The chapter now explores the master/apprentice system of training researchers. In this section the findings are split into disciplines. The area was explored with the questions:
• Please describe any formal instruction you were given about the publishing
process. (If there was none, please describe how you found out what you know) • Are you involved in any formal or informal mentoring or training process for young researchers to ‘show them the publishing ropes’? It should be noted that of all the responses in this research, the experiences described here of the interviewee’s time as a student have the least inference for their home institution. The interviewees ranged from early to very late career researchers, so these experiences occurred all over the world, in a period ranging from the 1960s to as recently as a few years ago. A general observation about the responses received on this topic is that Australia appears to be worse at the master/apprentice system than the US. One computer scientist said: … in the US, because of the way the tenure process works particularly, there is enormous pressure to publish and publish at quality venues. There is a much stronger sense of quality venues are and where impact lies and people are
178
much more driven towards getting those publications out the door. It is very intense, much more so than here. So people play the game very thoughtfully.
A sociologist described the different culture in the US: “I compare myself to colleagues in US universities where they are typically rewarded with every publication, each one is an increase in salary”. This relationship between publication and money was noted by another computer scientist:
The reward process in Australia is not as straightforward or proportional as the US system. Here if you have lots of publications you can apply for money from the government. The amount you get is not enough to go to conferences. You need to produce a lot to get a small amount of money, not enough to get throughput. You need to collaborate to sustain publication. Now I seldom publish alone – we team up funding – this affects the direction of research. I don’t need any other collaboration, I need money to go to conferences. With 12‐ 13 publications [in a year] I can go to half to two thirds of them.
Formal training offered by universities
The Computer Science department at UNSW offers a formal training course13 to PhD students in research techniques which includes writing papers. While this appears to be a step in the right direction, one interviewee had attended the course and not found it helpful:
It teaches students how to present, write and read. I did the course myself but I didn’t find it useful. They would give pages from a book about writing academically. It wasn’t practical enough. When I did it there were 20 students and one teacher. There was nothing about impact factor and citation.
One interviewee suggested a problem with the course might be when it is given to the students: “the Research Methods course is done too early, they aren’t into their topic enough yet to benefit from it”.
The Australian National University (ANU) also runs short courses about academic writing and publishing through its Academic Skills and Learning Centrexli. Not one of the people interviewed at ANU (in any discipline) mentioned this service, which could mean that they are either unaware of it, don’t consider it to be of value, or did not connect that what we were discussing is the sort of training the Centre offers. One Computer Science
interviewee suggests Centre for Academic Development and Educational Methods (CEDAM)xlii courses to students. CEDAM offers courses to supervisors, but not courses to students about their research process.
Learning the ropes, Chemistry
As discussed in Chapter 4, of the three disciplines explored in this work, Chemistry is the discipline that best fits the description of a ‘hard science’, and the apprenticeship system is still entrenched in this discipline:
I don’t see they are fully fledged until they have finished the remainder of their apprenticeship. Even when they get to the point of a more senior fellowship in my game you need quite a few pairs of hands. A straightforward idea might take six months to test and bring to some form of success. They need to establish a small group to do anything.
One result of this system is the interviewees did not necessarily receive any instruction about how to publish because their supervisors had done all the work for them. As one Chemist described: “When I was a PhD student my supervisor would write the papers, let me have a look at them and we would argue the toss about various things but he did all the writing”. This was not uncommon as another explained: “My PhD supervisor was possibly the most prolific publisher in the world. He used to write them all himself. I wrote most papers after my PhD was finished. My post doc supervisor I worked most with”. Others had had more help from their post‐doc supervisors, with one saying: “the postdoc is driven by supervisors. I think you learn on the job, I wrote early papers, with my supervisor doing it jointly. Some supervisors want to be the first author”. Another said: … when I was a PhD my supervisor had a policy of writing papers. Writing from scratch as a postdoctoral fellow, I copied my supervisor’s style. No training in writing. It has never been a problem. I know what referees expect. It’s not hard to work out. Overall my rejection rate hasn’t changed … My experience was I’ll produce a rough draft and my supervisor gave me a finished draft.
One chemist described informal training, where their ‘superb’ PhD and post‐doc supervisors had explained “the way they were thinking of how to make a paper exciting and how to choose a journal”. This researcher would, “give them the manuscript and they would come back with more red than black. It taught me by the seat of my pants of learning how to write a good paper”. Another researcher said they had experienced: “much discussion where the article was going and why. At the time I was not sure if I understood, but it was there.” Including the chemistry student in discussions about where
180
a paper would be sent was another effective way of instructing students in the system described by interviewees.
Other interviewees indicated that they had not had any specific discussion about the relative worth of journals, but the chemists appeared to be far less concerned about this than the computer scientists. One said: “With journals affecting career I was given no information about it. People in Chemistry might obtain information subliminally. I can’t recall a time when I didn’t know journals’ relative worth”. Another explained: “I was not taught [where to send a paper] in particular, you learn how work is valued”. Yet another also indicated a lack of concern:
I don’t think anyone has ever told me about publishing. The way I learnt most about publishing is reading other’s papers – by osmosis. It is obvious what’s involved when writing, you get info for authors – first or last issue on how to write paper eg: how many pages it’s got etc.
Guiding others, Chemistry
One result of the apprentice system in Chemistry is that often the students do not actually write papers. As one chemist explained: “On one three year project it is normal not to write any papers till the end or close to the end. Very few [students] have been able to write a coherent paper. Four or five produced a pretty good draft”. It may be many years and students may have several papers on which they are listed as an author before they actually undertake the writing of a paper. While PhDs might write some of the paper, sometimes the supervisor finds it easier if they do the work, “the quite tricky part of paper – journals are quite picky about. It speeds up the process if we get it right at start [so I do it]”. Another interviewee said of PhD students: “They write the thesis I write the paper … In post doc they are writing under supervision, they still draft”. One described that they were, “writing up student’s work and publishing it”. This gives the students, “standing and research funding … The real barrier is getting students to write a paper. But they need to do it and need to be writing a thesis at the end. I talk to them about it all the time”. There appears to be a split in the attitude of the chemists about whether their role is to teach students to write or not. Some interviewees spend time instructing their students including the technique of bringing papers to meetings for discussions:
My instruction to others mirrors my own experience – except no‐one I worked with had a strict regime of bringing papers to research meetings. I hope they
learn how to write papers as well. I am a bit more structured about it. When they write a paper, I sit down with them “this is how I approach it”. Advise them how to do it. Figure first, structure of the introduction. I give them a structure to work from.
Many lecturers and supervisors are helping students by redrafting their work. One explained: “If my students produce a draft I’ll cover it in red ink. I expect them to write their own papers. We go through a series of revisions… I think my students should learn to write”. Another said they ask their students to draft papers that they rework: “The difficult part of paper for students is the introduction and the conclusion. I go through with a red pencil – I limit that when it becomes better to redraft. I give it back for comments”. Other interviewees said they used the writing of papers with their students as a teaching method that helped organise thoughts and provided fodder for the student’s thesis: “The way I supervise is I try to get students to write papers. They should have 3‐4 papers … it is what the PhD is about”. The papers produced in this process can be used in the PhD: I say to my students there is a real rigour that comes with writing articles for journals and if we do that writing ahead of the production of their thesis, that essentially the article could become the backbones of a particular chapter in the thesis. It also forces both of us, myself and the student, to think deeply about the research … I find it a very important process for all sorts of reasons. Some Chemistry interviewees did not spend any time instructing their students on how to write, preferring to write the papers themselves. One explained: “The efficient way is for the CI [chief investigator] to do it. It is a sort of osmosis for students, they see what is involved”. Another chemist said that the students do the bench work for projects they had designed and obtained funding for. The chemist then takes: “prime responsibility for communicating results of work … I write the introduction, discussion and conclusion. I submit and deal with the referee’s comments”. Taking all responsibility for publications, even those generated from the PhD student’s research, was described as a matter of convenience by several Chemistry interviewees: “On the whole it is easier for me to write paper from scratch”. When describing helping students learn the craft of publication, the issue of determining where to send papers was not discussed as much, only a few chemists mentioned it. One was very vague, saying: “We have probably talked about where it needs to be sent”. This could possibly be because unlike some other disciplines, the journals in Chemistry are
182
very well defined. One chemist said: “If students are writing a paper we discuss possible places for publication. In some cases we do make decisions in advance of writing – where we’d like to aim for”.
Learning the ropes, Sociology
The Sociology interviewees indicated there had been very little mentoring from their supervisors. One said: “No I didn’t get a leg up from my PhD supervisor, it was pretty much this is the bird‐bath, now you learn to swim”. Another said: “I don’t think my supervisors ever assisted. They probably said you need to turn it into articles but they didn’t show me”. This lack of mentoring has resulted in at least some sociologists having a slow start to their careers, as one said:
It took me years to find out the conference papers didn’t count. I was producing about 10 papers a year, initially to groups like Aborigines. Professor [name] wrote a book – cited me as an unpublished paper. I never had any mentoring …
I only just realised in the last week that editing doesn’t count for DEST14.
This person sought assistance to find out about the publishing process (a decade after embarking on their career), which was clear and unequivocal once requested. One early career interviewee was still unclear about the issue of making strategic choices about publications: “Impact factors – I have not heard of them. I know there are scorings of access of journals. Another recent bit of advice was to get the administrator to give you a rating of social science journals”. Despite the lack of direct instruction, some sociologists had had encouragement from supervisors. One said: “With thesis publication there was encouragement in the school. I sent off proposals to publishers. The first publisher I approached was Oxford – they ended up dropping it but the editorial advice was good”.
In the absence of instruction from their supervisors, many interviewees had looked elsewhere for advice. Some people described friends helping them. For example: “I got involved with [name] who was more into publishing … He and I published a few things together … But it took a while”. Another said they had spoken; “to a friend about a paper. She said send it somewhere worthwhile. She gave me advice about whether to send to a reputable journal and risk being knocked back or less reputable and get published”. Sometimes their friends took the role of mentor, for example:
When I was starting out I had a friend a couple of years ahead of me, who was doing his PhD. He used to keep on his desk a copy of Ulrich’s. And Ulrich’s is the
international classification of journals by subject and title. And [name] was a spectacular publisher. Spectacular. And what he did, everything he wrote he went through Ulrich’s until he found someone who would publish it.
In other cases, the review process from the journal or publisher provided the feedback needed to write more effectively. Indeed, for one interviewee, “My first publication was encouraged by the editor of a journal”. Others have relied on the comments in the reviews:
My first review had some suggestions to what [I was] saying I so wrote back asking him to be a co‐author. We incorporated stuff and put him in as secondary author. … It was a good experience, he was a very generous man. It must have taken time. … It doesn’t happen any more ‐ people don’t have time to be generous. The value of being rejected was described by a couple of interviewees as a way to find out what was and was not acceptable for publication. One interviewee described being: “very lucky, my first three or four articles were accepted immediately. Then I got rejections. That’s when I started to think more strategically. I talked to colleagues”. One sociologist who had had no instruction for “the jump from PhD to publishable paper” said they: “learnt by sending stuff off. Papers were accepted with really major changes and I worked it out. Probably one big mistake was silly decisions about where to send things”. They were not the only interviewee who described being over‐ambitious about where to send things, with another saying:
I went for Science and Social Medicine which is the biggest international, and got
roundly beaten up, very roundly beaten up. Which teaches you an awful lot about what you can get away with saying and not saying at that level.
Only one sociologist described being given specific advice:
The advice I was given when I was a young scholar was publish anywhere, anytime and start leaving it off the CV as you get more mature and highlight only the good internationals. And I think that is probably generically true. I don’t know how many people start leaving things off but I certainly do. I have things published that were run off on Romero presses that you wouldn’t want to own up to any more.
184
Guiding others, Sociology
Encouraging publication in Sociology is complicated by the emphasis on publishing monographs as well as papers. Part of the difficulty is the nature of the research:
In the social sciences it makes it difficult to hive off part of the work and get it published. It is easier to do in the physical sciences and be co‐authors on paper. It is an issue that should be addressed.
That said, the people interviewed seemed to be encouraging their own students. One explained: “If I think [a student’s] work is publishable I put in a lot of energy. I talk to them about which part is publishable … what the reader would be interested in. I advise where to publish”. A couple of individuals I spoke to in Sociology had undertaken to teach their students ‘the ropes’. For example a peer review training program was described in the section on Peer Review in the last chapter. Another Sociology interviewee mentioned a