Getting your Education Work Published Heather Petcovic, Western Michigan University and Kristen St. John, James Madison University

Introduction – Why are we Here? Our purpose: (1)To build participants’ knowledge of, and capacity for, publishing their work in geoscience education Geoscientists who are new to publishing education work Geoscience education researchers who are looking to expand their work to new journals (2)To provide peer support for participants’ geoscience education manuscripts in progress Anthony D. Feig (2013) The Allochthon of Misfit Toys. Journal of Geoscience Education: August 2013, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp

Introduction – What are we Doing Today? Agenda: 1:30 Welcome and Introductory Remarks 1:40 Group activity: Compare and contrast geoscience, G-SOTL, and GER manuscripts 2:15 Presentation: Nuts and bolts of manuscript submission and peer review in geoscience education 3:00 Panel Q&A: Tips, tricks, successes, and challenges in publishing work in science education 3:30 Individual/small group work on manuscripts 4:15 Adjourn

Introduction – Who are We? Please introduce yourselves: 1.Who you are 2.Where you work 3.What kind of research you do 4.Your publishing experience 5.What you hope to get out of today

Geoscience vs. Geoscience Education Manuscripts Group activity (Think, Pair, Share) What are the similarities and differences among these papers? Focus on what is communicated and how it is communicated.

Geoscience vs. Geoscience Education Manuscripts All publications have similar essential content: Background: Their problem is placed in context of prior work (which is cited) and context is described Statement of Purpose Methods Results Discussion/Implications (broaden back out of specifics of their study to see broader implications) Other observations more related to format: The above content should be also addressed in a good abstract All papers have references Figures and tables are a valuable way to tell the story/support claims Geo Ed  understand and improve geoscience teaching and learning Geo Ed  study population is often part of context Geo Ed  qualitative and quantitative, includes social science methods Differences

Geoscience Education: G-SoTL vs. GER SoTL = Scholarship of Teaching and Learning G-SoTL = Geoscience SoTL What is the difference between SoTL and DBER? DBER = Discipline-based Education Research GER = Geoscience Education Research Modified from May or may not be published Systematically gather data that leads to self- reflection, improved teaching practices, and improved student learning Specific to a course and the instructor’s personal context, but must have broader applications Descriptive, innovation addresses learning goals Goal is to improve one’s own teaching practice, through innovations in pedagogy and curriculum Usually published in peer-reviewed journals Systematically gather data that leads to knowledge and theory for improved teaching and student learning within a discipline Broadly applicable beyond a single course or instructional context Addresses research questions/hypotheses Goal is to test theory and produce generalizable findings focused on a discipline

Geoscience Education: G-SoTL vs. GER Is the distinction really this clear (or important)? Of course not, just helps us to conceptualize and communicate There can be a continuum or overlap between the two G-SoTLGER Where does your work fall on this continuum? Small group discussion Questions, thoughts or concerns?

Research vs. Evaluation What is the difference between research and evaluation in education? RESEARCH:EVALUATION: and personal communication with Bridget Zimmerman, SUNY Buffalo State evaluator Ultimate test of value is contribution to knowledge or understanding of a particular group, problem, or issue. Quality and importance judged by peer review in a discipline. Questions originate with scholars in a discipline. Goal is to test theory and produce generalizable findings. “How (why) it works?” “How well did it work?” Ultimate test of value is usefulness to improve effectiveness. A distinguishing characteristic of evaluation is that, it is grounded in the everyday realities of organizations. Quality and importance judged by those who will use the findings to make decisions. Questions originate with key stakeholders and primary intended users. Goal it to determine the effectiveness of a specific program, intervention, or model.

Research vs. Evaluation Is the distinction really this clear (or important)? Of course not, just helps us to conceptualize and communicate Most scholars see a continuum or overlap between the two

Research vs. Evaluation Group activity (Think, Pair, Share) Pull out the two geoscience education papers and find examples of research and evaluation. ResearchEvaluation Where does your work fall on this continuum? Small group discussion Questions, thoughts or concerns?

Break!

On Peer Review

Structure of the Journal of Geoscience Education Editor-in-Chief (Kristen St. John) Research Editor (Alison Stokes) Research Editor (Alison Stokes) Associate Editors (10-12) Peer Reviewers Curriculum & Instruction Editor (Heather Petcovic)

JGE: Types of Papers Research Papers Empirical Research papers describe data collection and analyses to answer a specific geocognition or geoscience education research question or test a hypothesis. Theoretical Research papers describe new geocognition or geoscience education theories, including philosophies, developed to fill a theoretical or philosophical gap. Curriculum & Instruction Papers Curriculum papers describe new materials developed for geoscience-related instruction and provide evidence of its effectiveness. Instructional Approaches papers describe new teaching methods developed for geoscience- related instruction and provide evidence of its effectiveness. These papers go through full peer review

JGE: Types of Papers Literature Reviews - NEW Review articles synthesize and evaluate the published literature on a particular topic within geoscience education research or practice. Patterns and trends in the literature are described, and research gaps are identified and used to make recommendations on future directions. Commentaries - REVISED Commentary articles seek to provide a critical or alternative viewpoint on a key issue or provide an insight into an important development that is of broad interest to geoscience educators or researchers. A strong literature-based context is expected. Unlike a literature review article, the author gives his/her own opinions and perspectives. The Commentary category is not a venue for “data-weak” Curriculum & Instruction or Research papers, nor a venue for project reports or updates. These papers go through editorial review (minimum of 1 Editor and 1 AE) and may undergo peer review if needed These papers go through full peer review

Peer Review at JGE Author submits article to the journal Editor-in-Chief does initial quality check Editor-in-Chief does initial quality check Journal Editor screens paper Editor sends to Associate Editor (AE) for peer review AE sends for peer review Reviewers make recommendation AE makes recommendation Editor makes recommendation Editor-in-chief makes final recommendation Article accepted for publication Article tentatively accepted with revision Article rejected (may be invited to resubmit as a new paper) Author asked to revise Author makes revisions Article rejected (may be invited to resubmit addressing comments)

Publishing in JGE Journal Stats ( ) Manuscripts published in 2014 No revision 1 Round of Revision 2 Rounds of Revision 3 or More Rounds of Revision # of manuscripts month time window Total # submitted manuscripts Acceptance Rate Days from Receipt to First Decision Days from Receipt to Final Decision September 2009 thru February %85246 March 2010 thru August % September 2010 thru February % March 2011 thru August % September 2011 thru February % March 2012 thru August % September 2012 thru February % March 2013 to August % September 2013 thru February % March 2014 thru August % September 2014 thru February (40%)(61)(65)

Publishing in JGE Top Reasons for Rejecting a Paper (C&I) Lack of human subject IRB approval! Lacks a meaningful discussion of the findings (lessons learned, tips for implementation elsewhere) Lacks sufficient description of the curricula or instructional activity Work is not situated in the appropriate literature Does not have evidence of effectiveness of the described instruction or curricula (evaluation!) Does not fit the scope of C&I Authors did not sufficiently address reviewer/editor concerns Lacks a meaningful discussion of the findings (appropriate literature, recognizes limitations, suggestions for future work) Weak or unclear methods; poor reporting of data and results Top Reasons for Rejecting a Paper (Research) Work is not situated in the appropriate literature (including theory) Poor alignment between research questions/purpose, design, methods, and interpretations Does not fit the scope of Research

General Tips for Publishing 7.Create a good first impression Follow the rules Proofread, proofread, proofread Klinger, J. K., Scanlon, D., and Pressley, M. (2005). How to publish in scholarly journals: Educational Researcher 34 (14): DOI / X Have a good story to tell Focus your work on a single “take home” message 6.Write clearly for your intended audience Substance and style both matter Remember your audience 1.Know your reasons Contribute to an ongoing dialog Be clear how the work contributes to your research program 5.Connect your research to the field Show how your work connects to the broader literature 4.Choose your journal Consider fit, audience, and prestige (impact factor, open access) Read recent papers and the author guide 2.Discuss authorship Clarify roles and order of authors

Panel Q&A: Publishing Experiences Each panelist introduce yourself: 1. Who you are 2. Where you work 3. What kind of research you do 4. Where you’ve published 5. Ups and downs 6. Top tips to pass on

Individual Working Time Individual time to ask questions, discuss, or work on a paper Thank you for coming! Comments and suggestions welcome.