Teacher: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Chien-Hsin Lin 郝明叔 Created by
Created by
Created by APA Guide to Preparing Manuscripts for Journal Publication (Presented by Aji) Article Review Checklist: A Criterion Checklist for Reviewing Research Articles in Applied Psychology (Presented by Muhammad Rasyid Abdillah) Being a developmental Reviewer: Easier said Than Done (Presented by Rizqa Anita)
Created by
CONTENT 1. Introduction 2. Overview the Review Process 3. Characteristic of a Good Manuscript 4. The Importance of the APA Publication Manual 5. Turning a Thesis into a Publishable Manuscript
1. Introduction What? Why? The American Psychological Association (1892) is the largest scientific and professional organization of psychologists in the United States, with around 117,500 members including scientists, educators, clinicians, consultants, and students. The mission of the APA is to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people's lives.
2. Overview the Review Process Reviewers peer review anonymous reviews impartial expertise
2. Overview the Review Process Standards for the Reviewers: 1. present a clear decision regarding publication; 2. support the recommendation with a detailed, comprehensive analysis of the quality and coherence of the study's conceptual basis, methods, results, and interpretations; 3. offer specific, constructive suggestions to authors.
2. Overview the Review Process Manuscript Number Informs the authors Choose the reviewers 1. Abstract 2. Full manuscript 3. Structure 4. References 5. Tables & Figures 6. Examine the sections Submission Receipt Prompt feedback Quick Read Initial examine author editorial assitant editor editor / associate editor 1. Rejection - Outright 2. Rejection Revise / resubmit 3. Acceptance - Conditional 4. Acceptance - Outright Manuscript Action scrutinizes the manuscript and the reviews editor / associate editor
3. Characteristic of a Good Manuscript 13 flaws that commonly lead to a "revise and resubmit" recommendation or to outright rejection: Bartol (1983; see also Eichorn & VandenBos, 1985) 1. inadequate literature review 2. inappropriate citations 3. unclear introductory section 4. ambiguous research question 5. inadequate sample description 6. inadequate description of methodology 7. inadequate account of measures 8. questionable statistical analysis 9. inappropriate statistical techniques 10. poorly crafted or conceived discussion 11. discussion that goes beyond the data and offers unwarranted conclusions 12. flaws in writing style 13. excessive length
3. Characteristic of a Good Manuscript 3 features of special significance in judging the quality of a research article : 1.Substantive Aspects 2.Methodological Aspects 3.Style
3. Characteristic of a Good Manuscript 3.1. Substantive Aspects Present the research problem early in the manuscript. Show how the problem is grounded, shaped, and directed by theory. Connect the problem to previous work in a literature review that is pertinent and informative but not exhaustive. State explicitly the hypotheses under investigation. Keep the conclusions within the boundaries of the findings. Demonstrate how the study has helped to resolve the original problem. Identify and discuss what theoretical or practical implications can be drawn from the study.
3. Characteristic of a Good Manuscript 3.2. Methodological Aspects (Clear and Clean) CLEAR Sharply defined and full description of the method : (a) the design or strategic plan for making the research question operational; (b) the sample and sampling method; (c) the instruments and/or materials, as appropriate, (d) the procedures for data collection; and (e) the statistical analysis
3. Characteristic of a Good Manuscript 3.2. Methodological Aspects (Clear and Clean) CLEAN Appropriate, valid, and unflawed methods of sampling, use of instruments and/or materials, procedures, and analysis (a) there is no confounding in the sample variables, (b) the sampling technique is appropriate, (c) the instruments and/or materials (if applicable) are reliable and valid, (d) The statistical procedures are sophisticated enough to examine the data and are appropriately applied.
3. Characteristic of a Good Manuscript 3.3. Style Editorial Style The mechanics of convention laid out in the Publication Manual. Writing Style The general principles of expository writing.
4. The Importance of the APA Publication Manual 4.1 The Importance The highly detailed may appear to be picky but necessary To keep down the high costs The richness of information not always noticed Getting familiar with the contents of all the chapters will lead the writer to be an effective user
4. The Importance of the APA Publication Manual 4.2 The Chapters 1. Content and Organization of a Manuscript 2. Expression of Ideas 3. APA Editorial Style 4. Reference List 5. Manuscript Preparation and Sample Papers to be Submitted for Publication 6. Material Other than Journal Articles 7. Manuscript Acceptance and Production 8. Journals Program of the American Psychological Association 9. Bibliography 10. Appendices http://www.apastyle.org
5. Turning a Thesis into a Publishable Manuscript Features Thesis Approaches to convert Length 200-plus pages 25-30 pages, selecting - rewriting Selectivity Writing Style Interpretation of data Tendency to say everything Extensive knowledge do not follow APA style overuse of the passive voice, pedantry, artificiality, and redundancy Overinterpretation of the data. Unbridled faith in the strength of their results selective in presenting the problem write the significant results (only) avoid the common presentation pitfalls remove non-conforming content for the journal strive for clarity; get rid of extraneous words; avoid excessive reporting and repetition; be explicit, but not overly detailed; use the active voice; use correct grammar tighter theoretical framework A shorter review of the literature a more controlled presentation of methodology, a more restrained discussion of results
CONCLUSION Final Touches Two useful things to consider before submitting a manuscript for publication : Prepared to (self) revise Prereview
Created by
_ Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Created by
Just because something hasn t been done before doesn t mean it should be done You don t answer the so what question for me The paper doesn t make any theoretical contribution to the literature / Created by
"Are there some other independent, dependent, or moderating variables that would strengthen the paper?" "Are there some other theoretical perspectives the authors could use to increase the complexity of their ideas?" "Are there some specific citations you can provide them to guide them in subsequent literature reviews?" "Are there some articles (either on this topic or elsewhere in the literature) that you think are good exemplars or role models for research on this topic?" Created by
what data you want to see on the sample, what analyses aren t done that should be done, what analyses should be redone Created by
As in the Theory section, the reviewer try to give suggestion to the author for providing some specific paragraphs or sections which could be deleted without any loss of content, some places where generalizations could be toned down, and some ideas not yet discussed that could be. Created by
As a reviewer, we try to refrain from making the attribution that lack of attention to formatting details is a sign of lazy, inconsiderate, or disrespectful behavior on the part of the authors. Created by
Suggesting to authors that they might benefit from some editing from a colleague who is a native English speaker is a constructive idea. Created by
Created by
Created by
Just don t tell the authors the sea is rocky; tell them how to get the ship to shore. Created by
郝明叔