Category / writing

New BU publication on academic writing

BU research, Featured academics, international, open access, PG research, Publishing, Research news, Uncategorized, writing

Congratulations to Dr. Orlanda Harvey in the Department of Social Sciences & Social Work, Dr. Pramod Regmi in the Department of Nursing Science and FHSS Visiting Faculty Jillian Ireland, Professional Midwifery Advocate in Poole Maternity Hospital (UHD/University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust) whose paper ‘Co-authors, colleagues, and contributors: Complexities in collaboration and sharing lessons on academic writing‘ was published today.[1] 

The paper argues that academic writing, especially in the health field, is usually an interdisciplinary team effort. It highlights some of the trials, tribulations, and benefits of working with co-authors. This includes collaborations and co-authorship between academics from different disciplines, academics of different level of careers, and authors from countries of varying economies i.e., high-income countries (HICs) and from low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This paper also provides advice in the form of several useful tips to lead authors and co-authors to support collaborative working.  Our other co-authors are: Aney Rijal, postgraduate student and Executive Editor of the journal Health Prospect based in Nepal, and Alexander van Teijlingen postgraduate student in the Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry (University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland).

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health

 

Reference:

  1. Harvey, O., van Teijlingen, A., Regmi, P.R., Ireland, J., Rijal, A., van Teijlingen, E.R. (2022) Co-authors, colleagues, and contributors: Complexities in collaboration and sharing lessons on academic writing Health Prospect 21(1):1-3.

Last BU paper of 2021

BU research, COVID-19, Featured academics, international, open access, Publishing, Research news, Uncategorized, writing

The scientific journal Nepal Journal of Epidemiology published its fourth and final issue of 2021 on December 31.  This issue included our systematic review ‘Epidemiologic characteristics, clinical management and Public Health Implications of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and meta-analysis’.  This review covered the published literature on the epidemiology, clinical management and public health prevention aspects of pregnancy and childbirth and coronavirus (COVID-19) up until December 2020.  We worked hard and fast to submit the paper as soon as possible after the end of 2020 to be able to publish up-to-date findings.  We managed this and submitted the paper on March 5th, the peer-review took some months and so did the making of the revisions.  As a result we resubmitted the manuscript of 29 September and we got the acceptance email within a week.  We made it into the next issue of the Nepal Journal of Epidemiology which published exactly one year after the data collection period had ended for our systematic review.

There are two lessons here, first even when submitting to an online journal one will experience a delay in publishing.  Secondly, the 36 papers we had appraised and included were published in 2020, meaning these scientific  papers were submitted in mid-2020 at the latest in order to make it through the peer-review process, get accepted and formatted for online publication.

In the resubmitted version we had to add as a weakness of this review that: “It is worth noting that this extensive systematic review only cover papers published in 2020, and hence studies conducted in or before 2020. This was before the emergence of variants of COVID-19, especially the delta and omicron variants.”

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH (Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health).

Another BU Impact Case Study

BU research, Featured academics, Impact, innovation, NHS, open access, Research news, writing

In 2018 BU researchers Dr. Jenny Hall and Prof. Vanora Hundley in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinal Health (CMMPH) published a paper on disabled women and maternity care.  This scientific paper was co-authored with Ms. Jillian Ireland, Professional Midwifery Advocate in University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust and BU Visiting Faculty, and Dr. Bethan Collins at the University of Liverpool (and former BU staff member).  Their paper ‘Dignity and respect during pregnancy and childbirth: a survey of the experience of disabled women’ appeared in the Open Access journal BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth and was commissioned by the charity Birthrights.   The study shows that disabled women are generally not receiving the individualised care and support they that they need to make choices about their maternity care.   At the time of publication this BU paper was picked up by various media, including in South Africa.

The study resulted in change in St Mary’s Maternity Hospital in Poole (as part of maternity care provision by University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust).  One of the innovations at Poole Maternity Hospital was  supporting a woman to give birth in hospital with her assistance dog by her side to help ease her anxiety.

This story was picked up by several newspapers including the local Bournemouth Echo under the heading ‘Dog to accompany Poole dog handler as she gives birth‘, and by several national newspapers last week when the The Guardian published ‘UK woman has baby in hospital with ‘birth dog’ by her side‘, The Times printed ‘Baby safely delivered, with a little help from woman’s best friend‘, whilst the online news website Big World Tale used the headline: ‘Woman, 24, gives birth in hospital with a DOG as ‘medical aid”.

 

Universities are always on the look out for impact generated by its research.  This seems a clear example of joint research between BU and University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust staff resulting in innovations in practice.

