Publication practices of English language occupational therapy journals

The aim of this study was to determine the characteristics and publication practices of English language occupational therapy journals. An adapted version of the Survey of Editors Regarding Publishing Practices was posted to the editors of English language occupational therapy journals (n = 14) in September 2001. The response rate was 92.9% (n = 13). Journals were published on average 4.77 times per year and comprised 89% text and 10% advertising. The preferred average length of manuscripts was 20 pages using American Psychological Association format. The average acceptance rate of unsolicited manuscripts was 46.6%. All the journals were peer-reviewed publications and 80% were research oriented. The most frequently cited reasons for rejection of manuscripts were methodology problems, poorly developed idea, poorly written and data interpretation problems. The professional focus of published manuscripts was on research and the clinical foci were on paediatrics, gerontology and physical medicine. The study concludes that there are a variety of publishing opportunities available to occupational therapists. It is essential that prospective authors consult the journal guidelines for authors, including the types of manuscript accepted.

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. Copyright © by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.

English teachers' choice of language for publication: Qualitative insights from Bangladesh

The aim of this small-scale research was to gain some understanding of Bangladeshi English language teachers' language preference for publication purposes & the extent of the use of Bangla (Bengali), the L1, in their professional practice. Qualitative data for the study were gathered by means of a self-produced questionnaire. Results show that about three-quarters of the teachers published or would publish entirely in English because they believed that it was, among other reasons, the usual professional practice. More importantly, a number of teachers stated that they felt more comfortable writing academic essays in English. Regarding the use of L1, all 37 respondents pointed out that they used it sparingly in the classroom, & only a small number considered it a barrier in learning English, the L2. While emphasising the study's limitations, the paper suggests that English teachers' lack of confidence in L1 academic writing may be seen as indicating the potential direction of a slowly emerging individual bilingualism among university teachers of English. However, the paper also argues that the emergence of this potential bilingualism can be seen only at the individual rather than societal level, &, within the academic context, only in the limited domain of academic writing. Figures, References. Adapted from the source document

Evaluation of NHMRC funded research completed in 1992, 1997 and 2003: gains in knowledge, health and wealth

Objective: To report on strategies for, and outcomes of, evaluation of knowledge (publications), health and wealth (commercial) gains from medical research funded by the Australian Government through the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Design and methods: End-of-grant reports submitted by researchers within 6 months of completion of NHMRC funded project grants which terminated in 2003 were used to capture self-reported publication number, health and wealth gains. Self-reported gains were also examined in retrospective surveys of grants completed in 1992 and 1997 and awards primarily supporting people (“people awards”) held between 1992 and 2002. Results: The response rate for the 1992 sample was too low for meaningful analysis. The mean number of publications per grant in the basic biomedical, clinical and health services research areas was very similar in 1997 and 2003. The publication output for population health was somewhat higher in the 2003 than in the 1997 analysis. For grants completed in 1997, 24% (31/131) affected clinical practice; 14% (18/131) public health practice; 9% (12/131) health policy; and 41% (54/131) had commercial potential with 20% (26/131) resulting in patents. Most respondents (89%) agreed that NHMRC people awards improved their career prospects. Interpretation is limited by the relatively low response rates (50% or less). Conclusions: A mechanism has been developed for ongoing assessment of NHMRC funded research. This process will improve accountability to the community and to government, and refine current funding mechanisms to most efficiently deliver health and economic returns for Australia.