Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Converting theses and dissertations into journal articles

•Download as PPT, PDF•
•
Jeanette C. Patindol
Jeanette C. Patindol

This document provides guidance on converting theses and dissertations into journal articles, including differences in structure between the two formats, tips for reframing the work for publication, and recommendations for determining authorship credit and order when collaborating with faculty on publications. Key differences highlighted include abstract length, introduction style, discussion content, and inclusion of appendices. Selectivity, brevity, writing style, and restrained data interpretation are emphasized for successful journal article conversion.

1 of 24
+ Converting Theses and Dissertations Into Journal Articles
+ Training Objective  URC initiative to intensify research utilization through publication  For use with own theses/dissertations (ideally within a year of reporting)  To provide broader context and direction for use in thesis/dissertation advising  Possible faculty-student collaboration
+ APA Style, 6th edition Main Manuscript Structure • Title page • Abstract • Introduction (Chapters 1 &2 in theses/dissertations) • Method (Ch. 3) • Results (Ch. 4 & 5) • Discussion (Ch. 4 & 5) • References • Appendices
+ Introduction • The purpose of theses and dissertations, as well as the nature of the reading audience (professors or committee members), may dictate variations from the requirements for manuscripts submitted for publication (APA, 2010). • Turning a thesis/dissertation into a publishable manuscript requires work on – length, – selectivity, – writing style (editorial and expository), and – interpretation of data. By giving attention to these features, you will increase the chance of having your manuscript accepted for publication (Calfee & Valencia, 2007 in APA, 2010).
+ Differences • Abstract length – Dissertation Abstracts International requires a max. of 350 words for dissertations, 120 words for master’s theses • Introduction – almost similar except that author must demonstrate familiarity with the literature and develop background more extensively • Abstract length – 150 to 250 words • Introduction – assumes that readers are contexted into the general background and literature; however, both do not encourage secondary sourcing with references for laboratory reports Theses and Dissertations Journal Article
+ • Discussion - typically longer; Students may be asked to interpret results more thoroughly, thereby demonstrating their understanding of their data, and to engage in more speculation, thereby offering committee members more opportunity to understand future research directions that interest the student. • References – may include Bibliography to show familiarity with a with a broader spectrum of literature than that immediately relevant to the research  Discussion – shorter and addresses research objectives more directly  References - only references cited in the text are included in the journal article reference list. Theses and Dissertations Journal Articles
+  Appendices – needs complete documentation  Appendices - space and content requirements may limit the use of appendices in journal articles (with the exception of supplemental material placed in supplemental online archives; see section 2.13) Theses and Dissertations Journal Articles
+ Reframing for Journal Publication • A journal article requires – a tighter theoretical framework, – a more succinct review of the literature, – a more controlled presentation of methodology, – and a more restrained discussion of results • Trimming the length effectively – not “cut-and-pasting” but selecting and rewriting – substance must be preserved while cutting the extraneous detail that is important for the dissertation but irrelevant for the journal article.
+ 1. Selectivity and Brevity • If the dissertation covers several distinct research questions, narrow the focus to a specific topic—be selective in presenting the problem. • Try to bring the results under control. Often the dissertation reports everything, including “almost significant” results. These results are briefly mentioned in journal articles and detailed in supplemental materials. • Try to avoid the common presentation pitfalls of many novice writers. These include, for example, reporting that the data were analyzed with a certain computer package or presenting significant findings in the Discussion section. • Certain conventions in dissertations do not lend themselves to the presentation format for journal articles. For example, as Carver (1984) advised, “do not include a ‘Definitions’ section. . . . This section is popular in doctoral dissertations but it is often a sign of naivete in research reports” (pp. 22–23). • Be selective in the references that are reported in the literature review. Dissertations often have an exhaustive number of citations —choose the most salient when revising for a journal article.
+ 2. Writing Style • Many theses do not follow APA Style for tables, figures, references, and organization of sections. Failure to attend to APA Style often signals stylistic problems throughout the manuscript. • Pay particular attention to the quality of expository writing: – Strive for clarity; – Delete extraneous words; – Avoid excessive reporting and repetition; – Be explicit, but not overly detailed; – Use the active voice; and, of course, – Use correct grammar.
