Three dreaded words ~ annual performance evaluation. These words bring to mind sitting uncomfortably, waiting for critiques, hoping for some praise, feeling the need to justify one's position. An emphasis on individual performance is not new; it's a staple of human resources practice and consulting. Ideally, it's a time of reflection and personal goal setting.
For faculty, this is a time to recount the peer reviewed publications, re-tally the grant and contract dollars awarded, report on student course evaluation scores, refresh the list of advisees and update the list of campus and professional committee memberships, as well as add new honors and invited presentations. The renowned curriculum vita (CV) becomes current. Each university and each department has slightly different criteria for determining whether the productivity has been sufficient. But, all expect that their faculty members exceed whatever minimum has been set. In preparation of theses counts and updates, some faculty rush to submit manuscripts for publication and nudge students toward graduation. The annual academic clock is predictable.
For many doctoral students, this is a time for anxiety as they measure their accomplishments against the market expectations they will be facing. In some doctoral programs, students do a self-evaluation of accomplishments and updating of CV. As new students engage in this activity, they might be overwhelmed at the list of what ought to done before graduation. Like faculty, students are expected to serve as student representatives on various campus or professional committees, publish in peer reviewed journals, present their research, all while completing coursework at a satisfactory level.
For the university, the annual performance evaulation tends to focus on graduation rates, national university rankings, and total grant dollars summed across faculty.
Missing across these three levels are the intangibles of knowledge generated and shared, acceptances gained and restrictions lost, and critical thinking skills honed; The societal goods necessary for a healthy democracy.
Showing posts with label Publishing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Publishing. Show all posts
31 March 2017
04 November 2011
Brave New World Linked to Big Brother
Facebook. LinkedIn. Twitter. These, and similar smaller options, have become endemic, ubiquitous and pervasive.
But, what is their relevance to science and to professional development? It's a lot more than you might imagine. The obvious connection (pun intended) is the connectedness. Through these social media we can connect with students, alumni, colleagues and track our competitors.
The obvious implications of social media for science relate to their role in dissemination of information. Through social media, we can spread the virtual word. In science, this tends to be viewed as a good thing. Letting others know of our achievements and discoveries (loosely defined) ought to make the advancement of science even faster. We do science for the purpose of creating knowledge and are paid to do so.
The less obvious implications of the full range of social media and message exchange platforms relate to assessing the impact of that achievement or discovery. The use of bibliometrics, mostly through the use of journal impact factors (JIF), has become a standard for assessing whether a faculty member deserves promotion. But, the evolution and development of measuring impact has continued. We now must contend with a future possibility of being evaluated based on the altmetrics of our work. Altmetrics takes into account not just citations, as is done for the JIF, but also the extent to which the article generates conversation and interest, and thus merges the social media with the bibliometrics. Consider that impact might include the number of tweets and re-tweets, as well as the number of Facebook likes and comments and number of times the article is downloaded or bookmarked.
Big Brother, hopefully the good and just one rather than the mean, bullying one, has arrived. As scholars, we need to take as a given that someone will be tracking not only our pebble of knowledge being dropped into the pond of knowledge, but will also be tracking the size, number and duration of the ripples from that pebble.
But, what is their relevance to science and to professional development? It's a lot more than you might imagine. The obvious connection (pun intended) is the connectedness. Through these social media we can connect with students, alumni, colleagues and track our competitors.
The obvious implications of social media for science relate to their role in dissemination of information. Through social media, we can spread the virtual word. In science, this tends to be viewed as a good thing. Letting others know of our achievements and discoveries (loosely defined) ought to make the advancement of science even faster. We do science for the purpose of creating knowledge and are paid to do so.
The less obvious implications of the full range of social media and message exchange platforms relate to assessing the impact of that achievement or discovery. The use of bibliometrics, mostly through the use of journal impact factors (JIF), has become a standard for assessing whether a faculty member deserves promotion. But, the evolution and development of measuring impact has continued. We now must contend with a future possibility of being evaluated based on the altmetrics of our work. Altmetrics takes into account not just citations, as is done for the JIF, but also the extent to which the article generates conversation and interest, and thus merges the social media with the bibliometrics. Consider that impact might include the number of tweets and re-tweets, as well as the number of Facebook likes and comments and number of times the article is downloaded or bookmarked.
