The final Grants Factory session of this term will take place on 11 Dec in the R&D Centre (G23), and will provide an insight into how the AHRC assesses applications. This is the first of the three ‘mock panels’ (there will be ones for the ESRC and EPSRC in the Spring and Summer), and will consist of two parts:
  • Firstly, two experienced panellists, Dr Simon Kirchin (SECL, and Acting Dean of Humanities) and Prof Peter Boenisch (Arts) will give an overview of the priorities and processes of the AHRC, outlining how your proposal will be assessed;
  • Secondly, Simon and Peter will lead a ‘mock’ panel, at which you will assess, discuss and rank a number of real applications, and decide which should be funded. This is invaluable to help understand the issues and difficulties faced by the AHRC panels, which will, in turn, help you to focus and draft your application more effectively.
Given the nature of the mock panel exercise, places are strictly limited, and allocated on a first come, first served basis, although priority will be given to those currently working on an application. If you're a member of staff at Kent, do let me know if you would like to take part.