Getting Published

A Personal Perspective

Peter Hernon, Professor, Simmons College, Boston

Topics Covered Today

• Perspectives

Peter Hernon 2

Editor

Author

Improving LIS literature

Developing and implementing a research agenda

Types of Publications

Peter Hernon 3

Advantages of Being Published

• Making a professional contribution• Adding to knowledge and perhaps practice• Influencing others• Achieving recognition in the profession• Adding to one’s knowledge and experiences• Creating opportunities for one’s self

Peter Hernon 4

Reminder: Publication does not equal cited, read, downloaded

Components of a “Research” Study Submitted for Publication

• Perhaps an abstract and a brief background• Reflective Inquiry

• Procedures

• Limitations• Findings

• Discussion• Conclusion• References and Appendices

Peter Hernon 5

Problem statement, including study’s value; literature review, including relevant theory; objectives, research questions, hypotheses

Research design, methodology(ies), data quality

Appropriate data analysis

Publishing in a Journal?

• Which one?– Peer-reviewed?

• Double blind review?

• How decide on a journal?• Is topic appropriate to readership• Impact of journal on profession

Peter Hernon 6

OR, HOW ABOUT PLACEMENT IN “OPEN ACCESS” SOURCE?

Editor and Reviewer Expectations

Peter Hernon 7

– Demonstrate effective inclusion of components of research study

• Well written• Break new ground• Strong support of study value• Adhere to journal style and submission

requirements

Written Presentation—Some Reminders

• Separate Findings from Discussion• Conclusion is not a summary• Sloppiness

Peter Hernon 8

Repetition of the same word (or thoughts)

Typos and misspelling (even in citations)

Errors in citations

Mismatch between text references and bibliography

Written Presentation (continued)

• Awkward writing

Peter Hernon 9

Verb/noun disagreement

Incorrect verb tense

Dense writing, use of passive voice and personal pronouns

Lack of transition between sentences and paragraphs

Peter Hernon 10

Common Reasons for Rejection

• Stage One (Time of submission)

Perhaps revision necessary before ready for review

Peter Hernon 11

•Paper outside scope of journal—not a good fit

•Poor writing

More Reasons

• During review

Peter Hernon 12

•Poor scholarship or weaknesses in developing and “bonding” research components

•Few new insights emerge

•Lack of generalization—or “how we done it good”

•Failure to address “so what” in justifying study value

How Might LIS Research Be Improved?

• Authors– Better adherence to components of research

• As

Peter Hernon 13

Problem statement

Literature review

Literature Review

• Places the problem statement in the context of previous knowledge, identifies variables that previous investigations have found significant or insignificant, and suggests factors to consider in setting the procedures for a research proposal

• Evaluates past research in the context of the problem statement and the procedures

• Alerts the researcher and the readers about “danger signs” which previous research encountered (e.g., a low response rate).

Peter Hernon 14

Literature Review (continued)

• More than a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries

• Organized around and directly related to the problem statement or theme, must synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known, must identify areas of disagreement or controversy in the literature, and should present insights useful in setting up a study

Peter Hernon 15

Literature Review (continued)

• Indicates what has been published on a topic by scholars and researchers. It neither summarizes findings nor identifies all the literature produced on a topic; instead, keep the focus on the problem statement itself. The author makes a judgment call concerning which works to include

Peter Hernon 16

Literature Review (continued)

Peter Hernon 17

What is the scope of my literature review? What types of publications am I using (e.g., journals, books, government documents, popular media)? What disciplines are relevant to my study or review?

Does the literature review contain relevant works, regardless of the literature in which they appear?

Have I related the works to my theme or indicated how they apply to what I am studying? Have I critically analyzed and synthesized the literature I use? In other words, do not limit the review to a rote listing of study findings—-relate the literature to your problem statement, methodology, or report theme.

Have I organized the review in a logical manner, with good transition between sentences and paragraphs?

Do my citations conform to required style manual?

Better Use of Applicable TheoryExamples

Peter Hernon 18

More on Authors

Peter Hernon 19

Include more cross-disciplinary and international literature

Don’t mischaracterize literature

Include relevant theory/model

Attract broader readership, including those outside LIS

Journals

Peter Hernon 20

Have reviewers (and editors) who truly understand what research is—application of components of research

Envisioning Your Own Research

Peter Hernon 21

Develop a research agenda

Select from itEnsure you select something important that will hold your interest

Accomplishments PeopleTransformation

abilities

Directors

Senior management team

Other managers

Professional/support staff

Meet challenges

Develop as leaders and change agents

Deal with uncertainty, stress, and burnout

Engage in mentoring

Library Engagement beyond library

A learning organization

Service leadership

Team

Effectiveness

Accountability

Creation of shared vision

Partnerships (campus, other libraries)

Student outcomes

Student learning outcomes

Meeting customer needs and expectations

Transparency

Explaining

Leadership recognition

renewal

mentoring

traits

organizationalculture

judgment calls

Planning, goal setting, evaluation, reporting

Talent management

Example: Research Agenda

Envisioning Your Own Research

Peter Hernon 23

Readings

• From Library & Information Science Research:

Peter Hernon 24

“What Is a Problem Statement?” 29 (2007): 307-309

“Reading Literature and Literature Reviews,” 29(4)(2007): 451-454 (Juris Dilevko)

“A Research Study’s Reflective Inquiry,” 30 (2008): 163-164

“Procedures: Research Design,” 31 (2009), forthcoming

“Reliability and Validity,” 31 (2009), forthcoming

• See also works such as

Peter Hernon 25

those from Sage

or

Powell and Connaway, or Joe Matthews (Libraries Unlimited)