Big Brother, hopefully the good and just one rather than the mean, bullying one, has arrived. As scholars, we need to take as a given that someone will be tracking not only our pebble of knowledge being dropped into the pond of knowledge, but will also be tracking the size, number and duration of the ripples from that pebble.
16 March 2011
Mundane is not frustration free
For those of you who really want to know what a professor does, here a list of recent mundane and routine activities.
* Spent innumerable phone calls to three persons to sort out the project budget and get coordinated for submission of the budget through the appropriate University channels.
* Spent oodles of time fussing with the budget, after I created it in Excel, to get the amounts to come out as needed. Yes, we do work backwards from a bottom line. That's a whole skill unto itself, given that quirks of calculating the indirect costs and fringe benefits.
* Wrote the renewal for the KRISP grant, finessing the finer points of objectives not met.
* Spent hours uploading the renewal files into HRSA's antiquated online grants reporting system.. Unfortunately, very few grants managers on campus know how to use it, so me and my project coordinator have become the experts.
* Directed my project director to call tech support for that online system. The answers, my friend, were basically blowing in the tiny font, several links buried.
* Emailed communications with a student and her master's paper second readers (yes, the unusual plural) to get coordinated on helping the student.
* Wrote revisions to two manuscripts which had received a "revise and resubmit" decision. Oh, the allure of publication.
* Attended faculty meetings and more faculty meetings. Mostly surprisingly good.
* Meet students at a WIC clinic in south Chicago. It was a field trip for the MCH students, so that they could see first hand what it is like and learn what is involved for pregnant women and mothers with infants to get WIC assistance.
* Skimmed or read articles in the stack of professional journals that never seems to get any smaller. If only that would happen for me with some highly valued commodity...
* Forwarded to co-authors notification of one papers and a symposium that was accepted for presentation at Academy of Management. Getting accepted for this is a medium big deal. You'll hear more about that as that meeting nears.
* Made hotel reservations for the upcoming KRISP Project and conference travel. The university system doesn't allow for making reservations (although we can purchase the plane ticket), and hotels require a credit card number to hold the room.
* Oh, and least I forget, did my Editor-in-Chief work of finding reviewers for manuscripts, accepting/rejecting submissions, and generally keeping the email communication up to date.
All in all, not glamorous, not flashy. Just mundane with a hefty dose frustration (I'll let you guess which activities). Still, I got the jobs done.
* Spent innumerable phone calls to three persons to sort out the project budget and get coordinated for submission of the budget through the appropriate University channels.
* Spent oodles of time fussing with the budget, after I created it in Excel, to get the amounts to come out as needed. Yes, we do work backwards from a bottom line. That's a whole skill unto itself, given that quirks of calculating the indirect costs and fringe benefits.
* Wrote the renewal for the KRISP grant, finessing the finer points of objectives not met.
* Spent hours uploading the renewal files into HRSA's antiquated online grants reporting system.. Unfortunately, very few grants managers on campus know how to use it, so me and my project coordinator have become the experts.
* Directed my project director to call tech support for that online system. The answers, my friend, were basically blowing in the tiny font, several links buried.
* Emailed communications with a student and her master's paper second readers (yes, the unusual plural) to get coordinated on helping the student.
* Wrote revisions to two manuscripts which had received a "revise and resubmit" decision. Oh, the allure of publication.
* Attended faculty meetings and more faculty meetings. Mostly surprisingly good.
* Meet students at a WIC clinic in south Chicago. It was a field trip for the MCH students, so that they could see first hand what it is like and learn what is involved for pregnant women and mothers with infants to get WIC assistance.
* Skimmed or read articles in the stack of professional journals that never seems to get any smaller. If only that would happen for me with some highly valued commodity...
* Forwarded to co-authors notification of one papers and a symposium that was accepted for presentation at Academy of Management. Getting accepted for this is a medium big deal. You'll hear more about that as that meeting nears.
* Made hotel reservations for the upcoming KRISP Project and conference travel. The university system doesn't allow for making reservations (although we can purchase the plane ticket), and hotels require a credit card number to hold the room.
* Oh, and least I forget, did my Editor-in-Chief work of finding reviewers for manuscripts, accepting/rejecting submissions, and generally keeping the email communication up to date.
All in all, not glamorous, not flashy. Just mundane with a hefty dose frustration (I'll let you guess which activities). Still, I got the jobs done.
30 December 2010
Holiday Break, Not
The week before Christmas has a reputation as being a low productivity week. The week between Christmas and New Year's has an even stronger reputation as a vacation week. So much so that the University shuts down non-essential services, including closing buildings and turning down heat in faculty offices and classroom spaces.
For me, December is always busy, with a long list of work that has January and February deadlines. Even more so this year. Early in January, Academy of Management has a deadline for manuscripts to be considered for presentation at the annual meeting. This year I am first author on a manuscript focused on organizational processes of implementing a new service line, and am co-sponsoring a symposium on health care reform. Right after the Academy of Management deadline is the deadline for AcademyHealth. I am undecided whether I have anything this year for AcademyHealth. Then, in mid-February is the abstract submission deadline for American Public Health Association. I foresee being first author and second on a couple abstracts. All of this takes focus, apply seat to seat, and type away into the night.
That's not all. The KRISP project is heating up with alots of trainings happening in January. Collaboratively planning those with the directors of the health departments and getting the schedules worked out takes time. And, then there is the KRISP budget. Problems uncovered and to be corrected. There's a reason why I am a control freak with regard to budgets. Maybe I just haven't had good luck or maybe it's the very weird and shoddy university system. Whatever the root cause, problems arise often and go unnoticed until an auditing approach is taken to account for the pennies. Moments like that require the "Breath!" mantra.
Meanwhile, other manuscripts in process ebb and flow between me and the co-authors. My editorship work rolls on and on, with more manuscripts submitted this year and ever. A good sign with accompanying more work. And, students who don't like their grades are now contacting me (on Christmas day, of all things!). Gotta laugh and love it!
.
For me, December is always busy, with a long list of work that has January and February deadlines. Even more so this year. Early in January, Academy of Management has a deadline for manuscripts to be considered for presentation at the annual meeting. This year I am first author on a manuscript focused on organizational processes of implementing a new service line, and am co-sponsoring a symposium on health care reform. Right after the Academy of Management deadline is the deadline for AcademyHealth. I am undecided whether I have anything this year for AcademyHealth. Then, in mid-February is the abstract submission deadline for American Public Health Association. I foresee being first author and second on a couple abstracts. All of this takes focus, apply seat to seat, and type away into the night.
That's not all. The KRISP project is heating up with alots of trainings happening in January. Collaboratively planning those with the directors of the health departments and getting the schedules worked out takes time. And, then there is the KRISP budget. Problems uncovered and to be corrected. There's a reason why I am a control freak with regard to budgets. Maybe I just haven't had good luck or maybe it's the very weird and shoddy university system. Whatever the root cause, problems arise often and go unnoticed until an auditing approach is taken to account for the pennies. Moments like that require the "Breath!" mantra.
Meanwhile, other manuscripts in process ebb and flow between me and the co-authors. My editorship work rolls on and on, with more manuscripts submitted this year and ever. A good sign with accompanying more work. And, students who don't like their grades are now contacting me (on Christmas day, of all things!). Gotta laugh and love it!
.
10 December 2010
Publishing as an Art
In August, I participated in a panel discussion on getting published which had been organized by the Health Care Administration Division of the Academy of Management. Here's a summary of the advise and suggestions I offered.
Four Audiences for whom you actually write ~
1. The Editor.
The journal editor will check that your submission has adhered to the Instructions for Authors. If the answer is no, you could quickly get a desk reject. The Editor has the responsibility to assure that your submission fits with the mission and audiences of the journal. Again, if the answer is no, your submission will be rejected. To avoid this situation, send a brief (please, brief) note to the editor asking if your idea is a fit. Most editors will reply with useful information. Just don't turn this into a dialogue. Lastly, editors also act as reviewers. They read the articles and will add their critique to that of peer reviewers. They are smart people who know the field, so anticipate that.
2. Reviewers.
Depending on the journal, reviewers will be more or less rigorous in their critique of the work submitted. At the high end of rigor, you can expect to have theory and methods both scrutinized. Reviewers can be unpredictable, so be emotionally prepared for the unexpected. For example, a reviewer might not like your statistical analysis and ask for a redo using x as a control variable. Or, a reviewer might ding you for not citing his or her work (naturally, you won't know this is happening) or for not being compulsive about the punctuation in the reference list. Lastly, reviewers do rely on the journal mission and submission guidelines to frame their critique. So, again, pay attention to those.
3. Readers.
It might seem odd that the journal readers are listed third, but they will never see your work if it does not get past the editor and the reviewers. Readers want a clear, concise take-away message. They also will not read articles that take effort to read; so, keep the syntax simple, minimize the jargon, and include visual aides that can be readily absorbed.
4. The Publisher.
The publisher of the journal wants a successful, profitable journal. Editors know this and make decisions (sometimes) based on this; hence, the need to select manuscripts that fit with the journal mission. Also, the publisher is in control of the steps that come between getting your accept letter and seeing your manuscript in print and online. Most of the time those publishing processes go smoothly, but glitches can happen which can delay release of your publication.
Do Your Homework
Given these audiences, here's my list of what you need to as homework before submitting your manuscript
a) Remember that your abstract gives the first impression. Make a good impression by having a well-written abstract that follows the Instructions to Authors guidelines.
b) Follow the Instructions to Authors TOTALLY! (Need I say more?)
c) Make sure that your submission is aligned with journal mission and have selected the type of article.
d) Edit. Edit. Edit. There is nothing more frustrating than finding track changes, misspelled words, or contorted sentences, not to mention bad punctuation.
e) Get feedback on the draft version before submitting and then make changes it based on their comments. If your own colleagues see problems, it's guaranteed that the reviewers will too.
f) You can usually find out how long the process will take from submission to release by reading the Editorial. Most editors and journals will provide that information roughly once a year.
Lastly, as an Editor, here's my list of pet peeves.
* Tables need to carefully done, with attention to the title, formatting, columns, explanations of all abbreviations. Remember that in some article retrieval systems, these will stand alone.
* Don't forget to include the n when showing statistical results. DO NOT copy and paste output into your manuscript. Remember Audience #3, the Readers. And, do NOT use more decimal points than are meaningful given the n. What's the meaning of a thousandth of day hospitalized in a sample of 86? Really...
* References must conform completely to the reference style of the journal. Period.
So, that's my notes. I hope these tips have been helpful and reinforced what you probably already know or have been told. If you have questions, leave a comment.
Four Audiences for whom you actually write ~
1. The Editor.
The journal editor will check that your submission has adhered to the Instructions for Authors. If the answer is no, you could quickly get a desk reject. The Editor has the responsibility to assure that your submission fits with the mission and audiences of the journal. Again, if the answer is no, your submission will be rejected. To avoid this situation, send a brief (please, brief) note to the editor asking if your idea is a fit. Most editors will reply with useful information. Just don't turn this into a dialogue. Lastly, editors also act as reviewers. They read the articles and will add their critique to that of peer reviewers. They are smart people who know the field, so anticipate that.
2. Reviewers.
Depending on the journal, reviewers will be more or less rigorous in their critique of the work submitted. At the high end of rigor, you can expect to have theory and methods both scrutinized. Reviewers can be unpredictable, so be emotionally prepared for the unexpected. For example, a reviewer might not like your statistical analysis and ask for a redo using x as a control variable. Or, a reviewer might ding you for not citing his or her work (naturally, you won't know this is happening) or for not being compulsive about the punctuation in the reference list. Lastly, reviewers do rely on the journal mission and submission guidelines to frame their critique. So, again, pay attention to those.
3. Readers.
It might seem odd that the journal readers are listed third, but they will never see your work if it does not get past the editor and the reviewers. Readers want a clear, concise take-away message. They also will not read articles that take effort to read; so, keep the syntax simple, minimize the jargon, and include visual aides that can be readily absorbed.
4. The Publisher.
The publisher of the journal wants a successful, profitable journal. Editors know this and make decisions (sometimes) based on this; hence, the need to select manuscripts that fit with the journal mission. Also, the publisher is in control of the steps that come between getting your accept letter and seeing your manuscript in print and online. Most of the time those publishing processes go smoothly, but glitches can happen which can delay release of your publication.
Do Your Homework
Given these audiences, here's my list of what you need to as homework before submitting your manuscript
a) Remember that your abstract gives the first impression. Make a good impression by having a well-written abstract that follows the Instructions to Authors guidelines.
b) Follow the Instructions to Authors TOTALLY! (Need I say more?)
c) Make sure that your submission is aligned with journal mission and have selected the type of article.
d) Edit. Edit. Edit. There is nothing more frustrating than finding track changes, misspelled words, or contorted sentences, not to mention bad punctuation.
e) Get feedback on the draft version before submitting and then make changes it based on their comments. If your own colleagues see problems, it's guaranteed that the reviewers will too.
f) You can usually find out how long the process will take from submission to release by reading the Editorial. Most editors and journals will provide that information roughly once a year.
Lastly, as an Editor, here's my list of pet peeves.
* Tables need to carefully done, with attention to the title, formatting, columns, explanations of all abbreviations. Remember that in some article retrieval systems, these will stand alone.
* Don't forget to include the n when showing statistical results. DO NOT copy and paste output into your manuscript. Remember Audience #3, the Readers. And, do NOT use more decimal points than are meaningful given the n. What's the meaning of a thousandth of day hospitalized in a sample of 86? Really...
* References must conform completely to the reference style of the journal. Period.
So, that's my notes. I hope these tips have been helpful and reinforced what you probably already know or have been told. If you have questions, leave a comment.
26 November 2010
Not bragging but...
One of the obligatory and fun APHA activities is going through the exhibit hall. Comfortable shoes and stamina required for the miles of walking on the cement floor. Walking up and down the aisles, eying the competition for students, glancing into NASA's trailer which looks galaxies removed from a typical public health scene, searching for the latest in condom colors (this year was condom-sparse), bacteria themed neck ties (really, who wears those?) and interesting reads whether it's a textbook for students, a textbook for me, or book for some lateral thinking.
Naturally, I make the rounds to chat up my publishers. Lippincott Wolters Klewer (aka LWW) to check that they had brought copies of Health Care Management Review, the journal for which I am the Editor-in-Chief. By the time I had gotten to that booth on Sunday afternoon, they had "run out of" copies. Okay, I'll go with that excuse. Late on Monday, I stopped by the Jones and Bartlet booth to see how things were going with my textbook. The reps looked tired, but mustered some enthusiasm for my book. Thankfully, I have another year before I need to worry about updating and next edition.
So, all seemed okay. A week after the conference, this newsletter went out. Seems that my textbook was in demand! Yes, getting a royalty check provides some reward for the effort. But, a even grater reward comes in the form of knowing that I managed to create something that is helpful and useful. A tiny contribution, I hope, to making for better world.
Naturally, I make the rounds to chat up my publishers. Lippincott Wolters Klewer (aka LWW) to check that they had brought copies of Health Care Management Review, the journal for which I am the Editor-in-Chief. By the time I had gotten to that booth on Sunday afternoon, they had "run out of" copies. Okay, I'll go with that excuse. Late on Monday, I stopped by the Jones and Bartlet booth to see how things were going with my textbook. The reps looked tired, but mustered some enthusiasm for my book. Thankfully, I have another year before I need to worry about updating and next edition.
So, all seemed okay. A week after the conference, this newsletter went out. Seems that my textbook was in demand! Yes, getting a royalty check provides some reward for the effort. But, a even grater reward comes in the form of knowing that I managed to create something that is helpful and useful. A tiny contribution, I hope, to making for better world.
07 August 2010
Legacy Plannning
Legacy planning is not an ego thing; it's a responsibility. It goes hand-in-hand with mentoring and keeping the discipline alive and fresh.
I spent this afternoon with a group of senior faculty, junior faculty, and doctoral students all participating in a Professional Development Workshop sponsored by the Health Care Management Division of the Academy of Management. It's my annual early August conference where I get to meet up with my once-a-year friends.
