Panel discussion by MEXTESOL Journal editors, given at MEXTESOL convention, 2012

1. PANEL DISCUSSION OF THE MEXTESOL
JOURNAL
MAKING WRITING AND
PUBLISHING A REALITY
Puerto Vallarta 2012

2. PANEL DISCUSSION
• Introduction of panelists, M. Martha Lengeling, Universidad de
Guanajuato
• Reasons to publish, M. Martha Lengeling
• The writing process, how to structure introduction sections,
Clare Marie Roche, Universidad Regional del Sureste
• The process of publishing (with a focus on the MEXTESOL
Journal), Uli Schrader, freelance
• Review Format, Ma Guadalupe Rodriguez Bulnes, Univ Aut. De
Nuevo Leon
• Ethics, Rebeca E. Tapia, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de
Puebla
• What to do if you are not accepted, JoAnn Miller, freelance
• Questions and answers, M. Martha Lengeling

3. M. Martha Lengeling
Introduction to panelists
The whys of publishing

4. Reasons to publish
• Give voice to your ideas and opinions
• Representation of your self as a
professional
• Updating of topics within the field
• Reading within your profession
• Sense of accomplishment
• Improvement in writing

5. More reasons
• More and more part of academic life
(Beca, SNI, Perfil Deseable)
• Necessary for higher academic
institutions
• Promotes analytical skills
• Part of your profession, contribution
to your profession
• Why not

6. Clare Marie Roche
• The writing process

9. Move 1: Establish the Research Territory
• By showing that the general research area is important,
central, interesting, problematic, or relevant in some way.
• By introducing and reviewing items of previous research
in the area.
Move 2: Establish the Gap
• By indicating a gap in the previous research, raising a
question about it, or extending previous knowledge in some
way.
Move 3: Occupy Gap
• By outlining the purpose of the present research.
• By announcing the principal findings.
• By indicating the structure of the paper.

10. Think of your Article as
Contributing to a Conversation
• The INTRODUCTION
o tells the reader that this area
of investigation is
IMPORTANT.
o There are things we know
(that literature review) and
something we don’t (the gap).
You intend to fill that gap.
• You will fill the gap by
conducting an investigation
that is careful, methodical,
and performed according to
accepted practice of study
in the field. This is the
METHOD section.

11. • Further you found something
that is interesting and worthy
of reporting.
o You will tell us what you found.
This is the RESULTS section.
• Finally, you will want to
explain why you got those
results and how they compare
to others who have
investigated this area in some
way.
o You will need to tell us what the
limitations of your study are, and
what future work might be
warranted.
o Thus you discuss with us the way
your work has changed the field.
This is the DISCUSSION.

12. • Swales, J.M. & Feak, D.B. (2004). Academic Writing
for Graduate Students. Michigan U Press.
• Weissberg, R. & Buker, S. (1990). Writing Up
Research: Experimental Research Report Writing for
Students of English. Prentice Hall.
• Hamp-Lyons, L. & Heasley, B. (2006). Study Writing:
A Course in Writing Skills for Academic Purposes. 2nd
Edition. Cambridge.

13. Uli Schrader
The MEXTESOL Journal:
From the reception of an article to
publication

14. • A) An author requests information about
submitting an article before submitting the
article
• The Editor-in-Chief sends the author the
following documents:
– The Editorial Policy of the Journal
– The brief Manuscript Guidelines
– The Article Review Format
(as a guide for the final preparation of the article)
• and answers any other questions.

15. B) An already finished article is received by the Editor-in-Chief
The process for publishing (or not) an article which is received by the
Editor-in-Chief is as follows:
1)The Editor-in-Chief receives the article (which includes whether the
author would like the article to be refereed or not) and looks it over to
determine its general suitability for the MEXTESOL Journal, and that
it is complete. She writes the author acknowledging receipt of the
article and informs the author of the following steps.
2) The Editor sends the article to the appropriate Associate Editor (for
Refereed or Non-refereed Articles) who, in turn will also read it and
make a tentative decision regarding its suitability and its status as a
refereed or non-refereed article. In some cases, the Editor might
suggest that the article be sent for mentoring before it is sent to the
readers.

16. 5) Meanwhile, the two readers read and evaluate the article
according to the Review Format, and determine if the
article is accepted, rejected or given a conditioned
acceptance status.
6) The Associate Editor receives the evaluations from the
readers and if they concur, sends them on to the author. If
the two readers have divergent opinions, then a third reader
is consulted.
7) Usually the author is asked to make revisions according
to the comments received. The Associate Editor relays
information and the manuscript back and forth between the
author and the readers as often as necessary until the article
has the complete approval of all involved.

17. 8) The Associate Editor now turns the article over
to the Style Editor who makes a final reading for
editing and proofreading purposes. If additional
changes are necessary, there may be further
correspondence between the Style Editor and the
Associate Editor, who communicates with the
authors.
9) The Production Editor checks the references and
works with the author regarding any clarifications.

18. 10) The authors are asked to provide an
unformatted final manuscript according to specific
guidelines and submit it to the production manager.
Suggestions are often made to make the article
more presentable for an online format, e.g. color,
image resolution, etc.
11) The author is informed of the final acceptance
of the article and the approximate publication date.

19. 12) After the article is published, the author
receives a letter from the Editor- in-Chief that the
article has been published and is given the official
publication reference information.

20. For non-refereed articles:
The Associate Editor for Non-refereed articles and
one other reviewer decide if the article is accepted
for publication in the Journal and work together
with the author to prepare the manuscript for
publication.

21. Rebeca E. Tapia
Ethics

22. Ethics in research: Beliefs and
experience
Dra. Rebeca E. Tapia Carlín
BUAP

23. Aspects to consider
1.Negotiating and maintaining access to
research site
2.Obtaining informed consent
3.Protecting the identity of participants
4.Avoiding plagiarism
(Saldaña, 2003)

24. 1. Negotiating and maintaining
access to research site
• It is important to get permission from the
authorities to conduct research (Richards,
2003; Tapia, 2008).
• If the participants are children it is necessary
to tell their parents and to get their
consent (Bell, 1993), or give them the right
to consent or withdraw (Saldaña, 2003).

25. 2. Obtaining informed consent
• Participants need to agree to participate and
should have the right to refuse to do it.
• Participants need to be informed about the
purpose of the research, about their identity
protection and know they will not receive any
harm.
• The researcher must obtain the consent
from the participants in the study.
(Richards, 2003; Saldaña, 2003)

26. 3. Protecting the identity of
participants
• It is necessary to change all
participants’names, including that of an
identifying site, to pseudonyms guaranteeing
anonymity especially if requested by the
participant.
(Saldaña, 2003; Tapia, 2008)

27. 4. Avoiding plagiarism
• Honesty is crucial when conducting
research.
• Taking someone else’s work without
acknowledging that it is not acceptable in
research.
• It is necessary to report the sources used to
avoid plagiarism, especially when doing the
Literature Review.
(Tapia, 2008)

28. Lupita Rodríguez Bulnes
• The review format

29. MEXTESOL JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW FORMAT FOR
NON-REFEREED ARTICLES
TITLE OF THE ARTICLE
DATE RECEIVED
Please mark the appropriate column. (You can also write comments in the spaces as
appropriate and use as much space as necessary.)
In the last column (marked in grey) the author(s) will write where any corrections have
been made after the original review process. This information will help the reviewers
locate the corrections easily.

30. MEXTESOL JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW FORMAT
TITLE OF THE ARTICLE ______________________________
DATE RECEIVED ____________________________________
Please mark the appropriate column. (You can also write comments in the spaces
as appropriate and use as much space as necessary)
YES NO NEEDS WORK
1. The article is suitable for the Mextesol Journal readership.
2. The article contains some original ideas and contributes to EFL / ESL research
or teaching.
3. The article has a clear focus/sequence throughout .
4. The article shows evidence of sufficient background reading and state-of-the-art
research on the topic.
5. The article contains an appropriate balance between theory and practical
applications to the classroom .
6. The article is well organized and contains all the relevant sections marked with
subheadings.
7. The article has a clear introduction stating the purpose of the article and a well
thought-out thesis statement.
8. The ideas are clear and relatively easy to read and follow.
9. (If research-based) The research is clearly presented and contains all the
relevant elements. Enough information is given to be able to replicate the study.

31. MEXTESOL JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW FORMAT cont.
10. The linguistic level and the mechanics of writing are appropriate for
publication.
11. There is effective diction (appropriate use of words) and effective usage
(appropriate use of language).
12. The conclusion shows a summary of and a personal reflection on the
ideas expressed in the article.
13. The references and quotations are clear. The bibliography is updated
and relevant. (If a historical review, there is a good chronological sequence
and follow-up relevant to the topic.)
Article status Definite Yes _________
(Pease mark) Definite No __________
Conditioned Yes ______
SPECIFIC COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:

32. JoAnn Miller
• What to do if you are not accepted

38. Did you proofread?
Did someone else read it before you sent it in?

39. What about the title?
Was it too long? Too short?

41. Was it a good topic?
Were your ideas understood?

42. Were they your words?

43. One at a time

45. If at first you don’t succeed,
write, re-write again….