 

Congratulations to all involved!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

New BU paper on digital tools for diabetes

Featured academics, innovation, international, open access, Publishing, Research news, Student Engagement, student research, Women's Academic Network, writing

Congratulations to BU PhD student Nurudeen Adesina on the publication of his systematic review.  Nurudeen together with Huseyin Dogan in the Department of Computing & Informatics, Sue Green in the Nursing for Long-term Health Centre, and Fotini Tsofliou in Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) appeared in print just before Christmas with their paper ‘Effectiveness and Usability of Digital Tools to Support Dietary Self-Management of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review‘ [1].

This new paper highlights that advice on dietary intake is an essential first line intervention for the management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Digital tools such as web-based and smartphone apps have been suggested to provide a novel way of providing information on diet for optimal glucose regulation in women with GDM. This systematic review explored the effectiveness and usability of digital tools designed to support dietary self-management of GDM. A systematic search of Medline, Embase,
Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, and Scopus using key search terms identified 1476 papers reporting research studies, of which 16 met the specified inclusion criteria. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the ErasmusAGE Quality Score or the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018. The findings show that the adoption of digital tools may be an effective approach to support self-management relating to healthy diet, health behaviour, and adherence to therapy in women with GDM as a usable intervention. However, the four authors argue that there is a lack of evidence concerning the effectiveness of tools to support the dietary management of GDM. Consideration for ethnic specific dietary advice and evidence-based frameworks in the development of effective digital tools for dietary management of GDM should be considered as these aspects have been limited in the studies reviewed.

Reference:

Adesina, N.; Dogan, H.; Green, S.; Tsofliou, F. Effectiveness and Usability of Digital Tools to Support Dietary Self-Management of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review. Nutrients 2022, 14, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14010010

Research papers: A game of Happy Families

BU research, Delicious links, Featured academics, international, open accecss, Publishing, Research news, Student Engagement, Uncategorized, writing

Recently I completed a game of Happy Families, to be more precise I added a paper with my fourth family member to a ‘collection’.  I got the idea from Prof. Jonathan Parker  and Prof. Sara Ashencaen Crabtree (both based in the Department of Social Sciences & Social Work) who published a paper with their children a few years ago [1].  When Jonathan told me about this achievement I had already published two dozen of scientific and practitioners’ papers with my partner  Jilly Ireland, Professional Midwifery Advocate in University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust and FHSS Visiting Faculty (for example 2-5).

Two years ago, Dr. Preeti Mahato (in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health) and I published a paper with my middle son about ‘Vaping and e-cigarettes: A public health warning or a health promotion tool?’ [6].  The following year, Prof. Hamid Bouchachia (Faculty of Science & Technology) and I co-authored a paper with my oldest son on AI and health in Nepal [7], followed by a paper this year on academic publishing with FHSS’s Dr. Shovita Dhakal Adhikari (Department of Social Sciences & Social Work , Dr. Nirmal Aryal (CMMPH) and Dr. Pramod Regmi (Department of Nursing Sciences  [8].  And to complete the four family members in the Happy Families set, I published a paper late last month with my daughter under the title ‘ Understanding health education, health promotion and public health’ [9].

 

 

 

References:

  1. Parker, J., Ashencaen Crabtree, S., Crabtree Parker, M. and Crabtree Parker, I., 2019. ‘Behaving like a Jakun!’ A case study of conflict, ‘othering’ and indigenous knowledge in the Orang Asli of Tasik Chini. Journal of Sociology and Development, 3 (1): 23-45.
  2. Ireland, J., Bryers, H., van Teijlingen E., Hundley, V., Farmer, J., Harris, F., Tucker, J., Kiger, A., Caldow, J. (2007) Competencies and Skills for Remote & Rural Maternity Care: A Review of the Literature, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 58(2): 105-115.
  3. van Teijlingen E., Simkhada, P., Ireland, J. (2010) Lessons learnt from undertaking maternity-care research in developing countries. Evidence-based Midwifery 8(1): 12-6.
  4. Ireland, J., van Teijlingen, E, Kemp J. (2015) Twinning in Nepal: the Royal College of Midwives UK and the Midwifery Society of Nepal working in partnership, Journal of Asian Midwives 2 (1): 26-33. http://ecommons.aku.edu/jam/vol2/iss1/5/
  5. Ireland, J., Khashu, M., Cescutti-Butler, L., van Teijlingen, E, Hewitt-Taylor, J. (2016) Experiences of fathers with babies admitted to neonatal care units: A review of literature, Journal of Neonatal Nursing 22(4): 171–176.
  6. van Teijlingen, E., Mahato, P., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, C., Asim, M., & Sathian, B. (2019). Vaping and e-cigarettes: A public health warning or a health promotion tool? Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, 9(4), 792-794. https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v9i4.26960
  7. van Teijlingen, A., Tuttle, T., Bouchachia, H., Sathian, B., & van Teijlingen, E. (2020). Artificial Intelligence and Health in Nepal. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, 10(3), 915–918. https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v10i3.31649
  8. van Teijlingen, E.R., Dhakal Adhikari, S., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, A., Aryal, N., Panday, S. (2021). Publishing, identifiers & metrics: Playing the numbers game. Health Prospect, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.3126/hprospect.v20i1.37391
  9. van Teijlingen, K., Devkota, B., Douglas, F., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2021) Understanding health education, health promotion and public health, Journal of Health Promotion 9(1):1-7.  https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/jhp/article/view/40957

Facebook goes ‘Meta’: what does it mean in practice?

Research communication, writing

Dr Carina E I Westling and Dr Hongchuan Yu write about Facebook’s recent announcement and what the ‘Metaverse’ will entail… 

Facebook’s recent announcement about its new focus creates more questions than clarity. The new brand name suggests a desire for greater confluence which, in line with the legacy business model inherited from Facebook, means closer meshing with the totality of our personal and professional lives. How this will manifest is yet to be seen but the devil will be in the detail, as Meta will create both challenges and opportunities for innovation in design and policy. With close attention to emerging technologies and the policy frameworks that support their implementation, researchers and educators at the Faculty of Media and Communication at Bournemouth University are collaborating with industry advisors to make our new programmes BA Immersive Media and BSc Virtual and Augmented Reality crucibles for responsible creative development.

The ‘embodied internet’ is an oxymoron, but virtual (VR) and to some extent also augmented (AR) and mixed reality (XR), technologies seek to produce an approximation of physical experience. With 5G, many scenarios of real-time interaction based on cloud computing can be fulfilled. This offers new possibilities to the creative industries through VR/AR/XR technologies, ostensibly to realise the ‘metaverse’; the convergence of our physical and digital lives. However, you cannot accelerate connectivity without proportionate risks of exposure.

Effective storytelling will need to be ethical 

Our research and teaching programmes are geared towards development of the human skills that drive excellent storytelling in and beyond games and experience design, and we are keenly aware of the changing policy landscape that is sure to follow in the wake of interactive VR/AR/XR. Since 2015-2016, the management of and risks associated with the type of personal data that is the bread and butter of all free-at-the-point-of-use, audience-facing digital platforms is a top priority, and the opening up of VR/AR/XR technologies to real-time interactivity will raise the stakes further.

Meta’s vision, or rather proposition for a technologically convergent interactive and social space is broad, meaning that audiences will comprise naïve users in everyday situations as well as seasoned users in professional situations, and every type of audience in between. At scale, services, social spaces and interactive storytelling designed for this virtual milieu will present new challenges to research and development, including known and ‘unknown unknown’ problems with data management and security. Delivery of complex interactive media environments with default open web connectivity will create a host of new attack surfaces for cybercriminals and digital mavericks. Public appetite for more exposure – particularly of children and vulnerable adult populations – to malign actors is about as great as their trust in the brand that Meta seeks to leave behind.

No alt text provided for this image

Broad adoption, sustainable development and effective storytelling in this domain will require that research, design and production are framed in a clear commitment to ethical principles and mitigation of risks to privacy and data security. Early publicity materials indicate their awareness of this, but Zuckerberg & co. still have to regain the trust of peers and public. That is not to say Meta is doomed to join Second Life – its reception in the industry press may have been on the chilly side, but the rebrand presents an opportunity to be more than a clean slate. We will need to see unflinching recognition of past errors and genuine steps taken to integrate data security with appropriate risk modelling and attention to scaling effects. But if Meta walks the walk, it may come to play a part in, and perhaps even lead the ‘coming of age’ of social media.

High stakes 

As Meta, Facebook are planning to spend at least $10 billion on metaverse-related projects this year. Bloomberg Intelligence further predicts “The global metaverse revenue opportunity could approach $800 billion in 2024”. Whether we greet such developments with enthusiasm or trepidation, it is clear that social media will see a step change even if we cannot be certain of its nature.

Original VR technology was derived from computer graphics and relied on specialist hardware to deliver expert applications such as surgery training and planning, high-end games and flight simulators. In addition to 5G, recent advances in computer vision and machine learning (sometimes called AI) technologies applied to VR/AR/XR technologies may help realise their broad adoption, which is the Meta vision for a 3D, virtual, social space where you might share, in real time, experiences that aren’t feasible in the physical world.

Technology marketing has not always delivered on its promises but innovation has created real change, and content producers will need to be aware of developments in this domain. As Cathy Hackl says: “If the internet and social media changed your business or changed the way you interact with people, then you should be paying attention to what 3.0 and the metaverse will do, because it will change those things as well.” We might speculate about effects on how we tell stories and socialise remotely, but we will almost certainly see this type of platform used as a productivity tool, made more relevant by imperatives to reduce travel and carbon footprints.

As with most predictions, the actuality is likely to be more prosaic than any utopias or dystopias we conjure up, but probably not unimportant. In the past decade and a half, social media have become a critical concern with real-world impacts. It will be interesting to see if Meta can finally shed Facebook’s unfortunate association with FaceMash, Zuckerberg’s jockish student experiment. Growing up is overdue.

By Dr Carina E I Westling and Dr Hongchuan Yu, Bournemouth University

This piece was originally published on BU’s LinkedIn page

Student Research Writing Retreat

BU research, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Fusion, Research Supervision, Student Engagement, student research, writing

The Department of Sport and Event Management has this week hosted a student writing retreat for 50 Level 6 BA Events Management students who are writing their dissertations. Students have been attending fortnightly lectures in addition to their supervisory sessions, but this week came together to work collaboratively on writing up their literature reviews.

The retreats utilised the shared working spaces available in the Fusion building offering 4 hours of quiet working space in seminar rooms, supported by online targeted workshops and 1-1 support on balcony spaces.

At the outset students were invited to set their objectives for the session and curate their own programme of activities to achieve this. Professor Janet Dickinson offered online workshops on literature review writing techniques, whilst experienced supervisors (Dr Miguel Moital, Dr Katherine King and Dr Paola Vizcaino) provided 1-1 support for students to sign up and discuss their progress, helping them to problem solve in the moment.

In addition to this academic support, BUBS librarian Louise Tucker provided 1-1 library support sessions, helping students to focus their research strategies. Amada Fripp, Careers Advisor also attended giving tips and advice on ‘Making the most of your final year’ with CareersBU.

This was the first of 3 writing retreats run for Level 6 students throughout the year and student feedback indicated that working alongside of their peers and course staff at these sessions really helped them to move their research forward. Next sessions will focus on developing methodologies and a further session will support analysis and the final write up.

Peer-reviewing ten years on

Featured academics, Guidance, international, Publishing, Research communication, research integrity, Uncategorized, writing

The process of peer review is widely recognised as the key element of quality control in academic publishing and the scientific community more generally.  Peer review is the critical appraisal of one’s work by fellow scholars, who read and comment on your manuscript and offered a verdict on its quality, rigour, originality, style, completeness, etc. etc.

Peer reviewers are typically experts in your field, if not your topic, or who have expertise in the methods you applied or the population or are you studied.  They are also academics often with busy day jobs, who act as unpaid peer reviewers, and as journal editors for that matter.  Peer reviewers are with full-time jobs who give up their free time to review for academic journals.  A recent article by Aczel and colleagues (2021) reported that reviewers across the globe spent over 100 million hours on peer reviewing for free in 2020, the estimated value of this equated to nearly £300 million in the UK alone.  This quantifies in some of my feelings I wrote about a decade ago now in a BU Research Blog with the title ‘Peer review and bust academics’.

However, with the ever-growing number of health and social science journals the requests for reviewing seem to grow relentlessly.  This month alone (November 2021) I received twenty or 21 requests to review.  I have reviewed three manuscripts for Birth, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, and The Journal of International Development, but I had to reject or ignore many more (see Table 1).  I usually do my reviews over the weekend.  One weekend this month I could not review because I had to prepare materials for the external auditor who came to visit Bournemouth University for a project recently completed, and this weekend I could not find the time because I’m proof-reading two PhD chapters (and writing this blog).

I leave you with some food for thought: academics spent time applying for research funding, then apply for the ethical approval, do the research, we write up the findings, and write blogs about the process!

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH)

 

Reference:

Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., Holcombe, A.O. (2021) A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 6, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2.

Bournemouth research cited in The Sunday Times

BU research, Featured academics, international, Publishing, Research news, Uncategorized, writing

Today Bournemouth University’s research on Nepali migrant workers and kidney problems was cited in The Sunday Times. In the preparation for the Qatar 2022 men’s football world cup The Sunday Times published an article under the title ‘Dying for the World Cup‘.

Dr. Pramod Regmi and Dr. Nirmal Aryal were awarded funding from GCRF (The Global Challenges Research Fund) and Bournemouth University’s QR fund.  This work resulted in an editorial highlighting that low-skilled migrant workers in the Middle Wast and Malaysia are at a disproportionately higher risk of kidney problems. The working conditions are often Dirty, Dangerous and Difficult (referred at as the 3Ds) include physically demanding work, exposure to a hot environment, dehydration, chemical exposures, excessive use of pain killers, and lifestyle factors (such as restricted water intake and a high intake of alcohol/sugary drinks) which may precipitate them to acute kidney injuries and subsequent chronic kidney disease [1].  And recently, a national survey of nephrologists (kidney specialists) on their perceptions of the size of the problem of kidney health in Nepali migrant workers [2].

 

 

References:

  1. Aryal, N., Regmi, P.R., Sedhain, A., KC, R.K., Martinez Faller, E., Rijal, A., van Teijlingen, E. (2021). Kidney health risk of migrant workers: An issue we can no longer overlook. Health Prospect 21(1): 15-17.
  2. Aryal, N., Sedhain, A., Regmi, P., KC, R. K., van Teijlingen, E. (2021). Risk of kidney health among returnee Nepali migrant workers: A survey of nephrologists. Asian Journal of Medical Sciences 12(12), 126–132.

 

Not going in!

BU research, Doctoral College, Featured academics, humanities, international, Publishing, Research news, Research Training, Uncategorized, writing

Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the online workshop ‘500 Years of Childbirth’ together with by CMMPH (Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health) colleges Dr. Juliet Wood and Dr. Laura Iannuzzi. The session ‘500 Years of Childbirth’ was part of Being Human Festival, the UK’s national festival of the humanities which runs 11–20 November 2021.  History has always been a passion of me, and the presenters, Julia Martins and Carly Lokrheim, linked early modern history with childbirth in the 21st century. 

This wonderful session reminded me of my draft chapter I wrote for my PhD thesis three decades ago.  My thesis A social or medical model of childbirth? : comparing the arguments in Grampian (Scotland) and the Netherlands at the University of Aberdeen was supervised by Dr. Peter McCaffery.  Peter wisely said to me: “You really needed to write this chapter to make sense of the history of midwifery in your head, but it does not really fit the thesis.”  He added: “You have too many words already.  You know that it is not going in?” The material of this history chapter was not lost as I used loads of text from it it in the introduction section for a textbook [1].  The section ‘History of Midwifery: Introduction’ became part of our edited volume Midwifery and the Medicalization of Childbirth: Comparative Perspectives (Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Huntington, New York, USA) [2].

It is a message I occasionally repeat to my own PhD students.  Under the circumstances I may fing myself saying things like “This is something you had to get of your chest, or you had to write it to make sense of it, but as it stands do you think it fits your argument?”  Or more subtly in a supervision meeting, tell us: “What does this section add to your overall story in the thesis?”

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

 

References:

  1. van Teijlingen, E. (2004) History of Midwifery: Introduction, In: van Teijlingen, E. Lowis, G., et al. (eds.), Midwifery & the Medicalization of Childbirth, NY: Nova Sci., pages: 43-52.
  2. van Teijlingen , E., Lowis, G., McCaffery, P. & Porter, M. (eds.) (2004) Midwifery and the Medicalization of Childbirth: Comparative Perspectives, New York: Nova Science. [Paperback ISBN: 1-59454-0314].

NIHR Bulletin

BU research, COVID-19, Funding opportunities, NHS, pre-award, Research Training, writing

RDS NEWS

New RDS event: Virtual Grant Development & Writing Workshop
We’re pleased to announce that we’ve just opened registration for the new Virtual Grant Development & Writing Workshop which will take place on the 23rd and 24th November 2021.

This is a 2-day workshop that we’re hosting in partnership with the RDS North East and North Cumbria. The 2-day workshop will provide a great opportunity to help researchers to make progress in developing their NIHR research proposal into a competitive application. Find out more.

NIHR News

NIHR welcomes Government investment in health R&D

eBulletins and Newsletters

NIHR News and Research: October 2021

NHS England and NHS Improvement: In Touch

PenARC Matters – October 2021

Events

NIHR Research for Social Care (RfSC) Call Seminar: 25th November 2021, 1.30pm – 3.00pm

An event specifically for social care researchers, practitioners and users to introduce the latest call from the NIHR’s RfSC programme. Speakers include the RfSC Programme Team, the RfSC committee chair, and others including Dr Mark Wilberforce (a successful candidate), Autistica, and a public involvement expert. The remit of the call, requirements and applications processes will be covered. Find out more

Funding Opportunities

Public Health Research (PHR) Programme

21/568 Suicide prevention in high risk groups
21/569 Effectiveness of interventions aimed at preventing domestic abuse
21/570 What are the health and health inequality impacts of being outdoors for children and young people?
21/571 Digital health inclusion and inequalities
21/572 Increasing uptake of vaccinations in populations where there is low uptake

 

Your local branch of the NIHR RDS (Research Design Service) is based within the BU Clinical Research Unit (BUCRU) should you need help with your application. We advise on all aspects of developing an application and can review application drafts as well as put them to a mock funding panel (run by RDS South West) known as Project Review Committee, which is a fantastic opportunity for researchers to obtain a critical review of a proposed grant application before this is sent to a funding body.

Contact us as early as possible to benefit fully from the advice

Feel free to call us on 01202 961939 or send us an email.

Academic publishing and numbers

BU research, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Doctoral College, Featured, Featured academics, international, Research news, Training, Uncategorized, writing

Yesterday our team published new paper on academic writing, this time the focus was on the various indices in the field.  Academics from three different departments in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences collaborated on the paper ‘Publishing, identifiers & metrics: Playing the numbers game‘ [1].  The three BU scholars, Dr Shovita Dhakal Adhikari, in the Social Sciences and Social Work Department, Dr. Pramod Regmi in the Department of Nursing Sciences, and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen in the Department of Midwifery and Health Sciences co-authored the paper with former BU staff Dr. Nirmal Aryal, now researcher at Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Alexander van Teijlingen, PhD student at the University of Strathclyde (Glasgow), and Dr. Sarita Panday, Lecturer in Public Health in the University of Essex.

This a the latest paper in a long line of publications on aspects of academic writing and publishing [2-16].

References:

  1. van Teijlingen, E.R., Dhakal Adhikari, S., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, A., Aryal, N., Panday, S. (2021). Publishing, identifiers & metrics: Playing the numbers game. Health Prospect, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.3126/hprospect.v20i1.37391
  2. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, BD. (2013) Writing an Abstract for a Scientific Conference, Kathmandu Univ Med J 11(3): 262-65. http://www.kumj.com.np/issue/43/262-265.pdf
  3. van Teijlingen, E, Hundley, V. (2002) Getting your paper to the right journal: a case study of an academic paper, J Advanced Nurs 37(6): 506-11.
  4. Pitchforth, E, Porter M, Teijlingen van E, Keenan Forrest, K. (2005) Writing up & presenting qualitative research in family planning & reproductive health care, J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 31(2): 132-135.
  5. van Teijlingen, E, Simkhada, PP, Rizyal A (2012) Submitting a paper to an academic peer-reviewed journal, where to start? (Guest Editorial) Health Renaissance 10(1): 1-4.
  6. van Teijlingen, E, Simkhada. PP, Simkhada, B, Ireland J. (2012) The long & winding road to publication, Nepal J Epidemiol 2(4): 213-215 http://nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/7093/6388
  7. Hundley, V, van Teijlingen, E, SimkhadP (2013) Academic authorship: who, why and in what order? Health Renaissance 11(2):98-101 www.healthrenaissance.org.np/uploads/Download/vol-11-2/Page_99_101_Editorial.pdf
  8. Simkhada P, van Teijlingen E, Hundley V. (2013) Writing an academic paper for publication, Health Renaissance 11(1):1-5. www.healthrenaissance.org.np/uploads/Pp_1_5_Guest_Editorial.pdf
  9. van Teijlingen, E., Ireland, J., Hundley, V., Simkhada, P., Sathian, B. (2014) Finding the right title for your article: Advice for academic authors, Nepal J Epidemiol 4(1): 344-347.
  10. van Teijlingen E., Hundley, V., Bick, D. (2014) Who should be an author on your academic paper? Midwifery 30: 385-386.
  11. Hall, J., Hundley, V., van Teijlingen, E. (2015) The journal editor: friend or foe? Women & Birth 28(2): e26-e29.
  12. Sathian, B., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Roy, B, Banerjee, I. (2016) Grant writing for innovative medical research: Time to rethink. Med Sci 4(3):332-33.
  13. Adhikari, S. D., van Teijlingen, E. R., Regmi, P. R., Mahato, P., Simkhada, B., & Simkhada, P. P. (2020). The Presentation of Academic Self in The Digital Age: The Role of Electronic Databases. International J Soc Sci Management, 7(1), 38-41. https://doi.org/10.3126/ijssm.v7i1.27405
  14. Pradhan, AK, van Teijlingen, ER. (2017) Predatory publishing: a great concern for authors, Med Sci 5(4): 43.
  15. van Teijlingen, E (2004), Why I can’t get any academic writing done, Medical Sociol News 30(3): 62-63. britsoc.co.uk/media/26334/MSN_Nov_2004.pd
  16. Wasti, S.P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Hundley, V. with Shreesh, K. Writing and Publishing Academic Work, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books

Reflections on examining a PhD by Publications or hybrid PhD

Centre for Excellence in Learning, Doctoral College, Featured academics, Publishing, Research Integritiy, Research Supervision, Uncategorized, writing

Writing for publication in peer-reviewed journals is increasingly recognised as important for postgraduate students’ career development.   To encourage PhD students to write and submit during their thesis research, more and more UK universities has formally started to accept PhD theses by publication, or a hybrid model of both academic papers and purposely written chapters in a PhD thesis.  For example, both the University of Bath and Bournemouth University offer a hybrid thesis [1-2], whilst Bournemouth University offers separately the opportunity to submit a PhD by Publication.   The paper included in such theses can be: (1) published; (2) accepted/published online first; (3) submitted; or (4) in final draft form for submission.  Published papers, due to the nature of journal word limits are usually much shorter and less detailed than traditional PhD chapter.  The specifically written chapters, of the Introduction, Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations chapter, and occasionally a Methods chapter will provide the reader (read ‘the examiner’) with further insights into the background of the research and offer details the student had to omit from published papers due to word limit restrictions.  Students may also opt to offer a short explanatory text before or after individual paper.  The overall Discussion chapter should aim to fully contextualise and integrate all papers into the thesis.

It is easy to see that these new format theses may require some adjustment from UK academics examining them.  Below I have listed some of the key issue a PhD examiner may want to consider in a PhD by Publication, such as the notion of integration and repetition, how the critique published papers, especially in quality peer-reviewed journals, and the nature and content of purposely written chapters.

Integration/duplication

Individual papers are free-standing, i.e. they must give enough information about the research question and methods to make sense to the reader.  This means that four papers from the same study in a thesis may appear as both disjointed and repetitive at the same time.  Moreover, details on background and methods are often minimal in papers presenting results.  This offers the examiner an opportunity to ask questions such as:

  • How do the included papers relate to each other in terms of subject matter or theoretical underpinning?
  • Do the included papers together result in a cohesive narrative?

It is worth looking at difference between the included papers.  One of my former students included two qualitative papers, both originating from the same dataset (i.e. the same interviewees) but each paper presented the data analysed in a different way.  The reviewers of the second paper had suggested a different approach to the analysis and the candidate had decided that it was worth the considerable amount of extra work.  This was obviously a topic for debate in the viva.

Peer-reviewed journal articles

It can be daunting for a less experienced examiner to critique an included paper that has been peer-reviewed and published in a prestigious journal in one’s discipline.  Perhaps a starting point could be to ask the candidate what the peer reviewers said when the manuscript was first submitted.  Did you receive and conflicting comments from reviewers or the editor?  The examiner may want to ask for further details of published paper, e.g.  “I know you probably had word-length issues for paper X, but why didn’t you expand on the detailed analysis in the Discussion chapter you included in the thesis?”  Interestingly, the University of Bath states that “Examiners are entitled to specify corrections to any part of the thesis… including parts submitted for publication, or already published” [1].  The latter does not mean changing the published paper, but perhaps adding a comment or explanation to the Discussion chapter or to the text introducing that particular paper.

In many discipline academic papers as co-authored, hence you would expect co-authored papers in a PhD by Publication.  This offers to examiner the opportunity to ask about the candidate’s unique contribution to that paper.  Occasionally, one of the included papers may not list the candidate as first author.  If this is the case in one of the four or five included papers this is not problem per se, but worth asking the same question to the candidate: “What is your unique contribution to the paper?”

Another potential issue to look out for in a PhD by Publication is so-called salami-slicing [3], especially if the candidate has published several small parts of the thesis study in different small papers where a single paper would have been more appropriate.

Written chapters

The examiner may want to start by focusing on the candidate’s Introduction, Discussion, or Conclusion chapters.  Or the overall Methods chapter if there is one.  Typically, a PhD by Publication has an Introduction, four or more papers, an overarching Discussion perhaps a short Conclusion.  What is often missing is a Methodology and Methods chapter.  Since individual papers have only basic methods section of a few hundred words, there is little detail in each paper, let alone nuance in the methods. Often methodological issues and reflections are missed, as are more subtle aspects of research ethics.  These are key topics to raise in the viva.

