Writing/Publishing about Applied Technologiesin Tech Journals and Books

. . .

Objective of the slideshow

• Objective: To describe writing/publishing about applied technologies in tech journals and books

2

Content overview

1. Getting started in tech publishing

2. Cost-benefit calculations

3. Parts to an article; parts to a chapter

4. Writing process

5. Collaborating

6. Publishing process (and rookie mistakes)

7. Acquiring readers (and citations)

8. Post-publishing

9. Next works

3

1.Getting started in tech publishing

. . .

4

Getting ready to write

• Use a broad range of technologies…in depth and with creativity.

• Learn what is interesting to you and what you want to learn more about (research and writing lead to discoveries; these activities involve sharing one’s head space with certain information for a while, so the topic should be of interest).

• Identify what insights you have that may benefit others. Avoid self-indulgent writing.

• Read the academic literature. Read the commercial literature. Read the gray literature. Read the news.

• Read broadly, even / especially contents that may be uncomfortable and out-of-your-direct areas of expertise.

• Pay attention to the various writing techniques and strategies employed…and what works and what doesn’t work.

5

Getting ready to write (cont.)

• Consider topics about which there is a gap in the research literature.

• Test to see if there is sufficient information to pursue a formal publication on the proposed topic of interest.

• Be open to inspiration. Figure out what works for you in terms of writing.

• Writing is an additional skill to whatever your area of expertise, and as such, it has to be learned and practiced and improved.

• Make regular opportunities to write.

• Work with trusted others who can critique your work and help you hone your skills.

• It helps to have the tools of writing at hand, so as not to lose inspirations and ideas and images.

6

Following the secondary research wherever it goes

Sparks and Runs of Research Information and Data

(…from serendipity and persistence…to explore broadly)

7

Starting local and small

Start publishing

• Keep a research journal to capture fleeting ideas for possible exploration and research.

• Read broadly.

• Keep notes during work with technologies.

• Start publishing short pieces in professional organization newsletters.

• Start publishing short entries in professional blogs.

Keep records

• Maintain an accurate and complete publication history in a curriculum vitae (CV).

• Maintain a dataset of all published publications.

• Maintain accurate records of research materials (along with annotations).

8

Starting local and small (cont.)

Build self-awareness as a researcher

• Note which published researchers’ works appeal to you and why.

• Note which research topics you are drawn to and why. What do you see as relevant, and why?

• Note what methodologies you’ve mastered.

• Note what technologies you’ve mastered.

Build self-awareness as a writer

• Note what your writing style is (both what is purposeful and what is accidental / initially latent).

• Note what your writing incentives are. Note how you get past writing blocks.

• Note what consistent constructive feedback you get from peer reviewers and editors.

• Identify your weaknesses, and work on them.

• Identify your go-to’s and avoid them. Push yourself.

9

Building research and writing stamina

• Work on writing longer and longer pieces to create writing stamina.

• Work on understanding theorists, theory, and practices.

• Work on increasing speed and accuracy in reading and annotating secondary research.

• Push secondary research to the point of saturation (the far limits of what is available on a topic).

• Work on writing consistency.

• Practice iterated work: / review of the literature / research / writing / analysis…

• Once-through is never sufficient.

• Keeping a work top-of-mind for a time enables focused development.

10

Building research and writing stamina (cont.)

• Continue to expand your professional vocabulary.

• Expand your research methodology toolkit.

• Read for research methods and standards for validity and (non)verification.

• Work on the focused persistence and the recursive and iterative work needed to achieve a quality publishable work.

• Manage your expectations:

• No one goes from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds or is an “overnight success” (usually, it takes 10,000 hours to build expertise).

• Own your emotions.

• Tamp down frustrations, and push through them.

• Avoid burnout.

11

Building research and writing stamina (cont.)

• Maintain the ambition and the hunger.

• Do not let the drive to research and to learn diminish.

• Do not let the intrinsic drive mis-focus on other aims.

• Balance the ambition with other important aspects of life. Do not allow the work to be all-consuming.

• Set aggressive goals, and keep them.

• Avoid excuses-making.

• Make sure you have the “push” to complete a project.

• Early on, if you fail to complete a project, at least learn from it, and do better the next time around.

12

Building research and writing stamina (cont.)

• Travel light. If you do not need to create a dependency, avoid it.

• Projects often fail to launch if their success depends on others’ work or approval.

• Chasing others’ work on deadline is no way to spend a weekend (unless a project is super interesting).

• And…if there are researchers of integrity who are traveling in the same general direction (interested in shared topics), and if they’re interested in partnering, then it may be a good thing to collaborate. Share the work judiciously and fairly.

• There will be natural dependencies in other ways…such technological ones… The point is to anticipate dependencies and plan for them but avoid any possible “single points of failure” (one necessity that can scotch the whole project if that factor does not somehow make).

• Simple works better than complex.

13

Focus: About applied technologies

• Relevant new tools and new functions

• Competitor tools (and capabilities), for technological context

• How they were designed and by who and with what intentions (a light history)

• How the tool has evolved over time—in myth and in reality

• What the software tools are designed to do (and what problems they solve)

• Functions: intended, unintended (but avoid hype and PR-speak; no need to “sell” anything); extended usage with fresh methodology in fresh contexts

• Enablements / affordances and limitations in real-world applications

• Highlights on discrepancies between stated functions and actual ones

• Specific versions of the software and requirements / dependencies in terms of operating systems and other system information

14

Focus: About applied technologies (cont.)

• Proper terminology or nomenclature

• Specifying what is going on “under the hood” with the technologies (often not well documented by the software makers, with few named algorithms or defined computational sequences/processes)

• Read in-software citations about processes

• Read research-based publications about processes (and check sources)

• Can research patents and algorithms to gain a general sense of what may be being applied

• Can contact the companies and ask (escalation from line help desk staff to developers but need permission generally before quoting in-company sources)

15

Focus: About applied technologies (cont.)

• Practical and applied “use cases”

• Real-world examples

• Complete end-to-end walk-throughs of all sequences with close explanations

• Unique methods for applied uses (especially those that are transferrable to other contexts)

• How particular technologies “play” with other technologies in various workflows

• Interoperability per shared file types

• If output compressed files are closed / proprietary or open-source

16

Understanding what is valuable to publish

• The works that make it into publication tend to be those that…

• Provide relevant insights and methods

• Align with hot interests

• Build on current research

• Are backed up by actual research and work

• Show access to restricted data

• Show access to restricted technologies

• Benefit from the author’s / authoring team’s professional experience and expertise

• Demonstrate fresh and effective research methodologies

• Are original

• Are well-written

17

Understanding what is valuable to publish (cont.)

• Instill reader confidence

• Delimit and qualify assertions (based on the limits of the research)

• Demonstrate professional fair play

• Are transferable to a variety of domains

• Avoid liabilities

• Avoid harm

• Avoid defamation of others

18

What publishers decline to publish

• Generally, publishers will decline the following:

• Writings that are mere summaries of works in a field

• Writings that contravene institutional review board (IRB) guidelines for human subjects research

• Publishers generally use the guidelines in their respective countries and apply these to all potential authors from anywhere in the world

• Writings that are derivative and unoriginal

• Works that repeat others’ insights (novelty and insight matter)

• Writings that are too far outside the expertise of the author

• Works that are doctrinaire and overly prescriptive (tone matters)

• Works that smear others’ reputations (groundlessly)

19

Most common reasons why proposed works do not make it into print:

• Author(s) does not submit any work either within deadline or even past deadline (no follow-through)

• Submitted work

• does not show contemporaneous understandings of the field (dated sources, dated terminology, and old-school practices)

• is incoherent

• does not fulfill proposed parameters

• does meet publication guidelines

• is unoriginal and / or illegally derivative

• is irredeemable in terms of research methodologies (problems cannot be fixed by revision alone)

• is sloppy in terms of handling of intellectual property / privacy protections / other legalities

20

Most common reasons why proposed works do not make it into print: (cont.)

• Author refuses to revise work to editorial and peer review comments (and / or does not logically refute editorial / peer comment feedback)

• Author raises publisher and / or editor concerns through messaging (attacks on other authors, attacks on the editor) … or through public reputation

21

Some paths to publication

Profiling Publishers by What They Publish

• While it is important to read all fine print related to publishers and publishing, what is most helpful is to read what they have published because published works are a kind of costly signaling.

• Published works show the caliber of talent that a publisher is able to attract and the quality of work that may be collaboratively put out and presented to the world.

• Published works also show the level of production quality that the publisher can bring to the works.

• Look at typography; copy-editing (spelling, punctuation, and grammar); handling of figures and tables; double-checks on the equations, math, and statistics; data accuracy; (non)introduction of errors, and other features.

• All publishers are in competition with each other for a limited pool of human talent.

• Relationships are fragile. Loyalties, if they ever existed, can be fleeting.

• The art is to align respective interests for shared and mutually beneficial work.

22

Exploring formal publishers and publications

• Identify potential publishers and publications.

• Identify those with the highest influence and prestige rates (based on track record, quality of authors and topics, indexing, and respect in the field, among other topics), and the lowest levels of acceptance rates (elitism), and create a descending list.

• Most authors start at the top of that descending list and go with whichever publisher will have them.

• Or go with a publication which most aligns with your writing style and topical interests. For this, it helps to see which serial publications are on your reading list.

