PUBLISHING IN

INTERNATIONAL REFEREED JOURNALS IN

EDUCATION: GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Allan B. I. BernardoDe La Salle University , Philippines

ObjectivesTo provide participants: an introduction to the refereeing

or peer-review process in education and social science journals

a discussion of some of the broad and basic considerations for publishing research in refereed journals.

pointers in how to improve chances of being published in refereed journals in education

What makes a journal refereed or peer-reviewed?

“a refereed journal has a structured reviewing system in which…reviewers, excluding in-house editors, evaluate each unsolicited manuscript and advise the editor as to acceptance or rejection.” (from Cantor)

What makes a journal refereed or peer-reviewed?Scholarly peer review (Wikipedia) Peer review requires a community of experts

in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform “impartial” review.

The use of referees permits specialists familiar with research similar to that presented in the paper to judge whether the paper makes a contribution to the advancement of knowledge. (Cabbel, 2007)

Implications of peer-review system

There is no independent or objective tool of assessing quality of manuscript

Quality is assessed through subjective but partial and expert opinions

Thus, there are strong interpersonal and intersubjective processes involved

The Gold Standard: Thomson ISI journals

Strict refereeing process from 2 to 4 referees for each

manuscript submitted referees are invited from authors who

have published in the field/subfield acceptance rate is less than 50% (some

have less than 20% acceptance rate) Articles published tend to be more highly

cited in the field

Top Ranked Education Journals according to JCR 2010 (top 10)Journal Title Impact Factor

Education Researcher 3.774

Review of Educational Research 3.127

Learning and Instruction 2.768

Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2.728

Computers & Education 2.617

Acad of the Manag of Learning and Education 2.533

American Educational Research Journal 2.479

Physics Review Special Topics-PH 2.302

Journal of English Education 2.219

Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2.192

Top Ranked Education Journals according to JCR 2010 (#11-20)Journal Title Impact Factor

British Journal of Educational Technology 2.139

Metacognition and Learning 2.038

Scientific Studies in Reading 1.973

Educational Evaluation and Policy Annual 1.919

Review of Research in Education 1.909

Science Education 1.900

Internet in Higher Education 1.896

Journal of Teacher Education 1.891

Health Education Research 1.889

Reading Research Quarterly 1.833

Impact factors in education journals 184 journals listed in “Education and

Education Research” Modal impact factor in education

journals (over the years) is around .500

Generally, impact factors in education journals are lower compared to the natural sciences and related social sciences (e.g., psychology)

Impact factors of Asian regional education journals

Journal Title Impact Factor

Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education .644

The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher .632

KEDI Journal of Educational Policy .269

Asia Pacific Journal of Education .119

Asia Pacific Education Review .112

JCR ReportsYou need to subscribe to the JCR

to get impact factors.You can also check out the

journal’s webpage: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/jou

rnaldescription.cws_home/347/description

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/tf/00220272.html

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/1359866X.asp

Preparing the Manuscript

Deciding what to write about

Selecting a journal

Writing the paper

From Montiel (2006)

PEER-REVIEW CYCLE

WRITE PAPER FOR PEER-REVIEWED

PUBLICATION

PRESENT RESEARCH REPORT IN CONFERENCE

IMPLEMENT RESEARCH PROJECT (includes completion of final report to

funding agency)

RESEARCH PLANNING (review of literature; design of study; search for collaborators; apply for funding)

PUBLICATION

Deciding what to write about Remember: your manuscript will

be assessed in terms of how important are its contributions to the literature.

So you need to determine what is the contribution you want to write about!

Diverse Epistemologies in Education ResearchPositivismPost-positivismConstructivism / InterpretivismCritical / Ideological perspective

Quantitative vs. Qualitative approaches

Diverse Epistemologies in Education ResearchThe quality of the research contribution is assessed based on the epistemological assumptions of the research

Note: Some journals have a strong epistemological position & methodological preference

Significant Contributions new theory, argument

or conjecture new definition new synthesis of

previous findings new educational

“technology” illustration (new

supporting evidence)

clarification or elaboration

rephrasing or recasting of question

evaluation of an earlier assertion

new or alternative interpretation

refutation or rebuttal (new contrary evidence)

Significant ContributionsSignificant contributions push current knowledge

forward or towards some positive direction

always involve building on the previous contributions

The degree of importance of the contribution depends on the degree to which the contribution advances the current knowledge.

saying something obvious or that everyone already knows

saying irrelevant, off-track, or even misleading things

just presenting findings without linking these to some aspect of the current knowledge (or linking to outdated knowledge)

Insignificant or Bad Contributions

Inappropriate reading and/or response to other contributions

indiscriminately disagreeing or agreeing with everything

talking about something most people do not care about

overreaching in arguments (without evidence)

Insignificant or Bad Contributions

Contributions to knowledgeREMEMBER: A contribution to the research

literature needs to be defined in the context of the nature of the research enterprise.

