Writing Scientific Papers: From Theory to Practice Prof. Dr. Irena Ograjenšek irena.ograjensek@ef.uni-lj.si CONTRACTOR IS ACTING UNDER A FRAMEWORK CONTRACT CONCLUDED WITH THE COMMISSION

Key Topics of Day 2 Critical literature review. Paper outline preparation. Paper abstract preparation. Paper revision vs. paper review.

How to Start Writing? The blank page syndrome.

Lessons from Practical Experience - 1 Easy writing is hard reading. Good writing comes from good rewriting. If you don‘t start, you cannot finish.

Lessons from Practical Experience - 2 5 times half an hour is not equal to 2 and a half hours of uninterrupted work. The importance of note-taking. The absolute necessity of revising after a delay in time.

How to Finish Writing? Two ongoing processes: creation + evaluation. Internal = revision. External = review.

Necessary Prerequisites - 1 Target journal selection: Topic area. Scope / aims / goals of the journal. Impact factor. Presence in bibliographical databases. Review cycle. Traditional vs. open access.

Necessary Prerequisites - 2 Familiarization with journal‘s Author Guidelines. Lenght (in words, in characters). Layout. System of bibliographical referencing (in text, in list of references).

Activity 10 Compare and contrast selected statements of scope / aims / goals of the journal. What do they tell the prospective author?

Activity 11 Compare and contrast the APA, Harvard and Chicago style of bibliographical referencing.

Necessary Prerequisites - 3 Software support of the bibliographical referencing process: possible alternatives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_reference_management_software

Critical Literature Review - 1 Typology of relevant resources - repetition: Scientific – scientific books, articles, reports. Popular – scientific findings, communicated with less rigour, e.g. in press, popular books, blogs. Official – publications and databases produced by institutional data providers; legislation.

Critical Literature Review - 2 Search for relevant resources: Use of freely accessible online resources, e.g. Google Scholar. Use of bibliographical databases, available in-house.

Activity 12 Compare and contrast the results of search for scientific resources on scientific writing using Google, Google Scholar, and in-house bibliographical databases.

Critical Literature Review - 3 Key elements of literature review: Search. Evaluation. Use in text.

Critical Literature Review - 4 Approaches to literature review: Search for broader picture. Search for definitions. Search for supporting views. Search for opposing views. Search for memorable quotes.

Activity 13 Compare and contrast the examples of literature review; identify their approaches, strenghts and weaknesses. What, in your opinion, makes the literature review critical?

Paper Outline Preparation Role and focus: provision of section/ chapter structure.

Activity 14 Develop a paper outline for a topic of your choice. Explain the draft outline to your neighbour. Revise the draft outline in line with the comments received from your neighbour.

Paper Abstract Preparation Role and focus: To tempt the reader into reading the whole paper. Remember the inverted pyramid?

Activity 15 Find three abstracts for the topic of your choice, then compare and contrast them in terms of contents, methodology and layout. Explain which of the elements caught your eye in a positive and negative sense and suggest possible improvements. On the basis of the three abstracts create a new one that summarizes them all.

Paper Revision vs. Paper Review - 1 Carried out by author(s). Approaches to paper revision?

Approaches to Paper Revision Focus on content. Focus on language (simplification and spelling). Focus on technical issues (layout, system of bibliographical referencing … ).

Paper Revision vs. Paper Review - 2 Carried out by reviewers. The role and focus of peer review. How to respond to peer review.

The Usual Review Process Editor screening for relevance and basic quality. Review cycle (blinded peer review). Report and recommendation. Editor response.

Report and Recommendation Accept. Accept after minor revision (→ editorial team only). Rewrite and resubmit (→ another review cycle). Reject.

Editor / Reviewer Expectations - 1 Contribution Original contribution to theory and / or practice. Domain-related scholarly dialogue. Narrow focus and limited methodology but useful.

Editor / Reviewer Expectations - 2 Content: Rational and logical flow of ideas Background information ▼ Problem definition Methodology Analysis Results Discussion / Implications / Limitations / Challenges for future research

Editor / Reviewer Expectations - 3 Writing: Clear, concise, logical. Balanced. Scientific.

Editor / Reviewer Expectations - 3 Technical Presentation: In line with journal‘s requirements.

What Not To Do When Submitting - 1 Submit a paper out of journal‘s scope. Usual editorial response: Rejection; author reminded of types of papers the journal publishes. In best-case scenario possible alternative journals might be suggested.

What Not To Do When Submitting - 2 Submit a paper not in the required format but otherwise appearing to be in line with journal‘s aims. Usual editorial response: Author asked to resubmit in required form; pointed to Author‘s Guidelines and (if available) paper templates.

What Not To Do When Submitting - 3 Submit a paper with potential for publication but clearly in need of a substantial revision due to insufficient research details, poor style ... Usual editorial response: Worst-case scenario: rejection. Best-case scenario: Author sent detailed suggestions for improvement and encouraged to resubmit.

What Not To Do When Submitting - 4 Submit a paper that has been published elsewhere. Usual editorial response: Rejection; author reprimanded. In best-case scenario author queried.

Other Typical Problems Already known / trivial research questions. Inadequate or too broad literature review. Poor research design / wrong analytical method. Irrelevant data. Poor links among paper sections.

Other Typical Problems Already known / trivial research questions. Inadequate or too broad literature review. Poor research design / wrong analytical method. Irrelevant data. Poor links among paper sections.

Scientific Papers on Problems with Manuscripts - 1 Schroter, S., Black, N., et al. (2008). What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101, 507-514. Routh, D. K. (1995). Confessions of an editor, including mistakes I have made. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 236-241.

Scientific Papers on Problems with Manuscripts - 2 Fiske, D. W. & Fogg, L. (1990). But the reviewers are making different criticisms on my paper!: Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. American Psychologist, 40, 591-598. McNutt R., Evans, A., Fletcher R., Fletcher, S. (1990). The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA, 263, 1371-1377.

Activity 16 Study the sample review reports and recommendations. Identify the ‚what not to do when submitting‘ elements that lead to recommendations as they are. How would you respond to individual reviews?

Challenges of Publishing in the 21st Century Traditional vs. open journals. Predatory journals: http://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/ Any other open issues?