+ 3. Interpretation of Data • A common problem in a poorly prepared manuscript derived from a dissertation study is overinterpretation of the data. Inexperienced researchers tend to have unbridled faith in the strength of their results. Problems of overinterpretation in dissertations are not unexpected, given that the candidate has invested much time and energy in an academic undertaking. Thus, going beyond the results may come out of a sense of ownership and pride. • Nevertheless, show restraint in forming your conclusions. • Reviewers and editors easily recognize a manuscript that has been carelessly converted from a thesis or dissertation. The harder a new member of the profession works to alleviate some of the more obvious and fixable problems that distinguish a thesis from a journal article, the easier the path to publication will be.
+ Faculty-student collaboration Determining Authorship Credit and Authorship Order (Fine and Kurdek, 1993)
+ Available Guidelines • As an initial guideline, the American Psychological Association's (APA's) Ethics Committee (1983, in Fine and Kurdek, 1993) issued a policy statement on authorship of articles based on dissertations. – The statement indicated that dissertation supervisors should be included as authors on such articles only when they made "substantial contributions" to the study. In such instances, only second authorship was appropriate for the supervisor because first authorship was reserved for the student.The policy also suggested that agreements regarding authorship be made before the article was written.
+ • Current guidelines for making decisions regarding authorship credit and order are presented in the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (1992), which supersedes the 1983 policy.The APA code has a section relevant to the determination of authorship on scholarly publications. Section 6.23, Publication Credit, states: – (a) Psychologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed. – (b) Principal authorship and other publication credits accurately reflect the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status. Mere possession of an institutional position, such as Department Chair, does not justify authorship credit. Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publication are appropriately acknowledged, such as in footnotes or in an introductory statement. – (c) A student is usually listed as principal author on any multiple-authored article that is based primarily on the student's dissertation or thesis.
+ Ethical Issues • Stems from the unique nature of the faculty-student relationship • Need to balance the potentially competing duties of fostering the growth of advisees and presenting them to others in a fair and accurate manner. • 2 main dilemmas: – when faculty take authorship credit that was earned by the student – when students are granted undeserved authorship credit.
+ Relevant Ethical Principles • Beneficence – "to abstain from injuring others and to help others further their important and legitimate interests, largely by preventing or removing possible harms" (Beauchamp & Walters, 1982, p. 28). – to avoid harming students and others in the long run, beneficence implies that faculty should grant students authorship credit and first author status only when they are deserved. • Justice – ethical duty to treat others fairly and to give them what they deserve: "An individual has been treated justly when he has been given what he or she is due or owed, what he or she deserves or can legitimately claim" (Beauchamp & Walters, 1982, p. 30). – if students are not considered to be meaningfully different from professional colleagues, then they should be awarded authorship credit and order on the same basis as those of nonstudent colleagues. However, if one makes the contrasting assumption that students have less power and competence than nonstudent collaborators, then justice would be served by giving students differential treatment.
+ • Parentalism – "treatment that restricts the liberty of individuals, without their consent, where the justification for such action is either the prevention of some harm they might do to themselves or the production of some benefit they might not otherwise secure" (Beauchamp & Walters, 1982, p. 38). – Parentalistic actions are generally considered to be most appropriate when they are directed toward persons who are nonautonomous (i.e., lack the capacity for selfdetermination; Beauchamp & Walters, 1982). Thus, the appropriateness of parentalistic behavior in the authorship context depends on the student's level of autonomy.
+ Proposals  PROCESS: it is recommended that both faculty and students participate in the authorship decision-making process early in the collaborative endeavor.  OUTCOMES: Authorship credit and order decisions should be based on the relative scholarly abilities and professional contributions of the collaborators.
+ “Professional Contribution” 1. To be included as an author on a scholarly publication, a student should, in a cumulative sense, make a professional contribution that is creative and intellectual in nature, that is integral to completion of the paper, and that requires an overarching perspective of the project. – Examples of professional contributions include developing the research design, writing portions of the manuscript, integrating diverse theoretical perspectives, developing new conceptual models, designing assessments, contributing to data analysis decisions, and interpreting results (Bridgewater, Bornstein, & Walkenbach, 1981; Spiegel & Keith-Spiegel, 1970 in Fine and Kurdek, 1993). – Such tasks as inputting data, carrying out data analyses specified by the supervisor, and typing are not considered professional contributions and may be acknowledged by footnotes to the manuscript (Shawchuck et al., 1986 in Fine and Kurdek, 1993).
+ 2. Authorship decisions should be based on the scholarly importance of the professional contribution and not just the time and effort made (Bridgewater et al., 1981 in Fine and Kurdek, 1993). Even if considerable time and effort are spent on a scholarly project, if the aggregate contribution is not judged to be professional by the criteria stated above, authorship should not be granted.
+ 3. Authorship decisions should not be affected by whether students or supervisors were paid for their contributions or by their employment status (Bridgewater et al., 1981 in Fine and Kurdek, 1993). It is the nature of the contribution that is made to the article that determines whether authorship credit is warranted and not whether participants received compensation for their efforts. Financial remuneration is not a resource that can serve as a substitute for authorship credit.
+ 4. Consult with colleagues when authorship concerns arise. Furthermore, supervisors should encourage their students to do the same. 5. If the supervisor and student cannot agree, even after consultations with peers, on their authorship-related decisions, it is recommended that, as do Goodyear et al. (1992 in Fine and Kurdek, 1993), the establishment of an ad hoc third party arbitration process.
+ References • American Psychological Association. (2010). Supplementary material: The publication process. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition). Washington, D.C.: Author. • Calfee and Valencia. (2007). APA guide to preparing manuscripts for journal publication. http://apastyle.org/journals • Fine, Mark A. and Kurdek, Lawrence A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48(11),1141-1147.
+ Recommended Next Steps  Review theses/dissertations at hand  Do journal market survey for possible matching  Rewrite abstracts of selected theses/dissertations  Send out to target journals / “make a pitch”  Follow-up  Write/convert

More Related Content

Converting theses and dissertations into journal articles

  • 2. + Training Objective  URC initiative to intensify research utilization through publication  For use with own theses/dissertations (ideally within a year of reporting)  To provide broader context and direction for use in thesis/dissertation advising  Possible faculty-student collaboration
  • 3. + APA Style, 6th edition Main Manuscript Structure • Title page • Abstract • Introduction (Chapters 1 &2 in theses/dissertations) • Method (Ch. 3) • Results (Ch. 4 & 5) • Discussion (Ch. 4 & 5) • References • Appendices
  • 4. + Introduction • The purpose of theses and dissertations, as well as the nature of the reading audience (professors or committee members), may dictate variations from the requirements for manuscripts submitted for publication (APA, 2010). • Turning a thesis/dissertation into a publishable manuscript requires work on – length, – selectivity, – writing style (editorial and expository), and – interpretation of data. By giving attention to these features, you will increase the chance of having your manuscript accepted for publication (Calfee & Valencia, 2007 in APA, 2010).
  • 5. + Differences • Abstract length – Dissertation Abstracts International requires a max. of 350 words for dissertations, 120 words for master’s theses • Introduction – almost similar except that author must demonstrate familiarity with the literature and develop background more extensively • Abstract length – 150 to 250 words • Introduction – assumes that readers are contexted into the general background and literature; however, both do not encourage secondary sourcing with references for laboratory reports Theses and Dissertations Journal Article
  • 6. + • Discussion - typically longer; Students may be asked to interpret results more thoroughly, thereby demonstrating their understanding of their data, and to engage in more speculation, thereby offering committee members more opportunity to understand future research directions that interest the student. • References – may include Bibliography to show familiarity with a with a broader spectrum of literature than that immediately relevant to the research  Discussion – shorter and addresses research objectives more directly  References - only references cited in the text are included in the journal article reference list. Theses and Dissertations Journal Articles
  • 7. +  Appendices – needs complete documentation  Appendices - space and content requirements may limit the use of appendices in journal articles (with the exception of supplemental material placed in supplemental online archives; see section 2.13) Theses and Dissertations Journal Articles
  • 8. + Reframing for Journal Publication • A journal article requires – a tighter theoretical framework, – a more succinct review of the literature, – a more controlled presentation of methodology, – and a more restrained discussion of results • Trimming the length effectively – not “cut-and-pasting” but selecting and rewriting – substance must be preserved while cutting the extraneous detail that is important for the dissertation but irrelevant for the journal article.
