Outdated journal rankings and the ERA exercise

As the results of the latest Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) exercise come closer to being announced, universities around Australia are holding their collective breaths. The ERA claims to be an assessment of research strengths and quality at Australian universities. While it is not supposed to produce a set of league tables, ultimately that is what tends to happen...

Who is publishing in the Journal of Sociology? an analysis of author trends 1965–2008

This paper presents the author characteristics of papers published in The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) journal, the Journal of Sociology (formerly the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology) between 1965 and 2008. The aim of the paper is empirically to identify trends in authorship. The review examines all articles published in the period (excluding book reviews). The rationale of the study is to reveal trends in who publishes in the journal in terms of authors’ academic rank, gender, institution, and country. A table of those who have published the greatest number of papers is also presented. Findings show that over time the gap between the proportion of males and females publishing has closed; more PhD students and research fellows are publishing in the journal in recent decades; the highest proportion of authors consistently come from the Australian National University and The University of Queensland; and most authors are located in Australia. Information such as this can inform editorial practices and serve to inform the membership and readership on the nature of the journal.

Narrative on the "Compliance and Regulatory Journal" : past, present and future

A conversation over a cup of coffee in late 2005 between Australasian Compliance Institute members Bill Dee and Dr Len Gainsford quickly turned to previously unsuccessful attempts to start a professional journal about compliance. There were two main issue - the difficultly in getting a professional journal off the ground and then sustaining a continuous flow of quality contributions. As practitioners, Bill and Len knew there was a considerable amount of 'thought and practice leadership' compliance material out there but they also knew that such material had not been presented in a relevant and interesting way. A foolish thought arose - could we start a professional journal that practitioners might actually read and use?

A framework guiding critical thinking through reflective journal documentation: A Middle Eastern experience

The purpose of this paper is to present a framework to guide critical thinking through reflective journaling, and describe how a group of 20 Middle Eastern nurses used reflective journaling to enhance their practice. Journal documentation was used during clinical practicum to foster the development of critical thinking in order to assist nurses when analysing and evaluating their clinical experiences. The findings from this study demonstrated that nurses accepted the framework for journal documentation because it provided structure for reflection, speculation, synthesis and metacognition of events experienced during clinical practice. Journaling gave nurses the opportunity to transfer thoughts onto paper and write down subjective and objective data, and created dialogue between the nurse educators and nurses. They were engaged in productive and positive activity to enhance their nursing practice. Nurses also commented that writing helped to develop their confidence in writing English.

Thinking Collaboratively about the Peer-Review Process for Journal- Article Publication

In this conversation, Kevin K. Kumashiro shares his reflections on challenges to publishing anti-oppressive research in educational journals. He then invites eight current and former editors of leading educational research journals--William F. Pinar, Elizabeth Graue, Carl A. Grant, Maenette K. P. Benham, Ronald H. Heck, James Joseph Scheurich, Allan Luke, and Carmen Luke--to critique and expand on his analysis. Kumashiro begins the conversation by describing his own experiences submitting manuscripts to educational research journals and receiving comments by anonymous reviewers and journal editors. He suggests three ways to rethink the collaborative potential of the peer-review process: as constructive, as multilensed, and as situated. The eight current and former editors of leading educational research journals then critique and expand Kumashiro's analysis. Kumashiro concludes the conversation with additional reflections on barriers and contradictions involved in advancing anti-oppressive educational research in educational journals. (Contains 3 notes.)

New criteria for evaluating methods of identifying hot spots

Identification of hot spots, also known as the sites with promise, black spots, accident-prone locations, or priority investigation locations, is an important and routine activity for improving the overall safety of roadway networks. Extensive literature focuses on methods for hot spot identification (HSID). A subset of this considerable literature is dedicated to conducting performance assessments of various HSID methods. A central issue in comparing HSID methods is the development and selection of quantitative and qualitative performance measures or criteria. The authors contend that currently employed HSID assessment criteria—namely false positives and false negatives—are necessary but not sufficient, and additional criteria are needed to exploit the ordinal nature of site ranking data. With the intent to equip road safety professionals and researchers with more useful tools to compare the performances of various HSID methods and to improve the level of HSID assessments, this paper proposes four quantitative HSID evaluation tests that are, to the authors’ knowledge, new and unique. These tests evaluate different aspects of HSID method performance, including reliability of results, ranking consistency, and false identification consistency and reliability. It is intended that road safety professionals apply these different evaluation tests in addition to existing tests to compare the performances of various HSID methods, and then select the most appropriate HSID method to screen road networks to identify sites that require further analysis. This work demonstrates four new criteria using 3 years of Arizona road section accident data and four commonly applied HSID methods [accident frequency ranking, accident rate ranking, accident reduction potential, and empirical Bayes (EB)]. The EB HSID method reveals itself as the superior method in most of the evaluation tests. In contrast, identifying hot spots using accident rate rankings performs the least well among the tests. The accident frequency and accident reduction potential methods perform similarly, with slight differences explained. The authors believe that the four new evaluation tests offer insight into HSID performance heretofore unavailable to analysts and researchers.