|
February 2004
|
       |
CommentariesOn Line and In Touch: Meeting the Challenges of Communication for Extension ProfessionalsHarriet Shaklee Tom Archer J. Benton Glaze, Jr. Journals form the backbone of the communication network for academic professionals. The peer review process ensures high standards of scholarship for published work. Colleagues within a discipline consult journals as they are released to keep abreast of current developments. Professionals on university campuses can relatively easily access the printed body of work through the university library system. A stroll across a well-groomed campus allows them to peruse an extensive collection of published work. Library journal collections may work well for campus professionals, but it's a long trip to the university library for Extension faculty working in Salmon, Idaho, Wauseon, Ohio, or White River Junction, Vermont. However, effective communication is just as important for Extension field faculty as it is for faculty on campus. Fortunately, progress in recent years offers a new communication tool better suited to field-based work--the World Wide Web. The Web offers universal access, whether you are at a lone Western ranch, a small Southern community, or an isolated workstation in Africa or Asia. Web-based publication allows Extension professionals to extend their reach well beyond campus boundaries and into the field where the Extension audience is located. Going ElectronicTen years ago, the Board of Directors of the Journal of Extension (JOE) made the decision to move to an electronic publication format to better serve their readers and authors. While maintaining rigor through the peer review process, the Board of Directors determined that the communication function of a journal for Extension professionals would be best served in an electronic format. Evidence for the success of the move to the Web is shown in the Journal of Extension's steady rate of growth. Readership has grown substantially over the years, with less than a quarter of a million page views in 1999 and nearly 1.7 million by 2003. In 2003, readers from 162 countries accessed the journal, up from 100 countries in 1999. Journal submissions have been on the rise as well, more than doubling in the past 5 years. There were 256 submissions in 2003 alone, a 20%-increase over the previous record high set in 2001. Ask the AuthorsIn recognition of the 10-year anniversary of the Journal of Extension's move to an electronic format, the Board of Directors conducted a survey of authors who had published in the Journal of Extension in the last 5 years. Authors were invited to respond to a set of questions about their experience with the Journal of Extension and its electronic format. The survey was administered electronically, using Zoomerang, a commercial, paid subscription service (http://www.zoomerang.com/). Of the 283 authors reached, 212 replied to the survey, a 74.9% response rate. Survey respondents included field-based and campus professionals, educators, specialists, and administrators. Forty-five percent of the respondents had been in Extension for over 10 years, and 72% were in tenure track positions. The survey respondents strongly supported the Web format of the Journal of Extension, with 76% agreeing that the electronic format of the journal helped them reach their target audience and 87% agreeing that the Web-based search capabilities expanded access to their work. Additionally, 56% indicated that they read JOE regularly to keep up in their field. Responses to open-ended questions about the pros and cons of the electronic format of the Journal of Extension tell the story behind the ratings. Frequently cited was the ease of the electronic format. Authors reported that it was easy to search, access, and share archived articles. It was also easy to reach Extension professionals who authored articles. Respondents thought it was easy to submit their work to the Journal of Extension, with several positive responses about the speed of the submission and review process, the ease of feedback from reviewers, and the short time to publication. Authors also commented on the role of JOE in their careers, with 87% agreement that Journal of Extension publication was helpful to their career progress. Authors stated that publication in JOE gave them the opportunity for professional development, assisted in their tenure/promotion, enhanced their professional reputation, legitimized their scholarship, and gave them a positive sense of accomplishment. Respondents also appreciated JOE's role as a vehicle for professional communication, increasing their ability to reach their target audience. Many authors reported receiving feedback about their work, including professional dialogue and requests for further information. Some ConcernsResults of the survey of Journal of Extension authors show that the journal has served its authors well, but some comments merit concern. Though many authors cited quick turnaround in the submission and review process, others felt the process was too slow, especially considering the electronic format. Suggestions for improvement included increasing the pool of reviewers, tightening the reviewing timeline, and eliminating consistently tardy reviewers. These comments indicate that the volume of journal submissions has expanded to the point of overburdening the reviewer pool. The JOE Board of Directors has taken action on this concern, doubling the size of the reviewer pool through recent recruitment of reviewers. The Journal of Extension depends on quality reviews from experts in the field and is grateful for the willingness of Extension professionals to serve in this role. The journal's shift to a fully electronic submission and review process should further increase efficiency. Also of concern were authors' comments about the level of regard for electronic journals in critical decisions such as promotion and tenure. Although 66% of the authors agreed that publication in JOE is well regarded by their department, others commented that their department and/or college valued electronic publications less than comparable work published in a print journal. University faculty may need to be educated about the challenges of scholarly communication in a field-based profession and the ability of Web-based publication to meet that need for university Extension programs. The concern about the value of Web publication could also reflect old habits and traditions that die hard. Many professionals, including those on primary committees, like to see something printed on higher quality paper, bound, and available to toss into a briefcase. Then, too, it could be the result of the range of quality in the material that can be found on the Web, where anyone can put thoughts in print for the world to read. Alternatively, some may doubt the permanence of information published electronically. Will it be accessible in the future? As those who grew up using electronic technology begin to dominate the ranks of Extension professionals, bound volumes of printed material are likely to be less in demand, and users of electronic media will become better at filtering out low-quality material. The Board of Directors of the Journal of Extension has adopted a policy on permanence that states, "The Journal of Extension is a professional, refereed journal, and, as such, its back issues are preserved in their entirety. The intent of Extension Journal, Inc. is to maintain all issues of the Journal of Extension in a readily available form. Multiple archives are maintained to ensure content security, information integrity, and long-term access." The FutureThe present evidence indicates that the transition to electronic publication has enhanced the viability of the Journal of Extension as a venue of professional communication. The story begins with the readers who turn to the journal for information--page views have grown by a factor of 7 in the past 5 years, including readers from over 160 countries. The growth in journal submissions suggests that authors also find the Journal of Extension to be an effective tool for professional communication. The survey responses complete the picture on the effectiveness of the electronic format. Authors' comments lauded the ability to reach Extension professionals, the ease of journal submissions, and the searchability of the database. A final survey question asked Journal of Extension authors about their view of the role of an electronic journal in today's academic environment. Authors said electronic journals were useful, essential, and excellent. Others said they were accessible, timely, and speedy. Many respondents summed it up simply: It is the future.