A significant contribution can only be understood in the context of the current research environment and the types of research outputs that are being or considered within.

Contributions to knowledge

Bottom line: THE QUALITY OF YOUR

CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE DEPENDS ON THE QUALITY OF RESEARCH THAT YOU CONCEPTUALIZED

AND COMPLETED

From Montiel (2006)

PEER-REVIEW CYCLE

WRITE PAPER FOR PEER-REVIEWED

PUBLICATION

PRESENT RESEARCH REPORT IN CONFERENCE

IMPLEMENT RESEARCH PROJECT (includes completion of final report to

funding agency)

RESEARCH PLANNING (review of literature; design of study; search for collaborators; apply for funding)

PUBLICATION

THEORY

DATA

METHODS

Three important components of a contribution:

The Role of Theory Perspective or point-of-view

may be explicit or implicitset of assumptions

Prior? or Emergent? Some dimensions of

perspective evolve or change as conversation develops, but some aspects are inflexible.

The Role of Data What is you epistemology? Evidence: supportive,

clarificatory, illustrative, or contradictory

What makes data useful in conversations? Credibility? Reliability? Validity? Relevance? Replicability? Representativeness?

The Role of Data-Gathering and Data-Analytic Methods

What is your epistemology? Quality of data: relevance?

representativeness? accuracy? verifiability? completeness?

Quality of analysis: updated techniques; logic in inference; rationality; persuasiveness; vividness; emotional appeals; usefulness, practical, political & ethical dimensions

Publishing in Refereed Journal: The First Question“IS MY RESEARCH WORTH PUBLISHING” or

“IS MY RESEARCH REPORT DESCRIBING AN ORIGINAL AND SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE RESEARCH LITERATURE IN MY FIELD/SUBFIELD?

Thinking about one’s contribution(s)? Most scholars in my field/subfield

now think/say that ______________ _____________________________ ___________________________. My research shows that _________ __________________________________________________________.

Realizing what you have to contribute

It is important that you find something in your research that some group of other scholars will find interesting.

You need to know the breadth and depth of existing research literature

You need to consider the diversity within the community of researchers in your field/subfield.

Even “small” contributions will have space in the research conversation.

Realizing what you have to contribute Your “contributions” may not be the

same as you had planned in your research proposal.

Your research question/problem should “match” your “contributions.”

Be very clear about what your “contributions” are in relation to what the present literature is stating.

“Contributions” that are typically rejected (in my experience as Editor)

✗ Manuscript that do not have a clear theoretical point of view (absent or incoherent)

✗ Replication of old finding with no new feature or contextualization

✗ Replication of “new” finding with small non-representative sample

✗ Descriptive study w/non-representative sample

✗ Qualitative data that were analyzed superficially

Preparing manuscript for journal submission?

Most scholars in my field/subfield now think/say that _____________________________________.

My research shows that ____________________ _________________________________________.

You need to consider the type of your contribution to the literature in choosing your target journal.

Choosing the target journal If you cannot think of good answers to

the last two items, don’t even think about publishing in a refereed journal.

If you have answers to the two items, but they do not seem to be very compelling, you should consider a low-end refereed journal.

If you have very strong answers to the last two items, you should consider a high-end refereed journal!

Choosing your target journal The way you prepare the manuscript

should be appropriate to the journal you will submit to

Know the journal (editorial policy statement, scope of topic and method journal, readership, processes, etc.)

Check out table of contents, abstracts, and sample articles

Consider the editorial standards

Choosing your target journal Try to find a good match between

journal and your manuscript Make sure the you choose a journal that

fits the scope and nature of your research

Consider where “similar” studies have been published (i.e., look at your reference list)

But consider time lag and changes in editorial policies and teams

Preparing the manuscript

Be clear about what “contributions” you will highlight in the manuscript.

Your “contributions” may not be the same as you had planned in your research proposal.

Getting started in writing

Organizing the ManuscriptKeep in mind what your

“contribution” is.Write your manuscript so that every part of the paper points to your “contribution”

Know the audience you are writing for; think of the journal you are writing for.

Organizing the ManuscriptWrite your manuscript so that every part of the

paper points to your “contribution” Abstract should highlight the contribution Introduction should clearly show the

significance of the contribution Review of literature should point to the gaps or

unresolved issues that your contributions would address

Research questions should be aligned to the contributions

Organizing the ManuscriptWrite your manuscript so that every part of

the paper points to your “contribution” Methods should convince readers that

contributions are based on sound research approaches

Results should be presented to highlight the contributions in a credible way

Discussions should focus on limitations and significance of the contributions

Organizing the ManuscriptLook at the overall balance of the

different parts of the paper and ensure that it favors an appreciation of your contribution.