23

Exploring formal publishers and publications (cont.)

• Select publishers with longer histories and an established readership and reputation.

• Avoid startups (unless the potential gains outweigh the obvious risks).

• Some benefits of startups may be that they have a more sophisticated multimedia element.

• Authors who want to integrate audio interviews, datasets, slideshows, videos, and interactive demos will want publishers who have a sophisticated Web- and Internet- facing side.

• Read the requirements for manuscript (mss.) submittal. Make sure you can meet all requirements.

• Evaluate article / chapter templates (if available). Or evaluate select published works which may serve as models. Understand how published works are structured for the particular publication.

• Also, read the published works for quality and what the indicators of quality are for that publication.

24

Participating in professional conferences

• Another path is to publication involves attending professional conferences (or other such venues) with linked publications.

• Acceptance to the conference often involves de facto acceptance of papers related to the presentations.

• Accepted papers are often included in professional subscription-based repositories, which are often indexed by others.

• For less formal conferences, papers may be hosted off of the conference websites.

25

Scanning for “calls for chapter / article proposals”

• Publishing opportunities are listed on conference sites, publisher sites, book sites, and paste bins.

• Publishing opportunities are listed on electronic mailing lists.

• Special theme issues may focus on particular topics of interest (but will also mean potential direct competition on a particular topic).

26

Cultivating and building professional relationships

• Start building working relationships and professional trust with editors and publishers.

• Avoid breaking the initial good will and swift trust often present in new relationships.

• If a professional relationship needs breaking, do it. It’s never preservation of comity at all costs.

27

Identifying publishers to avoid

General Tenets

• Avoid publishers who’ve accidentally published auto-created academic papers (such as those in the SCIgen controversy). You don’t want to work with organizations that are asleep at the switch.

• Avoid paying to be published (ever).

• Commercial vanity presses enable self-publishing, which means little to no editorial oversight. Prematurely published works will come back to haunt the author. Worse, they may have incurred legal liabilities.

• Avoid paying for open-access publishing.

• It takes little to make a work open-access, and the fees are often outsized and not justified.

• Avoid disreputable or predatory presses.

28

Avoiding predatory publishers

• Predatory publishers take advantage of authors in several ways. They…

• feed on author ego and dreams of publishing wealth / stardom / opportunity

• promise an easy publication process and do not generally require anything like editorial oversight (usually via spam emails and on poorly-edited websites)

• require exploitatively high payments to be published

• invest nothing to support the authors or enhance their articles or papers

• often end up harming the reputations of the author

• turn out a poorly edited (or unedited) product

• Predatory publishers often reach out to new graduates with offers of publishing their masters theses and doctoral dissertations.

• Most theses and dissertations require a lot of work to get them into publishable form and without the vestiges of the theses and dissertation formats.

29

Avoiding predatory publishers (cont.)

• Such publishers claim expansive knowledge across a broad range of fields but have no real ties to respected and active professionals in the field.

• Various professional organizations keep lists of predatory publishers and publications (which often have names which are very close to those of reputable publishers).

• Know a publisher thoroughly before making any commitment.

• This means reading a publisher’s outputs for an extended period before making a judgment.

• Sometimes…editors for reputable presses will act in a predatory way, in which case, one lets the leadership of the publisher know…and moves forward without any formal association with the editors.

30

Basic rules of engagement

• Follow the rules of research and writing scrupulously (clear citations, intellectual property protections, defined terms, defined assumptions, and others).

• Select one target publication, and submit the work. Wait for a formal response of acceptance, acceptance with modifications, request for major modifications and resubmittal, or rejection.

• Avoid multiple submissions (even though a single submission-at-a-time seems like a dominated strategy).

• Publishers invest in the double-blind peer review and editing processes

• If there are multiple acceptances, author will have to retract a work from a publisher (creating lost effort on the part of the publisher)

• Authors who multiple submit will end up as untrusted individuals in fields which thrive on trust

31

Basic rules of engagement (cont.)

• Check back with the target publisher within the proper time frame for consideration (in case the submittal got ignored).

• There are time pressures to be first-to-publish (for crediting and history-making purposes), particularly with very hot topics.

• In this case, the better strategy may be to go with a known publication with faster speeds to publication rather than a more elite one with unknown leadership and / or unknown schedules.

• Expect and assume professional skepticism. Trust is hard to come by and hard to maintain, especially initially.

• Professional skepticism is a good thing.

32

2.Cost-benefit calculations

. . .

33

Incentives to publish / not to publish

• A majority of people have perfectly good careers without ever publishing.

• In most commercial environments, publishing is restricted and used in a closed way by company personnel. Anything that can affect the competitive balance is held in confidence.

• Grants given by commercial entities for university researchers, for example, restrict publication as well.

• Those in academia who receive public moneys though are encouraged to publish to benefit others' research, to promote advancements in the field, and to benefit humankind.

• Publishing is an important way to contribute and to create a professional legacy.

• New (and seasoned) writers may have some erroneous assumptions about publishing.

34

Academic publishing…

• is not a romantic endeavor. It is hard work. It is expensive work (costly in time, resources, technologies, effort, and continuing training).

• is risky because it goes out to a broad public and may be read / interpreted and used any number of ways by any number of users.

• is risky because there are potential liabilities in handling information, reputations, brands, and ideas, particularly for the formal public record.

• is rarely earth-shaking except in a few cases where it may help change practices in a field (usually slowly) and / or launch a career or define one.

• is not totally open in terms of creativity but is defined by the bounds of fields and publisher / editor expectations and the state of the readership.

35

Academic publishing… (cont.)

• may sometimes result in benefits such as contribution to tenure or career advancement (for certain faculty who are tenure-track or in certain places in their respective careers).

• may occasionally (rarely) result in the gaining of funding or a grant on a related topic.

• involves limited payment in terms of a complimentary copy or two of the target publication (or limited access to other articles if the publication is an electronic one…sometimes) or nothing else (beyond publishing).

36

Academic editors…

Costs

• Have to expend time (usually a year), effort, outreach, and social capital to elicit and edit works by authors

• Pay upfront costs for home office and all technologies

• Put professional reputation on the line into perpetuity

• Are the intermediary between the authors and the publisher (administrators, typographers, and publicists, etc.)

Benefits

• Usually receive no advance (against profits), so academic editors take on all risks initially

• Acquire either a one-time payout or multi-year royalties (usually equal to about the same amount, worth several days’ wages) and in the triple digits only by the time income taxes are paid

• Gain some professional prestige

37

Publishing requires investments by the employer in terms of…

• some space (and legal approval) to research, write, present, and publish (or else this has to be done on nights and weekends) because of workplace and worker professional development / training benefits

• some access to related technologies

• distribution of internal or external funding to the endeavor (although some lower-cost research may be done within the limits of existing job funding)

• access to research repositories and databases

• lack of direct opposition by supervisors and leaders (even if there is no direct support)

38

39

How cost-benefits usually play out

Authors

• Costs:

• Investment of personal time and effort

• Cost for materials (informational or other) and technologies, with no reimbursement

• Opportunity costs (work that an author could have done otherwise if he / she wasn’t focused on a particular project)

• Benefits:

• A complementary copy of the publication (in print or often merely .pdf format)

• Benefit to reputation; some contribution to legacy

Editors

• Costs:

• Investment of personal time and effort (usually a year)

• Cost for technologies

• Opportunity costs

• Benefits:

• Very low royalties (5-7% usually for just a year or two, or a fixed payment equal to about a few days’ or a week’s regular wages in an academic job)

• Benefit to reputation; some contribution to legacy

40

How cost-benefits usually play out (cont.)

Publishers

• Costs:

• Investment of staff time (typography, marketing, sales, and others)

• Overhead

• Costs for materials

• Benefits:

• Bulk of the profits (90-95%)

• Benefit to reputation

Places of Employment

• Costs:

• Subscriptions to databases

• Overhead, provision of lab and office space (and other supports), utilities

• Wages and other incentives

• Professional supervision

• Benefits:

• A more satisfied employee

• Gained skills for the employee (which may be applied to on-campus endeavors)

• Improved reputation of the institution of higher education

41

How cost-benefits usually play out (cont.)

Other Researchers

• Costs:

• Cost of access to the published resources

• Investment of time and effort

• Benefits:

• Learning gain and insight

• Potentially new methods for work

Government

• Costs:

• Grant funding

• Regulatory oversight (such as review of human subjects research)

• Policies to support research work

• Benefits:

• Policy insights

42

How cost-benefits usually play out (cont.)

General Public

• Costs:

• Direct cost of actual resources (like books)

• Tax investments (support for public institutions of higher education, research labs, government—which provides grant funding for researchers)

…

• Benefits:

• Additional knowledge to researchers inside / outside the domain

• Additional knowledge to the broad public

• Potential improvements to processes, procedures, and policies

43

About cost-benefit calculations

• There have to be a certain amount of inputs in order to create publications worthy of human attention, archival, and history.

• Gaps in inputs show up in the submitted work.

• The research and publishing teams that societies can field reflect the society at large and its resources and its values.

• Costs fall unevenly on the various stakeholders to the process, with undue inputs by various stakeholder groups at various times.

• In the U.S. context, authors, publishers, and places of employment seem to carry a heavier burden than other aspects of society.

44

A personal cost-benefit analysis

Costs Benefits

In general, because research and writing demand so much hard work, authors are those who are motivated intrinsically by the learning and the hard work.

45

Public standing and personality filters

• Those who would publish are asked to submit a professional biography and CV (education, work history, publishing history, and other details) to go with the work.

• Everyone does background checks of some sort. It’s risky for a publisher to take on an individual who is untrustworthy or who plagiarizes, etc.

• Less formally, editors will vet authors by their affiliation with an institution of higher education, research organization, or company.

• Some professionals let their imaginations get away from them and think that writing can be a career. It can but only very a very rare few. Relinquishing a job and a professional affiliation is generally not a good way to acquire a publishing contract.

• Doctorates may be required of contributors. [However, in information technology (IT) and computer science publishing, it has always been more about capability and merit than higher education credential. For some types of work, the thorough training / complex theorizing / discipline / apprenticeship of a doctorate are required.]

46

Public standing and personality filters (cont.)

• Authors need to “embody” their expertise in order for their works to be accepted and gain traction.

• People tend to view publications through a “personality filter”.

• Outside interests, many unrelated to a field of study, may also come into play in the assessment of the potential author. These include what he or she enjoys reading, hobbies, and so on. It helps to have a sense of a person from what is available on Google Search and other search engines.

• Professionally scrubbed identities will be transparent to any professional researchers exploring others online. Avoid gauche moves like creating your own Wikipedia page (which will be removed by sharp-eyed editors). Avoid writing puff PR pieces about oneself. Social performance is not new, and most are sophisticated enough to see through these.

47

Public standing and personality filters (cont.)

• Personalities (and capabilities) reveal over time. Researchers are creating their own legacy with every published work.

• To this end, consider that every publication has up-sides and down-sides. Some new authors “go negative” by trying to challenge an important researcher in the field. If the data are solid, this may be a fine strategy to get noticed and to change the field. If the data are not solid, the new author may have created a bad space for himself / herself to start.

48

3.Parts to an article / parts to a chapter

. . .

49

Some generic parts…to articles and chapters

• Publishers have certain expectations of articles and chapters that they handle. Because these are all fairly unique, it is important to explore specifically what is expected. There are some general parts and pieces (even though these may go by different names).

• Abstract—a summary of the writing’s main points

• Key Words—a few terms that capture the most important foci of the writing

• Intro—an attention-getting and informative lead-in to a piece of writing

• Background—a selective but fairly comprehensive history of the topic

• Body—the research design, research, data, and findings (with delimitations)

50

Some generic parts…to articles and chapters (cont.)

• Discussion—the relevance (implications) of the findings

• Conclusion—future research

• Key terms and definitions—a publication-level dictionary

• Index—key terms from the chapter for findability

• Appendix—survey instruments and tools, data tables, images, and other extra contents

• Acknowledgments—giving credit to professional colleagues

51

Imagery and tables

• Imagery and tables for print publications have to be properly named and placed in the proper location in the writing (with labeled Figures and Tables).

• Digital imagery has to be at sufficient resolution for print publications (300 – 350 dpi).

• An online publication in color should have color processing as RGB (red, green, blue); a print publication should have color processing as CMYK (cyan, magenta, yellow, and black). Most print publications have images in grayscale.

• The proper image format for print publications is usually .tiff / .tif format.

• For electronic publications, the proper image format may be .png or .jpg, among others.

• Images for print publication need to have curve adjustments for the behavior of ink on paper, to lower the brashness of both white and black.

• Mathematical notation needs to be marked up using LaTeX.

52

Imagery and tables (cont.)

• Non-English language representations may require yet other types of markup.

• Note that print books often disaggregate into stand-alone electronic chapters that are accessed through subscription-based digital repositories.

• While only a small number of print books may be sold, generally, the works are mostly distributed electronically.

53

Some common forms of writing

• Within a publication, there may be various types of writing forms: op-eds, serial issue or conference introductions, interviews, oral histories, whitepapers, reviews, panel summaries, case studies, action research, meta-analyses, method pieces, and full research papers.

• Each of these forms of writing have their own standards and expectations. They all have some informational value, if done correctly.

• Some are invited pieces. Invited ones are those written at the invitation of the publisher or editor and are generally guaranteed entrée and publication because of the reputations of the authors. There may still be some light feedback for invited pieces.

• Most works are submitted pieces. These go through rigorous double-blind peer review and editorial oversight.

54

Some common forms of writing (cont.)

• The gold standard, generally, is research writing. This is in part because of the professional sophistication, effort, and costs involved.

• This is in part because of the amount of confidence that may be placed in the findings.

• Research writing also may offer generalizability of findings and also transferability of insights.

• Professional publishing involves not single stand-alone standards but all applied together.

55

4. Writing process. . .

56

Awareness of the self as researcher and writer

• Every researcher has his / her own research and writing process.

• It helps to create some brainstorming tools to help surface ideas. For some, this may involve doodling in Visio…or writing a list in Word…or writing in longhand...or listening to music…or having a conversation with someone.

• Inspiration is a necessary part of the creative process, but it should be integrated with a disciplined workflow.

• Sometimes, immersing in the research literature can inspire ideas.

• All it takes to start is an animating idea that evolves based on the literature review, thinking, research, and hard work.

57

Awareness of the self as researcher and writer (cont.)

• It helps to be aware of preferred methods and ways to self-incentivize, to get past hurdles.

• Writing work should be integrated with other work, so these efforts are not somehow “other” to daily (regular) practice.

• Sometimes, it helps to engage in reading that is not related to the research. This allows the subconscious mind to be brought into the work.

• There may be other activities that may be done—exercising, eating a healthy snack—to help detract from writer’s block for a time until inspiration returns.

• It helps to make reading and writing—both—a regular part of daily practice. Each practice enhances the other.

58

Awareness of the self as researcher and writer (cont.)

• It is important to stay fresh in the field. Reading broadly enables researchers to get out of regionalisms and provincialisms.

• Publishing requires an author to be both local and global simultaneously. He or she cannot afford to lose credibility at either level.

• There is little value in repeating what someone else has done, so it’s important to know what others are doing out there (particularly what research methods they’re using).

• Taking university courses and open-source massive open online courses (MOOCs) can be a source of inspiration for research projects.

59

Awareness of the self as researcher and writer (cont.)

• Some aspiring researchers / writers over-estimate how important it is to directly “fit” with current research work. Researchers have a voice in setting the agenda, especially in situations when their overall funding is solid and can accommodate the work.

• All topics date out in time, and the clock is constantly running.

• Researchers who are not first to publish a topic will be scooped, even if they provably had the idea first. The point is to be first-out and sufficiently thorough to dissuade the initial wave of challengers.

• If a researcher simultaneously and independently arrives at an insight and has a fresh angle in approaching a topic, they should pursue publication even if someone else has a similar idea and publishes first IMHO.

60

Awareness of the self as researcher and writer (cont.)

• Researchers have to build emotional resilience (grit), so they can continue writing in the face of hardships, publisher / editor rejections, and colleague criticisms.

• If researchers shut down, they may be closing off a lifetime of possible contributions. If they can push through and harness constructive criticism, they will be better researchers and stronger authors.

• Researchers can be stronger editors one day by nurturing new talent and supporting researchers and authors to do their best. (Constructive criticism is important in every field, and it takes finesse to critique others without causing harm to their sense of self.)

• Some talk of “a writer’s ego.” This is a real and necessary thing.

• This “ego” may read as hubris from a distance but is really about the conviction that one has something to contribute against very difficult odds.

61

Genre style features and conventions: Both formal and analytic

Formal

• Tends to

• Be rule-bound

• Use complex terminology

• Be non-immediate

• Be precise

• Be intellectual

• Be emotionally distant or cool (vs. effusive)

• Be related to status and power

• Be less self-reflective (and less self-related), with restraint on opinions

• Cite sources and give credit where it is due

Analytic

• Tends to

• Categorize and differentiate

• Focus in balanced presentation of issues

• Be precise and exacting

• Make fine (vs. coarse) distinctions

• Engage issues of association

• Involve issues of cause and effect

• Engage in cognitive complexity

• Include a sense of history

• Include method-based narration

62

Genre style adherence

Genre style adherence…

• Is generally advisable, with individual expressiveness manifesting in subtle ways

• May be formulaic but brings attention to stylistic flourishes which break conventions

• Convention breaking includes the following:

• Using some humor

• Including a brief anecdote

• Using colloquial speech

• Using a less formal tone, and others

63

Author writing “style”

• In writing for technical publications, “style” is not about unique voice or flourishes per se.

• Generally, the self is suppressed and understated. The focus is on technical and informational contents.

• Researcher has to be a precise (almost fastidious) documentarian.

• Described processes have to be exact and accurate.

• Terms should be defined clearly.

• Sources have to be tracked to the original source, with nothing cited second-hand.

• Others ideas, even when paraphrased and summarized, have to be fully accurately represented.

• Language is nuanced, and one incorrect word choice can be misleading (and seen as deceptive).

• Source citations have to be fully defined and cited accurately both in-text and in the bibliographic listing.

64

Author writing “style” (cont.)

• Point-of-view is usually in the third-person.

• This use of the third-person may be a holdover of the objectivist underpinnings in technological practice.

• First-person view is limited to editorials, introductions, and the rare transcribed talk.

