How to Publish Your PhD: A Practical Guide for the Humanities and Social Sciences , and: Publishing from Your PhD: Negotiating a Crowded Jungle (review)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: How to Publish Your PhD: A Practical Guide for the Humanities and Social Sciences, and: Publishing from Your PhD: Negotiating a Crowded Jungle Steven E. Gump (bio) Sarah Caro . How to Publish Your PhD: A Practical Guide for the Humanities and Social Sciences London: Sage, 2009. Pp. viii, 136. Cloth: ISBN-13 978-1-4129-0790-3, UK£66.00, US$112.00; Paper: ISBN-13 978-1-4129-0791-0, UK£21.99, US$41.00. Nicola F. Johnson . Publishing from Your PhD: Negotiating a Crowded Jungle Farnham, England: Gower, 2011. Pp. xii, 184. Paper: ISBN-13 978-0-566-09162-9, UK£25.00, US$49.95. Although one function of the earliest university presses in North America —established over 130 years ago—was publication of the theses and dissertations of their host institutions' own students, fulfilling the widely held condition that doctoral work completed at US and Canadian institutions be published is now essentially handled by ProQuest Information and Learning (formerly University Microfilms International), which processes over 70,000 theses and dissertations each year. 1 Graduate students at most US and Canadian institutions simply complete a form, perhaps pay a nominal processing fee, and submit—electronically—their departmentally and institutionally approved theses and dissertations to the company. Et voilà, the work is published! Why, then, the need for these two works on converting dissertations into publications, especially given the presence of such time-tested books on the topic by the likes of William Germano, Beth Luey, and others? 2 In short, the issue of dissertation and thesis publication is more complicated: ProQuest is not ubiquitous; submitted works are not assigned ISBNs; copyright works in various ways; 3 and many individuals and institutions do not consider the works really published in the first place, even if electronic copies may be downloaded or hard copies ordered. In that sense ProQuest is more a repository and duplicating service, akin to services provided by numerous [End Page 336] archives of electronic theses and dissertations around the world. And most scholars and researchers I know do not routinely peruse these databases for new scholarship (though doing so is certainly a way to stay abreast of new voices and developments): They wait to read it—or, often in the case of scholarly books, about it via reviews—in their disciplinary journals and other venues. 4 One reason for avoiding theses and dissertations in their 'raw' form is that their genre-particular purposes (argumentation, the showcasing of knowledge) and markers (excessive citation, signposting) can obscure their contributions to knowledge. Hence, in what I feel is more an ethical imperative than simply a choice of convenience or instrumentality, the results of thesis and dissertation research should be disseminated beyond the empires of electronic repositories. Doing so requires not only effort but also knowledge that, for many recent graduate students, is likely not obvious. Here is where books such as these two slim volumes can come in handy. As someone who recently completed a PhD in the social sciences, I happen to be a member of the target audience for both books. The books display notably different perspectives: Sarah Caro's are those befitting an Anglo-European editor (she has worked for both Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press in England), and Nicola Johnson's are those of an antipodean faculty member (she is a senior lecturer in teacher education at Monash University, Australia). Caro's book seems filled with expert advice—she has seen things from the 'other side,' so to speak. Johnson's is more personal and anecdotal; her readers are treading territory similar to that which she herself quite recently trod (her PhD was conferred in 2008). Not surprisingly, then, the books employ different approaches, and they do so with different levels of success. Even though her last piece of advice is 'Don't forget to have fun' (132), Sarah Caro is all business in her How to Publish Your PhD: A Practical Guide for the Humanities and Social Sciences. Addressed to an 'educated and sophisticated audience' (73), this concise book is logically organized and nicely balanced. Each of Caro's eight chapters begins with a précis of no...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Étiquettes directes de modèles (non validées)
Étiquettes de catégorie et de devis d'étude par modèle, issues des rondes d'étiquetage. C'est une sortie machine, non validée, et le désaccord entre modèles est livré comme donnée. Aucun devis ici n'est encore validé contre MEDLINE.
| Bras | Catégories | Devis d'étude | Confiance |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Communication savante Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Méthodes Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non | Sans objet | low |
| gpt | Communication savante Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Synthèse Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non | Sans objet | medium |
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,049 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,431 | 0,376 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéeÉtiqueté directement par 2 modèles lisant le dossier complet.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».