All 5 entries tagged Writing

New Episode: Crossing the Creative Frontier

Writing about web page https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/ias/exchanges/podcasting/

A new episode of the podcast discusses creative and academic writing, and the role inspirational novels play in shaping our thinking and research.

Once more it’s time to announce the release of another new episode of the Exchanges Discourse podcast. This time I’m in conversation with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University based scholar Sonakshi (Sona) Srivastava about her writing and research work.

Naturally, we discuss the paper she authored entitled Res(crip)ting the Gaze: Agency and the aesthetics of disability in ‘Animal’s People’. This paper appeared in our special issue on the Anthropocene and examined the writing of author Indra Sinha around the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.

Alongside this we talk about the crossover between creative and academic writing, and the related roles novels and languages can play in shaping thinking and perceptions. Naturally, Sona also offers a range of advice on approaches towards publication especially for early career scholars and first-time authors.

Listen in here:

Crossing the Creative Frontier: In Conversation with Sonakshi Srivastava [34:35]

• https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/exchangesias/episodes/Crossing-the-Creative-Frontier-In-Conversation-with-Sonakshi-Srivastava-e25va0h
• https://open.spotify.com/episode/3SC4BRGDLV3cM06rldXK7I?si=b6y6F6PWQEmEvjaClVk7_g

And to help you jump right to the key points - here's the episode index:

• 0:00 Opening
• 0:43 Introductions
• 4:26 Exploring Sona’s paper
• 9:10 Other publications & creative writing
• 19:20 Positive publishing experiences
• 23:58 Advice for authors
• 33:41 Closing

As I’ve already got the next episode recorded, we will hopefully be back before too long with our next instalment of the Exchanges Discourse!

Gareth Johnson : 20 Jun 2023 16:12 |  Tags: Bhopal Creative Discussion India Novels Podcasting Writing |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Podcast: Talking with Jon Braddy

Writing about web page https://anchor.fm/exchangesias/episodes/In-Conversation-with-Jon-Braddy-e1jstis

Yes, we're back with an all-new episode of the Exchanges Discourse podcast. It's been a bust few months thanks to bank holidays, the launch of the new issue and working on various special issue projects. Which has meant the podcast took a slightly back-seat for a couple of months. But the good news is, we're back and with a couple of author interviews to start us off again. Hopefully, there's a few more interesting episodes to follow - especially once we launch our next special issue of the journal. More on that in the coming month.

In the meantime, please enjoy my conversation with Jon about everything from the weather, through developing your writing with passion and the idea that publishing CAN and should be fun without diminishing the scholarship.

In Conversation with Jon Braddy (S03E06)

We talk with Jon Braddy, Florida Gulf Coast University, about his paper Utilizing the Octothorpe (#): Schizoanalytic cartographies recognized in War Games, which appeared in the most recent issue of the Exchanges journal (V9.2). Along the way, aside from contrasting the trans-Atlantic weather differences, we look at passion how it can serve to evolve your own academic voice within your writing. We also discuss some areas of mutual challenges for authors and editors of scholarly journals, and reflect on the value and process of peer-review.

The Exchanges Discourse podcast is available on Anchor.fm, Spotify and most major podcast platforms.

Our next episode was recorded this morning, so listen out for it next week.

Gareth Johnson : 14 Jun 2022 09:00 |  Tags: Academics Discourse Episode Exchanges New Podcast Writing |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Writing for Academic Journals (Part 2)

Writing about web page https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/exchanges/special-issues

The second workshop in the Anthropocene writing development special issue project tackled peer review and exposed some of the common fears of early scholar authors.

Today was the second of my two part writing for academic journals workshops. I’ve been providing these sessions as part of the Anthropocene and more than human world project, which is tied to the special issue of Exchanges by the same name we have scheduled for 2022. It’s rather a lovely and mutually beneficial arrangement: I deliver training to a group of early career scholars from around the world in academic writing, and in return they all contribute articles to an issue of the journal. Given this helps satisfy both our journal’s primary mission of exposing new scholarly discourse from emerging voices, and provides the opportunity to support their authorial development, I couldn’t be more pleased to be involved. Plus, as those of you reading this who know me, I’ve never been one to shy away from the opportunity to speak publicly about academic publishing! [1]

I was originally invited to give a single three to four hour session as part of the workshop series. However, I concluded given these were being delivered online, and because I am well aware how fatiguing it can be to engage with training for even an hour, let alone for four via Teams, splitting them into two shorter sessions was a more satisfying solution. I think, reading between the lines in the comments from the participants that they recognised and were appreciate of this too.

