All 3 entries tagged Policy

(Re)Defining the Kinds of Articles We Love to Consider for Publication

Writing about web page https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/exchanges/about/submissions

The Chief Editor takes a moment to unpick the broad range of articles which the research journal is keen to consider – and tackles the question of interdisciplinarity too.

An oft asked question by prospective authors, is the kinds of articles we like to receive. The simple answer is ‘pretty much any well-written research, research adjacent or practitioner paper which appeals to a cross-disciplinary audience.’ Drawing guidance from our own policies page this has long been expressed as a submission policy as follows:

The journal normally accepts high-quality research and review manuscripts, alongside less formal and shorter interviews and critical reviews. Accepted manuscripts will be published on the understanding that they are an original and previously unpublished piece of work…manuscripts should be written with an expectation they will be read by a broad academic readership, rather than a niche, sectoral subset. Consequently, authors should assume less conceptual familiarity than when writing for audiences within their own disciplinary traditions. Submitted manuscripts adjudged to address topics for too narrow an audience, may be declined.

Let’s unpick that a little, and highlight some of the key points about making your manuscript ‘Exchanges worthy’:

Formats: Firstly, we consider work submitted under a number of formats – principally peer-reviewed research articles, and shorter editorially reviewed articles. There’s a variance in the basic word count to note here, but also in terms of the speed to publication and degree of editorial scrutiny different formats undergo. Editorially reviewed pieces also offer a wider freedom in terms of authorial voice, and are an excellent way to kick off a dialogue without contrasting your writing into a prescribed style. Many special issues comprise them heavily too, as the faster turnaround to publication is often seen as very desirable. Incidentally, many of our most downloaded and cited articles come under the editorially reviewed heading each year. However, we love peer-reviewed pieces too, and while they take longer, do let us work closely with authors over a longer period in hopefully refining their work for final publication suitability.

Scholarship: Secondly, we expect articles to hit a certain level of professional scholarship. While we consider papers from researchers, we also have and continue to be happy to take papers from professionals, practitioners and people working in research adjacent roles. We’ve also published papers from taught students too from time to time, although they’re not normally the community we target as potential authors. All articles though will be scrutinized and as much as possible held to the same quality bar. This does mean we turn down (decline) some articles which in our opinion don’t meet this requirement, but we always proffer advice on how they could be improved, reworked or rewritten to overcome any deficiencies. I am pleased to say many of our declined authors do return new versions to us for consideration at a later point.

Originality: Thirdly, yes originality matters too. We take a view that ‘previously formally published works’, falling under the ‘Ingelfinger Rule’ are out of contention. However, if you’re reworking a blog post, thesis chapter or similarly shared but not editorially scrutinized piece into a new article, chances are we’ll be fine with that. Although, as all new submissions are scanned for originality, there might be the odd question from me before we can move forward. I probably get more excited by articles which tackle topics we’ve never seen in our pages before, or which resonate with earlier publications, but that’s more a personal taste issue. Provided your piece is original and scholarly, you’ve a very good chance we’ll consider it. Minor hint: if it is a reworking of a thesis or dissertation chapter, be prepared to adjust the language and writing so the manuscript stands along as a discrete piece of writing. And please make sure the opening line doesn’t read ‘In this chapter…’ as a number of pieces I see each do!

Readership: Fourthly, there’s readership, and I confess this is probably one of the two most nebulous conceptions. Exchanges has always been published to address the interests of a broad, academic or well-informed, scholarly audience in all disciplines – not just one. Many of our authors, especially early career researchers, are finely trained to write…but to write exclusively for their disciplinary peers. One of the most common reasons papers are declined early in the editorial cycle is because they are too tightly addressed to a small range of scholars.[1] Naturally, any tight-topic focus can be a bit of an issue for the potential success of the submitted manuscript, given we expect articles to be read by a broad academic audience. Now this doesn’t mean that, say, an article on quantum loop gravity needs to be understandable to a historian, but we’d expect others in the sciences and even numeric social sciences will be able to gain knowledge from it. Generally, we tackle this during the review phase, but authors can help us to help themselves by ensuring they unpick any key terminology. The words of advice I most commonly offer to prospective authors in this regard is ‘write as if you were addressing a university wide research conference’ as a way to overcome this challenge.