The panel I moderated topic focused on "Publishing". Four of us Editors of journals provided tips on how to get pushed. Nuts and bolts information. I organized my comments by 4 audiences (editor, reviewers, readers and publishers) and doing your homework. I noticed lots of note taking while I was presenting. After our presentations we broke into small group discussions and had informal sharing across the levels of expertise.
We all have stories and experiences that can enrich each other's understanding. Although the competition to get published is fierce, the collegial support generally and predominantly trumps all. It might be that we, those with experience, are hoping to spare others of the pains and steer them clear of time sinks. Or, maybe we feel a responsibility to make the next generation even better than we were. Or, maybe there's some perverse competition about who can be more helpful. It doesn't matter.
After a coffe break, we had small group sharing of our hopes and fears related to our work. Those in my group, again the full range from senior faculty to doctoral studens, were delightfully honest. The elephants got noticed. We laughted. One thread to the sharing ran like this: how do I know which path to take? how will I find good collaborators? The answers included "have faith" and "trust yourself". Two answers that we tend to forget, even though we were taught these answers since we were children. As we concluded, the consensus was that the workshop made the next generation feel valued and supported. Yes, I do love my intellectual children and grandchildren. And, those facing the academe or not choice began to see and experience some of the upsides to this astoundingly autonomous, interesting, and challenging life.
I spent this afternoon with a group of senior faculty, junior faculty, and doctoral students all participating in a Professional Development Workshop sponsored by the Health Care Management Division of the Academy of Management. It's my annual early August conference where I get to meet up with my once-a-year friends.
The panel I moderated topic focused on "Publishing". Four of us Editors of journals provided tips on how to get pushed. Nuts and bolts information. I organized my comments by 4 audiences (editor, reviewers, readers and publishers) and doing your homework. I noticed lots of note taking while I was presenting. After our presentations we broke into small group discussions and had informal sharing across the levels of expertise.
We all have stories and experiences that can enrich each other's understanding. Although the competition to get published is fierce, the collegial support generally and predominantly trumps all. It might be that we, those with experience, are hoping to spare others of the pains and steer them clear of time sinks. Or, maybe we feel a responsibility to make the next generation even better than we were. Or, maybe there's some perverse competition about who can be more helpful. It doesn't matter.
After a coffe break, we had small group sharing of our hopes and fears related to our work. Those in my group, again the full range from senior faculty to doctoral studens, were delightfully honest. The elephants got noticed. We laughted. One thread to the sharing ran like this: how do I know which path to take? how will I find good collaborators? The answers included "have faith" and "trust yourself". Two answers that we tend to forget, even though we were taught these answers since we were children. As we concluded, the consensus was that the workshop made the next generation feel valued and supported. Yes, I do love my intellectual children and grandchildren. And, those facing the academe or not choice began to see and experience some of the upsides to this astoundingly autonomous, interesting, and challenging life.
29 April 2010
Working from home: Luxury or not
Today I worked from home, spending time on email, revising a manuscript, working on reports, and reading student papers. It felt like a luxury to not be in office clothes (aka in a bathrobe) and staring out the window at my backyard. For the past 6 months I needed to be in the office every day for grant related activities, school meetings, or student advising. Most of my fellow faculty have regularly scheduled days for working at home. So, if I gleefully said to them I got to work at home, they'd have a puzzled look.
It ought to be a win-win; the university saves on office lights and computer electricity, and I save on commuting to the office. But, it's more complicated than that. I lose on my electricity bill and the lack of comradary. There are other losses for the university, and the need to have polices for working from home. Nonetheless, I feel fortunate to have a job that makes it possible to work from home. Flexibility is a good thing.
On a more intellectual note ~ the theme for the day was publishing, peer reviews, and editing. The debate on the value of peer reviewing is alive and well, with science being generated on the topic. Seems tautological, but then...
It ought to be a win-win; the university saves on office lights and computer electricity, and I save on commuting to the office. But, it's more complicated than that. I lose on my electricity bill and the lack of comradary. There are other losses for the university, and the need to have polices for working from home. Nonetheless, I feel fortunate to have a job that makes it possible to work from home. Flexibility is a good thing.
On a more intellectual note ~ the theme for the day was publishing, peer reviews, and editing. The debate on the value of peer reviewing is alive and well, with science being generated on the topic. Seems tautological, but then...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)