Tagged / Academic publishing

Paper published on ‘living evidence’

international, open access, Publishing, Training, writing

The Nepal Journal of Epidemiology published today carries an article on so-called ‘living evidence’ as an on-going synthesis approach that provides up-to-date rigorous research evidence [1].  This short research methods paper argues that living evidence is particularly useful in rapidly expanding research domains, uncertain existing evidence, and incorporating new research evidence that may impact policy or practice, ensuring that health worker, managers and health-policy makers have access to the best, i.e. the most recent evidence.

The Nepal Journal of Epidemiology is an Open Access journal, and hence freely available to researchers across the globe.  The paper has been co-authored by researchers from the Denmark, Qatar, Mauritius and the UK.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health (CMWH)

 

Reference:

  1. Sathian B., van Teijlingen E., do Nascimento I.J.B., Khatib M.N., Banerjee I., Simkhada P., Kabir R., Al Hamad H. (2023) Need for evidence synthesis for quality control of healthcare decision-making. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 13(3):1288-1291.  DOI: 10.3126/nje.v13i3.61004

Congratulations to BU sociology professors

international, open access, Publishing, Women's Academic Network, writing

Congratulations to Professors  Sara Ashencaen Crabtree and Jonathan Parker on the publication  of their book chapter ‘Social work with children and human rights’ in the edited collection Change Agents: An interprofessional book about children with disabilities in Tanzania and Norway [1]. 

The chapter explores human rights in social work with children, based on cases from several countries in the world. Human rights and social justice differ across countries and cultures. This is complicated further in respect of children who are dependent and as a result potentially vulnerable. This chapter discusses the balance between protection of the child versus allowing the child to be exposed to “risky” situations and develops a model for complex human rights social work with children.

The book also has a chapter by former BU staff member Prof. Sarah Hean, who is currently linked with the University of Stavanger in Norway.
Congratulations on this Open Access publication!
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Reference:

Parker, J. &  Ashencaen Crabtree, S. (2023)  Social work with children and human rights, In: Change Agents: An interprofessional book about children with disabilities in Tanzania and Norway, Siv E. N. Sæbjørnsen, Mariana J. Makuu, & Atle Ødegård (Editors),  Scandinavian University Press, pp.55-75. 

Introduction to BRIAN-BU’s publication management system

BRIAN, Publishing

BRIAN (Bournemouth Research Information And Networking) is BU’s publication management system.

This introductory session is aimed at those who are new to BU, or have not updated their staff profile for a while. It will cover the basics of BRIAN, including how to use BRIAN to manage your research outputs, biography and research interests, professional activities and more.

By the end of the session, attendees will have an understanding of BRIAN and how it relates to Staff Profile Pages, how to create and update items and activities, how to claim/create/import publications, as well as how to upload full text articles to BURO (Bournemouth University Research Online).

Wednesday 6th December, 10:00 – 11:00 at Talbot Campus

To book onto this session, please complete the Booking Form under “Introduction to BRIAN – 06/12/2023”

 

For any queries regarding this workshop, please contact Claire Fenton, REF Manager, cfenton@bournemouth.ac.uk

 

RKEDF: Academic Publishing – hybrid workshop 08/11/23

Publishing

This session is aimed at ECRs who are new to or who have experience of academic publishing and wish to find out more.

The session will offer insight into the point and process of academic publishing in journals, edited collections and monographs. It will offer advice and guidance on pitching, developing ideas for publications, how to respond to reviewer feedback, and how to write a monograph proposal.

By the end of the session, attendees will have acquired greater knowledge of academic publishing and greater confidence in pursuing publications relevant to their career stage and development goals.

Wednesday 8th November from 13.00 – 14.00 

Talbot Campus – MS Teams  

 

To book onto Academic Publishing session, please complete the Booking Form.

