Publishing

I, as much as anyone, struggle with writing well and on a schedule. So, when I saw a post from In the Medieval Middle entitled Habit, Routine, Writing and Creating, despite the lack of a good Oxford comma, I had to read it.

I was intrigued by the discussion of how the author sustained writing while writing almost all day:

Each morning I would hop on my bike and trace a wide circuit through Cambridge, along the Charles River via the Esplanade, and over to Newbury Street. There I’d lock my bike to a parking meter and sit with my books at a local coffee shop. I’d order a refillable mug and marble pound cake. As I ate breakfast I would pour over whatever writing I’d accomplished the previous day, filling the printout with marginalia (this was long before laptops were affordable). I’d then add as much writing as possible to what I had, attempting to extend the project as far as I could. When fatigue eventually set in, I’d then turn to a book or essay I’d brought with me and read that. Back on my bike around lunch time, home to eat quickly, and then at my computer, typing in whatever changes I’d made to earlier writing and adding to it whatever else I’d penned out afterwards.

This daily routine of bike rides and writing in two locations (coffee shop in the morning, home in the afternoon) sustained me through the most intense period of composing my thesis.

I found my own motivation expressed incredibly succinctly:

Conference papers (and other public talks) are great motivators because, well, who wants to commit an Epic Fail for an audience?

This is something I want to share with graduate students.

Speaking of which:
I had my graduate mentor over for lunch today and, in an amazing match-up, it turns out we have many health-related life experiences that overlap and she wants to write her thesis on science fiction (one of my writing areas). I am so thrilled to feel like we can connect.

What’s Wrong with Research Communication is an interesting article. It talks about the increase/proliferation of journals, to the negative results for libraries and end users. It also talks about the fact that impact factors are messed up.

Although impact factors are based on citation counts for their articles, journal impact factors do not predict article citation counts, which are in any case easily manipulated. For example, a citation pointing out that an article had been retracted acts to improve the impact factor of the journal that retracted it.

There are also interesting ideas on other things. For instance, peer review and both the time it takes and the problems that reviewing incurs:

Peer review depends on reviewers, who are only very indirectly rewarded for their essential efforts. The anonymity of reviews makes it impossible to build a public reputation as a high-quality reviewer. If articles had single authors and averaged three reviewers, authors would need to do an average of three reviews per submission.
…
Peer review is often said to be the gold standard of science, but this is not the case. The gold standard in experimental science is reproducibility, ensuring that anyone repeating the experiment gets the same result. When even a New York Times op-ed points out that, in practice, scientists almost never reproduce published experiments it is clear that there is a serious problem.

So, we have research that is proliferating, costs to “lease” the publisher’s copy, reviewing which does nothing for the careful reviewer, and accessibility issues. Within the article, the library’s experience with this is detailed.

One answer to sustainability in access for libraries is not only presently available but actually economically successful.

A distributed network of local library collections called LOCKSS (Lots Of Copies Keep Stuff Safe), modeled on the way libraries work in the paper world. Publishers grant permission for LOCKSS boxes at subscribing libraries to collect and preserve a copy of the content to which they subscribe. Fewer libraries are using the LOCKSS system to build collections than subscribe to Portico for post-cancellation access. Despite this the LOCKSS program has been financially sustainable since 2007.

I am going to check with how my library and see if we are doing this…

It seems that the question of self-promotion in academia is coming up more often (or I am noticing it more often).

Speculative Diction on blogspot.com has an article called “Shameful Self-promotion vs. Meritocracy.”

This blogpost was written in response to the Times’ How Not to Get Left on the Shelf article. It also responds to Dr. Lee Skallerup’s post Shameless Self-Promotion.

It’s not just a discussion of the arguments about whether academics are successful if they don’t have a general audience. In fact, while it starts there, I don’t think that is the meat of the argument at all.

One point that I thought was very truthful and telling was an almost-throw away line on blogging and social media in the academy.

The suspicion of self-promotion is also part of the reason that blogging and other social media activities are often dismissed by academic colleagues and peers.

My university is very positive towards blogging and social media activities, but many people use the social media specifically for work. (I have not figured out how to separate the two, but I would really like to create a second facebook account and migrate my colleagues and work-related acquaintances over to that one.)

Not only are self-promoters more successful, but so are graduate students whose supervisors “push” their students’ work actively. Ever wonder how so-and-so managed to get that article published in a good journal, or a helpful research assistant job, or an item that showcases their work on the faculty web page? Committee members and supervisors can help with this too, behind the scenes, and it’s in their interests because your success reflects back upon them.

This is an important thing to remember as a graduate student and it is something to keep in mind when teaching graduate students. If my students are successful, my work also gets a wider audience. Thus it is in my own self-interest to encourage and market my grad students as strongly as possible.

(So, if I ever get any grad students, watch out. You may come to feel like they are a member of your family from all the promotion on this blog and other places.)

Women in general are less likely to claim expertise, which can be a detriment when it comes to succeeding in an academic career and a public profile. Female graduate students are more likely to suffer from “Imposter Syndrome” and to lack the sense of self-value that helps them develop crucial professional networks.

To some extent, I don’t buy this. I think everyone is likely to suffer from Impostor Syndrome.

However, I know that I have been far less at ease in claiming expertise than, for example, my husband. In fact, my sons often claim more expertise than I do, even in fields I know, simply because they are so sure they know everything. (Grin.)

But this is actually a problem because I am fairly sure that I blew an interview once by saying that I am a “pretty good” teacher. I am not the best teacher ever, but I am dedicated, consistent, responsible, and engaged. That’s a lot better than many teachers I have known over the years. I am also actively engaged with my students both in and out of the classroom. … When I say “pretty good” what I really mean is “not the best teacher ever, but amazing, nevertheless.” That’s not how I phrase it though.

I particularly liked the closing paragraph:

Let’s try to avoid allowing self-promotion to be one of the “dirty secrets” of the academy, something to be sneered at or reserved for the egotistical and vainglorious, something that “real” academics don’t do; after all, what’s a book launch for?

When I have a book launch, I will definitely let you know.

Dr. Crazy of Reassigned Time 2.0 has found that pushing herself to write can sometimes mean involving irritating things. Read all about it: Why It’s Worth It to do Irritating Things.

Here is a book which might be helpful if you are wanting to get a manuscript published: 77 Reasons Why Your Book Was Rejected.

I haven’t read it, but it sounds interesting. I have no doubt that it is aimed at more traditional book publishers, but that some of it would also apply specifically to academic publishers.

I just bought it for my iPad.

I found it on New Pages Blog.

Many academics have difficulty finding time to write. Yet most of us, including those who are still working for full-time employment, need publications.

So how do we make time to write?

Different things work for different people and, from my own experience, at different times. What worked when I was single was not quite as productive when I was married. What worked when I was just married did not work when I had little ones. Etc.

So, how do we find time to write?

1. Make it a priority.

If writing is not a priority, we will never find time to write. We just won’t. Something else will always crowd it out.

2. Schedule it.

If writing has to be in the middle of the day (either for your clock or your life), then schedule it. Make it every day at 2 p.m. and if you are asked to attend a meeting at that time, say you already have something in your schedule. (Don’t say what it is. “Prior commitment” should be sufficient.)

3. Write something.

Don’t just sit and stare or do research. Write. Write. Write. Even if it is, as I tell my students, the statement “I don’t know what to write about x. I have thought y and z, but …”

ProfHacker had a good article on writing by Erin E. Templeton in the CHE called “The Rule of 200.” Two hundred words a day.

4. Keep writing.

It’s not a sprint; it’s a long distance race. And, if you keep doing it, a turtle who keeps moving will outdistance a hare who stops. Remember that. Take it as a motto.

When one project is done, start on the next. Keep the writing going. Otherwise, it’s just like stopping exercising. Your skills get rusty; you gain bad habits and lose abilities.

Prioritize writing. Schedule writing. Write. Keep writing.

That’s how I recommend finding time to write.

Dr. Crazy also has a recent blog post on what counts as writing.

from PhDComics

Update: To see how real-life students and academics chose their topics, go to From Tweet to Thesis.

My post is at this link.

Especially in view of yesterday’s post, I thought “The Social Contract of Scholarly Publishing” from Dan Cohen was thought-provoking.

Roy finally broke the silence, explaining the magic of the last stage of scholarly production between the final draft and the published book: “What happens now is the creation of the social contract between the authors and the readers. We agree to spend considerable time ridding the manuscript of minor errors, and the press spends additional time on other corrections and layout, and readers respond to these signals—a lack of typos, nicely formatted footnotes, a bibliography, specialized fonts, and a high-quality physical presentation—by agreeing to give the book a serious read.”

I have frequently replayed that conversation in my mind, wondering about the constitution of this social contract in scholarly publishing, which is deeply related to questions of academic value and reward.

The essay is about scholarly publishing in paper journals. It begins with the question of “Why not publish online?”

I spend time going over my blog and the posts I make here, checking for accuracy, fixing spelling errors, updating links… I think that while my blog is not a paper-version of a scholarly journal, I still have valuable information here in a form that shows my professionalism.

Questions:
Is it possible to publish well on the net, outside of a net-version of a scholarly journal?
Does blog publication de-value a work, either in the eyes of the readers or in the eyes of academia?
At what point or under what circumstances might net publication become more valuable?

The report Sustaining Scholarly Publishing: New Business Models for University Presses has caught academic attention.

The Chronicle of Higher Ed article discusses the report and I noticed some very interesting aspects.

The report cautions that the print-on-demand model does not solve everything. “The online free/print for sale model thus seems likely to be a transitional strategy,” it says.

I thought this was an interesting point. Certainly transition is important, but having the online free/print sale described as a transitional model says that it won’t last long term.

Taking up open access, the report examines how it works at the National Academies Press and the RAND Corporation, along with the recently established Open Access Publishing in European Networks project that includes several European university presses. But it points out that most university presses have financial constraints that make it difficult for them to adopt open access as their main model. It adds that the author-pays business model, which helps subsidize much open-access publishing in the sciences, hasn’t really been tested in book publishing or in humanities publishing generally. The push for open access must be acknowledged, “but it will not succeed unless sustainable business models can be developed to support it,” the report states.

Since vanity press publications are not acceptable sources of scholarly publications, this route seems fraught with peril.

It wants presses to develop “a central conduit for sharing information” about which models and experiments work and which don’t. It encourages them to work with each other and with scholars, libraries, and other institutions to develop standards on how to distribute digital scholarship. It urges other potential donors to follow the Mellon Foundation’s example and “contribute to innovation in the area of scholarly communication.” The overall message is that presses can’t go it alone if they’re going to survive.

That’s an interesting take-away. You can’t go it yourself. Get help.

What will that help look like?