• Researcher / writer “self” (and “signature”) is represented in the research design, the access to data, the access to technologies, the ability to wield technologies, the data visualizations, the point-of-view, and the overall research insights.

• Linguistic author signature often latent / hidden to the author.

• Combination of technique and heart, with a focus on the first.

• Author “style” may be extracted computationally, based on word counts to extract a linguistic fingerprint (to be compared against other works by the same author, genre baselines, personality profiles, and other research).

65

A disambiguated name

• It helps to disambiguate one’s name by using one name consistently.

• If one’s name is pretty generic, it helps to go with author identification systems (ORCID, ResearcherID, or ScopusID).

• Persistent digital identifiers enable proper author tracking across a number of digital archives and bibliographic reference manager systems.

66

Sourcing broadly

• Source broadly for citable research. The increasing acceptance of qualitative research methods and the breadth of social sharing has meant it is possible to tap sources broadly.

• Many also do not sufficiently use interpersonal connections to create primary sources.

• Many professionals are willing to engage with colleagues via email and phone; they are willing to interact professionally face-to-face (F2F) at conferences.

67

Reproducible research

• “Reproducible” research is a movement to have researchers publish out their datasets, text sets, software codes, and other support aspects to their research at the time of publication.

• Such releases may be integrated with the publication, to enable reader interactivity with the data and software.

• Sometimes, such releases involve separate downloads

• Reproducible research data and source code sharing are sometimes requirements of grant funders, publishers, and common practice in certain professional communities.

• Some researchers may want to share datasets and code because these elements also require a lot of hard work and investment, and they want to share broadly in order to benefit others in the community and to demonstrate their own skills.

68

Reproducible research (cont.)

• Sharing datasets and source code are not without risks. Readers may explore the underlying data and software and other elements to see if they get the same results as the author. They explore to see if the original author’s findings are “reproducible.”

• If it is not reproducible or the author has made errors, that will often be pointed out in various publication forums (or privately, off-list).

• Some publishers may offer access to other professional researchers who may “test” the data, but this is rare.

• Published authors who are high-profile and seen to embody particular positions or models or frameworks may become targets for academic “take-downs”.

• Others may want to try new interpretations of the data. Or they have found errors. Or they have different perspectives.

• History is rife with stories of detractors of researchers (even those who got things right or offered powerful insights or whose work stood the test of historical analysis).

69

Reproducible research (cont.)

• If inheritors of a dataset are creative, they may find other ways to run analytics on the data and extract new insights, about which they may publish themselves.

• Shared datasets may benefit future researchers who may have access to new technologies and new methods to test ideas and extract fresh meanings and insights.

• Some datasets are used as test sets against which new methods and technologies may be tested. Such datasets are somewhat known quantities with known metrics, so they may work as performance “baselines.”

70

Reproducible research (cont.)

• Users must generally credit the original creator of the data, the software, and anything else released along with the publication.

• Published datasets may be named ones with new data contributed annually or in somewhat regular fashion. In other words, some of these datasets may be dynamic and continuing.

• Whoever created the datasets should be cited whenever the data is used.

• Likewise, the developers of software codes should be credited whenever their work is used.

• Of course, any uses of the released article should also be cited.

71

Reproducible research (cont.)

• If the researcher is engaged in reproducible (sometimes called “repeatable”) research, he or she should make sure that the data files are properly processed.

• Datasets and related files should be labeled.

• Datasets should be properly de-identified against identity leakage (or identity re-identification), scrubbed of hidden metadata leakage, and so on.

• There should be documentation about how the dataset was created, where the data came from, how the data was processed, and the strengths and weaknesses of the dataset. When other researchers use the data, they should understand how the dataset came about and what may be asserted about it. Such documentation is usually part of the dataset…in a README section or a notes section.

• If there are copyrighted files included (as in qualitative data projects), the copyright status should be addressed; otherwise, the author would be publishing out contents that belong to someone else and would be breaking intellectual property laws. (This is especially a challenge for qualitative datasets which often include copyrighted data.)

72

Reproducible research (cont.)

• Before putting anything out for reproducibility and / or other types of exploration of the data, it helps to run all data queries multiple times to ensure that there are no mistakes.

• One parameter change or one shift in sequence of work can introduce all sorts of mistakes.

• Also, various statistical methods involve complex assumptions about the underlying data. It can be quite easy to make mistakes. It helps to have a professional double-check by a professional statistician (for complex works).

73

Reproducible research (cont.)

In Qualitative / Mixed Methods / Multi-Methods Research?

• In qualitative and mixed methods and multi-methods practices, there is not as-yet a large push for reproducibility and the sharing out of datasets. However, since Dr. Lisa Cliggett’s call in 2013 for qualitative data archiving, this idea has gained some traction.

• Assumptions of qualitative research generally militate against “reproducibility” per se, but qualitative datasets contain insights and informational value which may benefit other researchers in rich ways.

• One idea here is that other researchers with their own declared subjectivities will e able to capture new insights from the collected data.

• Or new qual / quant / mixed methods / multi-methods and (other) researchers may capture insights about the original researcher and his / her / their methods.

74

Reproducible research (cont.)

Some Technologies Related to Reproducible Research

• Some web servers are deployed to allow access to datasets and source codes. These are often closely linked to the published article.

• In some cases, the platform itself integrates the published article with the dataset, with the code, and with the capabilities for data visualizations and interactive data queries.

• CDF (computable document format) is a new format by Wolfram that involves building interactivity of data and analytics right into the published article. Others use R integrations into articles to create a similar effect.

75

Not a one-off

• Replicability / non-replicability of research findings is an important aspect of research in most empirical science-based fields.

• In qualitative research, there may not be direct replication but variations on a theme.

• Future findings may be in alignment or non-alignment with others’ research findings.

• Consensus and dissensus are both valuable because both may contain informational insight.

76

Aide-memoire

• Notetaking and documenting are humble tasks but are necessary.

• Taking accurate and future-usable notes is not as easy as one might assume.

• Notetaking and document require disciplined practice. (It is easy to end up with an incoherent mess, especially early on in this work. Good notetaking seems effortless, but it’s not.)

• Effective notetaking requires having recording media or equipment nearby at all times because inspiration strikes anytime…and in different contexts.

• The human mind works constantly, consciously and subconsciously.

• Notes may be in any form—textual, auditory, figurative, multimedia-based as long as the essence(s) is / are captured.

• These should be in “preservation” form—or the lowest common denominator of file, for future access.

77

Aide-memoire (cont.)

• Putting fleeting and ephemeral ideas into fixed form…

• enables accommodation of a variety of ideas, even very contradictory ones at one time (to accommodate complexity).

• enables a return to the concepts at later times to test their actual value and to ensure that these are not lost to time.

• frees up the mind to engage other work and other ideas.

• ensures that there is some physical / digital reference when certain projects or concepts become salient and doable.

• takes a concept one step from conceptual into something possibly real.

• Finally, notes are not for long-term storage but short-term preservation—and for practical use as soon as possible. Ideas date out, even good ones (especially good ones)!

78

5. Collaborating . . .

79

Research teams

• Research teams may be employed with members with disparate types of expertise, with everyone bringing something to the process (think “stone soup”).

• Resulting work expected to be synergistic and not represent any one style of any one of the collaborators.

• It is good practice to co-author with others whom you know and trust.

• Distant colleagues (at the first meeting) will often have ideas for shared work, which usually does not pan out.

• Be careful about global colleagues who piggy-back the faux closeness of social media relationships to elicit work or professional benefits or professional introductions.

• “Mentions” and “likes” do not often change up fundamentals.

• Digital bouquets and happy birthday wishes are “cheap talk,” not “costly signals.”

80

Research teams (cont.)

• In academia, for some, the game is to get as much work as possible out of others for as little money as possible, and free is best.

• Don’t get used.

• Bring on people who will actually do the work (not just those with reputation).

• Lean teams are more efficient than bloated ones; there are costs to adding each new member and bringing him / her up-to-speed.

• Collaborate from the beginning (whenever possible), such as at the conceptualization and at the writing of the grant proposals.

• Starting late means not having an effective input on the work.

• Starting late also means not having sufficient history about what was already done.

81

Research teams (cont.)

• Discuss expectations for shared work and for credit sharing from the beginning.

• Assigned work should follow individual expertise.

• Conditions of crediting should be fulfilled before any credit is given.

• Sometimes, credit is given in lieu of payment for work in a sparse funds context. Generally, this is not good practice but is sometimes necessary. The better tradeoff is to get the paid work but forgo the byline. Credit is not all its cracked up to be especially outside of one’s areas of expertise.

• Avoid unnecessary crediting.

• Those who share data are usually thanked in acknowledgments, not included as co-authors (except in some domain fields and disciplines).

• People who critique a work may deserve mention in the “thanks,” not co-authorship credit.

• Avoid including non-professionals because their expectations are often outsized and non-aligned with professional practice.

82

Shared reputation

• If there is any doubt about where data have come from or how it is handled, do not proceed with any possible collaboration.

• If the collaboration is from a professional relationship, do the work to high standards, but decline mention in the final publications.

• Avoid those who will try to offer co-authorship on papers for which one has contributed nothing.

• Some will offer this as an overture of “friendship,” but fraud is never appropriate.

• There are others—like occasional professors, like principal investigators (PIs) on grants—who will try to be a co-author on a paper, when they have not actually contributed anything.

• Just say no politely. Or include them in the acknowledgments. Or go strategic and political, and include them in the bylines if they contribute a section to the work.

83

Author credit

• Authors are usually ordered with the primary (most important) author first, and the others listed in descending order.

• Advising professors are usually listed at the end, if they are included at all. (Usually, doctoral advisors are thanked in the dissertation and maybe acknowledged in a professional publication, but not included in the author list.)

• Some administrators will try to free-ride publications.

• Principal investigators (PIs) of grants funding projects will expect byline credit even if they have not directly written any part of the paper…or have only added a paragraph or two for nominal contribution.

• In lab sciences, any who lent equipment or shared an idea will expect byline credit. By contrast, in the social sciences, there should usually be direct contribution to a work before byline credit is shared.

84

Author credit (cont.)

• Most people, if they even touch a project very peripherally, will want some credit.

• Emotionally, people may feel they have contributed when factually they may not have actually contributed to the work.

• Handling such assumptions requires finesse.

• Accuracy in crediting should carry the day. Bylines should be accurate.

• Some authors of an edited book will ask for letters of recommendation or other favors. They want to parlay a professionally shared work into an additional benefit.

• If the editor does not have standing to recommend a person as an employee, he or she should just decline politely. Likewise, he or she should decline other favors as well.

85

6. Publishing process . . .

86

Preparing a draft manuscript

• Make sure that all the parts and pieces of an article have been addressed per the specifications of the publisher.

• Check the data to make sure that it is accurate.

• Double-check the statistics to make sure that that is all correct.

• Make sure the research methods are accurate and comprehensively described.

• In terms of the “discussion,” make sure that assertions are justified and that the implications are reasoned and reasonable.

• A draft manuscript should be fully read-through for clear transitions and overall organization.

• Authors develop a work a sentence at a time, so they may not be paying attention to overall readability.

87

Preparing a draft manuscript (cont.)

• Always do a count of the figures and tables, to make sure nothing is missed.

• Always use computer-based spell-check. Typographical errors are not uncommon. Check the spelling in figures and tables as well.

• Always use computer-based grammar-check. Syntax can get contorted in the thinking and writing.

• If writing as a non-native speaker of the target language, have a candid native speaker read the text and make corrections.

• Online review sites often apply line numbering. This may be done in MS Word to help the author review critically on each line.

• Layout -> Line Numbers

88

Preparing a draft manuscript (cont.)

• Check references for thoroughness and accuracy to the citation method.

• Make sure that trademark indicators ™ and ® are properly applied to any trademarked terms, phrases, or imagery. (The USPTO is a good source to verify.)

• Remember that publishing is global though, so one has to not step on anyone else’s rights globally.

• If image-based models are derived from others’ original works, those original creators have to be credited. The changes should be clearly identified so that there is clarity about what was in the initial model vs. the later model.

89

Preparing a draft manuscript (cont.)

• Draft formatting to publication specifications includes the source citation format, which can be fairly variant between publishers. (APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, etc.)

• In general, a draft manuscript should not be in professional typographical format because that is unnecessary, presumptuous, and distracting to reviewers. This effort is also unnecessarily costly (in terms of effort) to the author.

• A draft manuscript should not be in a fixed format like “secure” PDF (portable document format) but in a more editable / malleable format like Word (so the file may be de-identified for double-blind peer review).

90

Preparing a draft manuscript (cont.)

• Make sure that author identifications have been removed for the double-blind peer review. Or make sure that these bylines are easily removable and not findable otherwise through source citations, acknowledgments, or other ways.

• Sometimes, an author has to cite himself or herself because of how much prior work he or she has done in the area.

• This is not generally considered good form though. It smacks of self-promotion to increase research citation counts.

• A draft manuscript should already be in the publisher content format (in terms of information structure: labels and order). If the draft is too far off format, the editor may request initial revisions before a draft submission is accepted for double-blind peer review.

• Some publishers even want the mss. to be in the typographical format of publication. This is fairly rare.

91

An overview of the publishing process

Once a work is in the best shape that the author can make it (sometimes with the help of colleagues as readers), he or she may select a publisher to query. If publisher is interested, the author / authoring team may submit the manuscript for consideration.

• Query to the editor (sometimes optional)

• Frame this in the perspective of the publication, but stay true to the researcher’s research work and findings

• Submittal of draft (and support materials)

• Double blind peer review

• Return of reviews to the author / authoring team

• Revision

92

An overview of the publishing process (cont.)

• Author acknowledgment of the peer reviews; write-up of the changes made in response to the peer reviews (including some rebuttals of reviewer assertions as needed)

• Resubmittal of finalized draft (with contract, imagery, professional biography, and any other required elements)

• Plagiarism checks (often automated)

• Editorial oversight and approval

• Professional editing and layout, creation of proofs

93

An overview of the publishing process (cont.)

• Author read-over of edited and professionally laid-out proofs from the publisher

• Publication

• Complimentary copies of the publication to the lead author (occasionally to the entire authoring team)

• Publicity and outreach

94

An overview of the publishing process (cont.)

Books

• ISBN: The International Standard Book Number (13 digits post January 2007 and 10 digits prior) is a unique number identifier for each edition of a book

• Varies between countries

• Copyright date: This is usually set for the next year of a book’s release, possibly to increase the shelf life

Serial Publications

• ISSN: The International Standard Serial Number is a unique 8-digit number identifier for each serial publication

95

Rookie Mistakes of Researchers and Authors

96

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Data and information handling

• “I am interested in a topic even though I do not have direct expertise in it” (need close proximity and intimacy with a topic in order to write well about it; a necessary but not sufficient condition)

• “I enjoy reading about a topic, so I want to write about it” (enjoyment is not sufficient in an of itself)

• Some authors have proposed writing about others’ research and work, without any “in” or special insight as if interest or enjoyment is enough

• “I have access to data from a project, so I can write about it” (access is not permission)

• Principal investigators (PIs) and the institution and the grant funder all have dibs to the data in a project

• Do not conflate access with rights-to-use data or information for publication

97

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Insufficient quality

• “I’m not going to go through the rigmarole of formal publishing but will self-publish…to cut out the middle people” (author skips the discipline- and skill-building necessary for a longer career)

• “My (untested) generic grad school assignment is publishable” without application in the real world or in production (usually premature and potentially embarrassing in the future if published and findable)

• “I’ve already drafted my work, and I don’t intend to make any revisions” / “Double blind peer reviews offend me” (excessive protectionism)

• “It is enough to read some published academic papers and to summarize them” (lack of originality, lack of direct experience, distance from the topic)

• “I’m going to submit a fast draft to meet a deadline” (half-baked, sloppy)

98

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Insufficient quality (cont.)

• “I’m a genius” with ideas that I will not share publicly (and so will go uncontested) (arrogance)

• “Because I know a few domain areas well, I can speak outside my expertise” (expertise often does not transfer; smarts does but with limits) (arrogance)

• “I’m done learning” (learning never stops if a person is to be relevant, even in some small way) (arrogance)

• “I’m going to write 2-3 versions of the same thing” / “I’m going to re-version a writing for another publication / “I’m going to self-plagiarize, and I won’t be found out” (dilution, disrespecting readers)

• “I’m going to rely on a statistician to help make assertions even if I do not understand what is being asserted” (it helps to know all the statistical analytics pieces)

99

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Insufficient originality

• “I’m going to ride this tech fad” (short ride, often not focused on the author’s strengths)

• “I’m going to copy / emulate a well-known author” (following taken to an extreme, often not building to the author’s strengths)

• “I’m going to self-plagiarize because it’s all my stuff anyway” (not original, breaks the rules of engagement)

• “I’m going to request others’ copyright for their imagery, so I can pack my writing with others’ work” (not original, not directly value-added)

100

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Over-confidence

• “I am what I create” with works that cannot be critiqued because the works are me (conflating writing creation with self, excessive defensiveness)

• “I’m going to wait for the perfect publication” (idealism)

• Everything dates out. If a work does not make it to publication when the concepts are fresh, they will not make it at all. They will end up collecting dust and being unread (much less being forgotten).

• “Retreads” are instantly recognizable for the following reasons: unaligned writing focus, inappropriate writing tone, poor fit to the new publication, improper citation formatting, and others.

• “Because an editor has responded to an email, I have an automatic in” (wrong assumptions about process, ethics, and responsibility)

• “I will build a faux relationship with an editor in order to get an edge” (over-focus on relational strategy and tactics rather than creating something of quality and merit)

101

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Over-confidence (cont.)

• “My ideas are so original that they are patentable and worth money” (inaccurate understandings of the market)

• There are high monetary and time costs to patenting.

• There is a high bar to prove originality.

• It is difficult to monetize ideas.

102

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Non-selectivity / non-exclusivity

• “I’m going to accept all comers” who invite me to publish or present (unthinking and unfiltered commitments to projects)

• Be highly selective of invitations to publish/present as invitations are plentiful and of dubious quality; time is the only real money.

• Publishing with a disreputable press is a fast way to lose credibility.

• Invitations are easy, but the actual required work is demanding and expensive.

• “I’m going to share broadly via open-source and Social Web before going to a copyrighted publication” (compromises copyright agreements)

• If sharing is necessary, make sure that the copyright is preserved and that nothing is given out via Creative Commons licensure; also, notify the publisher of the pre-release sharing, particularly if it contravenes a contractual clause.

103

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Tunnel vision ambition / excess ego

• “Publishing is the only way to go” (one-track mind)

• There are lots of ways to share value without publishing, particularly with sensitive materials.

• Anything embargoed should be left alone.

• “I’m going to pretend I’m famous” (the prance is not the thing)

• Most people will not fall for the illusions and the social performances, even if they are polite about it. A fundamental human capability has to be differentiating between the real and the fake.

• More likely, the risk is self-deception (even if this assuages the ego).

• A “red flag” is when people make a show of the work that they’re doing by talking big and trying to capture others’ attention to their “work.” If actual work is not going on but the energy is going to being showy, it generally means that there will not be any usable output ultimately.

104

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Unnecessary antagonisms

• “Publishers / editors are parasites who will take my work and abscond with it” (unjustified paranoia)

• Publishers take on the financial risks of publishing, which are real.

• Finding markets is not easy, and the sell is getting harder all the time.

• Intellectual property is often contravened. Swiped copies of manuscripts are posted online to drive traffic to illegal sites…which sell ads based on the traffic. In the name of “open sharing” and “copy left” (vs. copyright), some people will swipe original works and post for others’ use.

• Editors walk away from projects with very little money (well less than minimum wage for the work that is invested in a project). Academic publishing publishes to a defined audience of learners and practitioners. These do not involve film rights or other ways of monetizing the effort. If anything, works are also “sold” in a subscription-basis for data repositories, but editors generally do not get a percentage of that. Royalties are usually only for very brief periods, or there may only be a one-time payment. Up front costs are usually paid for by the editors and authors.

• Further, the prestige of editing a work is minimal and does not translate into anything material, usually, except maybe for new faculty in an academic environment.

105

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Unnecessary antagonisms (cont.)

• “I’m going to dangle a work with multiple potential publishers to see what I can get” (non-professionalism, multiple-submission issue)

• Editors talk; editors will not appreciate wasting time. While there may not be a formal “blacklist,” …

• “If I cannot follow through on a promised work, I’ll just slink off into silence” (lack of responsibility; lack of follow-through)

• Professional respect requires that you own that truth and notify the editors / publishers; you all may well meet again because it is a “small world”. People talk.

• Early in a career, it is possible to underestimate the amount of work needed to actualize an idea. People understand.

106

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Forgoing imagery and tables

• “I think textually, so I’ll just go with text” (text-heavy approaches)

• A major human strength is visual intelligence and processing. Visualizations enhance reader appreciation of complex information, and they make a work more memorable.

• Plenty of submitted works come in as almost pure-text, without any visualizations or data tables.

• In some cases, images are derived from other sources:

• Some use open-source public domain works, many of which are highly recognizable and broadly used.

• Some submitted works use Creative Commons-released images with the CC BY License (attribution only) or CC0 1.0 Universal License (public domain).

• Publication is about original contribution, not directly free-riding others’ creations.

107

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: External locus of control

• “I’m waiting on the…right circumstances / right person / right funding / right whatever…to do my work”

• Having too many external dependencies for work will mean that the work does not get done.

• “My life has too many extenuating circumstances for me to do the work”

• Life is always busy, and there are choices to be made, but time lost does not get recaptured.

• “This administrator is stopping me from having access to collect my research data”

• Working through a bureaucracy is part of the challenge of doing research work…within professional ethics and within given rules and common professional practices.

• The “blame game” does not go very far and leaves people unwilling to help. This also puts the responsibility for the lack of work on others and not the self (where the real locus of control lies).

108

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Technophobia

• “I’m afraid of book publishing systems” and so will not pursue publishing if it requires that I get past this (technophobia)

• Sometimes, authors have a reluctance to join yet another online work system. However, almost all the main publishers have gone to online publishing systems.

• “I’m put off by initial automated layouts” and so will not pursue publishing (publishing is going to automation-supported, and this is only part of the process) (technophobia)

109

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Lack of attention to details

• “I don’t need to proof the proofs because the publishers know what they’re doing” (called “proofs” for a reason)

• In the publishing process, a lot of people with various expertise touch a manuscript. In the work, errors may be introduced (while other errors are mitigated).

110

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Freeriding

• “I am a supervisor / doctoral advisor / professor / colleague / other, so I can expect others (subordinates) to share authorship” (freeriding)

• It never makes sense to take credit for another’s work.

• Those who write and publish regularly have their own “hand” and voice in their work. Those who just free-ride may have the occasional publication, but it will be clear to readers that their research or writing role is small or non-existent.

• There is always a degree of legal responsibility and liability in publishing, and unless all authors are clear about the quality of the research and work, they should generally avoid being co-author (unless they were a part of the work from the beginning).

111

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Attention-getting ploys

• “I will take down a big-name author’s model in order to gain attention” (a takedown strategy)

• Going “negative” is one approach, but to do this well means that the researcher has to have his / her data, logic, reputation, and other aspects as pristine as possible. There will be repercussions to calling out others, particularly for disingenuous reasons.

• “I will make outsized claims” (a “shock and awe” or “big splash” tactic)

• Marcello Truzzi: “An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof”

• “I will write a tech manifesto to capture citations” (an attention-getting strategy)

• What passes for technology manifestos are not necessarily manifestos. If a work claims to fit a particular format, it should fit a format.

• Also, generally, works are cited not because they are called a thing per se but because they add some novel ideas and practices of value.

112

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Attention-getting ploys (cont.)

• “I will (try to) co-author with someone famous to burnish my credentials” (riding coattails)

• Co-authorship may offer a small bump to reputation, but ultimately, it is the author’s own works over time that will ultimately determine actual contribution and reputation. It is the totality of work that counts, not a one-off.

• People will not co-author with someone else unless the other author brings something to the table.

• “I will ride a current fad which is popular” (an ephemeral strategy)

• “If people are dedicated to a fad, they will like whatever I contribute”

• Those who are expert in a fad will recognize a lack of originality and a lack of expertise; they will often have a higher standard of expectations than non-experts.

• Potential authors generally aim for the experts, not the lay readers.

• By definition, fads are transitory. If the fad is not in an area of expertise, the author will only get short mileage from a fad.

113

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Waiting…for discovery…for perfect opportunities

• “I will have a soda and wait to be discovered” (believing in the fairytale of being discovered at Schwab’s Pharmacy)

• Raw talent may be recognizable close-up to advisors and maybe some peers, but it takes a lot of hard work to hone any native capability.

• It’s on you to develop your own skills and to determine what you’ll do with your skills. Others will have their own interests as their primary concerns. (This is not a moral judgment on them but a general statement of observation. Core assumptions are that individuals have their own interests at heart, and those that do not at least consider their own interests will get used.)

• Don’t wait for a “perfect opportunity” because that is also illusory. Good enough (“satisficing”) is sufficient.

• Engage with what’s in the world but be selective.

• Once a work is published and in the world, move on. A work will “make” or not on its own once it is available to an audience.

114

Researchers’ and authors’ rookie mistakes: Non-contribution

• “I won’t serve on editorial boards or review teams…because these are not aligned with my direct goals” (lack of foresight)

• There are numerous benefits in reading and reviewing broadly, in order to

• Understand what is going on in the field in terms of research

• Maintain and develop constructive critique and review skills

• Attain proficiency in a variety of online publishing systems

• Make professional connections with others

115

Rookie Mistakes of Publishers and Editors

116

Publishers’ and editors’ rookie mistakes: Misreading the environment

• “I’m the only game in town” (egotism)

• There are numerous publishing outlets, and the competition for talent is fierce.

• With the growing sophistication of online publishing, there is now practically infinite space for publishing (especially for authors on the “long tail” with niche audiences).

• This is not the same as saying that all works will be read. Online audiences are highly discerning and supported by a range of technologies that enable the identification of those who try to manipulate the system. It’s better to just play it straight from the beginning.

• “Sharp elbows” are the order of the day (hyper-competitiveness)

• For ongoing relationships, it’s better to play fair, build trust, find common ground, and be respectful.

117

Publishers’ and editors’ rookie mistakes:Misreading the environment (cont.)

• “I don’t have to work hard to chase talent or head hunt” (illusion of effortless outcomes)

• In many fields, there is a “thin bench” of potential authors who can deliver quality and original work on a particular topic.

• It is a “big ask” to invite people to invest hundreds of hours to create an original piece of writing that contributes to the research literature and passes muster with double-blind peer reviewers, often in domains with limited individuals with expertise.

• Incentives for prospective authors may include some combination of the following: • Professional editorial support and respect

• Helpful advisement

• Regular communications

• Sharing of professional social networks

• Strong follow-through on the publishing work

• Support to the authors to publish elsewhere if they do not pass muster with peer review

• Prospective authors may have to be asked directly multiple times before considering submitting, but if asked too often, they’ll be put off and will send queries to the spam folder.

118

Publishers’ and editors’ rookie mistakes: Lack of care for authors

• “Authors will take care of themselves” (professional coolness)

• Authors will take care of themselves, but they benefit from timely support and consideration, accurate information, and respect.

• Authors do not benefit from “sweet nothings,” however.

• “I don’t want to hurt feelings, so I will just string authors along” (avoidance)

• If the end state is that a work will not make, then there is no point in leading an author along because that approach will taste time on all sides.

• If constructive advice can be given, then offer it (while knowing that what the author chooses to do is ultimately up to him / her).

• “If I can’t use their work, I can just send them off” (pro forma response)

• If the editor or publisher knows of another possible place to publish, he or she or they should share that information—to benefit all (but without overstepping and taking responsibility for someone else’s work).

119

Publishers’ and editors’ rookie mistakes:Going with hope vs. experience

• “Everyone who has submitted a chapter proposal will submit a work” (naiveté)

• In virtually every publishing project, there is unavoidable lack-of-follow-through by one or more would-be authors.

• Some warning signs of likely non-follow-through are proposals that are so brief that it is clear that no effort was put into the proposal.

• If an author does not have sufficient effort in the initial proposal, he or she will show the same non-committal approach to the other harder work.

• Another warning sign is non-alignment with the particular topic of the publication.

• If the potential author did not have sufficient will or time or focus to actually read about the project, he or she will not have the follow-through to create a work aligned with the objectives of the actual project.

• Another warning sign is a topic proposal that is distant from the author’s area of expertise.

• People don’t know what they don’t know until they start research in an area.

• In some cases, an author can stretch beyond an area of knowledge (and optimally, they would have a work drafted already; the closer to completion that a work is and the closer to professional standards, the better; otherwise, the correct assumption is that the potential work is “vaporware”).

120

Publishers’ and editors’ rookie mistakes:Going with hope vs. experience (cont.)

• “An inexperienced but enthusiastic potential author will follow through” (misplaced trust in enthusiasm even in the absence of experience)

• Enthusiasm does not ever replace experience unless that enthusiasm translates into actual hard work.

• The best mix would be professional enthusiasm *and* experience *and* goodwill.

• For ego, some editors will dissipate others’ goodwill in an unforced error.

• Goodwill is very hard to replace, and it is hard to re-spark.

• People will sometimes pull a work which has gone through peer review and acceptance for any number of reasons, including spite.

• “My colleagues will have drafts” (misplaced trust in collegiality)

• Colleagues have to be willing to give the editor-colleague the “win”; many would prefer non-publishing and an experience of schadenfreude (if possible).

121

Publishers’ and editors’ rookie mistakes:Insufficient range for mss. acceptance

• A healthy publication can accommodate different formats and styles of writing.

• All submitted draft manuscripts (mss.) have rough edges. All submitted drafts can and should be further polished.

• Putting in the effort to ensure that authors submit their best work is an important part of the process.

• Talent in researchers has to be nurtured.

• Part of that process involves publication, including of early works (and some by neophytes).

• Publishing is not a private club and should not be treated as an elitist process. There are ways to ensure quality without snobbism.

122

Publishers’ and editors’ rookie mistakes: Not maintaining reputation

• “Reputation will take care of itself” (over-trust in others’ awareness; over-trust in the environment; over-trust in social networks).

• Word of mouth (WOM) can cause undue harm to a public reputation even if there is no factual grounding in the assertions.

• “It takes too much work to pay attention to reputation” (laziness)

• Staying engaged in maintaining reputation is an important part of the cost of business.

• “Customers have too much of an outsized voice” (griping)

• Customers are the raisons d’être for a business and are key to its survival.

123

Publishers’ and editors’ rookie mistakes: Excessive ego

• “I want everyone to write like me (only),” so my feedback tells people to emulate my own published works (arrogance)

• There are lots of ways to be and to get things right; one person is always by definition highly limited and should not try to impose their aesthetics and point-of-view on others.

• Homophily is a risk in research and in writing. Heterophilous professional connections result in much more diversity (and perspective) in work.

• “I will not submit my own writing to single-blind peer review” because I know what the standards are (excessive self-confidence)

• All works stand to be critiqued and improved.

• All authors have blind spots and weaknesses. Having others’ feedback will benefit the work if the work is properly revised.

124

Publishers’ and editors’ rookie mistakes: Excessive ego (cont.)

• “I will rip researchers in my critiques, so they can see how important I am and how much I know.”

• Reviewing and editing are about helping the authors / authoring teams achieve the best work possible…and to ensure that publishers do not go to press with lesser works. It is not about editors affirming their own egos.

• Review forms sometimes include spaces for reviewers to indicate how much they know about a particular topic. (Expertise does not often transfer across areas of expertise. Smarts alone also do not transfer across areas of expertise.)

• Reviewing and editing are not about relieving emotional stress.

• If reviewers have a problem with this bleed-over of stress into their work, they need to de-stress before they approach the work. They need to allow themselves time between the review and the submittal of the review.

• Reviewing and editing are not about striving to embarrass others. They are not about harming reputations. They are not about standing in judgment of the others. The focus should be on the work.

125

Publishers’ and editors’ rookie mistakes: Poor timing

• “I’ve got time” (procrastination)

• Time moves inexorably, and while soft deadlines may pass, hard ones may be difficult or impossible to re-negotiate.

• “This topic is hot now” (sometimes bleeding-edge, sometimes past-due)

• Sometimes, waiting may be required before a topic is addressable. Sometimes, the topic should have been addressed a while ago, and interest in the topic may not arise again for years.

• For editing a multi-authored text or collection, there have to be some degree of expertise in the field, interest in reading about the topic, and some freshness to the topic.

• Having a sense of timing is an art form.

126

Publishers’ and editors’ rookie mistakes: Lack of due diligence

• “Authors indemnify us, so we don’t not have to do due diligence on all publications” (false confidence, laziness)

• Mainline publishers check works against potential plagiarism and will publicly retract / rescind works found to be non-compliant, even ex post facto.

• “It can’t hurt to keep requesting revisions and updates even though revisions have already been sent” (not paying attention, disrespect)

• If authors have put in the heavy lifting to make the proper changes, their changes should be preserved for publication.

• If authors have clear and rational justifications for why a particular proposed revision is inappropriate or incorrect, their explanations should be examined. If those explanations are rational, they should be supported and given the benefit of the doubt. The authors are the experts in the particular field.

• Files, once sent, should be handled carefully and protected, so that they do not have to be requested again.

127

Publishers’ and editors’ rookie mistakes: Lack of due diligence (cont.)

• “Famous authors always have something important to say” (trusting reputation without looking at the work in a single-blind peer review way)

• There is value and cachet in a name, but the work being considered should have substance and originality.

• If a work does not meet research standards, it is possible to “demote” a work to a feature one which does not undergo direct peer review.

128

Publishers’ and editors’ rookie mistakes: Poor follow-through

• “I got busy…and forgot to follow-through on a part of a process…” (lack of care)

• Dropped effort means that opportunities are foregone and reputations harmed.

• “It’s okay if this project falls through; there will be others” (wishful thinking)

• People work hard to contribute to a project. Leaving them unsupported without a final project is unprofessional, and it ruins their chances of publishing elsewhere.

• Having a reputation of non-follow-through is dangerous to future projects. People will not want to risk the time waiting on progress that may never come.

• For publishers, there is a cost to starting a project, investing staff time into that project, and then not getting any return in their inputs. Publishers also have a long memory. They work in competitive environments and cannot afford more than a few “fails” on their books.

129

Editors’ rookie mistakes: Editors not conducting own research or writing

• “I am an editor now and so will not research or write” (not maintaining expertise in areas of study)

• Relinquishing prior expertise in areas of interest means that editors will merely be conduits for others’ work and contributions.

• Not maintaining expertise also means that editors will lose their standing as researchers in their field and the professional credibility that goes along with it.

• Not researching and writing means not being able to bring another skill set to the editing to protect the publication from not making.

• Not going with the double-blind peer review process as an author (vs. reviewer) will mean a lessening of the empathy needed to offer a constructive peer review.

130

AND: Pros as “rookies” sometimes

• A healthy reminder: Pros can fall into “rookie” mistakes…multiple times…

• Avoiding rookie mistakes means an actual investment of hard work, time, and resources. This is nothing you can “think” your way out of alone. The doing is critically important.

• If an apology is in order, it should be given with sincerity, and mistakes should not be repeated.

• If a relationship or a work can be salvaged, that should be done. If not, then moving on makes sense.

131

Not “gaming” the tech publishing process

• Keep ego out of it (except for what is needed to do the work).

• Publishing is not a trade. Avoid:

• “You scratch my back, and I scratch yours” (quid pro quo)

• Citing others so they’ll cite you (the publication version of “followback”)

• Using personal connections to get in the door

• Changing up incentive structures for others (or yourself) that may skew judgment

• Maintain fair play and integrity in publishing.

• Support systems of merit and open exploration.

• Support equal access and fair consideration for everyone.

132

Awareness of risk factors for publication not materializing

• Topical call for proposals

• is insufficiently compelling

• is poorly conceptualized

• is poorly timed

• is exclusionary

• does not align with where a field is headed or is so cutting edge that there is a lack of expertise in the field

• offers a cost-benefit proposition that is wholly negative for potential researchers

133

Awareness of risk factors for publication not materializing (cont.)

• Editor / editorial team

• does not have a background in publishing (vs. a background in writing)

• does not have the management skills to carry the project through a year-long (or so) development cycle

• does not maintain accurate records

• does not acquire the right legal signoffs

• does not guide authors to create publishable works

• does not have enough professional connections to make up gaps in the writing

• does not have the research / writing resources to make up gaps in the would-be publication

134

Awareness of risk factors for publication not materializing (cont.)

• Publisher

• does not have a long track record of quality publications

• is poorly regarded among researchers

• is insufficiently resourced

• has high turnover among in-house editors

• has little front-end investments in book projects

• has high requirements for potential markets before going to press (and so will pull contracts)

135

When a planned publication fails to launch

How to tell a publication is faltering / failing

• Prospective editor has gone out of communications and is no longer responsive

• Prospective editor is not providing accurate information

• Months and years with no signs of progress

• Promises get more outlandish over time

• There may be no prior finalized projects by the editor (or the planned publisher)

What to do

• Query respectfully

• Set a redline (a time beyond which a work will be retracted and removed, not more than a year tops)

• Remove the work formally (and keep a record of the acknowledgment)

• Revise and update the work for publication elsewhere

• Use any prior critiques and reviews, if they were provided

136

When a planned publication fails to launch (cont.)

How to tell a publication is faltering / failing

• No online signs of participation in the project (such as mentions in social media, mentions in online CVs and résumés, and sharing on professional electronic mailing lists)

• Silence (“the dog that doesn’t bark”) is a tell

• Few projects are stealth ones

• Local word-of-mouth (WOM) is negative

What to do

• Submit elsewhere (no multiple submissions)

• When the work is accepted for publication elsewhere, either

• acknowledge the prior potential editor (if he or she contributed to the evolution of the work’s quality) and take the edge off any possible disappointment

• or just move on (because projects fail to make all the time)

137

7.Acquiring readers (and citations)

. . .

138

In the age of social media and promo…

• In the age of social media, there are a number of public-facing platforms that enable research sharing (ResearchGate, Academia.edu, and others). Universities often host their own publishing repositories, which are indexed by Google Scholar.

• Don’t break copyright agreement with publishers in order to distribute work. Publishers invest resources in order to take a work to publication. Request rights release if you want to distribute broadly.

• If pre-publication drafts are sharable based on the terms of the contract, do so (if you want).

• There are always a lot of strangers who claim co-authorship. Never falsely verify these.

• Online reference manager sites (with linked academic social networks) also enable the targeted sharing of publications, to increase citations (Mendeley, and others).

• Universities have public relations offices that create press releases from researcher work. The aim is to find an angle with public interest, sense of public value, and ease-of-understanding.

139

In the age of social media and promo… (cont.)

• Social media platforms are plentiful:

• Researchers will microblog (Tweet) about their work.

• Some will blog (web log) with full-length entries.

• Some will present at TEDx and other conference presentations.

• Some will create spinoff slideshows.

• Some will create digital image sharing sequences related to their work and shared on content sharing social media platforms like Flickr.

• Some will engage in videotaped interviews distributed on SlideShare.

• Some will share on their Facebook pages.

• Some will share their expertise on Reddit and answer anything asked.

140

In the age of social media and promo… (cont.)

• Culturally, researchers do sometimes have a hand in finding their own readers by participating in any or all of the prior-mentioned and other outreaches.

• Open-source publishers claim that the easier access to their holdings enable a greater number of source citations.

• That may be so but is balanced against potential lesser standing unless the publication is backstopped by a reputable organization and effective editors / editing teams.

• Some digital repositories will push out entire issues and use recommendation engines to suggest other similar works to those one has directly searched for in order to actively strive to find readership for academic works.

• Some publishers will version out published works in open-source (releasing copyright) and / or open-access (findable without need for subscription) ways as well.

• For these, their business model has to enable them to survive financially while still releasing contents by copyright and by access.

141

In the age of social media and promo… (cont.)

• With so many techniques for searchability and findability on the Web and Internet (including search engine spiders), there are records available showing most published works.

• Attention and interest though are what will drive people to engage in close readings of the published works.

• Those works that get the most research citations are often those with research insights that apply broadly; these are from the authors who contribute foundational works.

• Focus on insight. Focus on relevance. Focus on solid work.

• Cultivating online social hordes takes time, effort, energy, and focus…for limited gain IMHO. It invites an “ask the expert” dynamic and disincentivizes people doing their own due diligence on their research work.

142

In the age of social media and promo… (cont.)

• Those works that get the most research citations are often those with research insights that apply broadly

• These works are from the authors who contribute actual foundational works.

• A valuable work will last over time, not just be read in the present.

• How history judges a work is impossible to predict. This depends in part on what future readers want / need / appreciate.

• Readers select because reading costs effort and time.

• In this light: Focus on insight. Focus on relevance. Focus on solid work.

143

Some downsides to self-promo

• Cultivating online social hordes (followers) takes time, effort, energy, and focus…for limited gain.

• There is an opportunity cost to this social cultivation for fleeting connections and “weak ties” relationships. Time spent cultivating hordes is not spent doing actual work.

• Tweets and mentions and replies actually often do not result in much of a constructive response, such as encouraging real professional relationships and real collaborations. Close and stronger ties work better for writing and publishing and collaborating.

• Public presences will bring out all types, including those who want to make a fast dollar. There are many strangers who will claim familiarity and professional ties even if these do not exist. (This is especially problematic on some academic publication sharing sites with poor algorithms that can be tricked into assuming faux co-publishing ties exist.)

• Online parasocial relationships invite an “ask the expert” dynamic, and these remote connections disincentivize people from doing their own due diligence on their own research work.

144

8.Post-publishing. . .

145

Some post-publishing experiences

So what does an author have after a work has gone through the publication process and been published?

Intrinsic benefits:

• Deeper insights about the researched topic, the publishing process, peer reviewers, the publisher, and his / her own work

Also:

• A reference-able publication

• A line in a CV (curriculum vitae) and / or résumé

• Occasional emails from other professionals about uses of a model in a presentation, uses of a survey instrument in research, and other general queries

146

Some post-publishing experiences (cont.)

• Requests for free copies (especially from students)

• Occasional citations of the published work

• A small bump in various measures of author influence (based on citations, exposure to mainstream media, exposure in social media, downloads, accesses, and other factors)

• Usually a lagging indicator

147

Some post-publishing experiences (cont.)

• Invitations to republish a prior-published work with some revisions (10- 20%) in a new publication (with the same prior publisher)

• “Pros”:

• Can add a new line to the CV with little extra work

• Is a “sure thing”

• Can please a publisher

• (Very Real) Cons:

• Will have multiple versions of a work out

• Work may not benefit from a revision per se

• If a topic needs updating, it helps to start fresh with new insights and thorough new research review and new research work instead of regurgitating an older work

• Takes attention and energy away from more relevant work

• Undercuts the first editor / editorial team and editorial board by re-using the work (even if it’s with the same publisher)

• Generally a bad idea IMHO

148

Some post-publishing experiences (cont.)

• Invitations to re-explore a prior topic from a prior-published work in a wholly new research work

• Invitations to present at conferences, sometimes with discounts or cost-waivers

• Invitations to collaborate

149

Long-term maintenance of raw files

• What are raw files?

• “Research” folder with annotated PDFs

• “Final Imagery” folder

• Contract

• Copyright releases (for the use of others’ work)

• Final article

• Raw drafts and notes

• Raw datasets

• Data visualizations for analyses

• Files linked to a website

• Multimedia related to the research

150

Long-term maintenance of raw files (cont.)

• Keep raw, intermediate, and finalized copies of work. If anyone contests how a work came into being, it is important to show how a work originated and evolved.

• Raw files may also come in handy if there is future research work that may benefit from some aspect of the research article set…or the initial raw research journal entries…or something else.

151

Re-acquiring limited reverse rights

• Usually, a publisher acquires all rights in all forms of an article or chapter. If an author wants to use a data table or image from the work, he or she has to acquire those rights back. This is true even if he or she just wants to use a copy of the article in a password-protected online course he or she is teaching. To keep it all clean, it is important to acquire rights appropriately.

• Professors who want to use a pre-print copy of a published work in a university repository have to acquire those rights as well—unless there is some provision for this use in the copyright sign over.

152

A light reflection about publishing

• Academic publishing is a little like engaging in politics…

• It’s public

• It’s a change agent

• It’s rough-and-tumble and contested

• It’s challenging…

• …but academic publishing works under a set of rules of general civility

• Academic publishing is not for everyone, but it’s worth engaging when a researcher has sufficient support and is psychologically, emotionally, and professionally ready.

153

9.Next works. . .

154

Next up?

• Is there more to the topic that may be explored? If so, maybe a spinoff work is in order.

• Usually, everything is used up in a thorough prior-published work.

• If not, then it’s off to the next thing… Tick tock. :)

155

Conclusion and contact

• Dr. Shalin Hai-Jew

• Instructional Designer

• iTAC, Kansas State University

• 212 Hale / Farrell Library

• shalin@k-state.edu

• 785-532-5262

• Disclaimers: This is for informational purposes only and is not advisement. Users reference this at their own risk. Also, as with all heuristics, there are exceptions to the rules. It helps to know the rules before strategically breaking them. Mentions of various entities do not suggest either (non)endorsement.

• A note of appreciation: Thanks to all the publishers, editors, researchers / authors, and reviewers that I’ve worked with over the years. It’s been a pleasure and all sorts of (hard) fun!

• Open-source imagery: All images used were released by Creative Commons licensure and found using the Microsoft Bing Image Search tool built into MS PowerPoint.

156