  • 9. + 1. Selectivity and Brevity • If the dissertation covers several distinct research questions, narrow the focus to a specific topic—be selective in presenting the problem. • Try to bring the results under control. Often the dissertation reports everything, including “almost significant” results. These results are briefly mentioned in journal articles and detailed in supplemental materials. • Try to avoid the common presentation pitfalls of many novice writers. These include, for example, reporting that the data were analyzed with a certain computer package or presenting significant findings in the Discussion section. • Certain conventions in dissertations do not lend themselves to the presentation format for journal articles. For example, as Carver (1984) advised, “do not include a ‘Definitions’ section. . . . This section is popular in doctoral dissertations but it is often a sign of naivete in research reports” (pp. 22–23). • Be selective in the references that are reported in the literature review. Dissertations often have an exhaustive number of citations —choose the most salient when revising for a journal article.
  • 10. + 2. Writing Style • Many theses do not follow APA Style for tables, figures, references, and organization of sections. Failure to attend to APA Style often signals stylistic problems throughout the manuscript. • Pay particular attention to the quality of expository writing: – Strive for clarity; – Delete extraneous words; – Avoid excessive reporting and repetition; – Be explicit, but not overly detailed; – Use the active voice; and, of course, – Use correct grammar.
  • 11. + 3. Interpretation of Data • A common problem in a poorly prepared manuscript derived from a dissertation study is overinterpretation of the data. Inexperienced researchers tend to have unbridled faith in the strength of their results. Problems of overinterpretation in dissertations are not unexpected, given that the candidate has invested much time and energy in an academic undertaking. Thus, going beyond the results may come out of a sense of ownership and pride. • Nevertheless, show restraint in forming your conclusions. • Reviewers and editors easily recognize a manuscript that has been carelessly converted from a thesis or dissertation. The harder a new member of the profession works to alleviate some of the more obvious and fixable problems that distinguish a thesis from a journal article, the easier the path to publication will be.
  • 12. + Faculty-student collaboration Determining Authorship Credit and Authorship Order (Fine and Kurdek, 1993)
  • 13. + Available Guidelines • As an initial guideline, the American Psychological Association's (APA's) Ethics Committee (1983, in Fine and Kurdek, 1993) issued a policy statement on authorship of articles based on dissertations. – The statement indicated that dissertation supervisors should be included as authors on such articles only when they made "substantial contributions" to the study. In such instances, only second authorship was appropriate for the supervisor because first authorship was reserved for the student.The policy also suggested that agreements regarding authorship be made before the article was written.
  • 14. + • Current guidelines for making decisions regarding authorship credit and order are presented in the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (1992), which supersedes the 1983 policy.The APA code has a section relevant to the determination of authorship on scholarly publications. Section 6.23, Publication Credit, states: – (a) Psychologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed. – (b) Principal authorship and other publication credits accurately reflect the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status. Mere possession of an institutional position, such as Department Chair, does not justify authorship credit. Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publication are appropriately acknowledged, such as in footnotes or in an introductory statement. – (c) A student is usually listed as principal author on any multiple-authored article that is based primarily on the student's dissertation or thesis.
  • 15. + Ethical Issues • Stems from the unique nature of the faculty-student relationship • Need to balance the potentially competing duties of fostering the growth of advisees and presenting them to others in a fair and accurate manner. • 2 main dilemmas: – when faculty take authorship credit that was earned by the student – when students are granted undeserved authorship credit.
  • 16. + Relevant Ethical Principles • Beneficence – "to abstain from injuring others and to help others further their important and legitimate interests, largely by preventing or removing possible harms" (Beauchamp & Walters, 1982, p. 28). – to avoid harming students and others in the long run, beneficence implies that faculty should grant students authorship credit and first author status only when they are deserved. • Justice – ethical duty to treat others fairly and to give them what they deserve: "An individual has been treated justly when he has been given what he or she is due or owed, what he or she deserves or can legitimately claim" (Beauchamp & Walters, 1982, p. 30). – if students are not considered to be meaningfully different from professional colleagues, then they should be awarded authorship credit and order on the same basis as those of nonstudent colleagues. However, if one makes the contrasting assumption that students have less power and competence than nonstudent collaborators, then justice would be served by giving students differential treatment.
  • 17. + • Parentalism – "treatment that restricts the liberty of individuals, without their consent, where the justification for such action is either the prevention of some harm they might do to themselves or the production of some benefit they might not otherwise secure" (Beauchamp & Walters, 1982, p. 38). – Parentalistic actions are generally considered to be most appropriate when they are directed toward persons who are nonautonomous (i.e., lack the capacity for selfdetermination; Beauchamp & Walters, 1982). Thus, the appropriateness of parentalistic behavior in the authorship context depends on the student's level of autonomy.
  • 18. + Proposals  PROCESS: it is recommended that both faculty and students participate in the authorship decision-making process early in the collaborative endeavor.  OUTCOMES: Authorship credit and order decisions should be based on the relative scholarly abilities and professional contributions of the collaborators.
  • 19. + “Professional Contribution” 1. To be included as an author on a scholarly publication, a student should, in a cumulative sense, make a professional contribution that is creative and intellectual in nature, that is integral to completion of the paper, and that requires an overarching perspective of the project. – Examples of professional contributions include developing the research design, writing portions of the manuscript, integrating diverse theoretical perspectives, developing new conceptual models, designing assessments, contributing to data analysis decisions, and interpreting results (Bridgewater, Bornstein, & Walkenbach, 1981; Spiegel & Keith-Spiegel, 1970 in Fine and Kurdek, 1993). – Such tasks as inputting data, carrying out data analyses specified by the supervisor, and typing are not considered professional contributions and may be acknowledged by footnotes to the manuscript (Shawchuck et al., 1986 in Fine and Kurdek, 1993).
  • 20. + 2. Authorship decisions should be based on the scholarly importance of the professional contribution and not just the time and effort made (Bridgewater et al., 1981 in Fine and Kurdek, 1993). Even if considerable time and effort are spent on a scholarly project, if the aggregate contribution is not judged to be professional by the criteria stated above, authorship should not be granted.
  • 21. + 3. Authorship decisions should not be affected by whether students or supervisors were paid for their contributions or by their employment status (Bridgewater et al., 1981 in Fine and Kurdek, 1993). It is the nature of the contribution that is made to the article that determines whether authorship credit is warranted and not whether participants received compensation for their efforts. Financial remuneration is not a resource that can serve as a substitute for authorship credit.
  • 22. + 4. Consult with colleagues when authorship concerns arise. Furthermore, supervisors should encourage their students to do the same. 5. If the supervisor and student cannot agree, even after consultations with peers, on their authorship-related decisions, it is recommended that, as do Goodyear et al. (1992 in Fine and Kurdek, 1993), the establishment of an ad hoc third party arbitration process.
  • 23. + References • American Psychological Association. (2010). Supplementary material: The publication process. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition). Washington, D.C.: Author. • Calfee and Valencia. (2007). APA guide to preparing manuscripts for journal publication. http://apastyle.org/journals • Fine, Mark A. and Kurdek, Lawrence A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48(11),1141-1147.
  • 24. + Recommended Next Steps  Review theses/dissertations at hand  Do journal market survey for possible matching  Rewrite abstracts of selected theses/dissertations  Send out to target journals / “make a pitch”  Follow-up  Write/convert