This workshop facilitated be the ECRN Academic leaders Prof. Sam Goodman sgoodman@bournemouth.ac.uk and Prof. Ann Hemingway aheming@bournemouth.ac.uk

Proofreading your article accepted for publication

international, open access, Publishing, writing

It is always a pleasure to see your own paper in print.  If all is properly organised at the publisher, the first time you see you paper as it will look in its final version when you receive the proof copy.  It is the authors’ task to proofread this final copy and pick up any mistakes you may have made or the journal has made putting your word file into the journal’s layout.  More and more journals now ask you to do the proofreading and editing online.  The first message here is that proofreading is exact business and most certainly time consuming.  Moreover, feeding back mistakes you may find in the proofs is not without its trials and tribulations.

Yesterday we received the proofs for a paper accepted by BMC Health Research Policy & Systems [1]. The BMC is part of the publisher Springer , and it uses an online proof system eProofing to which the authors get temporary access, to read and correct text.  This system looks good online, but beware the online version you get to edit does not look the same as the version that will appear in print.  The draft print version generated by eProofing has line numbers which don’t appear online when you are editing the proofs.  So we had to write on the online system separately that we found a set of quotes glued together, as the system does not allow authors to change the lay-out (for obvious reasons). In this case,  we had to write details like: “There needs to be a space after first quote line 421.”  What might look okay in the eProofing version didn’t do so  in the print version, where it was it is wrong.  This is illustrated in the example picture below.

 

Last month we battled with the proofs of another BU paper forthcoming in the journal Women and Birth [2], which is part of Elsevier.  Again, it has an online system for proofs.  This system does not allow the authors to correct mistakes in in the line spacing.  So we ended up writing to journal manager, not the editor, things like: “There is a very big gap between the end of section 3.7. and Overview of findings section – please could the text be rearranged to get rid of this big gap.”  We also asked for a summary section to be kept on one page, not having an orphan two words on the next page, but that appeared to be too difficult a request.  We think we a little flexibility, i.e. a human intervention the lay-out could have been improved.  See illustration below with text as it appears in the current online-first version.

We like to stress our advice to set plenty of time aside to read and edit the proofs, and to send details instructions to the journal manager or editor about what needs changing.  Changes include typos, grammar and style, but also lay-out of text and illustrations, boxes in the text, tables and figures.  “It is also important to check tables and figures during the proof-reading as the formatting can often go astray during the typesetting process” as we highlighted by Sheppard and colleagues [3].  Also double check correct spelling of names of co-authors and the final author order in the proofs.  Many years ago, I received the proof of pages of a midwifery article [4].

I dutifully read and edited  the proof of the actual text, but I never check the short introduction with the authors’ names which an editor had added to the final proofs.  When the paper came out in print to transpired that this editor has changed the author order, i.e. my name was first, probably because I had submitted the paper on behalf of my co-author.  This cause some problems with my co-author, made all the worse since I am married to her.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health

References:

  1. Wasti, S.P., van Teijlingen, E., Rushton, S., Subedi, M., Simkhada, P., Balen, J., Nepal Federalisation of Health Team (2023)  Overcoming the challenges facing Nepal’s health system during federalisation: an analysis of health system building blocks. Journal of the Health Research Policy & Systems. (forthcoming).
  2. Arnold, R., Way, S., Mahato, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2023) “I might have cried in the changing room, but I still went to work”. Maternity staff managing roles, responsibilities, and emotions of work and home during COVID-19: an Appreciative Inquiry, Women & Birth (online first) 
  3. Sheppard, Z., Hundley, V., Dahal, N.P., Paudyal, P. (2022) Writing a quantitative paper, In: Wasti, S.P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Hundley, V. with Shreesh, K. (eds.) Writing and Publishing Academic Work, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books, pp.78-87.
  4. van Teijlingen E., Ireland, J.C. (2014) Community midwives on the go. Midwives 1: 54-55.

The Journal of Asian Midwives’ 10th anniversary

international, open access, Publishing, writing

This week the Journal of Asian Midwives published its latest issue.  Celebrating a decade of publishing, this is the first issue of volume 10.  The journal is Open Access and freely available online for anybody who wants to read it (click here!).  In the editorial of this new issue the editors highlighted online events around the International Day of the Midwife, the ICM (International Confederation of Midwives) Triennial Congress in Bali, Indonesia in June, and the acceptance of the Journal of Asian Midwives by SCOPUS [1].  The editorial finishes by highlighting new additions to the journal, including the opportunity to submit short research proposals, or proposals for improvement in service or practice, blogs and from the next issue onwards, short view point articles.

 

Reference:

  1. van Teijlingen, E., Jan, R., Mubeen, K., Musaddique, A. (2023) Editorial – summer 2023. Journal of Asian Midwives, 10(1): 1–3.

BU signs up to Jisc agreement with the American Psychological Association

Guidance, open access, REF Subjects, Research assessment, writing

BU authors can now publish OA for free in select journals with American Psychological Association. Read on to find out more!

Authors affiliated with UK institutions participating in APA’s Jisc agreement may publish open access in hybrid journals published by APA at no cost to the author, provided that:

  • The article’s corresponding author is affiliated with a participating institution’s UK campus.
  • The article is accepted after August 1, 2022.
  • The article is an original peer-reviewed research article or review article.

All articles under this agreement will be published under the CC-BY copyright license. Upon publication, articles will be made immediately open access.

You can find further information on how to submit an article for consideration and other key information, such as maximum number of articles, here.

As a reminder, BU holds a number of agreements with key publishers, many of which allow you to publish open access for free. You can read more about them here.

If you have any queries, please contact the Open Access team.

Peer review picking up weaknesses in a scientific paper

international, Publishing, writing

Peer review is the the key pillar of academic publishing.  Peer reviewers will read the submitted paper and assess its knowledge contribution, the appropriateness of the research question, the ethical considerations, the quality of the research methods used and the appropriateness of the discussion, conclusion, and recommendations in the manuscript. [1]  It is worth bearing in mind that most peer reviewers are unpaid volunteers, academics like us who review for journals over and above the day job.[2]  For the authors peer reviewers can give excellent feedback.  Harvey and colleagues remind their readers that peer reviewers reading your manuscript with a fresh pair of eyes, can lead to them raising great questions and offering useful comments.  In short, reviewers’ reservations and misunderstandings can help you to rephrase and better focus your paper. [3]

However, what the review process does not do is picking up every possible minor mistake and typo in a paper.  I was reminded of this last week when I read a peer-reviewed paper in which the basic demographics table (the characteristics of the study participants) did not add up to 100%.  Luckily, the same authors (who shall remain nameless) published a different paper from the same study in another quality journal, which allowed me to check the numbers.  Interestingly, the second paper in another peer-reviewed journal had the same mistake.   In the end I ended up writing to two different editors pointing out this anomaly.   The editors contacted the authors who have since promised to rectify the mistake.

Something similar has also happened to us.  Occasionally I reread one of our articles in a good journal and wonder about some of the unclear sentences or poorly expressed grammar or style.  Neither the editor nor the peer-reviewers spotted it nor did my co-authors and I noticed these mistakes in the paper proofs.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH (Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health)

 

 

References:

  1. van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Shanker, S. (2022) Selecting an Appropriate Journal and Submitting your Paper, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 20-31.
  2. van Teijlingen, E., Thapa, D., Marahatta, S.B., Sapkota, J.L., Regmi, P. Sathian, B. (2022) Editors and Reviewers: Roles and Responsibilities, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 32-37.
  3. Harvey, O., Taylor, A., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Struggling to reply to reviewers: Some advice for novice researchers. Health Prospect, 21(2):19-22.

 

British Academy Writing Workshop in Nepal in 2022

conferences, international, Publishing, writing

Two days ago one of the participants of our British Academy funded Academic Writing Workshops announced on Facebook that the paper, we had helped her put together, had been published in a peer-reviewed journal.  It is satisfying to see the fruits of our labours in print following two sets of three-day workshops in Kathmandu and Pokhara.  The team running the 2022 workshop comprised three Faculty of Health & Social Sciences’ (FHSS) staff: Dr. Shovita Dhakal Adhikari, Dr. Pramod Regmi, and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen, and our colleague Dr. Rashmee Rajkarnikar at Nepal’s oldest and largest university (Tribhuvan University) and BU’s Visiting Faculty Dr. Emma Pitchforth, who is Senior Lecturer and Senior Research Fellow in Primary Care at the University of Exeter.  Dr. Shovita Adhikari has since left Bournemouth University to become Senior Lecturer in Criminology & Sociology at London Metropolitan University.

Over the years our team has published a wide range of papers on many aspects of academic writing [1-38].  The authors include: Prof. Vanora Hundley [3-5,8-9,14,16-19,21,23,28-33,36], Dr. Orlanda Harvey [2,22, ], Dr. Pramod Regmi [2,7,13-14,17,22,24-25 ], Dr. Rachel Arnold [20], Dr. Alison Taylor, Dr. Nirmal Aryal [14,24], Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen, PhD student Mrs. Sulochana Dhakal-Rai [8] all in FHSS, Prof. Ann Luce in the Media School [5] and Dr. Shanti Shanker in the Department of Psychology [6] as well as several BU Visiting Faculty: Dr. Brijesh Sathian [1,7-8,21,31,34], Dr. Shovita Dhakal Adhiikari [24-25 ], Dr. Preeti Mahato [11,20, ], Prof. Padam Simkhada [3-4,6,8-9,13,16-19,21,23,25-31,34 ], Dr. Emma Pitchforth [11-12,37], Prof. Bhimsen Devkota [12,16 ], Prof. Sujan Marahatta [7], Dr. Bibha Simkhada [9,14,25,27,29] and Ms. Jillian Ireland [8,20,22,27,31].
has build up capacity in academic writing and publishing in Nepal on many occasions and at many different institutions.  This grant allow us to offer a more systematic approach to capacity building in academic writing, and it build a growing number of paper published by FHSS staff on various aspects of academic writing and publishing.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health

References:

  1. Sathian B, van Teijlingen E, Banerjee I, Kabir R. (2022) Guidance to applying for health research grants in the UK. Nepal J Epidemiol 12(4):1231-1234.
  2. Harvey, O., Taylor, A., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Struggling to reply to reviewers: Some advice for novice researchers. Health Prospect, 21(2):19-22.
  3. van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, P.P., Wasti, S.P. (2022) Introduction, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 1-4.
  4. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Swoveet, P. (2022) Writing an Academic Paper, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 6-14.
  5. Hundley, V., Luce, A., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Collaborative Writing for Publication, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 15-19.
  6. van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Shanker, S. (2022) Selecting an Appropriate Journal and Submitting your Paper, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 20-31.
  7. van Teijlingen, E., Thapa, D., Marahatta, S.B., Sapkota, J.L., Regmi, P. Sathian, B. (2022) Editors and Reviewers: Roles and Responsibilities, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 32-37.
  8. van Teijlingen, E., Ireland, J., Hundley, V, Dhakal Rai, S., Simkhada, P., Sathian, B. (2022) Identifying an appropriate Title, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 39-47.
  9. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, B, Acharya D.R. (2022) Writing an Abstract for a Scientific Conference, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 48-56.
  10. Subedi, M., van Teijlingen, E., Baniya J., Sijapati, B. (2022) Writing the Introduction and Background, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 57-67.
  11. van Teijlingen, E., Pitchforth, E., Keenan Forrest, K., Mahato, P. (2022) Writing a Qualitative Paper, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 88-97.
  12. Wasti, S.P, Devkota, B., Bhatta, D.N., Pitchforth, E., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Writing the Introduction and Background, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 112-120.
  13. Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P. (2022) Writing up the Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 121-129
  14. Aryal, N., Regmi, P.R., Simkhada, B., Subedi, M., van Teijlingen, E., Wasti, S.P., Hundley, V, Khatri, R. (2022) Being Ethical in Writing and Publishing, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 153-161.
  15. van Teijlingen, E., Venter, K. (2022) Writing a Book Review, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 162-167.
  16. Devkota, B., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V, Wasti, S.P. (2022) Writing a Research Proposal, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 168-175.
  17. Wasti, S.P. Regmi, P.R., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V. (2022) Writing a PhD Proposal, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 176-183.
  18. Hundley, V., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Converting your Master’s or Doctoral Thesis into an Academic Paper for Publication, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 184-189.
  19. van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, P., Acharya, J., Silwal, R.C., Wasti, S.P. (2022) Academic Writing: Final Thoughts, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 201-20
  20. Arnold, R., Ireland, J., Mahato, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Writing and publishing a reflective paper: Three case studies, Welhams Acad J 1(1): 4-11.
  21. van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V, Sathian, B., Simkhada, P., Robinson, J., Banerjee, I. (2022) The Art of the Editorial Nepal J Epidemiol, 12(1): 1135–38.
  22. 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.
  23. Wasti, S.P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Hundley, V. with Shreesh, K. (2022) Writing and Publishing Academic Work, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books
  24. 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
  25. 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. Int J Soc Sci Management, 7(1), 38-41. https://doi.org/10.3126/ijssm.v7i1.27405
  26. 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.
  27. 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
  28. Hundley, V, van Teijlingen, E, Simkhada, P (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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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.
  32. van Teijlingen E., Hundley, V., Bick, D. (2014) Who should be an author on your academic paper? Midwifery 30: 385-386.
  33. Hall, J., Hundley, V., van Teijlingen, E. (2015) The journal editor: friend or foe? Women & Birth 28(2): e26-e29.
  34. 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.
  35. Pradhan, AK, van Teijlingen, ER. (2017) Predatory publishing: a great concern for authors, Med Sci 5(4): 43.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.pdf

New sociology paper led by Dr. Orlanda Harvey

PG research, Publishing, student research, Women's Academic Network, writing

Congratulations to Dr. Orlanda Harvey and Dr. Margarete Parrish in the Department of Social Sciences & Social Work on the publication of our article “Using a Range of Communication Tools to Interview a Hard-to-Reach Population” in Sociological Research Online [1].  The paper highlights that online communication tools are increasingly being used by researchers; hence it is timely to reflect on the differences when using a broad range of data collection methods. Using a case study with a potentially hard-to-reach substance-using population who are often distrustful of researchers, this article explores the use of a variety of different platforms for interviews. It highlights both the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Face-to-face interviews and online videos offer more opportunity to build rapport, but lack anonymity. Live Webchat and audio-only interviews offer a high level of anonymity, but both may incur a loss of non-verbal communication, and in the Webchat a potential loss of personal narrative. This article is intended for sociologists who wish to broaden their methods for conducting research interviews.

This methods article was developed based on the recruitment issues faced during Orlanda’s PhD research from which she has published several previous papers [2-6].

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

 

References:

  1. Harvey, O., van Teijlingen, E., Parrish, M. (2023)  Using a Range of Communication Tools to Interview a Hard-to-Reach Population. Sociological Research Online [online first]
  2. Harvey, O., Keen, S., Parrish, M., van Teijlingen, E. (2019) Support for people who use Anabolic Androgenic Steroids: A Systematic Literature Review into what they want and what they access. BMC Public Health 19: 1024
  3. Harvey, O., Parrish, M., van Teijlingen, E., Trenoweth, S. (2020) Support for non-prescribed Anabolic Androgenic Steroids users: A qualitative exploration of their needs Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy 27:5, 377-386. doi 10.1080/09687637.2019.1705763
  4.  Harvey, O., Parrish, M., van Teijlingen, E, Trenoweth, S. (2022) Libido as a reason to use non-prescribed Anabolic Androgenic Steroids, Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy 29(3):276-288.
  5. Harvey, O., van Teijlingen, E., Parrish, M. (2022) Mixed-methods research on androgen abuse – a review, Current Opinion in Endocrinology & Diabetes 29(6):586-593.
  6. Harvey, O., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) The case for ‘anabolics’ coaches: selflessness versus self-interest? Performance Enhancement & Health 10(3) August, 100230