Writing a conference paper - trick or t(h)reat? Kees Gelderman 12 October 2004

Outline 3. Tricks 2. Threat 1. Treat

1. Treat: “what’s in it for me?” - Progress and quality check - From ‘conference’ to ‘journal’ paper - Become part of a research community - Build a research network - Learn from comment and review

2. Threat: “rejection” - General lack of clarity (no. 1) Acceptance rates? - Lack of relevance (no. 3) - Poor design, poor methods(no. 2)

3. Tricks … your admission ticket Abstract = Therefore: persuade the committee … your prospectus

Abstracts: “all you need to know...” 1. Relevance:why bother? Usually: 150 to 200 words 3. Main results:what did you find? 2. The study: what have you done? Obligatory parts: “structures in 3”

Papers are evaluated on their…. 1. theoretical framework 6. analysis and interpretations 2. statement of the problem 3. literatur review 4. methodology 10. length and format 7. conclusions based on results 8. contribution to knowledge 9. logical flow, structure 5. quality of data

… that is … Editorial requirements (1) Especially: contribution to knowledge (3) Quality of separate components (2)

“originality & novelty” “explain why it is important” “at least one new idea” Some quotes: “of interest to the research community”

2 main criteria ánd new (1) ánd relevant (2)

‘Create’ a gap, related to - theoretical perspectives - research findings - new issues - overlooked issues - research methods - time & place

1. Theoretical papers 2. Empirical papers 2 categories:

“How I reviewed papers” lean toward acc. definitely accept lean toward acc. probably reject definitely reject “challenges mainstream lit.” “neglected issue, poor framework” “relevant, poor design” “conceptual, not original” “model, no evidence”

The royal road: (1) Report of annual research findings (3) Use a master’s thesis (2) Fit in current projects

Short-cuts (‘tricks): (2) Same database - change focus (3) “Slicing the salami” (1) Similar paper - different audience (4) Cooperate with fellow researchers (5) Add your name to somebody else’s paper (…)

Go for it !