 

Professor Edwin van Teijlingen

CMWH (Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health)

 

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my colleague Dr. Ann Luce, Associate Professor in Journalism and Communication at Bournemouth University for her encouraging me to write this blog post.

 

References:

  1. University of Bath: https://www.bath.ac.uk/publications/guidelines-for-research-examiners/attachments/Guidelines_for_Examiners_of_Doctoral_Degrees_Nov19.pdf
  2. Bournemouth University (2021-22) 8A Code of Practice for Research Degrees (Policy, Procedure and Guidelines). https://intranetsp.bournemouth.ac.uk/pandptest/8a-code-of-practice-for-research-degrees.pdf
  3. Tolsgaard, M.G., Ellaway, R., Woods, N., Norman, G. (2019) Salami-slicing and plagiarism: How should we respond?. Advance in Health Sciences Education 24: 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09876-7

Midwifery paper co-produced with BU students

BU research, Featured academics, NHS, student research, Uncategorized, writing

Congratulations to Faculty of Health & Social Sciences (FHSS) staff and students on their latest publication in the international journal Midwifery (published by Elsevier).   FHSS Professors Carol Clark and Vanora Hundley, undergraduate student researcher Guste Kalanaviciute and CMMPH PhD student Vanessa Bartholomew and Professor Helen Cheyne from the University of Stirling recently had the following paper accepted: ‘Exploring pain characteristics in nulliparous women; a precursor to developing support for women in the latent phase of labour’ [1].

 

Reference:

Clark C, Kalanaviciute G, Bartholomew V, Cheyne H, Hundley VA (2021) Exploring pain characteristics in nulliparous women; a precursor to developing support for women in the latent phase of labour. Midwifery (in press) 

Two scholarships in one month for PhD student

Awarded & submitted bids, BU research, Featured academics, international, PG research, Publishing, Research news, student research, Uncategorized, Women's Academic Network, writing

Congratulations to PhD student Abier Hamidi on winning two scholarships within weeks.  Earlier this month Abier was awarded a scholarship from the BHIVA (British HIV Association) to pay the registration fee for BHIVA Autumn Conference.  This week she was also successful in getting a scholarship covering registration for the ‘Arab Health Summit: Advancing Health Equity for Women’ to be held on October 19-21.  The Arab Health Summit serves as a platform for researchers in the USA to connect with their global counterparts, including in the MENA (Middle Eastern and North African) region.  This summit offers a unique opportunity for Abier to exchange ideas and develop research relationships that may support her PhD study.

Abier is conducting a PhD on: ‘Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Health Education Strategies in Reducing Harm from HIV in Libyan Married Women’.  Recently, she had her first PhD paper “HIV epidemic in Libya: Identifying gaps” accepted for publication by the Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (JIAPAC) published by SAGE [1].  Abier’s PhD project is supervised by Dr. Pramod Regmi (Senior Lecturer in International Health) and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH).

 

Reference:

  1. Hamidi, A., Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E. HIV epidemic in Libya: Identifying gaps, Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (JIAPAC) (forthcoming)

 

Writing references: The hidden work of academics

BU Challenges, Featured academics, Uncategorized, writing

Halfway through October I have written several academic references for three people already.  This is one of the more hidden aspects of an academic job.  Writing a good reference is often time consuming for good reasons, including: the reference needs to be tailor-made for the specific job and the candidate; you may not have seen the candidate for several years and finding relevant details, such as ‘when did the candidate work for your organisation?’ takes time;  and last but not least, the employer asking for a reference has its own system.  The latter is a more recent addition to the burden of writing a reference.  Gone are the days of writing a structured letter about the candidate, a letter which you could tweak for different jobs the candidate applied for.  Most employers have their own reference system which may make the job easier them but creates far more work for the writer of the reference.

To illustrate each these points with an example.  One reference I write on an online form automatically assumed I was writing as the most recent employer, the electronic form ‘forced’ me to write as if I was the most recent employer and then explain in the text box for another question that I had worked with the candidate some years ago.  Another request was for a reference for a former colleague whom I had worked with 15 years ago in Aberdeen.  She was returning to a research post and had looking after children and working in clinical practice in the intermediate period.  Lastly, a former BU M.Sc. student  is applying to several universities for a Ph.D. place and each university offered a different thesis topic and required me to complete its own online form, and, of course, each form is slightly different!

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH