MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043218499 · doi:10.1353/scp.2012.0015

How to Publish Your PhD: A Practical Guide for the Humanities and Social Sciences , and: Publishing from Your PhD: Negotiating a Crowded Jungle (review)

2012· article· en· W2043218499 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Steven E. Gump

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPublishing and Scholarly Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingJunglePublicationNegotiationLibrary scienceSociologyMedia studiesPolitical scienceSocial scienceHistoryLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScholarly communication
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptScholarly communication
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablemedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.4310.376
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.267
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.075 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods · Review

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationCategoryScholarly communicationFrench-language works237,207