MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2092602826 · doi:10.1353/scp.2005.0012

The Thesis and the Book: A Guide for First-Time Academic Authors (review)

2005· article· en· W2092602826 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Joyce N. Harrison

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiquePublishing and Scholarly Communication
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPublishingSubtitleAdvice (programming)PublicationAudience measurementSociologyMedia studiesLibrary scienceArt historyHistoryArtComputer sciencePhilosophyLinguisticsLawLiteraturePolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Thesis and the Book: A Guide for First-Time Academic Authors Joyce Harrison (bio) Eleanor Harman, Ian Montagnes, Siobhan McMenemy, and Chris Bucci, eds. The Thesis and the Book: A Guide for First-Time Academic Authors, 2nd ed.Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. Pp. x, 176. Paper: ISBN 0-8020-8588-1, $16.95. Cloth: ISBN 0-8020-8806-6, $33.00. For almost thirty years, The Thesis and the Book, edited by Eleanor Harman and Ian Montagnes and published in 1976, was the volume acquisitions editors recommended to newly minted PhDs wishing to publish their dissertations. It was not, strictly speaking, a book of advice, containing as it did musings on the publishing industry and on the worth of dissertations and comprising articles that originally appeared in Scholarly Publishing(now The Journal of Scholarly Publishing). As the decades wore on, the book's antiquated references and gender-exclusive language made it something of a museum piece, even as the advice it offered continued to be helpful and relevant. Fortunately, the editors of the second edition have found a way to retain, for the most part ,the best of the first edition while making the book more useful for authors. First, they have given it a subtitle, thus making its purpose more clearly evident. Second, the language is no longer gender biased. Third, three chapters from the first edition have been cut, two new chapters have been added, and the three parts of Olive Holmes's article 'Thesis to Book' have been fused into one. The volume opens with Francess Halpenny's 'The Thesis and the Book,' an effective starting point for the first edition that remains a sound opening piece, with valuable information presented in a polite tone. I do wish that the comment 'The new readers of a scholarly work may be imagined as a thousand or five thousand in number' (7), as well as some equally misleading remarks, had been changed or cut. The unfortunate hold-over from the first edition is the second chapter, Robert Plant Armstrong's 'The Dissertation's Deadly Sins.' I never liked this chapter in the first edition, partly because of its haughty tone but also because it's not all that useful. The editors did soften the language a bit for the second edition, but some traces of the original remain, for example, 'By regarding the dissertation as a pre-professional piece of work, the graduate school postpones its students' maturation [End Page 177]and encourages in them contentment with amateurishness and unprofessionalism' (11). Aren't the days of hyperbolic utterances à laProfessor Kingsfield in The Paper Chaseover? Even if they're not, they don't belong in a book like this. Armstrong's 'Revising the Dissertation and Publishing the Book,' which follows, was and is generally helpful, even though it retains a brief discourse on 'neurotic revisers' that, although it is a spot-on observation, is one that authors would find off-putting. It is followed by William Dowling's solid 'Avoiding the Warmed-Over Dissertation,' a staple of the first edition because of its approachable, first-person perspective. The heart of the first edition was Olive Holmes's three-part piece, an extremely practical, nuts-and-bolts guide to revision that appears in this new edition as one chapter: 'Thesis to Book: What to Get Rid of and What to Do with What Is Left.' All of the original material appears. My only quibble is that the abundant examples of the works and words of Great White Men – Emerson, Whitehead, Orwell, Einstein, Darwin, Dewey, et al. – remain. I'm thinking it might have been advantageous to update the references, thereby presenting a more diverse group. That criticism aside, the entire book is worth its price just for this sentence: 'Cutting a manuscript is not simply a way of reducing length; it is also a way of strengthening communication' (51). There are two new chapters. The first is 'An Academic Author's Checklist,' by Barbara Reitt. It is just that – a list of questions authors can ask themselves as they prepare and revise a manuscript. To my mind, it will be beneficial primarily for those...

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

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,990
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,200

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,018
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0100,010
Science ouverte0,0030,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0600,127

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,267
Écart entre enseignants0,231 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2005
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Scholarly PublishingMême sujetPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationTravaux en français237 207