Whereas the first workshop looked at creating impactful titles and abstracts, before moving on to building the framework of your draft article, today’s second session moved beyond these themes. Hence, we looked at elements such as effective editing, polishing and proofreading, alongside dealing with and responding to peer review feedback. There’s always lots to say about peer review, and I know it’s one of the areas many new scholars approach with considerable trepidation, so it is always worth exploring some more. In this way though, the two halves of the workshop were specifically designed to take the delegates on a journey from inception to delivery of their published article. Albeit in a slightly compressed mode. [2]

Additionally, by splitting the workshops in half, I was able to give the delegates the best part of two months to absorb and reflect on the first workshop experience, and begin to develop their article drafts. As a result, I designed this second session to run a little shorter because I wanted to give more time over to addressing the attendees’ questions and authorial concerns informed by this writing developmental experience. I am delighted to report they certainly didn’t disappoint as there were some excellent questions and comments, and I regret we couldn’t have been in the same room to continue some of these over a coffee and cake afterwards. [3]

One of the two hands-on exercises I had the delegates work through today, was intended to offer a moment of catharsis and revelation. In this they exposed their fears and trepidations concerning writing an article - any article - at this early stage of their academic career. I’ll be picking up on and returning to these comments and suggesting a few answers in a subsequent post and episode of the podcast. What was satisfying to spot, and I hope comforting for the delegates, is none of these fears were unexpected ones. Each were exactly the sort of thing I would expect to be hearing from relatively inexperienced authors.

I came away from the session invigorated and delighted by the discussions, and I hope some of that transferred to the delegates as well – it is always difficult to tell conclusively via teams. However, from the exceptionally positive comments and those delegates I spoke to during the session, I think I can file these workshops under the heading: major success.

Personally, I have considerable confidence that both workshop sessions will have gone some way to answering the delegates’ concerns. Alongside this I hope they will have strengthened the delegates’ resolve, confidence and self-belief that they can and will be able to write excellent articles which have something significant to say. Because, having read their abstracts, I firmly believe each and everyone of them does!

My thanks to Dr Catherine Price for leading on the project, and inviting myself and the journal to participate, and of course each and every delegate for their good humour, patience and engagement with the practical exercises! I await your articles with not inconsiderable interest.

---

[1] Or, to be fair, speak loudly publicly anyway.

[2] At the back of my head there’s a weeklong summer school which would seek to decompress what was covered in these workshops, and actually deliver a publishable paper at the end of it. I think I’ll hang on until post-COVID times to look into that though.

[3] Note to potential collaborators, provide me with coffee/tea and cake and I will talk for hours with and about publishing and early career scholars.

Gareth Johnson : 17 Nov 2021 18:51 |  Tags: Academic Anthropocene Issue Special Training Workshops Writing |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

New Episode: A Conversation with…Catherine Price

Writing about web page https://anchor.fm/exchangesias/episodes/A-Conversation-with---Catherine-Price-e18m8j1

Once again the Exchanges podcast has a new episode out, and on the timely subject of a project allied to a forthcoming special issue of the journal.

---

A new term, and with it a new episode of the Exchanges Discourse podcast series. This time we're bringing the focus back to bear on one of our special issues in development.

In this episode we talk with Dr Catherine Price of the University of Nottingham. We discuss her current research into ‘biochar’, along with her work on the ‘Anthropocene and More Than Human World’ project, which is leading to a future special issue of the journal. We touch on some of the benefits from collaborative authorship in academia, as well as how emerging professional networks can serve to enhance writing skills, enthusiasm and achievement for early career researchers. As always, we close we some words of advice for first-time academic authors.

https://anchor.fm/exchangesias/episodes/A-Conversation-with---Catherine-Price-e18m8j1

The episode, along with all our others, can be found on Anchor.fm, but also Spotify, Googleand Apple Podcaststoo - for your listening pleasure!

If you've a suggestion for a future podcast episode, or a suggestion for a guest, please do get in touch or comment below.

Gareth Johnson : 12 Oct 2021 16:45 |  Tags: Anthropocene Episode Podcast Workshops Writing |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Peer review and critical academic writing (Day 1)

As I mentioned in an earlier post, this week I’m helping to facilitate various workshops and sessions at the PLOTINA Summer School on Peer Review, although strictly speaking there’s a lot about Critical Academic Writing in there too. Today, I was providing input to an Academic Writing Boot Camp – a mildly terrifying title, which practically boiled down to a safe, focussed and supportive environment for ECRs to write while having access to expert advice. I was there to provide that ‘expert’ [1] insight, or at least as much as I can muster from within my professional editorial experience. It was a very enjoyable session, during which I spent a lot of time reading through one paper and making (hopefully) helpful editorial remarks on it. A kind of pre-peer-review review. I’ll be doing a lot more of that on Friday afternoon, where hopefully the event delegates will be bring more of their work out to share with me. I suspect, I may be challenged by how many words a minute I can read critically though!

I think, in terms of guidance for ECR writers, some of the lessons that came out repeatedly during the today’s session were:

• Choose your journal as soon as you can.

• It will help guide you in terms of style, layout, word limits and the like. Writing an ‘on spec’ article can be good, but it’s no use producing a 10,000 word masterpiece if your eventual publication destination only accepts articles up to 6,000 words in length. Editors can and will decline to publish submissions which don’t meet their basic requirements without them even entering peer review or considering their intellectual contents [2]. If you’re not sure if your article will be suitable for a particular title, contact the editor in chief or one of the editorial board, their contact details are normally online. They’re generally committed and encouraging scholars, who will only be too happy to offer a little bit of guidance in terms of potential suitability.

• Word limits matter to editors and peer reviewers.

• For online journals there is no longer any physical concern in terms of ‘page space’. This means articles technically don’t have to be limited in length, the restricting factor is the time it takes peer reviewers and editors to review and edit articles of increasing length. It’s the major reasons most journals continue to have such limitations – I’ve had more than one prospective peer reviewer contact me to check the article they were about to review wouldn’t be too long for the time they had allocated to them. Time, for us all, is a precious commodity.

• Turning a thesis chapter into an article can be challenging.

• The good news is, many a chapter makes for a great article. The bad news is, there’s quite a bit of work involved. To start with, an article really needs to exist as a single entity, that means you can’t rely on material that appeared ‘earlier’ in your thesis to introduce your research. Nor can you rely on work appearing ‘later’ in the thesis, although you can introduce that as ‘future/prospective work’ in any concluding remarks. Additionally, there’s a common error by ECRs of writing material in the wrong tense (e.g. this research will review…), especially when adapting text from an introductory chapter. There’s also the question again of word length as discussed above. Your chapter might be perfection itself at 12,000 words, but you probably won’t be able to use all these words. Then, finally, there’s the question of authorial tone: what reads fine in a student submission, may not ideally cut the mustard as a contribution to the scholarly literature. Writing is rewriting, remember.

• Style matters:

• Simply put, if you’ve not followed the style (in terms of font, layout, footnotes, location of tables & figures, citation etc) of your chosen journal, don’t be surprised if an article is declined for publication unread. Many editors are dealing with such an influx of submissions, they simply do not have the time to be bothered with trying to deal with potential articles which haven’t bothered to read and apply their guidelines. At Exchanges we’re a little more understanding, but I’ve still declined submissions which have made no attempt at all to adopt to our style. My advice is if you’re not sure about the journal you’re writing for, create a document using as simple a set of formatting as possible, to allow you to adjust the style to suit the journal. Better yet, find a target journal and see if they have a publication template you can use to write with – Exchanges does!

• Engaging readers is key:

• Building up aspirations and expectations in your abstract and introduction to a paper is great, and indeed is key to getting people to read on. Alongside that claim to originality and contribution to knowledge (e.g. what does this paper offer to develop scholarship, discourse, learning etc.,), there is a risk of either offering too much or too little. I’ve seen papers that make wonderful claims and get me really excited, only to discover there’s not much intellectual filling to gnaw on. Be ambitious in your intentions, but be prepared to deliver, because peer reviewers (and editors) will take a dim view on papers that don’t actually match up against their initial claims or assertions.

• Clarity is everything:

• Never assume your prose, narrative or explanation is clear. We all get too close to our topics at times, and fail to see where we’ve muddled an issue, obfuscated something important or simply omitted a critical topic. If possible, always get a friendly fellow scholar from a similar (but not exactly the same) discipline to give your paper a quick read before you submit as they’ll always be able to point out where they just can’t quite follow your reasoning. It’s one reason why developing a good network of peers from different disciplines is an essential skill for today’s ECR, I should add. After all, I’m afraid I don’t normally have time to review pre-submission versions of work to any depth, as I’m too busy reading actual submissions!

Now, as an ECR myself, is my work subject to any of these issues? Yes, probably every single one – I’m still learning and growing as an author myself. That’s what being a publishing academic or peer reviewer is about, being able to spot which of the common issues your own work has, and learning how to work around them to produce a more polished and scholarly piece. Good luck in your own authorial journeys, and don’t forget, that as a title dedicated to publishing ECR research, Exchanges more than most journal titles, is here to try and help new scholars develop their voices.

[1] I suspect my old English Language teacher would have died of shock through this revelation

[2] For the record, Exchanges will consider longer than standard articles, but only if you talk to me before you submit them.

Gareth Johnson : 12 Sep 2018 17:09 |  Tags: Ecr Peer Plotina Review Teaching Workshop Writing |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem