Category / Publishing

Taylor & Francis one of the most read publications

Publishing

Corrosion in large vehicles in the museum environment

Corrosion in large vehicles in the museum environment

Sustainable Design Research Centre recent publication “Modelling of metal-coating delamination incorporating variable environmental parameters” by Hammad Nazir (PhD student), Dr Zulfiqar Khan and K Stokes (Defence Science & Technology Laboratory Ministry of Defence industrial partner) has made it to the most read articles list on the Taylor & Francis website.

This research is co-funded by BU and Defence Science & Technology Laboratory Ministry of Defence, with in-kind support from The Tank Museum at Bovington and other industrial partners.

This paper has been available online since December 15th 2014 with 338 downloads/views recorded on Feb 28th 2015.

Keywords

cathodic delamination, coating delamination, degradation, mathematical modelling, diffusion, adhesion

Learn how to target high impact journals!

Guidance, Info Days, Publishing, Training

My Publishing Experience: Prof. Matthew Bennett

Wed 11 March 13:00-14:30 , TAG03, Tolpuddle Annexe, Talbot Campus, Bournemouth University.

On Wednesday 11th March, Prof. Matthew Bennett will be hosting a Writing Academy lunchbyte session at TAG03, Tolpuddle Annexe, Talbot Campus, Bournemouth University.

In this session, Matthew will talk about his personal publishing experience, his approaches to research and writing, how to develop a publication strategy and the challenges of working with colleagues and dealing with both reviewers and editors.  He will talk about all type of publishing from journal articles, to books via edited compilations.  Drawing on personal experience he will also focus on how you target high impact journals.   After the presentation, attendees are invited to stay and discuss the topic with the speaker over lunch.

To book a place on either of these workshops, please email staffdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk

If you have any questions relating to these sessions then please contact Pengpeng Hatch.

 

The editor is a *!@#*!

Publishing, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy

Editors of academic journals are regularly cursed by academics worldwide.  At universities across the globe we can regularly hear expression such as “Who does the editor think he is rejecting my paper?” or “Why does it have to take six months (or more) to find out my paper is rejected?” or “Why does the editor not understand how good/novel/innovative/… our paper is?  These kinds of expression of dismay may or may not be accompanied by an expletive.  Being both busy editors and well published authors we thought timely to put pen to paper and explain the work (role and limitations) of the typical editor of an international academic journal.

First, being an editor is not all bad, and is actually a privilege. It is an opportunity to nurture new authors, be at the forefront of your discipline and it is part of being a ‘serious’ scholar. However, we have been at the receiving end of the wrath of authors dissatisfied with something we did or didn’t do as an editor AND we have been disappointed as authors with what we perceived to be, poor editorial decisions!

We wrote a short outline of the proposed paper and send it to the editor of Women and Birth.  The idea was readily accepted and resulted in a paper published this week in the scientific journal.

The paper includes little snippets of insight and advice to authors.  For example, a reminder that the average editor of an academic journalist an unpaid volunteer, usually a full-time lecturer and/or researcher with a busy day job, who does most of her editorial work on Sunday morning when the kids are still in bed or Tuesday night after the second-year marking has been completed. We hope that knowledge of the editors’ role will help authors (a) understand the submission process better; and (b) be a little bit more patience with the editors.  And, last but not least, we hope our article helps the development of editors of the future.

 

Jenny Hall, Vanora Hundley & Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

Reference:

Hall, J., Hundley, V., van Teijlingen, E. (2015) The Journal editor: friend or foe? Women & Birth (accepted). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871519215000104

Thinking about monographs in a world of open access – blog post by Professor Geoffrey Crossick

Guidance, Post-award, Publishing

Original article is published on 22 January 2015 via – http://blog.hefce.ac.uk/2015/01/22/thinking-about-monographs-in-a-world-of-open-access/

Distinguished Professor of the Humanities, School of Advanced Study, University of London

In this post, Professor Geoffrey Crossick introduces his report on monographs and open access, outlining the key messages of the report and giving his personal take on the issues and the wider contexts. Professor Crossick is Distinguished Professor of the Humanities, School of Advanced Study, University of London and led the HEFCE Monographs and Open Access Project.
Open access to research publications has in recent years emerged as a major issue for academics, publishers and funders. Discussion and policy have, however, overwhelmingly focused on articles in journals. That is where funders, including HEFCE and RCUK, have announced mandates which require open access, and with most academic journals now published in digital format it is easier to think about making them open access.

There has been only limited discussion of how open access might apply to books, even though these are an important way in which academics in the arts, humanities and social sciences communicate their research. This classically means a monograph, but research books also include works such as scholarly editions, books of research essays by different authors, and scholarly exhibition catalogues.

I say only limited discussion, but underneath the surface there has been a great deal of paddling going on. This has meant debates about how monographs (I’ll use the term from now on to refer to all research books) might be made available on an open access basis, and a variety of initiatives to find financially and organisationally viable ways of doing so.

The Finch Report on open access focused above all on journal articles, and acknowledged that more work was needed to understand the issues with respect to monographs. HEFCE explicitly recognised this when it announced that it would not require them to be open access for the next REF.

And that is where I came in. Late in 2012 HEFCE invited me to lead some work on the implications of open access for monographs. The aim was not to come up with Finch-style policy recommendations, because the development of open access for books is at too early a stage for that. What was needed was some consultation, collecting of information and thinking with a view to producing a report that would be helpful to those interested in developing policy though not in itself setting out what policy might be.

I readily accepted the invitation. Book-centred disciplines have been part of my life as an academic (I’m a historian) and in my roles in higher education and research management. The arts, humanities, and social sciences matter to me, and I appreciate the importance of securing the future of the research book in a changing world of scholarly communication.

I put together an Expert Reference Group drawn from academics, librarians, publishers, funders and others to support me in this work. Together we set about a project that from the outset was not about open access alone, but about the whole position of the monograph today. If we didn’t understand the role of the monograph in research activity and communication, if we didn’t understand its function in the cultures of disciplines and departments, if we didn’t know what was happening to the monograph today, then we really couldn’t begin to understand what open access might mean for it.

My report to HEFCE (and to the AHRC and ESRC who supported the project) was published on 22 January. It covers a lot of ground in exploring the key issues that need to be understood by anyone wanting to think about policy in this area. It needs some 70 pages plus annexes to engage with the reality of what books mean, as well as the potential and the challenges of their moving to open access. The report, therefore, has much to say about the world of research and publication in universities.

As a humanities scholar I’m used to reporting complexity where complexity exists, as it does here. Some things are nonetheless clear. Talk of the monograph in crisis is hard to sustain – they’re being published in ever-increasing numbers, academics are writing and reading them, and libraries and individuals are buying them. That doesn’t mean that all is rosy, but it is important to see open access as an opportunity rather than as a response to a crisis.

It is essential that any future for open access monographs sustains their fundamental importance in most arts, humanities and social science disciplines. That means better technology to enable many of the material qualities of the book that go beyond words alone (the format, images, layout, references and much else) to be retained in a digital future. Though few academics told us that they enjoyed reading a whole research monograph on a screen – if they like it they buy or borrow a print edition. Printed books will not disappear.

It also means being flexible about the kind of licences required for books on open access, it means overcoming the potential high charges that owners of third-party rights (to images, texts, bars of music or dance notation) might impose, and it means finding the business models that will make it work. On this last issue there are many experiments underway and it seems to me improbable that any one of them will become dominant – the future will be one with a diversity of business models.

There is much more in the report and I really look forward to its discussion, and to see how HEFCE and others will take the issues forward. Open access carries with it great potential for larger readership and easier access, and also for new ways of engaging with and using the results of research. I was struck by the constructive approach that I found in responses from academics to the question of open access for monographs.

There were, of course, anxieties and policy needs to take these into account, but there was also real recognition of the potential. My advice to HEFCE and other policy makers is that there is much to be gained by working with the grain of academic opinion, and much to be lost by not doing so. I look forward to the debate!

Major HEFCE study of monographs and open access sheds light on complex issues

Guidance, Post-award, Publishing

Original article appeared on 21 January 2015 via – http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/newsarchive/2015/news99909.html

The Monographs and Open Access Project considers the place of monographs in the arts, humanities and social science disciplines, and how they fit into the developing world of open access to research. It concludes that open access for monographs has a great deal to contribute to scholarly communication, but that the challenges of introducing it will be real and policy should take account of the various issues identified in the report.

The Monographs and Open Access Project was led by Geoffrey Crossick, Distinguished Professor of Humanities at the School of Advanced Study, University of London [Note 1]. It was commissioned by HEFCE in partnership with the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

Important messages in the report are that:

  • Monographs are a vitally important and distinctive vehicle for research communication, and must be sustained in any moves to open access. The availability of printed books alongside the open-access versions will be essential.
  • Contrary to many perceptions, it would not be appropriate to talk of a crisis of the monograph; this does not mean that monographs are not facing challenges, but the arguments for open access would appear to be for broader and more positive reasons than solving some supposed crisis.
  • Open access offers both short- and long-term advantages for monograph publication and use; many of these are bound up with a transition to digital publishing that has not been at the same speed as that for journals.
  • There is no single dominant emerging business model for supporting open-access publishing of monographs; a range of approaches will coexist for some time and it is unlikely that any single model will emerge as dominant. Policies will therefore need to be flexible.

Evidence to support the project was gathered through an extensive programme of consultations, surveys, data-gathering and focused research activities. The research was supported and shaped by an Expert Reference Group of publishers, academics, librarians, funders, open access experts with the additional help of distinguished representatives from overseas.

This project was set up following advice to HEFCE that monographs and other long-form publications should be excluded from requirements for open access in the post-2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF).

Professor Geoffrey Crossick said:

‘This project has demonstrated very clearly the vital importance of monographs to the academic community as a way of developing research thinking, a vehicle for research communication, a demonstrator of academic quality, and much more. Open access offers significant short- and long-term advantages for monograph publishing that should be pursued, but the clear message is that the academically essential qualities of the monograph must be sustained in any moves to open access.

‘The project has shown that, for open access to be achievable, a number of key issues must be tackled. Open access depends on a satisfactory transition to digital publishing that hasn’t yet happened for books in the way that it has for journals, and the various business models that can support open-access monographs are still largely experimental. Furthermore, the potential costs of third-party rights could pose serious problems, and there are issues around licensing that will need careful handling.

I have been encouraged by the very positive way in which academics and others have engaged with this project; it is important that this engagement continues, because there is much to be gained by working with the grain, and much to be lost by not doing so.’

Welcoming the report, David Sweeney, Director, Research, Education and Knowledge Exchange at HEFCE, said:

‘This report makes a huge contribution to the evolving debate around open access, shedding much-needed light on the issues around delivering open access to books. The wealth of evidence and commentary that this project has generated will spark continued debate among academics, learned societies and publishers, as well as provide important guidance to research funders and others interested in developing policies in this area.

‘I am very grateful to Professor Crossick for the open and engaged way that he has handled his investigation into this complex and sensitive area. The report is firmly grounded in the perspectives of the communities that rely so much on monograph publishing, and is all the stronger for it.

‘Monographs sit outside the open-access requirements for the next REF. But the long timescales for book authorship and publishing mean that any policy for open-access monographs in future REF exercises would need to be established soon to give due notice to the sector.’

Read the report

Next steps

HEFCE will consider this report and discuss its policy implications with other research funders including AHRC and ESRC, recognising that any steps towards policies for open-access monographs should be preceded by a thorough process of consultation and engagement.

Tweet #OpenAccess

Notes

  1. A monograph is a long academic book on a single research topic, normally written by one or sometimes two authors. For this project, the term was used more broadly to include edited collections of research essays, critical editions of texts and other works, and other longer outputs of research such as scholarly exhibition catalogues.
  2. The HEFCE Monographs and Open Access Project launched in late 2013. It was led by Professor Geoffrey Crossick and was overseen by a steering group, comprising membership from HEFCE, AHRC, ESRC and the British Academy.
  3. In March 2014, the UK higher education funding bodies announced a new policy for open-access in the post-2014 REF, requiring that certain outputs be made available in open-access format to be admissible to the next REF. Monographs and other long-form publications were excluded from these requirements.
  4. The report, setting out the findings of the project and the results of the various strands of research, is available on the HEFCE web-site.
  5. The remit of the HEFCE Monographs and Open Access Project was:
  • To develop an understanding of the scale and nature of the difficulties that are thought to be facing monograph publishing.
  • To develop an understanding of the place, purpose and appropriateness of the scholarly monograph within the overall ecology of scholarly communication in those arts, humanities and social science disciplines where it plays a significant part. This should include, among other issues, the importance of the monograph to scholarly communication and to reputation and career progression.
  • To examine the role that innovation in publishing and access models can play in ensuring that the various benefits and attributes associated with the monograph can be sustained and, where possible, enhanced. This will involve examining a range of opportunities, risks, challenges and solutions, which should include identifying and examining current and emerging models for monograph publishing, with particular reference to open-access models.

 

Recent methods papers at BU

Publishing

In the past six weeks we saw the publication of three methods papers by BU academics.     BU’s Joanne Mayoh and her colleague Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie in the USA published a paper on mixed-methods approaches in phenomenology.1  They argue that phenomenological research methods work extremely well as a component of mixed-methods research approaches. The purpose of this article is twofold, they provide: (1) a philosophical justification for using what they label mixed-methods phenomenological research (MMPR); and (2) examples of MMPR in practice to underline a number of potential models for MMPR that can practically be used in future research.

In the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences Catherine Angell and Jane Hunt with Professor Emerita Jo Alexander offer methodological insights into the ‘draw and write’ research method. 2   Their literature review identified that the method has been used inconsistently and found that there are issues for researchers in relation to interpretation of creative work and analysis of data. As a result of this, an improvement on this method, entitled ‘draw, write and tell’, was developed in an attempt to provide a more child-orientated and consistent approach to data collection, interpretation and analysis. This article identifies the issues relating to ‘draw and write’ and describes the development and application of ‘draw, write and tell’ as a case study, noting its limitations and benefits.

Finally, BU Visiting Faculty Emma Pitchforth and CMMPH’s Edwin van Teijlingen together with Consultant Midwife Helen MacKenzie Bryers published a paper advocating mixed-methods approaches in health research.3  This paper outlines the different paradigms or philosophies underlying quantitative and qualitative methods and some of the on-going debates about mixed-methods. The paper further highlights a number of practical issues, such as: (1) the particular mix and order of quantitative and qualitative methods; (2) the way of integrating methods from different philosophical stance; and (3) how to synthesise mixed-methods findings.   This paper is accompanied by an editorial in  Nepal Journal of Epidemiology. 4

 

Professor Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health

 

References:

  1.  Mayoh, J., Onwuegbuzie, A.J.  (2015) Toward a Conceptualization of Mixed Methods Phenomenological Research, Journal of Mixed Methods Research 9(1): 91-107.
  2. Angell, C., Alexander, J., Hunt, J.A.  (2015) ‘Draw, write and tell’: A literature review and methodological development on the ‘draw and write’ research method.  Journal of Early Childhood Research, 13(1): 17-28.
  3. MacKenzie Bryers, H., van Teijlingen, E. Pitchforth, E. (2014) Advocating mixed-methods approaches in health research, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 4(5): 417-422.
  4. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Wasti, S.P., Sathian, B. (2014) Mixed-methods approaches in health research in Nepal (editorial) Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 4(5): 415-416.

 

RKEO Coffee Morning – Today!

Guidance, Info Days, Post-award, Publishing, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy

The RKEO coffee morning is today in the RKE Office on the 4th Floor Melbury House (Lansdowne Campus) starting at 9.30am. The morning will concentrate on the wonders of the Project Delivery Team within RKEO, its personnel, the work they do and how they can help you with live surgeries and demonstrations on open access, BRIAN, the online ethics checklist and RED so please come along!

The Team has three specialist areas: Finance, Outputs and Governance which feed into Faculty dedicated teams. So if you want to know more about managing projects, applying for ethics approval, how to use BRIAN, Open Access or anything else Research and Knowledge Exchange focused please come along and have a chat with us, or just to enjoy a coffee and cake.

 

The coffee morning will be held in the RKE Office on the 4th Floor Melbury House (Lansdowne Campus) starting at 9.30am on Wednesday 4th February.

 

We look forward to seeing you!

Publishing

Tourism, a global industry, brings with it a number of public health problems, one of which is the spread of sexually transmitted infections transmitted between travellers and hosts.
Previous studies have largely focused on sex workers and sex tourists. This latest paper ‘Nepalese Trekking Guides: A Quantitative Study of Sexual Health Knowledge And Sexual Behaviour’ published yesterday in the Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences assesses sexual behaviour, knowledge and condom use among male trekking guides in Nepal. 

A self-administered questionnaire survey (n=324) was conducted using snowball sampling amongst men working as mountain trekking guides in Nepal. Most respondents (59%) had  initiated sex before the age of 18. Most (84 %) reported sexual relations with a woman other than their partner, 46% reported foreign partners, 43% had Nepalese partners, and 28% had concurrent foreign and Nepalese partners. Most (70 %) reported ever having sex with a foreign woman and two-thirds had had sexual intercourse with foreign women in the previous 12 months. Participants’ age, education status, age of first sex, smoking and drinking habits and English proficiency were significant predictors of having sex with foreign women.About 60% reported condom use during their most recent occasion of extra-martial sex. A similar proportion had used a condom during last sexual intercourse with a foreign woman. The likelihood of condom use was associated with a guide’s age, educational level, ethnicity, age of first sex and work experience. Most trekking guides reported sexual relations with foreign women as well as irregular use of condoms. Although sexual health knowledge about among trekking guides is high, some misconceptions still result in unsafe sex. Hence there is an urgent need to revise the existing training for trekking guides and implement appropriate health promotion programmes.

Reference:

Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Regmi, P., Bhatta, P., Ingham, R., Stone, N. (2015) Sexual health knowledge and risky sexual behaviour of Nepalese trekking guides. Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences 1 (4): 35-42.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

 

 

 

How to get published in an academic journal: top tips from editors

Publishing

Original article – http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jan/03/how-to-get-published-in-an-academic-journal-top-tips-from-editors?CMP=new_1194

Journal editors share their advice on how to structure a paper, write a cover letter – and deal with awkward feedback from reviewers.

 

Writing for academic journals is highly competitive. Even if you overcome the first hurdle and generate a valuable idea or piece of research – how do you then sum it up in a way that will capture the interest of reviewers?

There’s no simple formula for getting published – editors’ expectations can vary both between and within subject areas. But there are some challenges that will confront all academic writers regardless of their discipline. How should you respond to reviewer feedback? Is there a correct way to structure a paper? And should you always bother revising and resubmitting? We asked journal editors from a range of backgrounds for their tips on getting published.

The writing stage

1) Focus on a story that progresses logically, rather than chronologically

Take some time before even writing your paper to think about the logic of the presentation. When writing, focus on a story that progresses logically, rather than the chronological order of the experiments that you did.
Deborah Sweet, editor of Cell Stem Cell and publishing director at Cell Press

2) Don’t try to write and edit at the same time

Open a file on the PC and put in all your headings and sub-headings and then fill in under any of the headings where you have the ideas to do so. If you reach your daily target (mine is 500 words) put any other ideas down as bullet points and stop writing; then use those bullet points to make a start the next day.

If you are writing and can’t think of the right word (eg for elephant) don’t worry – write (big animal long nose) and move on – come back later and get the correct term. Write don’t edit; otherwise you lose flow.
Roger Watson, editor-in-chief, Journal of Advanced Nursing

3) Don’t bury your argument like a needle in a haystack

If someone asked you on the bus to quickly explain your paper, could you do so in clear, everyday language? This clear argument should appear in your abstract and in the very first paragraph (even the first line) of your paper. Don’t make us hunt for your argument as for a needle in a haystack. If it is hidden on page seven that will just make us annoyed. Oh, and make sure your argument runs all the way through the different sections of the paper and ties together the theory and empirical material.
Fiona Macaulay, editorial board, Journal of Latin American Studies

4) Ask a colleague to check your work

One of the problems that journal editors face is badly written papers. It might be that the writer’s first language isn’t English and they haven’t gone the extra mile to get it proofread. It can be very hard to work out what is going on in an article if the language and syntax are poor.
Brian Lucey, editor, International Review of Financial Analysis

5) Get published by writing a review or a response

Writing reviews is a good way to get published – especially for people who are in the early stages of their career. It’s a chance to practice at writing a piece for publication, and get a free copy of a book that you want. We publish more reviews than papers so we’re constantly looking for reviewers.

Some journals, including ours, publish replies to papers that have been published in the same journal. Editors quite like to publish replies to previous papers because it stimulates discussion.
Yujin Nagasawa, co-editor and review editor of the European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, philosophy of religion editor of Philosophy Compass

6) Don’t forget about international readers

We get people who write from America who assume everyone knows the American system – and the same happens with UK writers. Because we’re an international journal, we need writers to include that international context.
Hugh McLaughlin, editor in chief, Social Work Education – the International Journal

7) Don’t try to cram your PhD into a 6,000 word paper

Sometimes people want to throw everything in at once and hit too many objectives. We get people who try to tell us their whole PhD in 6,000 words and it just doesn’t work. More experienced writers will write two or three papers from one project, using a specific aspect of their research as a hook.
Hugh McLaughlin, editor in chief, Social Work Education – the International Journal

Submitting your work

8) Pick the right journal: it’s a bad sign if you don’t recognise any of the editorial board

Check that your article is within the scope of the journal that you are submitting to. This seems so obvious but it’s surprising how many articles are submitted to journals that are completely inappropriate. It is a bad sign if you do not recognise the names of any members of the editorial board. Ideally look through a number of recent issues to ensure that it is publishing articles on the same topic and that are of similar quality and impact.
Ian Russell, editorial director for science at Oxford University Press

9) Always follow the correct submissions procedures

Often authors don’t spend the 10 minutes it takes to read the instructions to authors which wastes enormous quantities of time for both the author and the editor and stretches the process when it does not need to
Tangali Sudarshan, editor, Surface Engineering

10) Don’t repeat your abstract in the cover letter
We look to the cover letter for an indication from you about what you think is most interesting and significant about the paper, and why you think it is a good fit for the journal. There is no need to repeat the abstract or go through the content of the paper in detail – we will read the paper itself to find out what it says. The cover letter is a place for a bigger picture outline, plus any other information that you would like us to have.
Deborah Sweet, editor of Cell Stem Cell and publishing director at Cell Press

11) A common reason for rejections is lack of context

Make sure that it is clear where your research sits within the wider scholarly landscape, and which gaps in knowledge it’s addressing. A common reason for articles being rejected after peer review is this lack of context or lack of clarity about why the research is important.
Jane Winters, executive editor of the Institute of Historical Research’s journal, Historical Research and associate editor of Frontiers in Digital Humanities: Digital History

12) Don’t over-state your methodology

Ethnography seems to be the trendy method of the moment, so lots of articles submitted claim to be based on it. However, closer inspection reveals quite limited and standard interview data. A couple of interviews in a café do not constitute ethnography. Be clear – early on – about the nature and scope of your data collection. The same goes for the use of theory. If a theoretical insight is useful to your analysis, use it consistently throughout your argument and text.
Fiona Macaulay, editorial board, Journal of Latin American Studies

Dealing with feedback

13) Respond directly (and calmly) to reviewer comments

When resubmitting a paper following revisions, include a detailed document summarising all the changes suggested by the reviewers, and how you have changed your manuscript in light of them. Stick to the facts, and don’t rant. Don’t respond to reviewer feedback as soon as you get it. Read it, think about it for several days, discuss it with others, and then draft a response.
Helen Ball, editorial board, Journal of Human Lactation

14) Revise and resubmit: don’t give up after getting through all the major hurdles

You’d be surprised how many authors who receive the standard “revise and resubmit” letter never actually do so. But it is worth doing – some authors who get asked to do major revisions persevere and end up getting their work published, yet others, who had far less to do, never resubmit. It seems silly to get through the major hurdles of writing the article, getting it past the editors and back from peer review only to then give up.
Fiona Macaulay, editorial board, Journal of Latin American Studies

15) It is acceptable to challenge reviewers, with good justification

It is acceptable to decline a reviewer’s suggestion to change a component of your article if you have a good justification, or can (politely) argue why the reviewer is wrong. A rational explanation will be accepted by editors, especially if it is clear you have considered all the feedback received and accepted some of it.
Helen Ball, editorial board of Journal of Human Lactation

16) Think about how quickly you want to see your paper published

Some journals rank more highly than others and so your risk of rejection is going to be greater. People need to think about whether or not they need to see their work published quickly – because certain journals will take longer. Some journals, like ours, also do advance access so once the article is accepted it appears on the journal website. This is important if you’re preparing for a job interview and need to show that you are publishable.
Hugh McLaughlin, editor in chief, Social Work Education – the International Journal

17) Remember: when you read published papers you only see the finished article

Publishing in top journals is a challenge for everyone, but it may seem easier for other people. When you read published papers you see the finished article, not the first draft, nor the first revise and resubmit, nor any of the intermediate versions – and you never see the failures.
Philip Powell, managing editor of the Information Systems Journal

Enter the Guardian university awards 2015 and join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered.

Professor Stephen Page publishes new editions of popular textbooks

Publishing

 

 

Stephen J Page, Professor of Tourism/Hospitality in the Faculty of Management  has just published his 39th book, a 5th edition of his popular colour undergraduate one semester textbook Tourism Management with Routledge.  The 5th edition has a range of new innovative pedagogic features (including youtube clips) that engage students and lecturers with current debates in the area of study including sustainability, events management and the challenge of managing sensitive environments in a simple and clear manner.

He has also recently published a student paperback edition of the 2012 Handbook of Events published by Routledge, co edited with Dr Joanne Connell at Exeter University Business School with several contributions from Bournemouth University Staff.  This peer reviewed collection of essays has quickly established itself as the leading review of research in the area, aimed at final year undergraduate and postgraduate students and lecturers.

31 publications by January 31st!

PG research, Publishing, student research

 

My contribution to the BU Research Blog this year started on 3-1-2015 under the heading First BU publication of 2015.  I soon discovered that with loads of journals publishing their first issue of the new year in early January and books being published early in the new year (rather than late in the previous one) the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences had quite a few new publications lined up.  It seems a nice idea to write another BU Research Blog under the title ’20/20′ referring in our case to twenty publications by January 20th with wordplay on the 20-20 perfection vision.  But before January 20th the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences had already more than 20 publications.

The plan changed to report 25 publications by January 25th.  This time the title in my head was ‘In the month 25-25 …’ a poor wordplay of the song ‘In the year 2525’.  In The Year 2525 (Exordium & Terminus) was a hit in my youth (in the late Sixties by the US duo Denny Zager and Rick Evans).   Unfortunately, this plan was short-lived too as I was made aware of several publications by Faculty of Health & Social Sciences colleagues in the space of three days.

Hence the final attempt ’31 publications by January 31st!’ (published today 26th January) before I find out about further publications!

 

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health

Faculty of Health & Social Sciences

 

The list of 31 Faculty of Health & Social Sciences publication for early 2015, comprising 21 papers and ten book chapter:

