IO1 Publications Policy

This forum is intended for members of the Quality and Editorial Board of UPPScience.
It is a platform of discussion to ensure that:
- we implement IO1 (technical) and
- we set up a quality infrastructure that will make UPPScience CoP platform a quality forum (Quality)
 
I will be in this forum only from a technical point of view and you will catch me citing the project proposal for your sins.
 
Situation to date:
Green means accomplished          
Orange means progress (they will go green when finished)                
Red means to be started up (they will go orange next)
BLOCK LETTERS mean action needed but we will deal with one thing at a time in this forum wink
 
O1-A1 Establishment of Quality and Editorial Board
- Constituted during kick-off meeting.
- Made up of Peter Gray (NTNU), Rabia Vezne and Binnur Genç İlter (Akdeniz), Miguel Vidal (CIPFPM) and Valentina Berni (ValIda)
- Extra member who is a research student at IPP will join the board as from Interim Meeting because IPP has expertise in the field and because IPP will head the CoP dynamic observatory.

O1-A2 Establishment of foundations and parameters for research and publishing

THIS WILL BE A TEXT TO GO ON PLATFORM ONCE IT IS READY TO GO. AN INTRO.


O1-A2 Guidelines on parameters for standards and quality for research, publishing and peer review
SHOULD WE HAVE A QUALITY STANDARDS CHARTER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT ? THIS COULD BECOME PART OF PREPARATION BEFORE PUBLISHING PAPERS AND ALSO PART OF THE TRAINING ACTIVITIES. 
O1-A2 Determination of format, characteristics, requisites and standards for publications
- Decided upon during kick-off meeting.
- Format of papers found in minutes of kick-off meeting BUT WE WILL NEED A MINI DOCUMENT WITH TECHNICAL FORMAT OF PAPERS SO THAT IT CAN BE USED BY USERS OF COP FOR THEIR PREPARATION OF THEIR PAPERS
O1-A3 Determination of criteria for self / peer evaluation / assessment of publications
WE NEED TO PRODUCE CRITERIA FOR PER REVIEW...THE LARGE MAJORITY OF MEMBERS OF COP DO NOT HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE IN THIS FIELD. THIS COULD BECOME PART OF TRAINING CONTENT FOR TRAINING ACTIVITIES.
O1-A4 Liaison with Technical Team about tools for submission and publication of papers
- started during kick-off meeting with cold run for submission and publication of papers and will end once we try out CoP platform in September and October
O1-A4 Liaison with Technical Team about tools for peer review
- started during kick-off meeting with cold run for submission and publication of papers and will end once we try out CoP platform in September and October
O1-A5 Design and delivery of training content in research and publishing
WILL TAKE PLACE IN BARCELONA

O1-A2 Determination of format, characteristics, requisites and standards for publications
- Decided upon during kick-off meeting.
- Format of papers found in minutes of kick-off meeting BUT WE WILL NEED A MINI DOCUMENT WITH TECHNICAL FORMAT OF PAPERS SO THAT IT CAN BE USED BY USERS OF COP FOR THEIR PREPARATION OF THEIR PAPERS
 
This is what we have as notes from kick off meeting in Brussels
 
Abstract as route into bridging - 50-150 word summary in both languages - native and english
Specify format, Times Roman 12pt, APA referencing etc
3-5 keywords
Paper - max 3000 words
Introduction paragraph -d who are/relationship to stakeholders, then scientific background/literature, aim of study and methods (not compulsory), research question - related to stakeholders - findings and results, impact on stakeholders, dissemination/sustainability, references - but relatively small number and wide range of possible sources
Does the topic address a topic of interest to someone other than the researcher?
what is the target audience?
Does the work plan make sense? Is the method appropriate?
Data - where is it? What form is it in?
Is there a relationship between data, findings/results and the research question?
What is the impact produced by the study?
Language - should be understandable by the target audience, not too academic.
 
Can you put your comments as replies to this post please ?
click on "reply" on left hand corner of this post wink
Rabia Vezne's picture

Hi everybody, 

I prepared a document for the format of the papers. I also try to abide what we had decided in Brussels.

I am sending it Antoine to share with you .

With best, 

Rabia

Thank you Rabia.

The document is here : https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7rF69I0tOAbNllxS0I0UmlISUk

I have asked Radi and Asem to let us know what parts of this document are automatic from the platform specifications for example length etc.

In the meantime anyone feels one should add or correct anything in this document ?

Antoine

I cannot access to the doc.Miguel

 

 

Now you can smiley

Antoine

This is the link to a test paper published using the tools on the platform.

Http://viscontiproject.eu/uppscience/Management_Documents/Test_UPPScience_Paper1.pdf

Any comments ?

Antoine

Many thanks Rabia. Looks great. Do you propose    ​Diss/Sust chapters to be compulsory? I think it should be better to have them not compulsory to facilitate some kind of papers.What do you think? Regards. Miguel

 

 

Valentina Berni's picture

Thank you Rabia!  

I agree with Miguel. This way we avoid people getting stuck given that our audience is not used to writing papers. We need to keep it as easy as possible.

Rabia Vezne's picture

Dear Migel and Valentina,

Diss/Sus was decided in Brussels, but I do not insist on it. If everybody thinks in the same way to keep it more simple, it is ok for me. 

Peter, what do you think about it?

O1-A2 Guidelines on parameters for standards and quality for research, publishing and peer review
SHOULD WE HAVE A QUALITY STANDARDS CHARTER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT ? THIS COULD BECOME PART OF PREPARATION BEFORE PUBLISHING PAPERS AND ALSO PART OF THE TRAINING ACTIVITIES. 
 
My question in red still remains...
Once we have a document about format so that one knows length and format of the paper one can publish then we need some sort of guidelines so that we maintain quality standards even if they are mini papers.
Can we have feedback from all please ?
I am sure those of us who have published papers before know of some sort of quality document from some platform. We can adapt to our context.
 
Can we get working on this please ?
 
Antoine
 
 
Rabia Vezne's picture

MAIN QUALITY STANDARDS FOR RELEASING PAPERS

WITHIN UPPSCIENCE PROJECT

 

Submissions of abstracts and papers will be assessed by the Editorial Board on the basis of three criteria:

 1. relevance to the needs of VET, VET students and teachers (especially STEM and IT subjects);

2. quality of the statistical content;

3. quality of the drafting.

 

Relevance to the needs of VET, VET students and teachers (especially STEM and IT subjects);

  • The topic of the paper should be of relevance for VET, or should be linked to a VET topic/objective/need.
  • The paper should be related to the tasks and functions of the VET and/or aims of UPPScience.
  • The paper should be of importance to the VET, e.g. it describes or highlights relevant facts, figures, findings or ideas.
  • The paper should be informative and objective.
  • The conclusions should have an impact on a topic of relevance to the VET, or provide facts and figures that produce new information about such a topic.
  • The paper should not make policy statements.

 

Quality of the statistical content;

  • The statistics, data sources and method should provide fresh insight into the statistics field.
  • The methodology should be state of the art and well described.
  • The statistical approach and use of data should be clearly explained.
  • The content should be sufficiently original and informative.
  • The literature/references and data sources should be easily available.

 

Quality of the drafting

  • The paper should be clear in its objective, methods and conclusion.
  • The paper should include a non-technical abstract.
  • The paper should be in line with the guidelines provided.

 

Hi

In the KoM Peter said that all papers are going to be accepted. Even the simple ones. It includes opinions, etc. So, normal guidelines for papers could be too restrictive for UPPScience.

What do you think?

Accordingly, a normal guideline for papers could be used as a kind of non compulsory recommendations.

Regards

Miguel

I never mentioned that the standards would mean refusing papers but we need to keep in mind that most of our audience has never published a paper let alone carry out research so guidance helps. At least non binding recommendations help.

This group needs to either put some guidelines together from scratch or find examples and we adapt something for us.

Antoine

1. Things that can be done between now and Barcelona meeting

- a strategy that answers the concerns in this article https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/can-one-learn-research-peer-review-antoin... This could be strategy for preparation and training, in form of quality charter as well as in preparation and tools for peer review.

We need some form of text or video that explains to the member of the CoP some form of quality policy.

We may need texts to help the person publishing a paper or reviewing a paper to look for the right elements.

What about a tool that allows a member publishing a paper to classify it as an opinion paper, a narrative, a reflection or the result of resarch.

2. Things that can be decided upon more in detail in Barcelona (there is a break out meeting for IO1 on the 15th morning)

The thing that comes to mind is the structure of the four training activities including a preparation before and a structure that helps participants possibly leave the training with a paper submitted for peer review...or with practical joint peer review using the tools on the platform.

The project proposal foresees technical training about how to use the platform and then skills building to research, writing to be read etc. as well as peer review.

Dear All: We did 3 Pilot papers with VET Advanced students. I would like to give you some conclusions that can help to be more efficient in Barcelona to develop O1. First af all, I selected the 3 best students with great marks. They were around 30-40 years old with huge working experience. We worked very very hard for 3 months¡ including some training about methodologies, etc At the end they produced one paper each (one in english and 2 in spanish). Their conclusion (not mine) is that they weren't ready for that, and also that after 3 months they still weren't able to understand completely what they did with me. So, one conclusion is that we cannot have standard university research tools, but to adapt them in a very EASY way for VET. For instance, I taught them APA but at the end they didn't APA at all. And this is an easy point. To sum it up, I could say that writing two pages can look easy but the immersion in the research atmosphere for VET people takes time and it is an effort. So, we need to do things as easy as possible and give examples for VET people. Nobody is going to read long texts about methodology. At the end, I thing that we really need a learning week asap to work with methodologies and paper writing. Regards. Miguel PD: we can use the minipaper in English to do a review, and this can works as an example. I can do the review.

 

 

 

Valentina Berni's picture

Hello everyone, 

i have been looking around for some resources that could inspire us and be used as point of departure.

The first one is from Wiley:  https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/tools-and-r...

The second one is from Taylor and Francis: http://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/reviewers-guidelines-an...

They both have content that we could use for peer review. In the coming days i will go deeply on these resources and take some notes to start writing a guide for our audience.

What i like from WIley is that they have a training course consisting on video resources and we could follow this format if it is feasible. At least it might be a preparation for the training..

 

VISConti Project

Community of Practice