The curious case of unsolicited invitations for scholarly work

As much fun as it sounds, my weekly routine task includes deleting and marking predatory or bogus journal/ conference invitations as spams. These invitations started pouring in once I began publishing and presenting papers, and I believe exactly the same problem is experienced by many academics, ECRs, ECAs, and students. For me, the best defence is to be vigilant of these invitations. Some tell-tale signs of predatory/bad journals include:

• Spelling, grammatical, statistical, or methodological mistakes are littered on their website or in the papers they published. Poor use of language and serious flaw in contents indicate a low professional standard.
• Asking a submission fee (sometime an obscene amount) before the article is reviewed or accepted.
• Look at the timeline of the papers published in the journals. Typically, the duration of the peer review process takes on average 17 weeks, and may differ according to the journal. If a paper in a journal is received on September 2019 and published in October/ November 2019, this raises a red flag that the paper might not be subjected to a rigorous peer review, or the journal operates with a false-front or non-existent peer review process.
• Publishing papers already published in other venues.
• Publishing papers that contain plagiarism (of any form).
• The journal’s contact information looks dodgy, e.g., unrecognisable address or contact details; address state that their offices are in one country whereas the contact details are in another.
• The Editorial Board lacks legitimacy (e.g., appointed without knowledge, wrong skillset). If the names of the Editorial Board look fishy, then mostly likely the journal is a predatory.
• In the case of conference, be cautious if you found that there are too many being organised in a year by the same organiser. Please stick to those organised and supported by the corresponding scientific associations, universities, reputable NGOs, and professional associations in the national/international level only.

My advice - use more reputable sources that vet their resources for adherence to publishing standards to find suitable journals/ conferences for your publications. Examples below:

• ISI: http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/
• Elsevier: http://journalfinder.elsevier.com/
• Scopus: https://journalmetrics.scopus.com/
• ScimagoJR: http://www.scimagojr.com/
• Plos: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/
• Open access journals:  oatd.org and https://doaj.org/ 
• Choosing a trusted journal to publish: Think. Check. Submit. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/
• Choosing a legitimate conference: Think. Check. Attend https://thinkcheckattend.org
• Checking if the journals in which we wish to publish our research comply with funder's requirements: SHERPA/FACT http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/fact/index.php

Please also read my previous post on predatory journals and questionable conferences here.

Read More

#ReadingList: Handling the manuscript review process

Reviewing manuscripts can be a daunting task, especially for the first time. On the surface, it may seem easy enough, but it actually requires the ability to perform multiple tasks, from summarising and describing the manuscript’s contents to assessing critically the work and providing suggestions for areas of improvement - not to mention the onus for fact-checking and source verification on the Reviewers.  I am by no means an expert in any way so I learnt a lot from the following works. Some resources on how to reply to reviewers' comments, how to handle rejection, and the entire editorial process are also included. This is not a comprehensive list, so do find the latest publications on this topic.

Good luck and happy reviewing!

• Lovejoy, T. I., Revenson, T. A., & France, C. R. (2011). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42(1), 1-13.
• Provenzale, J. M., & Stanley, R. J. (2006). A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology, 34(2), 92-99.
• Lee, A. S. (1995). Reviewing a manuscript for publication. Journal of Operations Management, 13(1), 87-92.
• Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2010). The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review. Library & Information Science Research, 32(1), 5-12.
• Gosden, H. (2003). ‘Why not give us the full story?’: Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(2), 87-101.
• Hoppin Jr, F. G. (2002). How I review an original scientific article. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 166(8), 1019-1023.
• Roberts, L. W., Coverdale, J., Edenharder, K., & Louie, A. (2004). How to review a manuscript: A “down-to-earth” approach. Academic Psychiatry, 28(2), 81–87.
• Samet, J. M. (1999). Dear Author - Advice from a retiring editor. American Journal of Epidemiology, 150(5), 433-436.
• Williams, H. C. (2004). How to reply to referees' comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 51(1), 79-83.
• Woolley, K. L., & Barron, J. P. (2009). Handling manuscript rejection: Insights from evidence and experience. Chest, 135(2), 573-577.
• Peat, J., Elliott, E., Baur, L., & Keena, V. (2002). Scientific Writing: Easy When You Know How. London: BMJ Books.
• Murray, R. (2013). Writing for Academic Journals. UK: McGraw-Hill Education. 

Read More

#ReadingList: Assessing Thesis

One of the things that I learned (albeit a bit later in my PhD journey) about thesis writing, was that of knowing how Examiners read and assess theses. The Mullins and Kiley’s papers definitely helped (and still helping) me in wading through the assessment process. More recent papers (see further below) might also provide a broader view on this matter. I hope these resources will help you too.

• Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). 'It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize': How experienced examiners assess research theses. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 369-386. 
• Kiley, M., & Mullins, G. (2004). Examining the examiners: How inexperienced examiners approach the assessment of research theses. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(2), 121-135. 
• Kiley, M., & Mullins, G. (2006). Opening the black box: How examiners assess your thesis. In: Denholm, C. & Evans, T. (Eds.), Doctorates Downunder: Keys to Successful Doctoral Study in Australia and New Zealand (pp. 200-207). Camberwell, Vic.: ACER Press. 

• Cooksey, R., & McDonald, G. (2019). How Will My Thesis/Dissertation/Portfolio Be Examined and Judged? In Surviving and Thriving in Postgraduate Research (pp. 1083-1116). Singapore: Springer. 
• Golding, C. (2017). Advice for writing a thesis (based on what examiners do). Open Review of Educational Research, 4(1), 46-60. 
• Golding, C., Sharmini, S., & Lazarovitch, A. (2014). What examiners do: What thesis students should know. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(5), 563-576. 
• Sharmini, S., Spronken-Smith, R., Golding, C., & Harland, T. (2015). Assessing the doctoral thesis when it includes published work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 89-102.

Read More