  1. Hemingway, A., Norton, L &  Aarts, C. (2015) Principles of Lifeworld Led Public Health Practice in the UK and Sweden: Reducing Health Inequalities Nursing Research & Practice,  Vol. 2015  Article ID 124591, 4 pages
  2. Jonathan Williams and his colleagues at Cardiff University published: ‘Development of a computation biomechanical model for the investigation of infant head injury by shaking’ Medicine, Science and the Law,   http://msl.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/12/30/0025802414564495.abstract
  3. Bernardo G.L., Pacheco da Costa Proença R, Cristin M, Calvo, M., Fiates, G.M.R., Hartwell H. (2015),”Assessment of the healthy dietary diversity of a main meal in a self-service restaurant”, British Food Journal,  117(1): 286 – 301.
  4. Ashencaen Crabtree, S., Parker, J. (2015) Reflections on Social Work and Human Rights, SUHAKAM Malaysian Journal of Human Rights Journal, pp.19-30 (forthcoming)
  5.  Ashencaen Crabtree, S., Parker, J., Azman, A., Masu’d, F. (2015) Typologies of learning in international student placements, Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work & Development. Advanced access/online Doi: 10.1080/02185385.2014.1003393
  6. Ashencaen Crabtree, S. and Parker, J. (2015) Being male in female spaces: Perceptions of male students on masculinity on a qualifying course. Revista de Asistenţă Socială, anul XIII, 4/2014, pp. 7-26, www.swreview.ro
  7. Simkhada, P.P., van Teijlingen, E., Marahatta, S.B. Mental health services in Nepal: Is it too late? Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences (accepted).
  8. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen E., Winter, R.C., Fanning, C., Dhungel, A., Marahatta S.B. Why are so many Nepali women killing themselves? A review of key issues Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences (accepted).
  9. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. Wasti, S.P., Sathian B., Mixed-methods approaches in health research in Nepal (Editorial) Nepal Journal of Epidemiology (accepted).
  10. Galvin, K., Todres L (2015) Dignity as honour-wound: An experiential and relational view Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice.
  11. 16.  Worswick, L., Little, C., Ryan, K., Carr, E. (2015),Interprofessional learning in primary care: An exploration of the service user experience leads to a new model for co-learning Nurse Education Today
  12. Murphy, J., Pulman, A., Jeffery, J., Worswick, L., Ford, G., 2015. Translating research into practice: Evaluation of an e-learning resource for health care professionals to provide nutrition advice and support for cancer survivors. Nurse Education Today, 35(1), 271-276.
  13. Hundley, V., Luce, A., van Teijlingen Do midwives need to be more media savvy? MIDIRS (accepted).
  14. Rachel Arnold published from her PhD research: Arnold, R., van Teijlingen, E.R., Ryan, K., Holloway, I. (2015) Understanding Afghan health care providers: A qualitative study of the culture of care in a Kabul maternity hospital, BJOG 122: 260-267.
  15. Angell, C., Alexander J, Hunt J (2015) ‘Draw, write and tell’: A literature review and methodological development on the ‘draw and write’ research method, Journal of Early Childhood Research 13(1): 17-28.
  16. Gyawali, B., Keeling, J., van Teijlingen, E., Dhakal. L., Aro, A.R. (2015) Cervical Cancer Screening: Ethical Consideration, Medicolegal & Bioethics 5 :1-6
  17. Grylka-Baeschlin, S., van Teijlingen, E.R., Stoll, K., Gross, M.M. (2015) Translation and validation of the German version of the Mother-Generated Index and its application during the postnatal period. Midwifery 31(1): 47–53.
  18. MacKenzie Bryers, H., van Teijlingen, E. Pitchforth, E., Advocating mixed-methods approaches in health research, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology (accepted).
  19. Hall, J., Hundley, V., van Teijlingen, E. The Journal editor: friend or foe? Women & Birth (accepted).
  20. Marsh, W., Colbourne, D., Way, S., Hundley, V., 2014. Would a student run postnatal clinic make a valuable addition to midwifery education in the UK? A systematic review. Nurse Education Today. (In Press)
  21. Bevan A.L., Hartwell H, Hemingway, A., Rossana Pacheco da Costa Proença (2015) An exploration of the fruit and vegetable “foodscape” in a university setting for staff: A preliminary study British Food Journal, 117(1): 37-49.

 

Book chapters:

  1. Edwin van Teijlingen published a chapter on ‘Sociology of Midwifery’ in: Sociology for Midwives, Deery, R., Denny, E. & Letherby, G. (eds.) published by Polity Pres
  2. PhD student Sheetal Sharma is co-author of a book chapter called ‘Customs and believes surrounding newborn babies in rural areas’ published  The Dynamics of Health in Nepalet al. by Himal Books, Nepal.
  3. Benoit, C., Sandall, J., Benoit, C., Murray, S.F., van Teijlingen E., Wrede, S., & Declercq, G. New directions in global policy: maternal health. In: E. Kuhlmann, E., Bourgeault, I. (eds.) Palgrave International Handbook on Health Care Policy & Governance,  Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan (forthcoming 2015)
  4. Jenny Hall has a chapter forthcoming ‘Spirituality and compassion and maternity care’ in The Roar behind the silence: why kindness, compassion and respect matter in maternity care, S. Byrom & S. Downe (eds.) published by Pinter and Martin: http://www.pinterandmartin.com/the-roar-behind-the-silence.html?
  5. van Teijlingen, E, Simkhada, P., Wasti, P.P. (2015) Nepal is Changing: Modernisation and Diversity in Healthcare.  In: Wasti, S.P., Simkhada, P.P. & van Teijlingen, E. (Eds.) The Dynamics of Health in Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: Social Science Baha & Himal Books: 1-15.
  6. Wasti, S.P., Simkhada, P.P. & van Teijlingen, E. (Eds.) (2015) Socio-Cultural Aspects of HIV/AIDS. In: The Dynamics of Health in Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: Social Science Baha & Himal Books: 47-62.
  7. Simkhada, B., Sharma, A., van Teijlingen, E., Silwal, R.C., Simkhada, P. (2015) Exploring Maternal Mortality Reduction. In: Wasti, S.P. et al. The Dynamics of Health in Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: Social Science Baha & Himal Books: 95-121
  8. Devkota, B., van Teijlingen, E. (2015) Exploring Rebel Health Services during the Maoist People’s War. In: Wasti, S.P. et al. (Eds.)  The Dynamics of Health in Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: Social Science Baha & Himal Books: 122-130.
  9. Devkota, S., Maharjan, H.M., van Teijlingen, E. (2015) Media and Health.  In: Wasti, S.P., Simkhada, P.P. & van Teijlingen, E. (Eds.)  The Dynamics of Health in Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal: Social Science Baha & Himal Books: 169-184.
  10. Parker, J. (2015) Single Shared Assessments in social work. In J.D. Wright (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn, Elsevier, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.28105-1 .

 

New BU publication in British Food Journal

Publishing

Congratulations to three BU researchers Ann Bevan, Heather Hartwell and Ann Hemingway for their 2015 paper  ‘An exploration of the fruit and vegetable “foodscape” in a university setting for staff: A preliminary study’ in the British Food Journal [1].   Interesting, this timely paper is published in FOOD & NUTRITION WEEK, see more details at:  http://staffintranet.bournemouth.ac.uk/news/news/thismonth/foodandnutritionweek.php

 

Reference:

  1. Bevan A.L., Hartwell H, Hemingway, A, Rossana Pacheco da Costa Proença (2015) An exploration of the fruit and vegetable “foodscape” in a university setting for staff: A preliminary study  British Food Journal, 117(1): 37-49.

 

Well done!

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

Faculty of Health & Social Sciences

Most cited article in MIDWIFERY

Publishing

The scientific paper ‘Risk, Theory, Social & Medical Models: a critical analysis of the concept of risk in maternity care’ written by Dr. Helen MacKenzie Bryers (NHS Highland) and BU Professor of Reproductive Health Research is now listed on the website of the international journal Midwifery  as its top most cited paper since 2010 (1).   Midwifery, published by Elsevier, is one of the leading global journals in the field of midwifery and maternity care.

The paper provides a critical analysis of the risk concept, its development in modern society in general and UK maternity services in particular. Through the associated theory, the authors explore the origins of the current preoccupation with risk.  Using Pickstone’s historical phases of modern health care, the paper explores the way maternity services changed from a social to a medical model over the twentieth century and suggests that the risk agenda was part of this process.

‘Risk, Theory, Social & Medical Models’ has been cited 40 times in SCOPUS, measured today Jan. 25th 2015.   In Google Scholar the citation rate is even higher  and stands at 69.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal and Perinatal Health

Faculty of Health & Social Sciences

Reference

  1. MacKenzie Bryers, H., van Teijlingen, E. (2010) Risk, Theory, Social & Medical Models: a critical analysis of the concept of risk in maternity care, Midwifery 26(5): 488-496.

In metrics we trust?

Post-award, Publishing, REF Subjects, Research assessment

Back in May HEFCE launched a Call for Evidence on the role of metrics in research assessment. The Independent review chaired by by Professor James Wilsdon,  University of Sussex and supported by an independent steering group, is tasked with building on the previous 2008/9 pilot exercise to explore the current use of metrics for research assessment, consider the robustness of metrics across different disciplines, and assess their potential contribution to the development of research excellence and impact.

HEFCE received 153 responses (44% from HEIs, 27% individuals, 18% learned societies, 7% providers, 2% mission groups, 2% other). With the majority – 57% – of those who responded expressed overall scepticism about the further introduction of metrics into research assessment.

As part of the review three stakeholder workshops have been held/scheduled on key areas of interest and debate:

To date, all have been well attended and very lively. I was able to attend the I workshop in Sussex with some 150 odd other delegates including members of the metrics review panel, metrics developers and providers, researchers, university managers, and a range of stakeholders from across the research and HE community.

The day contained many thoughtful contributions from a range of speakers including: Dr Philip Campbell, Editor-in-Chief, Nature; Professor Stephen Curry, Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College; and Dr Steven Hill, Head of Research Policy, HEFCE. There was lively discussion about the value, potential role, and unintended consequences of metrics in research evaluation. If you are interested in the future role of metrics in research assessment, I would particularly recommend reviewing the presentations from David Colquhoun, Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology at UCL and Dorothy Bishop, Professor of Developmental Neuropsychology, the University of Oxford.

For further insight you could also check out the Twitter discussion, which has over 1000 tweets tagged with #HEFCEmetrics, Impact story have also helpfully encapsulated much of the story/discussion via Storify.

The results of the review will be announced at the end of March and published in the summer. The report will make recommendation againsts three time horizons:

(1) What can HEIs do to improve research management now;

(2) Suggestions for the next REF;

(3) The longer term, including identification of programmes for further work.

Huffington Post Blog BU by PhD student Sheetal Sharma

PG research, Publishing

FHSS PhD student Sheetal Sharma and ICS Integrare’s Petra ten Hoope-Bender  discuss issues around the evidence to support the policy direction after the Millennium Development Goals come to end in 2015.  The global research and policy community has been gathering the evidence and the lessons learnt on what has worked for whom and how.  They remind us that the UN General Assembly’s Open Working Group has identified 17 new goals that cover far-reaching sustainable development issues, such as ending poverty and hunger, improving health and education, making cities more sustainable, combating climate change, and protecting oceans and forests.   Read all at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/petra-ten-hoopebender/women-newborns-and-health_b_6459614.html

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH