Research and Publications

Changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2000–2009

by Truyken Ossenblok

An analysis of the changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) in the period 2000–2009... more An analysis of the changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) in the period 2000–2009 is presented on the basis of the VABB-SHW, a full coverage database of peer reviewed publication output in SSH developed for the region of Flanders, Belgium. Data collection took place as part of the Flemish performance-based funding system for university research. The development of the database is described and an overview of its contents presented. In terms of coverage of publications by the Web of Science we observe considerable differences across disciplines in the SSH. The overall growth rate in number of publications is over 62.1%, but varies across disciplines between 7.5 and 172.9%. Publication output grew faster in the Social Sciences than in the Humanities. A steady increase in the number and the proportion of publications in English is observed, going hand in hand with a decline in publishing in Dutch and other languages. However, no overall shift away from book publishing is observed. In the Humanities, the share of book publications even seems to be increasing. The study shows that additional full coverage regional databases are needed to be able to characterise publication output in the SSH.

ASPA PhD Summit "Getting Published" 2012 ppt

by Patricia Shields

These are a set of PowerPoint slides for a presentation for the American Society for Public Administration 2012 national conference, PhD Summit

The presentation covers:

Stages in manuscript processing
Editor’s Perspective
Tips for Article... more The presentation covers:

Stages in manuscript processing
Editor’s Perspective
Tips for Article Acceptance
Handout – Manuscript Evaluation Assessment Matrix
Organizational Issues
Writers Block Hand out

Naar een pluralistisch model van onderzoeksfinanciering in de humane wetenschappen

by Rogier De Langhe

published in Ethiek & Maatschappij

Het nieuwe Financieringsmodel voor het Hoger Onderwijs wordt vaak bekritiseerd vanuit argumenten die teruggaan op de... more Het nieuwe Financieringsmodel voor het Hoger Onderwijs wordt vaak bekritiseerd vanuit argumenten die teruggaan op de eigenheid van de humane wetenschappen. Dit artikel poogt deze eigenheid preciezer te omschrijven en brengt de gevolgen voor de relatie tussen onderzoek en het tijdschriftenlandschap in kaart. Op basis daarvan wordt de doelmatigheid betwist van het huidige voorstel, dat de efficiëntie van onderzoek wil verhogen door publicaties te wegen op basis van de tijdschriften waarin ze worden gepubliceerd. Dit betekent geenszins dat een efficiëntere humane wetenschap onmogelijk is, alleen moet dat gebeuren op een manier waarop haar pluralistische natuur niet wordt miskend. Hoe een dergelijk beleid er kan uitzien wordt daarom uitgewerkt in een aanzet naar een pluralististisch model van onderzoeksfinanciering in de humane wetenschappen.

Publication Visibility of Sensitive Public Health Data: When Scientists Bury their Results

by David Rier

Science and Engineering Ethics 10:597-613; 2004

What happens when the scientific tradition of openness clashes with potential societal risks?  The work of... more What happens when the scientific tradition of openness clashes with potential societal risks?  The work of American toxic-exposure epidemiologists can attract media coverage and lead the public to change health practices, initiate lawsuits, or take other steps a study’s authors might consider unwarranted.  This paper, reporting data from 61 semi-structured interviews with U.S. toxic-exposure epidemiologists, examines whether such possibilities shaped epidemiologists’ selection of journals for potentially-sensitive papers.  Respondents manifested strong support for the norm of scientific openness, but a significant minority had or would/might, given the right circumstances, publish sensitive data in less-visible journals, so as to prevent unwanted media or public attention.  Often, even those advocating such limited “burial” upheld openness, claiming that less-visible publication allowed them to avoid totally withholding the data from publication.  However, 15% of the sample had or would, for the most sensitive types of data, withhold publication altogether.  Rather than respondents explaining their actions in terms of an expected split between “pure science” and “social advocacy” models, even those publishing in the more-visible journals often described their actions in terms of their “responsibility”.  Several practical limitations (particularly involving broader access to scientific literature via the Internet) of the strategy of burial are discussed, and some recommendations are offered for scientists, the media, and the public.

KEYWORDS:  Publication; scientist; responsibility; ethics; epidemiology

Mentoring and coaching in promoting publications in the Department of Physiotherapy at a local university in South Africa

by Michael Rowe

A growing shift towards research and evidence based practice in academia is associated with requirements to... more A growing shift towards research and evidence based practice in academia is associated with requirements to disseminate research results in the form of publication in peer reviewed journals. Mentoring has been identified as an important component of developing young authors, as it increases confidence and competence, and facilitates professional development. This led to the formation of a support group to stimulate peer-review publication in the physiotherapy department at the University of the Western Cape. The Kirkpatrick Framework of Evaluation was used to evaluate the success of the mentoring process which made use of a participatory action research methodology. The writing group consisted of nine academic members of staff and took place over ten weeks. The programme included writing, giving feedback, discussion and peer review on a weekly basis. Focus group discussions were taped and transcribed in order to evaluate the mentoring process by identifying relationships within the data and categorising key concepts, which were shaped into a thematic framework. The findings indicated that participants experienced a variety of emotions throughout the programme, with an overall feeling of personal growth by the end. In addition, participants also reported improved writing, reviewing and communication skills. Six months following the programme, six participants had submitted at least one article to a peer reviewed journal. It is clear from this study that some academics still find the task of writing and reviewing articles daunting, and that guidance and support in the form of a writing programme can be useful.

The Versatile "Caveat" Section of a Scientific Paper: Managing Public and Private Risk

by David Rier

Science Communication 21:3-37; 1999.

Are toxic-exposure epidemiologists influenced, when writing the “caveat’ portion of their papers, by how the media,... more Are toxic-exposure epidemiologists influenced, when writing the “caveat’ portion of their papers, by how the media, public, and courts might use their work? Qualitative interviews with 61 epidemiologists revealed that they relied on caveats to manage “public risk”--inappropriate use of their work by non-scientists. However, few considered caveats effective for this task. Caveats may be more important for managing professional risk, for subjects used caveats to: preempt criticism; advertise their credibility; adhere to conventions; hedge; and deflect attention from flaws in their papers. The data bear implications for the definition of "science," demarcation of scientists from non-scientists, and scientists' responsibility.

(con Pierangelo Schiera) “Università e ricerca: l’indicatore della produzione scientifica”, in Luigi Blanco, Andrea Giorgi e Leonardo Mineo (a cura), Costruire un’Università. Le fonti documentarie per la storia dell’Università degli studi di Trento, Bologna, il Mulino, 2011, pp. 347-364.

by Alberto Brodesco

Nel contesto di un ragionamento riferito alle fonti documentarie per lo studio di un’istituzione scientifica e formativa, un posto centrale spetta alle pubblicazioni: quanto la produzione scientifica può essere indicativa della vitalità e dell’importanza di un’istituzione di ricerca? Si viene in questo modo a toccare una questione eterna: quella della relazione tra Università e ricerca. Nel nostro caso,l’endiadi è particolarmente avvincente e allo stesso tempo problematica perché stiamo prendendo in considerazione un’istituzione appena fondata, negli anni in cui si viene a definire in Italia il contenuto epistemologico della Sociologia. Nel ruolo avuto dalla Facoltà di Sociologia di Trento rispetto al radicamento della disciplina nel panorama universitario italiano, la qualità e la quantità di pubblicazioni prodotte all’interno di quell’ambito di studi svolgono infatti un ruolo fondamentale.

(con Pierangelo Schiera) “Università e ricerca: l’indicatore della produzione scientifica”, in Luigi Blanco, Andrea... more (con Pierangelo Schiera) “Università e ricerca: l’indicatore della produzione scientifica”, in Luigi Blanco, Andrea Giorgi e Leonardo Mineo (a cura), Costruire un’Università. Le fonti documentarie per la storia dell’Università degli studi di Trento, Bologna, il Mulino, 2011, pp. 347-364.

Changing Roles - Men and Women in the Family

by TARKI Social Research Institute

Title of the Hungarian original: Szerepváltozások. Jelentés a nők és férfiak helyzetéről 2005
© TÁRKI, 2005
© Ifjúsági, Családügyi, Szociális és Esélyegyenlőségi Minisztérium, 2005

This book was published in English language with the support of the UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for Women, Central and Eastern Europe Regional Office, Bratislava).

English translation:
Anna Babarczy (papers 6-12)
Tibor Radványi (Introduction, papers 1-5, Bibliography)
Ildikó Nagy (Register of Researchers)

Language Editor: Clive Liddiard-Maár
All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.
© TÁRKI Social Research Institute, 2006
© Ildikó Nagy, 2006
© Marietta Pongrácz, 2006
© István György Tóth, 2006
ISBN 963 7869 39 5
Cover Design: Péter Maczó
Typography: András Nyíri

The aim of this study is to add fresh elements to the description of the personal networks of men and women, using... more The aim of this study is to add fresh elements to the description of the personal networks of men and women, using data from our two-generational study entitled Social embeddedness of young people aged 15–20 and their parents, and its impact on physical and mental health.

Editorial Policies for the Publication of Controversial Findings

by J Armstrong

Published in International Journal of Forecasting, 8, 1992, 543-544.

Armstrong and Hubbard (1991), in a survey of editors of 20 psychology journals, found a bias against the publication... more Armstrong and Hubbard (1991), in a survey of editors of 20 psychology journals, found a bias against the publication of papers with controversial findings. The 16 editors who responded said that they received few papers with controversial findings “during the last two years.” When they did receive such papers, the reviewers rejected them. Some of these editors expressed dismay over this situation and said that their referees usually rejected such papers. The study encountered only one instance where the reviewers agreed that a paper with controversial findings should be published. The editor who handled this case was blunt: he picked referees who would agree to its publication.

Publication of Research on Controversial Topics: The Early Acceptance Procedure

by J Armstrong

Published in International Journal of Forecasting, 11, 1995, Notes: 1-4.

Research with the potential to produce controversial findings is important to progress in the sciences. But scientific... more Research with the potential to produce controversial findings is important to progress in the sciences. But scientific innovators often meet with resistance from the scientific community. Much anecdotal evidence has been provided about the reception accorded to researchers who have obtained controversial findings. While many of these cases occurred long ago (e.g., Copernicus and Galileo), the problem continues to the present. This problem has been addressed to some extent in that nearly all universities grant their faculty tenure to protect their right to publish their findings. Still, the right to publish one's findings does not remove the barriers to publication of controversial findings.

Perhaps the major barrier to publication is peer review. Peer review serves many useful functions such as correcting errors and providing a fair way to allocate journal space and research funds. But it also suppresses innovation. Below, I discuss how peer review affects the publication of controversial findings, discuss what is currently being done, and then recommend another solution to this problem.