Avoid: excessively long introduction and review of literature, with a skimpy discussion of results.

Thesis format vs Journal format The thesis/dissertation format was designed for pedagogical purposes.

The journal format was designed for developing an argument.

Do NOT make the mistake of simply transplanting the parts of your thesis to your journal manuscript.

Journal editors and reviewers will easily see that you are an amateur.

Writing the ManuscriptTwo main goals for writing for peer-reviewed journals:

Convince referees that your contributions are important

Display the right level of expertise to impress the referees

Recall: gate-keeping function of peer reviewers

Writing the ManuscriptTwo key principles in preparing

your report: clarity and accuracy.

The two principles are important because your readers will be assessing whether they will believe what you are writing. So don’t be vague, obscure, or intentionally misleading.

The importance of the first paragraph / first page “Page-one-writer” First paragraph should clearly

communicate to the referee the breadth and depth of your research and what you have to contribute

First paragraph should also display enough of your expertise in the field (e.g., refer to “right” issues, theories, publications, authors, etc.)

Writing the introductory section Start with the big picture; talk about

something that readers will understand in concrete terms.

Begin limiting the problem, gradually focusing on your topic.

In gradually focusing on your topic, you should already be discussing the significance of your topic.

State your research problem in broad terms; if possible, in one question.

Writing the introductory sections

Discuss what other researchers have said in relation to the problem.

This review of literature should not be enumerative & need not be comprehensive; it should be selective but representative.

Review should point to what the gaps or unresolved issues are

I.e., it describes the current research context in which you want to make a contribution.

Writing the introductory sections

When citing the literature… cite recent literature in other refereed

journals avoid citing unpublished works or

publications in the gray literature be aware if journal has limits on

number of citations sometimes, editors select reviewers

from authors in cited literature

Writing the introductory sections In the review, be explicit about how you

define & use important terms or concepts. If appropriate, your review should clearly

state your theoretical premises. End the section with a brief but detailed

articulation of your research problem, variables, (& if appropriate, hypotheses), being explicit about how it relates to the existing literature.

Writing the methods sections

This section should be very detailed and accurate, without being too detailed.

Detail should be sufficient to allow readers to adequately assess the sufficiency of the methods.

Refer to similar types of articles that have been published in terms of how to organize this section.

Try writing this section following a clear and linear narrative style.

Writing the results section Preface the presentation of results with

a reminder of the research questions, and if appropriate, the hypothesis.

Organize the results in ways the clearly allow the readers to see the answers to the research questions.

Provide the “conceptual” answers to questions before giving the details of the results and analysis.

Writing the results section Use the conventional forms of reporting

data (e.g., tables, figures, statistical analysis); if necessary refer to published papers in your intended journal.

Do not be redundant in data presentation; choose the most effective way of presenting your data

When describing large data sets, provide summaries after subsections.

Writing the discussion section Before embarking on discussion: very briefly summarize your findings,

highlight how your findings relate to existing literature.

state possible caveats in your conclusions brought about by limitations of the study.

Start discussing your findings: discuss similarities differences with other research, theoretical and/or practical implications, educated speculations, etc.

NOTE: align discussion with focus of journal

Writing the discussion section Be careful not to overreach with

your discussion and conclusions. Do not end with “future research”

or “limitations.” End with a bang. Make sure your

readers feel they got something from your report.

Some reminders on writing Be very strict in following all prescriptions

of the journal editors (e.g., citations, headings, tables, figures, etc.)

You conversational academic style of language. Avoid being abstruse and too formal (e.g., use of third person).

Use repeated and parallel construction. Use active voice unless the content

dictates otherwise. Avoid self-references.

Some reminders on writing Keep sentences short (one thought) Keep paragraphs short (one main idea) Be sure your tone or style is consistent

throughout (within paragraphs and across paragraphs)

You are writing for an international audience, so be mindful of local language usage or parochial references

Grammar and idiomatic expressions

Some reminders on writing Be meticulous in all the details. Be concise. Make sure every word is

absolutely necessary. Don’t be offensive. Avoid bias (i.e.,

gender, stereotyping, prejudice, etc.) Avoid jargon. If you need to, define

it first in concrete terms & use an example.

Proofread.

Important reminders on writing Think of your reader -- one who is fairly

intelligent, with enough background in the field, but is not a specialist.

Write as if you are teaching your reader.

Revise Revise Revise Revise

Closing suggestions Read and model the articles

published in ISI journals (focus on form-substance connections)

Try to use ISI journals as models for writing each section of your manuscript, and even for the organization of your manuscript

Find out what writing styles, behaviors, and practices work for you, and stick to them

Closing suggestions Try to find long blocks of time for

writing (give it importance) Be courageous and be willing to stick

your neck out (and make mistakes) Set high expectations of yourself,

work hard and always try to do your best.

Don’t ever take the negative outcomes personally.

Never give up. Because we can all do it.

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!

Allan B. I. Bernardo, Ph.D.

De La Salle University-Manila

The Peer-Review Process Submission and acknowledgement Peer Review Editorial Decision Revisions Acceptance Preparation for publication

Submission Most reputable journals now only

accept submissions online through the website

First, study all the “Instructions for Authors” found in the website

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/603/authorinstructions

http://www.bpsjournals.co.uk/authors/authors_home.cfm

Submission Second, create an account for

submitting your manuscript http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/

ajsp http://ees.elsevier.com/paid/ http://www.editorialmanager.com/

ajcp/ 

Submission Third, follow instructions for

uploading your manuscript http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/

ajsp http://ees.elsevier.com/paid/ http://www.editorialmanager.com/

ajcp/ 

Acknowledgement You should get an acknowledgement email,

typically within two days or so. BUT, this does not mean your manuscript is

already being reviewed. Editor or staff will still vet your manuscript for requirements.

Staff might request for some corrections or minor revisions (format, length, etc.).

Editor might request for some revisions. Editor might reject without review (desktop

rejection)

Peer-Review Manuscript is read by 1, 2, 3, or 4

reviewers (depending on editorial standard)

All reviewers are instructed to evaluate manuscript in terms appropriateness for publication in the specific journal

Variations: Normal review Blind review Double blind review (omit author details)

Peer-ReviewOther variations: Expedited review process (“light-

touch” reviews) : reject-or-accept decision without comments (may apply to short reports, notes, book reviews, etc.)

Norm review process: normally takes three months, but may be as quick as one month or as long as six months (or more)

Editorial Decision You will get an editorial decision

letter, also via email. The editor or action editor gives

you his/her comments, the referees’ comments, & the action editor’s decision.

Note: Editorial decision is not always consistent with referees’ comments.

Editorial DecisionThe decision will be one of the

following: Accepted without revisions (routine copyediting)

Minor revisions (indicated) Revise and resubmit Rejected but encouraged to resubmit with revisions

Rejected no revision will be accepted

Sample decision letters

Decision letter #1: D:\PAP Writing Workshop\JEdPsych Sample\Sample Rejection Letter.pdf

Decision letter #2: D:\PAP Writing Workshop\Dev Psych Sample\Sample Decision Letter Revise 01.pdf

Decision letter #3: D:\PAP Writing Workshop\Dev Psych Sample\Sample Decision Letter Revise 02.pdf

Responding to reviews: If you have the option to resubmit,

consider whether you want to revise according to the reviewers’ suggestions.

You don’t have to follow all the reviewers’ suggestions.

But you should pay attention to those reviewers’ comments that are highlighted by the action editor.

You need to think about how far you are willing to depart from your original work.

Responding to reviews: When resubmitting, include a cover

letter enumerating your responses to the comments (detailing your revisions and specifying why you did not follow some suggestions made by reviewers)

Editors may send out your revision for peer-review again. If so, you will have to wait again.

Sample revision letters

Revision letter #1: D:\PAP Writing Workshop\Dev Psych Sample\DevPsych Sample V2.pdf

Revision letter #2: D:\CURRENT TASKS\Response to reviews JASP.pdf

Revision letter #3: D:\CURRENT TASKS\JADP-D-09-00002.fdf

Responding to reviews: Editors may decide to review your

revision on their own. Editors will make a decision on

your revision; same options as with first submission.

The cycle continues until the editor pronounces that your paper is finally accepted or finally rejected.

Responding to reviews: If your work is rejected, or you think

you could not adequately assess the reviews, you have the following options: Resubmit same paper to another journal Revise or reconfigure the paper and

submit to another journal Conduct further studies/analysis and

submit to same or another journal Publish in an “easy” journal

Acceptance You will get a decision letter stating your

manuscript has been accepted. Sample acceptance letter: D:\CURRENT

TASKS\PsychReports Revision\Acceptance letter.pdf

Acceptance You will be given various instructions:

Copyright transfer Submission of final copies according to

publisher requirements Funding disclosure Biodata of authors Certification of compliance with ethics Payment for reprints / publication fees Ordering reprints, etc.

Processing of manuscript You will get “proofs” Copyedited manuscript in layout form. You

will be required to: “accept” the copyediting done provide missing information correct errors indicated clarify ambiguities in text respond whatever questions editors have make additional corrections on errors you

note

Sample instructions, proofs, etc. Sample #1: D:\Reference Library\

Conceptions of Motivation\Van etten et al proof JEP.pdf

Sample #2: D:\From CEPD Desktop\PAID_4738_with reply.pdf

Sample #3: D:\Copyright-Assign Ammons Scientific.pdf

Sample #4: D:\Reference Library\BernardoPubs\JGeneticPsych_46-04-27 copyright_Signed.doc