Co-Authoring Papers in Research Teams: Avoiding the PitfallsRichard P. Enfield Faye C. H. Lee IntroductionThese are true stories. An editor of a respected journal recently told the authors of this article that he had been contacted by an individual regarding a recent research submission that was made by a group of people who, apparently, did not quite have intellectual property rights to the data. Several months ago, one of the authors of this article was summoned to a conference room by a highly distraught colleague. Entering with apprehension, he was relieved to learn that the issue was about authorship and nothing more dire. A research assistant on a research project was demanding first authorship on an article that he and the author's colleague had been working on for several months. The colleague had conducted this research for several years, whereas the research assistant collected and analyzed the data for the past several months. The assistant wrote the first rough draft after they collaboratively drafted an outline and felt that he was entitled to be the first author. In a similar incident, another upset colleague confided that he had learned that several of his partners from a research project were putting the final touches on an article being submitted for publication. He felt he had been an equal partner on this project for the last 2 years. A partner had e-mailed the article to him, asking for comments on the article before it was sent to a journal. This colleague was livid that the article was written without his knowledge, was written without his being invited to be a co-author, and for being asked to review an article that he should have helped write. Clearly these are sticky, after-the-fact, ethical questions of authorship. Recent Journal of Extension Commentaries have addressed broad issues of scholarship in Extension (Alter, 2003) and within the 4-H Program (Astroth, 2003). In California, scholarship (creating, synthesizing, and applying knowledge) has been Extension's mission for many years. Thus, like campus-based specialists, all county-based academics are expected to conduct applied research relevant to our local constituents and publish our findings for academic and practitioner audiences. Issues such as intellectual property and authorship that used to be restricted to campuses, particularly between faculty and students (Fine & Kurdek, 1993; Smith, 2003), are creeping into Extension as our research expectations increase (Loveridge, 1998: O'Neill, 1990). In California, Extension supports issue-specific, statewide workgroups to conduct and report collaborative research projects. Drawing heavily from successful co-authoring experiences within our workgroups, we share strategies to avoid pitfalls of co-authoring papers among Extension professionals. The first and most important step is an open and honest discussion about the authorship of papers to be written. The research groups should allow adequate time to reach agreement early in the process. Every member of the team should participate. What Needs to Be Discussed?
Research groups should keep a written record of the discussion and any agreements for future reference. First Author and Co-AuthorsThe group should agree on criteria for first authorship. This agreement may be different for the primary paper and for sub-papers. Options for the primary paper that is written by the entire group include:
One research team with whom the authors worked decided that two members would be listed as first authors for their leadership in writing the paper and the research team would be the third author, with members listed in parentheses in alphabetical order. The group needs to decide the criteria for inclusion as co-author. One team decided that every co-author had to actually write a section of the paper. Another team decided that the article would be written by several individuals, reviewed by other team members, and edited by another, but that everyone would be listed as co-authors. For sub-papers, other agreements may be appropriate. These papers are usually written by one or two members. The group needs to agree on who will be lead and co-author and how the research team will be acknowledged. For example, one group decided that the first authors would actually write the paper and the last "author" of all papers would be the research team. Other issues the group may reach agreement on include:
One group decided that the lead authors would have the final say about authorship based on their perception of the intellectual contribution made by workgroup members. Revisit the IssueEven the best plans can result in disputes, so ongoing discussions and agreements are also important. Keep written records of these agreements to refresh memories. The time and energy spent on issues of authorship will prevent problems, including hurt feelings and animosity. From our experiences, including the writing of this article, we know it is possible to use the guidelines presented above and have enjoyable and professionally rewarding co-authoring experiences. ConclusionIf Extension scholarship is going to provide viable, researched-based, non-formal education in the twenty-first century, as suggested by Alter (2003), Extension professionals need to become familiar with, and implement, appropriate procedures for avoiding the authorship pitfalls described above. Having frank discussions and reaching agreements on intellectual property and authorship before writing papers are critical in research teams. The quagmire that results from either unthinking or unethical behavior will certainly not contribute to the scholarly success of Extension, and may indeed result in reduced integration of Extension into our land-grant universities. ReferencesAlter, T. R. (2003). Where is Extension scholarship falling short, and what can we do about it? Journal of Extension [Online], 41(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003december/comm2.shtml Astroth, K. A. (2003). Doorway, doormat, or doghouse? The challenges facing 4-H youth development scholarship in land-grant universities. Journal of Extension [Online], 41(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003december/comm1.shtml Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on facultystudent collaborations. American Psychologist, 49(11), 1141-1147. Loveridge, S. (1998). Publishing research in Extension. Journal of Extension [Online], 36(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/tt2.html O'Neill, B. M. (1990). How to get published in a professional journal. Journal of Extension [Online], 28(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1990fall/tt2.html Smith, D. (2003). Five principles for research ethics. Monitor on Psychology, 34(1). Retrieved January 23, 2004, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan03/principles.html Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org. If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support. |