This is a draft presentation about academic publishing. The updated and interactive version is available on Adobe Spark at https://spark.adobe.com/page/HB46XVOZVI7Ga/.

1. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
ROUGH AND TUMBLE: CONTRIBUTING TO THE ACADEMIC
LITERATURE THROUGH FORMAL PEER-REVIEWED
PUBLISHING
#SIDLIT2019

2. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
("Typewriter...Author" by Rawpixel on Pixabay)
PRESENTATION DESCRIPTION
Howdo you position to successfully publish to the
academic literature? Howdo you knowwhat you have to
contribute and what your own voice is? What are the
public and known standards, and what are the hidden
ones? What are the known risks in publishing, and how
do you mitigate these? Howdo you get out there and
contribute, without getting used (too much)? Who are the
main players, and what is the state of academic
publishing currently? What are the main processes for
publishing? Howdo you avoid fatal errors in yourwork?
Finally, how do you “benefit” from your publication
work?
WHY "ROUGH AND TUMBLE?"
Requirements:
uphold tough rigor and high standards for research
be as thorough as possible (reviews of literature,
documentation)
comprehend and wield abstractions accurately (and
with understandings of implications)

3. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
understand a field and its peripheries well...and still
be able to offer something innovative andnew
solve real-world problems in highly complex spaces
stand up on one's own against a constant field of
competitors (but achieve "personal bests" as one's
own best competitor)
stand up under wide potential public scrutiny
engage reputational risk
design against legal liabilities
engage sharp peer critiques as part of publishing
process and need to respond substantively to
critiques
apply multimodal delivery of research information
create and share research with "lots of moving parts"
(complexity)
have implications on others' research work
have implications on decision-making and the world
An academic publication has to be "novel"; it cannot bea
repeat of work that has already been achieved by others.
If you contest others' work, you'd better have the research
methods and data to back up your assertions. Other
POSITIONING TO PUBLISH

4. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
researchers will respond if their work is challenged
directly or indirectly.
Your research and analytics capabilities, points-of-view,
work history, formal and informal and nonformal
education, and interests will inform your work.
Explore topics that are in the periphery of yourexpertise
as well. Explore cross-disciplinary work.
Collaborate with colleagues.
If you are true to yourself, if you are open to developing
your skills and points of view, you will already by default
have an original voice.
Some known publishing risks include the following:
intellectual property (IP)
YOUR POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS...AND YOUR
VOICE
MITIGATING KNOWN RISKS

5. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
plagiarism
privacy infringements
research standards contraventions
contractual commitments
loss of competitive advantage
reputational risks
turf challenges
and others
Common mitigations include the following:
Follow all intellectual property laws scrupulously.
Cite all sources scrupulously.
Avoidany privacy infringements. Ensure that you
have all legal rights to the data andrepresentations
of people, etc. Handle data correctly andsecurely.
Follow all research standards and ethics. If there is
human subjects research, ensure that you've gone
through institutional review board training and that
you adhere to the proper research oversight. (There
are standards also for animal research, and others.)
If conducting research abroad, ensure that you're
also adhering to the standards of the host country.If
working with colleagues abroad, ensure that they're
adhering to U.S. research standards.
Acquire all legal rights as needed.

6. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
Read contracts from beginning to end, and followthe
terms to the letter.
Do not release data that will result in loss of
competitive advantage. Or use up the value in the
data before you share it.
Be as transparent and professional as possible. Earn
your reputation.
Follow careful record-keeping and work processes to
ensure that all work is defensible. Assure that any
false assertions can be factuallyrebutted.
Challenge others' turfs when necessary but only with
the sufficient evidence.
There is space for different voices, so it helps to
respect others' voices. However, if a challenge is
needed, don't be afraid to raise thatchallenge.
GETTING USED...SELECTIVELY

7. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
All publications are effortful to create. They require
expensive inputs in research, thinking, funding, human
resources, and time, among others. They entail
reputational risks. They entail legal risks. (Authors have
to indemnify the publishers in case of any related
lawsuits.) Publishers pay in "free" digital copies,
sometimes...and occasionally print copies (if relevant and
available). High-end publishers (with name recognition)
confer prestige and social recognition. (Part of their
status involves a low acceptance rate, name editors and
editorial boards, and broad reach to a wideaudience.
Without status, published works do not achieve audience
readership or recognition.)
Imbalanced Scales (Pixabay)

8. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
Academic publishers count on the work places of the
respective researchers to somehow reward productivity in
published research. They count on grant funding agencies
to recognize the workand potentially fund the
researcher's future research projects. (Researchers make
similar calculations, too, so they may not look for full
"payment" from publishers.)
There are dead ends, too, publications which donot
make, but which result in lost effort (given the "no
multiple submissions" practices in publishing).
The so-called "Great Unread" is a problem. Here, a lot of
work goes into the research and the writing, but only a
limited number sell and are maybe read. Open-shared
writings acquire more readers if the topic is engaging, but
these can range from about a low of fifty to thousands...of
reads (including the counts of automated agents crawling
over the public facing readings).
When you choose to engage in academic publishing, go
with the best publishers first to query. Then work your
waydown. (Do not go for the open-access publishing by
the university because that has the least track record,the
least oversight, and the least prestige.)
Red Flags and Dangers about "Getting Used"

9. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
Known researchers invite participation on a research
project about which one has had no input, and most
of the work is done already. (They just want the
name.)
An unknown publication "mill" offers to publish any
work sight unseen for a low price. (They just want the
money.)
Aknown publisher invites you to revise a prior work,
change 10 - 20% of it, and republish it as an updated
Red Flags / Warnings / Alerts (seeding flag from Pixabay)

10. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
one. (They just want the money.)
Simply, don't...and no regrets!
Two principal investigators (PIs) who were the
recipients of the funding grant want their names on a
paper from the project because in the sciences even
small contributions mean credit should be extended.
Simply, just do for political survival and the good of the
project. You're alive--no regrets! Youhave a co-
authorship credit with powerhouse individuals.
Or just know the score. Play your hand differently the
next time (tell them about the publication after it has
been published).
Or, just say no, and offer them a project idea from scratch.
Then make sure everyone contributes somewhat equally.
MAIN PLAYERS AND STATE OF ACADEMIC
PUBLISHING

11. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
Books Published Per Country Per Year
Academic book publishers generally will not publish
works unless there is a market. Because they do not pay
much for a manuscript, they can purchase an "mss" and
stock their digital repositories and make back something
in the long run.
Owl Holding an E-Book Reader (seeding image from Pixabay)

12. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
The average royalties from an academic book published
in the U.S. is $1000. The percentage of royalties tends to
be 10 - 15%. Most authors are only paid once or twice, in
the first year or two, and thereafter, the publisher takes
the rest.
Self-published authors can put in $2,000 - $5,000 to self-
publish, and most of these books do not earn back much
(and most authors will end up giving these away).
Collecting essays and articles by other authors in a
"packaged" textbook is not editing.
One Common Scenario: ATypical Researcher-
Originated Approach
1. Aresearcher or research team has an idea for
research work.
2. They conduct the research.
3. They write it up.
4. They start "shopping" the mss. to respective
publishers.
5. Their work is reviewed in a double-blind peer review
process.
MAIN PROCESSES IN ACADEMIC PUBLISHING

13. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
6. The editor(s) add in their observations.
7. The workis revised and finalized by the research
team.
8. The publishers provide editorial, typography,
publishing, and other services.
9. The workis published.
10. The workis publicized.
11. The workfinds some readers.
12. The workis entered into the literature for"forever"
archival.
Another Common Scenario: ACall forSubmittals
1. Apublisher puts out a call for a special issue... An
editor or editorial team puts out a call onelectronic
mailing lists...
2. (and then all the steps above)
Another Common Scenario: A(Rare) Targeted
Invitation
1. Apublisher extends an invitation to an author or
authoring team ... to submit a work that will not have
to go through peer review...
2. (and then all the steps above except for the double-
blind peer review)

14. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
"Fatal errors" are those that will disallow a draftedwork
from being published. These are errors which are
irrecoverable, and these can be seen during the review
process. Lesser errors can be addressed. These fatal
errors include the following:
incomplete literature reviews and resulting gaps in
understandings
cherry-picking data in order to make their own
research look relevant
repeating prior research done (even some from
decades ago), a lack of research novelty
failure to follow through on basic research standards
research gaps or ignored steps
plagiarism
the lack of necessary oversight over the research
unethical research practices (such as in the
treatment of people, the treatment of animals,the
handling of data, and others)
misunderstandings of statistical analyticspractices
illogical applications of research findings
politicized research findings and / or other typesof
biasing
FATAL ERRORS TO AVOID

15. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
Non-fatal errors are those which may be addressed by
including additional information, re-running data
analyses, rephrasing parts of the writing, conducting
additional readings and updating information, re-drawing
data visualizations, and so on. These are not fundamental
mistakes, if they can be headed off at thepass.
Stopwatch (on Pixabay)

16. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
Tick-tock. While a workis being created...and then is
considered by publishers...it is dating out. After a certain
point-in-time, a draft manuscript is no longer considered
sufficiently timely to be relevant.
Good research practices include the following...
1. Do a solid and complete review of the literature.
Achieve saturation. Take notes, and keep accurate
documentation of the work.
2. Make sure that the research is sufficiently planned
and conceived.
3. Ensure that there is appropriate oversight of the
research.
4. Conduct the research correctly.
5. Keep accurate records.
6. Analyze the data appropriately with the correct
statistical and other analyses.
7. Ensure that the logic is solid in terms of analytics.
8. Write up the research correctly. Use data tables and
data visualizations and appropriate textual
descriptions to showcase the findings. Cite sources
appropriately.
9. Submit the workto only one publisher at a time.Be
honest and transparent in representing the work.
10. Read peer reviews closely, and follow the advice
closely. If the advice is non-relevant, then be ableto

17. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
set up a logical defense of whythat advice should be
ignored or only partially mitigated.
Anything that can be counted by computers and in so
doing capture meaning...will be done. There are qualifiers
to the data, to lessen the weight of people self-citing
their own work, in some of the calculations.
Bibliometrics (on Wikipedia)
BIBLIOMETRICS
Ruler (on Pixabay)

18. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
Hirsch number of H-index: author-level metric, author
productivity, citation impact of publications
Impact factor: periodical-level metric, numbers of
citations annually
Altmetric: social media conversations around published
academic works
Webometrics: quant aspects of the Web
Researcher IDs: ORCID(for disambiguating authors),
Publons (for formal reviewing), Google Scholar (for
bibliometrics and linkages), and others
Let computational power help collect your respective
publications. Make sure that the publications you
acknowledge as yours are yours... (Sometimes,
algorithms get things wrong.)
Keep a complete curriculum vitae (CV) with all of
your respective publications listed.
Google Scholar uses Citations, h-index, and i10-
index for their metrics.
SELF AS AUTHOR: BIBLIOMETRIC MEASURES AND
SELF-PROMOTION

19. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
Note: There are various integrations between these
various tools, with data sharing between the various
systems and platforms.
Social Network Sites for Research Sharing: University
Repositories, ResearchGate, and others
Do not share copyrighted copies of works on the
social network sites...because such sharing is
explicitly disallowed by the mainline academic
publishers. Such shares undercut their sales, which
are often very thin already. (People do not read much
anymore, even when they are supposed to for their
studies.)
Enjoy the research work, the learning work,and
professional collaborations, of course
Benefit from publication-related connections with
colleagues and peers
Include the publications in your CV(and maybe even
the résumé)
Include the publications in your future grant
application letters and other documentation
Use your work to bridge to a new project or research
BENEFITTING FROM YOUR ACADEMIC RESEARCH
PUBLICATIONS

20. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
CHECKLIST: AM I READY?
training and education and professional skills
psychological strength, drive, and grit
oversight and professional "cover"
required resources
technologies
Checklist (seeding image from Pixabay)

21. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
risk-taking
follow-through
ACTIVITY ABOUT COLLABORATION
AND CREDIT
Youare an administrator. Aresearch team has
approached you to help settle a challenge: In what order
should the respective contributors be listed (with the
primary author first, and the rest following in descending
order from second most important to the so-called least
important)?
Person 1: co-principal investigator, conceptualizerof
the original research design, researcher and data
collector
Person 2: co-principal investigator, department
head, figurehead in terms of the research, funderof
some of the research work not covered by the grant
Person 3: conductor of the review of the literatureto
inform the research design and the instrument
design
Person 4: designer of the research instrument,pilot-
tester of the research instrument, datacollector
Person 5: data collector, data analyst,data
visualization / illustrator
Person 6: main writer

22. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
Person 7: guest statistician for backup on some ofthe
data analytics
Person 8: graphicdesigner
Person 9: owner of several primary datasets used in
the research
Person 10: grant writer, grant datarecorder
Person 11: sharer of equipment used duringthe
research
Person 12: secretary and support staffhandling
travel and other logistics
What order do you have the individuals, and why? How
would you justify your approach? When does power come
to the fore? When does professional role come to the
fore? When does contribution come to the fore? And
why?
What happens in the real world?
Should the main authors move some of the contributors
to an acknowledgments list and not include some in the
bylines? When and why?
PRESENTER
Dr. Shalin Hai-Jew

23. 4/30/2019 Spark Page
https://spark.adobe.com/sp/design/page/13fedb62-9657-46c6-a0fe-
330371c7a9f2
23/23
ITS, Kansas State University
785-532-5262
shalin@k-state.edu
CREATED BY
Shalin Hai-Jew