On publishing
Prof. Frank Geels,
SPRU DPhil day
23 May 2011
Structure
1. 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 way
But 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, risky
But rewarding if it succeeds
- Get new topics on agenda
- Develop new perspectives
3. Review process
1. Submit paper to journal
2. Editor decides: desk-reject, send for review
3. Review reports come back (4-12 months)
A) Accept as is
B) Minor revisions
C) Major revisions (there is potentially something interesting)
D) Reject (no contribution, weak methods, poor theory)
4. Editor makes decision and informs author
5. 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 comment
you can try to convince editor (judge)
 Publication is partly negotiation
Article rejection
• Happens to all of us
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
• 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 advice
Publishing 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 REF
Background
• 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
2. Area studies
3. Business
4. Business, Finance
5. Communication
6. Criminology & Penology
7. Demography
19. History
20. History & Philosophy of
Science
21. History of Social Sciences
37. Psychologyy, Experimental
38. Psychology, Mathematical
22. Industrial Relations &
Labour
23. Information Science &
Library Science
24. International Relations
25. Law
40. Psychology, Psychoanalysis
8. Economics
26. Linguistics
9. Education & Educational Research 27. Management
10. Education, special
11. Environmental Studies
28. Nursing
29. Planning & Development
12. Ergonomics
30. Political Science
13. Ethics
14. Ethnic Studies
15. Family Studies
16. Geography
17. Gerontology
31. Psychiatry
32. Psychology, Applied
33. Psychology, Biological
34. Psychology, Clinical
35. Psychology,
Developmental
36. Psychology, Educational
18. Health Policy & Services
39. Psychology, Multidisciplinary
41. Psychology, Social
42. Public Administration
43. Public, Environmental &
Occupational Health
44. Rehabilitation
45. Social Issues
46. Social Sciences, Biomedical
47. Social Sciences,
Interdisciplinary
48. Social Sciences, Mathematical
Methods
49. Social Work
50. Sociology
51. Substance Abuse
52. Transportation
53. Urban Studies
54. Women's Studies
10. History and Philosophy of Science
1
10
15
Journal
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
BIOL PHILOS
SOC STUD SCI
1.069
0.967
0.948
1.055
0.929
1.015
1.426
1.015
1.651
1.063
1.343
1.373
PUBLIC UNDERST SCI
0.600
0.739
0.913
0.978
1.340
1.286
1.981
0.486
0.733
0.481
0.176
0.353
0.778
0.737
0.692
0.600
0.576
0.571
0.619
0.689
0.560
0.382
0.897
0.672
0.732
0.884
0.643
0.279
0.242
0.562
0.250
0.033
0.190
0.511
0.500
0.406
0.379
0.375
0.366
0.468
0.323
0.377
0.385
0.809
1.062
0.225
0.493
0.211
0.378
0.277
0.357
0.196
0.154
0.179
0.236
0.556
0.333
0.345
0.405
0.557
0.333
0.329
0.595
0.197
0.477
0.361
0.609
B HIST MED
MINERVA
SYNTHESE
HIST STUD PHYS BIOL
0.818
0.274
0.143
0.326
0.326
0.312
0.280
0.487
0.479
0.364
0.263
0.298
0.350
0.426
0.477
HIST PHIL LIFE SCI
HIST MATH
ANN SCI
HIST SCI
HIST HUM SCI
AGR HIST (Agricultural History)
0.049
0.424
0.257
0.342
0.298
0.208
0.278
0.235
0.194
0.194
0.149
0.032
0.528
0.121
0.306
0.161
0.122
0.118
ISIS
BRIT J PHILOS SCI
PHYS PERSPECT
J HIST BIOL
J HIST MED ALL SCI
AGR HUM VALUES (Agriculture
and Human Values)
SOC HIST MED
BRIT J HIST SCI
PHILOS SCI
OSIRIS
CONFIGURATIONS
TECHNOL CULT (Technology
and Culture)
SCI CONTEXT (Science in
context)
ARCH HIST EXACT SCI
MED HIST
STUD HIST PHILOS SCI
20
29
0.596
0.256
0.630
0.614
0.194
0.097
• 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)
References
Locke, 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