Pages

Showing posts with label John Mingers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Mingers. Show all posts

Thursday, 13 July 2017

Opening up the Black Box of Peer Review

Liz Allen
Last month I attended a session at KBS on the Future of Research Assessment. I wrote up some notes from this, and particularly the talk by Prof John Mingers, here. 

Also speaking at the event was Liz Allen, Director of Strategic Initiatives at F1000. She published some thoughts on it on the F1000 blog, and has kindly allowed me to republish them here. 
______________________

I recently participated in a workshop hosted by the University of Kent Business School – the subject was whether metrics or peer review are the best tools to support research assessment. Thankfully, we didn’t get embroiled in the sport of ‘metric bashing’, but instead agreed that one size does not fit all and that whatever research assessment we do, while taking account of context, needs to be proportionate.

Friday, 16 June 2017

'Citations Are Peer Review by the World'

Prof John Mingers
The research excellence framework - or REF - has become such an established part of the higher education landscape that it’s hard to imagine a world without it. Since 1985 it has provided the navigation points in a turbulent and changing landscape, marking progress and, like a modern day Lachesis, measuring the threads of individual research in readiness for Atropos’ shears.

As we gear up for REF2021 and wait to hear from HEFCE about what form it will take, it seems an appropriate time to take stock and question whether the game is worth the candle, and if the measurement of research should be undertaken differently.

Thursday, 25 October 2012

Getting Published in Journals: Notes #4


Today it's the fourth set of notes from last week's session on getting published in journals: Prof John Mingers from KBS.

How Articles Are Selected
John Mingers

The review process for prestigious journals is drawn out and difficult. However, if you engage with it fully, it can be productive and fruitful, leading to a better article at the end of it.

As an example of what is involved, the review process for MISQ is as follows:
·         60% of submissions are desk rejected;
·         The rest have the potential to be published. Each paper is assigned to an associate editor, who sends it to 2 or 3 referees. Their response will be slow, as they tend to be the top people with many calls on their time.
·         The referees will provide 2-3 page reports.
·         The associate editor will then provide a report and recommendation for the senior editor, who will respond to the author.
·         The author will then have to respond to the comments. His or her response should take the form of a table, showing what changes have been made.

Through this process the article should improve, but there’s a danger that it could get worse. If the referees were unclear about your research, but were willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, they may reject your article once your changes have clarified the true nature of your work.

Given the uncertainty of the process, you should consider whether it is worth submitting to a prestigious journal at all. The process is long, risky, and you may have to change the thrust of your argument. More positively, it should lead to a better paper, with more citations, be wider read, will open doors, and will act as a ‘mark of quality’ of you as an academic.

If you do decide to target a top journal, you need to work strategically:  
·         Think which journal you want to submit to first, and adapt your research or writing to fit it;
·         Keep in mind the REF criteria for research: innovative, rigorous, significant, and interesting;
·         Be aware what the journal actually publishes, not what it says it publishes;
·         Submitting to a special issue might be easier. Alternatively, journals are sometimes willing to take a chance on a ‘blue ocean paper’, i.e. one that opens up a new and interesting direction in the discipline;
·         Make sure your research is strongly grounded in the literature, that it links to ongoing debates, and that you justify your position and methods;
·         Spell out why your research and findings are important;
·         Include a strong concluding section;
·         Write for a general audience.

Practically, you should do your homework and make sure that you are writing in the ‘house style’ for the journal, that the structure of your article is the same as others in the journal, that the references are in the right format (Endnote can help with this), and that you use clear and direct English, avoiding the passive voice.

Ultimately, submitting to a top journal isn’t quick or easy, and you have to accept that you may get rejected. Everyone does at some point. However, if you really engage with the process, work hard at making the changes, it will be worth it.

Tomorrow will see the final set of notes: Prof Jon Williamson on responding to reviewers' comments.

Thursday, 27 September 2012

The Launch of the ECR Network


This year, as part of the Grants Factory, we are launching an ECR Network. This will give early career researchers the opportunity to meet and discuss issues that are relevant to them, as well as hearing from more senior staff about their experiences. The first two events are as follows:

4 Oct: Planning a Personal Research Strategy (Keynes Seminar Room 4, 2:30 – 4:30pm)

This event will be introduced by the VC, Prof Dame Julia Goodfellow, who will discuss what support there is and should be across the University for ECRs. This is an opportunity to talk about your experiences, and think about what would help in the development of your career.

This will be followed by an informal talk by Prof Darren Griffin (Biosciences) and Jenny Billings (Centre for Health Services Studies) about developing a personal research strategy. They will cover issues around strategically planning and developing your research, balancing idealism with realism, and how to cope with the unexpected.
  
17 Oct: Getting Published in Journals (Senate Chamber, 9:30 – 11:30am)

Organised by KLS but open to all, this event will look at how to improve the chances of getting your articles selected for publication in journals. A panel of academics with extensive publishing experience will cover issues including:
·         How articles are selected for publication
·         Choosing a journal
·         Disseminating a thesis
·         How to improve the chances of your article being read
·          How to deal with referee comments

The panel will be chaired by Prof Sally Sheldon (KLS), and consists of Prof Rosaleen Duffy (Anthropology), Prof John Mingers (KBS), Prof Tim Strangleman (SSPSSR), and Prof Jon Williamson (SECL). 


These events aimed at ECRs, including Research Associates and Assistants (RAs), but are open to all academic staff. The events are free and refreshments will be provided.  Do let me know if you intend to come along so that I can get an idea of numbers.