Interdisciplinarity: Finally, there this is the other nebulous concept which is implicit in our title and one which I suspect actually puts off some of our potential early career authors: interdisciplinary. Originally, back in 2013, Exchanges was keen for papers which were explicitly interdisciplinary or which adopted interdisciplinary methods, methodologies or working practices. Or for those which drew on a team of authors from multiple, potentially non-adjacent, disciplinary traditions, by way of contrast. Don’t get me wrong, we still adore seeing papers like this submitted for our consideration [2], but as time went by a de facto policy became an explicit one once I came aboard to consider any paper from any discipline – so long as it is addressed to that broad readership (see above!).[3] I’m working on a more clearly defined statement to this end to appear on our policy pages in the coming months, as I feel while it’s something I’ve espoused to many would-be authors, I don’t think it’s really clear enough on the website. Perhaps another way to state it is ‘we will consider any credible, original, scholarly article within our chosen formats – and especially those displaying interdisciplinary thinking.’ Thus, if you have an idea for an article, which fits in the other criteria above, but perhaps doesn’t feel ‘interdisciplinary’ – chances are we would be keen to consider it. [4]

So, there you are in short, to provide us with an article which Exchanges be more likely to take on for review consideration as an author make sure it (a) fits our formats, (b) is scholarly and original and (c) is written for and appeals to a broad audience. If you’re an early career scholar, all the better, but this, along with any interdisciplinary aspirations of the piece, aren’t prequisities. Writing and submit a solid, accessible and engaging piece, located within a single discipline is as likely to be taken to review, as much as a piece from multiple disciplinary traditions will.[5]

You'll find our submissions page here#mce_temp_url# - and as always, get in touch with any specific questions or comments, but in the meantime, happy writing.

---

Endnotes

[1] Economic papers in particular to this sort of issue - oddly a phenomenon seems to be something I hear other interdisciplinary journal editors experience, so we’re not alone in this. Maybe it’s the mathematical approach? To my memory we’ve only ever had one mathematics papers to Exchanges, long ago, so the sample is too small to consider if this is at the root of the issue.

[2] Even if they can prove a bit more of a headache to locate, recruit and assign to willing reviewers. Afterall, if a paper is interdisciplinary, who exactly is the right person to review it other than the author(s) who submitted it in the first place? Answers on a neatly formatted review report please.

[3] I have always explained, it is our broad collection of articles, from a range of disciplines, which today forms our interdisciplinary assemblage – rather than the discrete individual articles. I feel this gives authors an easier time in creating thought provoking and informative writing for us. Perhaps if we were overwhelmed by articles we might rethink this approach. However, I don’t foresee this being a potentiality any time in the next few years.

[4] On a macro level, the range of special issue topics while themselves more disciplinary niche (but fulfilling the broad-readership goal) form their own loci of interdisciplinarity when read as a collection.

[5] Even if the latter might gladden my editorial heart just a tiny bit more.

Gareth Johnson : 03 Dec 2024 10:48 |  Tags: Advice Articles Author Manuscript New Policy Submission |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Contributor Conduct Policy Introduced

Writing about web page https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/exchanges/journal-policies

A formalisation of a longstanding operational ethos is seen with the introduction of a new contributor conduct policy

Informally ever since Exchanges was founded and certainly even more so since I took over the reins of power, the journal has been run with an operational ethos of enlightened collaboration. The idea has been that we wanted the journal to standout within the academic publishing field not so much for academic excellence [1] but more for being a title with a polite, positive and enabling demeanour attitude to contributor interactions. I am happy to report, as evidenced within our recent feedback report, [2] this approach has paid considerable dividends. From a personal perspective too, I can report how greatly I’ve enjoyed the mutual respectful and engaging interactions I had and continue to have with our contributing community – which is a credit to each of them.

Understandably though, there have been a limited number of occasions where we have experienced some issues within these interactions, with a very few not quite engaging within the same envelope of mutuality. Thankfully, we usually found a way through and back to more cordial working relationships, much to my professional relief. Nevertheless, the occasional but recurrent nature of these events suggested how more formally stating the journal’s position with respect to interpersonal engagement may be of benefit to everyone. Such a formal statement, or policy, to which we can direct people would assist everyone involved with Exchanges in maintaining our operational effectiveness and collegiality.

We are lucky, being based at the University of Warwick, to have an institution which takes matters of professional conduct and positive personal interactions seriously. The Dignity at Warwick Policy for example is a cornerstone statement demarcating the expected norms of interpersonal conduct and respect between colleagues here. Hence, even though Exchanges deals with scholars around the world, this policy strongly resonates with the attitude the journal has long espoused itself and to its contributors.

All of which is a long preamble to announcing how this week Exchanges has introduced a new, brief, policy statement, drawing on Warwick’s framework and our own operational philosophy, outlining the conduct expectations for all journal contributors. It is a policy to which I suspect I will rarely need to directly refer, given how cordial and professional are the vast majority of our working relationships and interactions. Nevertheless, I hope it will serve to clarify our expectations on contributors, and hopefully continue to help frame the journal’s operations within an effective and enlightened scholarly mode.

You can find our Contributor Conduct Policy along with all our other key operational statements, on the Journal Policy section of Exchanges' website. As always, where there are any questions, as always, the first port of call is myself as Editor-in-Chief.

---

Endnotes

[1] Although, that would be delightful too, and certainly an ongoing aspiration for us.

[2] See also my recent editorial for discussions about this report.

Gareth Johnson : 10 May 2023 09:44 |  Tags: Behaviour Conduct Dignity Interpersonal Policy Professionalism Respect |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Talking Tech Wish–List

With a little more time on his hands at last, the editor takes a wander through his technical and platform wish-list to assess how things have changed over the past few years.

Today I’ve been taking the time to review, reformat and refresh my technical wish-list for Exchanges. It’s been a veritable stroll down memory lane as this was originally one of the earliest documents I drew up when I first came into post. My intentions at the time were to clarify, in my own head at least, those aspects of the title where I thought it was lacking and could benefit from some upgrading. Some of the early comments to myself are perhaps a little naive, a few apposite and even fewer maybe even a smidge visionary [1].

Today, I will confess this is not a document I’ve had too much time to much work on over the past couple of years. Certainly, since early 2020 keeping all of the routine journal plates/wheels/cogs [2] etc., spinning has taken a goodly chunk of my time. Glancing at my document control notes, it seems the last time I did any updating was way back in the early summer of 2021. Now I’m blessed (huzzah – thank you lovely IAS!) with a little more time to devote to the journal, it seems only right and fitting that I return to a guiding document too long neglected.

Reading through it, through and completely, for the first time in years, numerous elements of I was once keen to implement on the journal have changed in status when viewed through the lens of today. In fact, I can reclassify them in one of three different ways. Firstly, for a lucky few they’ve actually been implemented, sometimes as the result of a platform update or a policy change, and occasionally through direct action by myself or the lovely technical team. These are easily most gratifying to spot, as it demonstrates how Exchanges today, is no longer the Exchanges I took on back in 2018.

Secondly there are those, after taking account of the journals evolving policy and practice direction, or indeed developments in the wider scholarly publishing world, are no longer relevant. Indeed, it is possible to observe a divergence from what I thought would be crucial back then, to today when they are no longer of great import or relevance. In some cases, it isn’t that they’re no longer of any value, but in contrast to other, more salient and pressing priorities, they simply aren’t worth devoting any time towards. After all, all those various spinning objects haven’t entirely retreated into the distance thanks to my longer hours! And so, with no guilt, they can be moved to the deprioritised pile.

The third category though, these are those developmental and aspirational goals I had for the journal which still continue to burn brightly in my mind. True, a fair number of these pending developments will be subject to a long conversation with our platform hosts at Warwick in order to achieve. Certainly, with the way our host and platform are configured there aren’t simple things which I could move forward on alone. For example they may have implications for the other titles hosted on Warwick University Press Journals, so can’t be adopted in isolation, no matter how much Exchanges might desire them [3]. A few more though, these are wish-list items which require action beyond the confines of Warwick alone.

These are those aspects which require pressure being brought to bear on external actors. Again, we are but one small open-access journal in a sea of hundreds of thousands, which means it would be unlikely I’d be able to make much headway on achieving these goals alone. I had hoped the local journals family would be a good source of collective agency, but in the last year with various staffing moves and changes the coherency of this group has rather evaporated. Just as it was finally getting up steam too - if mixing steam with evaporation isn’t too strained a metaphor to adopt here!

Then we come to the last few items, and this is where I can feel myself getting a little more excited. Why? Well, because these are things I can, resplendent in my additional weekly hours, begin to make some degree of ingress on. Tease that I am [4], I’m won’t share details of these our potentially achievable aspirations, but I can reveal one of them concerns our journal audience’s interests. For now, I’ll say no more, but would strongly suggest you keep an eye on the editorial coming out in the next issue of Exchanges for a few minor revelations in this respect.

I am pleased, in closing though, to note that while there is but a single, minor, niggle unresolved but scheduled for swift action over the coming weeks by our tech team. The rest of the platform issues we’ve experienced over the years – all thankfully relegated to the ‘completed’ column. That, in the very least, is bringing me some measure of satisfaction in reading through my wish list today. Not to mention, reminding me of how grateful I am to our tech team for their ongoing work behind the scenes.

---

[1] Scarily so – I would have to do a lot of policy and process work to make them work, even if the platform supported them!

[2] Insert your preferred circular linguistic contrivance here

[3] Mutter, mutter, commericial indexes, mutter

[4] You’d probably be horrified by how ungrammatical some of these notes were if I did.

Gareth Johnson : 10 Mar 2022 15:22 |  Tags: List Ojs Platform Policy Strategy System Technology Updates Wish |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem