Portable Peer Review

Michael Clarke, writing for the Scholarly Kitchen, discusses the announcement of a new “portable peer review” coalition among eLife, BioMed Central (BMC), the Public Library of Science (PLoS), and the European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO).

Authors who submit to a participating journal in the consortium, and are not accepted by that journal, will be able to redirect their paper, with the referee’s reports, to any other journal in the consortium. Referees will be given the opportunity to opt out of having their reports forwarded, or to forward them anonymously (in all cases, the referee’s identity will be anonymous to the author – referees will choose whether they wish to remain anonymous to the editors of the secondary journal).

Details here: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/15/game-of-papers-elife-bmc-plos-and-embo-announce-new-peer-review-consortium/

Open Access Journals: Be Careful

Nurse writers want a readership. Whether you are a scholarly writer disseminating research discoveries or a policy and editorial writer influencing opinion or a personal writer seeking kindred spirits, you want readers. Open access (sometimes called OA) publishing, which turns publishing’s funding model on its head, might seem a good solution. But be careful.

In ordinary publishing, a journal is funded by subscribers (either individual or institutional) and by advertisers. Only subscribers have access to the journal. In contrast, OA  journals require an up-front subvention payment by the author, who is funding the journal’s operation, providing open access to the contents of the journal to all readers.

In the best of all possible worlds, a researcher’s grant funding provides for dissemination costs or the researcher’s home institution funds the dissemination, so the researcher does not have to pay out of pocket.

However, in the brave new world of online publishing, it’s a jungle out there, and there are predators that you need to look out for.

First, as you can imagine, there is an economic incentive for an OA  journal publisher to accept your manuscript. Accepting your manuscript is a funding source for the OA journal. Unscrupulous OA journals might not exercise the same diligence in peer review as subscription-funded journals, which rely on subscribers’ trust in the quality and relevance of the articles published.

Second, some OA journals are parts of huge money-making schemes in which an online company suddenly produces scores or even hundreds of OA journals. In some cases, one editor is identified on the masthead as editor of half a dozen (or more) journals. These journals and their publishers use email marketing (spam) to entice writers, but like other email marketing schemes, unscrupulous or predatory OA journals are just interested in getting you to buy their service: publishing your manuscript. Some even add notable names to their editorial boards without the permission of the researchers named!

Third, how will readers find your article unless it’s indexed by the major indexers? Check to determine who indexes the OA journal you are considering.

So how do you tell the good from the bad? Do due diligence and scrutinize new OA journals carefully. Do you recognize the name of the editor? Do you know members of the editorial board? Do you recognize the names of authors published in the journal? Contact them to find out more about the journal. In addition, consult online sources to assess the legitimacy of the journal.

Start with Jeffrey Beall’s Scholarly Open Access blog http://scholarlyoa.com/ and check his lists of publishers and journals. If a publisher or a journal is on his list, you probably do not want to submit a manuscript to it. Then consult the Directory of Open Access Journals http://www.doaj.org/ and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association http://oaspa.org/ (but keep in mind that the latter is a professional organization — just because a local business belongs to the Better Business Bureau doesn’t make it a better business).

Nurse writers have important, life and health improving observations to make. OA publishing may be a way to reach a wide audience. But exercise care before submitting a manuscript to an OA journal.

CHE: Five Reasons to Think About How You Work

Writing for the Chronicle of Higher Education’s ProfHacker blog, Jason B. Jones offers “Five Reasons to Think About How You Work.”

Takeaways:

Thinking about your system can help you make decisions about work based on your values. . . . Focusing your productivity system on next actions can help you fight through procrastination-driving despair. . . . Having a goal-focused productivity system can help you recognize when you are done, as well as whether you are successful. . . . Focusing your productivity system on measurable goals is a useful reality check, and can help you identify where you’re getting bogged down. . . . Having clearly-defined actions in your productivity system can help you focus on what you need to do and to get the stuff dependent on others out of your head.

In a crossover collaboration, Inside Higher Education hosted a GradHacker panel discussion on the topic: http://podcast.gradhacker.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Gradhacker6.mp3

Substantive Editing

Academic Medicine‘s editor-in-chief, Steven L. Kanter, MD, interviews Albert Bradford, director of Staff Editing.

 

Assessing Journal Quality

An increasingly important and ever more vexing challenge for the academic writer is determining the quality or ranking of a journal. At some universities or in some schools and departments considerations of tenure and promotion are made not simply on the fact of getting your manuscripts published but also in which journals (and the rank of those journals). The ever more vexing part is that open-access on-line journals have proliferated in recent years, some of which are little more than vanity presses.

Brendan A. Rapple, a librarian at Boston College, cuts through some of this confusion in the article “Assess Carefully: Don’t Be Duped by Bogus Journals,” published in Inside Higher Ed.  Rapple discusses evaluation criteria, publication fees (the funding model for most open-access journals), and the Directory of Open Access Journals.

 

For the Love of Writing

Writing for the Chronicle of Higher Education, Marybeth Gasman observes in “For the Love of Writing” that summer is a season for many faculty members to conduct scholarship and produce manuscripts, free from the demands of teaching and committees.

Gasman discusses her own behaviors conducive of productivity:

  1. Constantly reading and absorbing new ideas and information.
  2. Dedicating large blocks of time to writing.
  3. Seeking external accountability (telling friends and colleagues what she is working on, setting hard deadlines with collaborators on projects).
  4. Taking breaks from writing.
  5. Always having several projects in various stages of development.
  6. Writing about topics that engage her passions.
  7. Writing almost daily.

I hope your summer is productive and restorative.

15 Minute Manager

Over the course of this past semester I worked with a cohort of full-time clinical nursing faculty to develop a daily writing habit. The Write Now! team contracted to write each day for 30 minutes. First thing every morning I sent them an email to describe what I was working on that day (I wanted to walk the walk as well as talking the talk) and asked them what they were working on that day.

Now, an online article in the Chronicle of Higher Education blogs by Natalie Houston, “Why 15 Minutes?” suggests that a kitchen digital timer set to 15 minutes may be productive for a variety of tasks, including:

■15 minutes is effective: you can workout with supersets, plyometrics, or Tabata intervals very effectively in a short time.

■15 minutes is a good start: you can write a few sentences, read a couple of pages, or review some data. That’s enough to get you back into a project you’ve been away from for a few hours or days and can help you build momentum for a longer work session.

NLN Scholarly Writing Retreat

The NLN Foundation has scheduled a Fall Writing Retreat to be held from November 3 – December 2, 2012 at the Mt. Royal Hotel and Conference Center in Baltimore, MD. Leslie H. Nicoll, PhD, MBA, RN will be the facilitator. Leslie Block of the NLN will also be onsite in Baltimore, assisting participants with their final drafts prior to submission

The NLN Scholarly Writing Retreat is designed to help nurse educators enhance writing skills and disseminate research findings and other work in scholarly publications. By the end of the retreat, the goal is for each participant to have a complete, edited paper ready for submission to a scholarly journal. Due to the intense nature of the work, retreat participants are limited to ten and selected through a competitive application process. Participants work closely with the facilitator for two months prior to the retreat, interacting via telephone, email, and the private blog created specially for the retreat, My Name in Print!. Participants will have access to the facilitator for up to one year after the retreat ends, to assist them through the revision and resubmission process. Access to the blog is ongoing.

The retreat is funded by a generous grant from Pocket Nurse Enterprises, Inc., and the NLN Foundation for Education.

Applications are due by August 20, 2012. To learn more about the retreat and download an application, click here: http://www.nlnfoundation.org/Scholarly_Writing_Retreat.cfm

Chronicle: Good Deeds, Most Punished

I’m getting caught up on reading back issues of the Chronicle of Higher Education (which I highly recommend for all faculty, as well as daily free updates from Inside Higher Ed), which recently included three columns by David Perlmutter on the theme “Good Deeds That Are Most Punished” (traps for junior, tenure-track faculty to avoid):

NYT: Perils of “Bite Size” Science

Marco Bertamini (psychologist at the University of Liverpool) and Marcus R. Munafo (psychologist at the University of Bristol), writing in the New York Times, question the wisdom of sliced-and-diced science article publishing, the tendency among some scholars and researchers to get out the door the smallest publishable unit (with the result of adding more publications to the CV), also known as “salami publishing.”

They refute some the claims made on behalf of publishing a greater number of smaller articles, and note that the practice raises questions about the quality of the science (smaller articles may not reflect adequate replication, they have a smaller sample size, they are prone to publication bias).

“The Perils of ‘Bite Size’ Science” is available on line.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 91 other followers