Tagged / Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Rejection is the norm

In academic life rejection is the norm, for both journal articles and grant applications, the average academic is more likely to fail than to succeed at any time.  This can also be true, although to a lesser extent, for applications to present at academic conferences.  At the time of writing this blog (12 February 2022), I have 299 published papers listed on the databases SCOPUS.  Of these nearly 300 papers only two papers ever were accepted on first submission as submitted.  Most papers went through one or two rounds revision in the light of comments and critique offered by reviewers, and sometimes also additional feedback from the journal’s editor.

After rejection by the first journal, your paper needs to be rewritten before submitting it to another journal.  Obviously, this process of rewriting and resubmitting takes time as different journals have different styles, lay-outs, sub-headings, audiences, and often peculiar ways of referencing.  I would guess more than half of my papers have been through the review process of at least two journals.  Quite a few of my published papers were accepted by the third or even fourth journal to which we had submitted them.  Persistence is the name of the game.   Some paper fell by the wayside often after second submission, if especially if review process had been time-consuming and the reviewers very critical and demanding too many changes.

Peer review can be very good and constructive but also brutal and destructive.  Blind peer-review is a fair process as it means the quality of the paper is all that counts in getting accepted.  I have had the pleasure of being co-author on papers rejected by journals for which I was: the book review editor at the time (Sociological Research Online), on the journal’s editorial board at the time of submission (e.g. Midwifery, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology), one of journal’s Associate Editors (BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth) and, to top it all, on which I was one of the two editors (Asian Journal of Midwives).   

Grant applications in the UK have a one in eight to one in ten chance of success.  Most of our successful grant applications have been resubmissions, with attempts to improve the application each time in the light of reviewers’ comments.  For example, our successful application to THET (Tropical Health & Education Trust) resulted in the funded project ‘Mental Health Training for Rural Community-based Maternity Care Workers in Nepal‘ [1], led by Bournemouth University (see picture).  This THET project was organised by Tribhuvan University in collaboration with Bournemouth University and Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU).  However, I was only successful during our second submission.  Our first submission was rejected the year before with feedback that our partner organisation in Nepal was deemed to be too small.  In the resubmission we changed to work with colleagues at Tribhuvan University, the oldest and largest university in Nepal. Apart from some further, but minor changes, this was really the main change between the rejected and the successful application.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The situation for conferences is slightly better, the success rate for an application to present a paper or poster are higher. This is partly because conference organisers realise that most academics are unlikely to get funding from their institution unless they present something.  Conferences are often themed and submitted abstracts are peer-reviewed.  This makes in important to write a clear abstract, focusing in on the conference theme.[1]  In the past I have had the honour of being rejected to present a paper at a BSA Medical Sociology Conference, whist I was on the organising committee.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

References

  1. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, BD. (2013) Writing an Abstract for a Scientific Conference, Kathmandu University Medical Journal 11(3): 262-65. http://www.kumj.com.np/issue/43/262-265.pdf

 

 

 

FHSS Women in Science

international, Women's Academic Network

 

Tomorrow Friday 11th February is the UN’s International Day of Women and Girls in Science.  To celebrate this event we would like to highlight the contributions of three BU female academics in the sciences in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences: Jane Murphy, Rebecca Neal and Amanda Wilding.

Jane Murphy

Prof Jane Murphy – Professor in Nutrition, Co-lead for the Aging and Dementia Research Centre

Jane is a role model as a female research leader committed to solving key nutrition problems in older adults. She has won funding from prestigious organisations like the Burdett Trust for Nursing and NIHR. Jane’s research has direct impact in practice through her clinical lead role in the Wessex Academic Health Science Network. She influences high standards in education and practice in her role as an elected council member for the Association for Nutrition.

Dr. Rebecca Neal– Senior Lecturer in Exercise Physiology.

Rebecca is an Early Career Research excelling in traditionally male-dominated field of Sport and Exercise Science. Her work in the field of Extreme Environmental Physiology is published in prestigious physiology journals and she has been the recipient of external and internal grants to advance her work. Rebecca contributes greatly to transferring her research finding to the end user, through public engagement events, magazine articles and podcasts aimed at raising the awareness of the issues and needs of individuals exercising in extreme environments.

Dr. Amanda Wilding– Senior Lecturer in Sport Psychology

In addition to teaching Sport and Exercise Psychology, Amanda works as a Sports Psychologist in professional male football and Army rugby. Her involvement working in male dominated sports lead to her being invited to lead a workshop on Women in Sport  to women at the Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University in Saudi Arabia.

New BU publication on academic writing

international, open access, PG research, Publishing, 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

international, open access, Publishing, 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).

Research papers: A game of Happy Families

Delicious links, international, open accecss, Publishing, Student Engagement, 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

Peer-reviewing ten years on

Guidance, international, Publishing, 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.

This Sunday is a midwifery day

international, NHS

Today Sunday 21st November was a midwifery dominated day today.  This lunchtime a interdisciplinary team from CMMPH (Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health) at BU and the University of Exeter submitted a research proposal to the ICM (International Confederation of Midwives) on Midwife-Led Birthing Centres in Low- and Middle-Income  Countries.   As a personal observation: whoever thought that setting the submission deadline for a Sunday was a good idea has no respect for researchers’ work-life balance!

This afternoon many of us attended the  March with Midwives vigils which were held nationwide in the UK to highlight issues with midwifery staffing and working conditions.  The March with Midwives vigil took place in 50 towns and cities, as a vigil to make the general public and politicians aware about the maternity crisis.  In Poole Park it attracted over fifty people.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
CMMPH

Free training sessions for dementia researchers

conferences, international, Knowledge Exchange, Training

Bournemouth University is involved in a wider collaboration which organises the Advanced Dementia Research Conference (ADRC 2021).  The conference is delivered online today and tomorrow (19th-20th November).  ADRC 2021 is led by Dr. Brijesh Sathian, BU Visiting Faculty, based in the Geriatric Medicine Department, Rumailah Hospital, in Doha, Qatar.  Saturday morning Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen will be delivering a session on qualitative research, preceded by a session on mixed-methods research from Prof. Padam Simkhada, also BU Visiting Faculty, from the University of Huddersfield.

The programme shown is for Day 2 tomorrow.   All sessions today and tomorrow are free to attend!  You can register here! Please, note that advertised times a Qatar times which three hours ahead of the UK at the moment.  

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH (Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health)

 

Bournemouth research cited in The Sunday Times

international, Publishing, 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!

international, Publishing, 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].

Academic publishing and numbers

Centre for Excellence in Learning, international, Training, 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 hybrid PhD or PhD by Publication

Centre for Excellence in Learning, Publishing, Research Integritiy, 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 papers 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, such as 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

Two scholarships in one month for PhD student

Awarded & submitted bids, international, PG research, Publishing, student research, 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)